The root of all Evil [Archive]

Mrs. Maggott

05-14-2004, 05:46 PM

By the very nature of creation - that is, bringing forth beings with free will - God/Eru opens it to the possibility (and, indeed, the probability) if evil. However, that does not equate to Eru either containing evil within Himself or 'creating' it. Evil is a consequence of the act of creation itself for the only way for Eru to insure that no evil would come to pass would be to create beings as Aule created the Dwarves; that is, to create creatures whose will is the will of their creator. Of course, when that is done, then these are not "creatures" at all, but merely puppets that the creator can activate and make "perform" to his (or her) will. And, of course, that means that these creatures cannot think or love or do anything in and of themselves. That is not what Eru desired in creation. He wanted beings who would eventually know, understand and become a part of a relationship of love with Him. He didn't want "puppets". One might say it is the difference between a stuffed dog and a real dog. Yes, the stuffed dog will never be disobedient or bite, but it cannot love either. If one wants love and affection, one must take a chance on the living animal with all that entails.

Furthermore, in his works, Tolkien treats both good and evil as objective rather than subjective concepts. If Eru were in fact "the Creator" of evil, it would mean that He had evil within His nature as well as good. Therefore, one could not have an "objective" understanding of either good or evil; they would merely be subjective concepts representing, as it were, two sides of the same coin or simply two different aspects of the Divine Creator. Ergo, one could not condemn the wicked or laud the good since every character would merely be presenting that aspect of Eru which he or she (or it) happened to choose.

But we all know that that is not how the stories go! There are very real, objective determinations made regarding what is good or bad, right or wrong, benificent or malignant - and that presupposes a standard against which such judgments can be made. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the only such standard available is Eru, the Creator who, as also mentioned earlier, could not be that standard unless He were all good and without evil. Any other concept of Eru makes nonsense of the stories.

And since it is far easier to accept what has been written than to create a meaning in keeping with the concept of Eru as the source of both evil and good, it would appear that the least problematic conclusion to reach is that Eru did not contain evil within Himself nor did He create it as a force in the cosmos. It goes back to, I believe, the old "Occam's razor" concept that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In this case, it is simpler to conceive of Eru being untouched by evil than to try to read and understand the works in relationship to the concept that Eru in fact is the source of evil as well as good.

Barliman Butterbur

05-14-2004, 07:52 PM

By the very nature of creation - that is, bringing forth beings with free will - God/Eru opens it to the possibility (and, indeed, the probability) if evil.

Exactly. Therefore, that was Eru's intent: to have a reality that contained the possibility of its creatures choosing to do evil. Since all things began with Eru, it must be assumed that Eru intended for evil to be, since, being omniscient, he knew that there would be plenty of creatures that would choose it.

However, that does not equate to Eru either containing evil within Himself or 'creating' it. Evil is a consequence of the act of creation itself for the only way for Eru to insure that no evil would come to pass would be to create beings as Aule created the Dwarves; that is, to create creatures whose will is the will of their creator.

Exactly. And since Eru designed creation, it must be assumed that he intended for evil to express through his creatures — and for them to overcome it (let us at least hope that's why he did it) as well. Eru deliberately designed creatures with the capacity for evil. It all redounds back to him.

Of course, when that is done, then these are not "creatures" at all, but merely puppets that the creator can activate and make "perform" to his (or her) will. And, of course, that means that these creatures cannot think or love or do anything in and of themselves. That is not what Eru desired in creation. He wanted beings who would eventually know, understand and become a part of a relationship of love with Him.

And why would such an entity as Eru have such a need? What's the point of any of it? Was Eru lonely? Bored? What does neediness have to say about a so-called perfect being? If we are to assume that Eru was sufficient unto himself, he wouldn't need to do anything but simply be. (And where did he come from in the first place and who created him? And why? You see, if we grant the idea of such a being, these questions pop up which deserve answers.)

Furthermore, in his works, Tolkien treats both good and evil as objective rather than subjective concepts. If Eru were in fact "the Creator" of evil, it would mean that He had evil within His nature as well as good.

Exactly, which is precisely the case, otherwise he couldn't have designed creatures with the evil proclivity. How could any creation be other than the expression of the nature of its creator?

Therefore, one could not have an "objective" understanding of either good or evil; they would merely be subjective concepts representing, as it were, two sides of the same coin or simply two different aspects of the Divine Creator. Ergo, one could not condemn the wicked or laud the good since every character would merely be presenting that aspect of Eru which he or she (or it) happened to choose.

Exactly: good and evil are not only two sides of the same coin as you put it, but they are two aspects of Eru, since his creatures carry the potential for expressing both qualities. I think you err when you say that Eru MUST be all good, although I understand this as a tenet of Christianity: that God must be all-good. But there are non-Christian approaches to these questions which are entirely different. For me, the Christian approach is but one variety of dealing with these questions, and personally, I do not accept its main tenets. You on the other hand, do. So we will probably forever see these things from perspectives irreconcilable to each other, and that's all right.

...the only such standard available is Eru, the Creator who, as also mentioned earlier, could not be that standard unless He were all good and without evil. Any other concept of Eru makes nonsense of the stories.

That's true from the Christian perspective. But as you see, I outlined an approach which makes as much sense to me as your view does to you. And intensity of belief is no proof of the truth of what is believed, including my own beliefs. I can say this because I also believe that the human mind is limited when it comes to tackling the Perennial Philosophy.

...It goes back to, I believe, the old "Occam's razor" concept that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In this case, it is simpler to conceive of Eru being untouched by evil than to try to read and understand the works in relationship to the concept that Eru in fact is the source of evil as well as good.

I disagree. I believe that my approach is the application of Occam's Razor, while yours is the one that is unnecessarily complicated by the problems flowing from the notion that an all-good god can create evil, or creatures that can become so.

My meta-view of this is (as I implied above), that in the end, we are seriously held back in our ability to even discuss God-concepts by the limits of our minds, and all of this back-and-forth is simply an exercise in futility, something like children discussing the origins of the universe on the basis of having studied "Peter Rabbit" or "The Wizard of Oz." But it can be fun if we don't get mad at each other.:)

Lotho

Mrs. Maggott

05-14-2004, 08:11 PM

Eru never intended evil to come to pass. What He did intend was the creation of sentient beings with whom He could enter into a relationship. That cannot happen with puppets. You cannot have a "relationship" with a non-sentient creature, only with a creature who is able to think for him/her self and exercise his/her free will. Therefore, the choice that had to be made was to create - or not create. There was no other choice and I don't know of anyone who wishes - evil notwithstanding - that Eru had chosen not to create. However, to reason that Eru intended the presence of evil simply because its presence was possible is not rational. Because He is all knowing, He knew it would come to pass - but that does not mean that He intended that it should be so.

As for our particular creation: men were never "puppets", nor were we ever intended to be. Man did not have to "fall" to exercise free will! Indeed, it was the exercise of "free will" that brought about the fall, not vice versa.

I would suggest that if one were to see how it was all supposed to happen - or at least a very good version of what it would have been like had mankind never fallen - please read C. S. Lewis' "Perelandra". It is quite thought provoking.

Barliman Butterbur

05-14-2004, 08:51 PM

Eru never intended evil to come to pass. What He did intend was the creation of sentient beings with whom He could enter into a relationship. That cannot happen with puppets.

It strikes me as incongruous that a perfect being would have a need to do anything at all, let alone create beings to love him — especially to wreak havoc upon them (as in the Old and New Testaments) when they don't! You are in the "Christian back yard" and I am not.

I guess there are profound differences between us, MM, and that's OK. You are a believing Christian of some variety and I, I guess, you would term a Secular Humanist (defined at www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html) who has spent many years drinking of the waters of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. They did not slake my thirst, although they helped — especially Hinduism — for many years. So I don't see things the way you do. After all my spiritual peregrinations, I am still a Devout Agnostic — somewhat in the spirit of Joseph Campbell — now more than ever.

May I hasten to add however, that I am not of the rank-and-file of the secular humanists either. I said that simply so you might get a conceptual handle on me, for your convenience. They seem to say that spiritual pursuits are ultimately fruitless. I vehemently disagree with that; I know better. They also seem to imply that the ways of reason provide all the answers, and I vehemently disagree with them in that regard as well: our mind/body/brain simply does not have the ability to give us enough information to come to such a conclusion.

You suggested some books to read, and so may I suggest to you the writings of Michael Shermer (see www.skeptic.com/). Also very thought-provoking.

Lotho

Mrs. Maggott

05-14-2004, 09:40 PM

I get all that about him wanting real thinking beings to love him and I agree with it. However I disagree he did not intend a part of his creation to rebel against him. I see no proof otherwise so for now I'll believe what seems most likely.

The reasoning is not that Eru created evil because evil is possible. I never said or ment that.

Indeed I do not think Eru created evil. I believe he might have created the potential for it, wittingly. Just the same I wont pretend to know anything about his intentions... he is God after all! These are just my idea about what seems likely.

If it was not the fall of Men, then why is it they can shape beyond the music which is fate to all else, including elves?

Unfallen Children are in harmony with Eru's will, I don't see why I should think these are not puppets.

If evil = against the will of the creator, then Men could not truly go against the will of Eru without doing evil. One who can not truly oppose him does not have as free of a will as one who can.

Think about it: if Eru did "intend a part of his creation to rebel against him" and then punished them for doing so, this isn't a God of Love, but a sadistic b*****d whom I wouldn't pray to if you paid me!

There is a HUGE difference between KNOWING that something will come to pass and WILLING it to do so.

As far as being a "puppet" if men and God are of one mind, well that is not true either. Remember, God does not want us to abandon our intellect and anyone who says that He does is a liar! In fact, it is the devil who wants us not to think, to abandon God's gift of sentience and to follow blindly. God wants us to be of one mind with Him because His mind is perfect and being in concert with Him will raise us up to the very apex of our individual personas. It is not for nothing that the theme of music is used in Tolkien's creation myth. In an orchestra, the musicians are of ONE MIND with the conductor albeit they are playing different instruments and even different notes. Nonetheless, they create a perfection of sound! On the other hand, if certain members of the orchestra are of a different mind than the conductor, the result is cacophany and not music (although some modern "music" is very little removed from that even when everybody is playing together!).

There is a little saying that says we are all going to serve someone. The only choice we have is whether we will serve God or the enemy. We know that God wants us to be (as the Army commercial says) "all that we can be" and if we are obedient to His will, we will find that in fact we are being the very "best" that we can be. On the other hand, if we serve the Enemy, what happens is that we get lost and wind up being not at all what we can and should be. Like Ungoliant, he, the enemy, absorbs all that is not himself. The veriest glance at history shows that those most lost in evil are also much less "human" and therefore are capable of the most heinous and awful acts. Being of one mind with God doesn't make us "puppets", but truly and completely human in the very best sense of that word.

As for "men's fate" in Tolkien's work: that has nothing to do with a "fall" - since his myth does not contain the "Paradise" parable, but with something else entirely. The earth-bound spirits - Valar and Maia (and, I assume lesser spirits) - as well as the Elves are condemned to remain within the confines of Arda until such time as the world "ends" (which Tolkien indicates will happen) and the Second Music of the Ainur comes to pass. Who knows? As Galadriel says to Treebeard, mortals and immortals may well meet in a time long hence when the earth is remade in those lands which have been - at the time that the conversation takes place - already destroyed! But the "gift of men" which even the Valar and the Elves will envy in the end - that is, to pass beyond the boundary of the world - is not a punishment, but a "gift" albeit not understood by the greatest of the earth-bound.

Mrs. Maggott

05-16-2004, 10:38 PM

I was speaking of Melkor, but I don't see as how punishing Men should be viewed a less sadistic than allowing the seed of all evil to cause hell for them. In either case there may be more to it than we know. He knew Morgoth had marred his creation in the music but he want ahead and made Arda and allowed Melkor to enter into and currupt it all the while intending to bring the Children into being there. In the case of Men their rebellion against him was not complete, they many repented before it went too far, Melkor did not. So if Eru intended that Men Fall (which I believe he did!) the "punishment" may not really be a punishment at all, only viewed as one by Men who do not like to live in despair of growing old and dying and then going who knows where. In short: I believe the Gift of Death which Eru speaks of includes (or even perhaps IS) the "punishment" for the Fall.
Tolkien does not present it that way at all. Indeed, he posits that both the great Spirits - the Valar and the Maia - who are bound to the earth as well as the Elves will eventually envy man's ability to pass beyond the confines of Arda and encounter Eru Iluvatar and the rest of creation which exists outside of the world.

Furthermore, Tolkien also says that eventually for these "immortal" beings, every moment will become a "great weariness" as they longingly await the ending of the world and the Second Music of the Ainur. Mankind, on the other hand, will be spared that great weariness having been released from bondage to Arda.

In this particular understanding of death does Tolkien most greatly depart from his Christian heritage. In Christianity (and Judaism), death is the result of sin and not something planned for man from the beginning. In Tolkien's myth, death is man's gift from God, releasing him from a wearisome bondage to a creation that is marred virtually from its inception.

Barliman Butterbur

05-17-2004, 06:05 PM

...In Christianity (and Judaism), death is the result of sin and not something planned for man from the beginning.

Somehow I doubt if MM is any more an expert on what Judaism has to say about death than I am about what Christianity has to say about it. I do know that Judaism does not accept the idea of original sin, a concept which I personally find abhorrent.

At the site Judaism 101 (http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm), here's what the experts have to say:

"In Judaism, death is not a tragedy, even when it occurs early in life or through unfortunate circumstances. Death is a natural process. Our deaths, like our lives, have meaning and are all part of God's plan. In addition, we have a firm belief in an afterlife, a world to come, where those who have lived a worthy life will be rewarded." And there's a lot more.

This is a very intriguing site, with hyperlinks going out into all sorts of fascinating discussions.

Lotho

Mrs. Maggott

05-17-2004, 08:05 PM

Well, of course, there are "Jewish traditions" that are as different from ancient Judaism as are many so-called "Christian" churches today different from the Church established in the first millenium.

However, if one reads the Bible - the Old Testament - I do believe that God tells A&E that if they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they will surely DIE. This presupposes that if they did not eat of it, they would NOT die. Did I read that wrong? Was death not - as St. Paul once called it - "the wages of sin?"

Of course, lots of things have changed and perhaps death is now considered something other than the result of the fall of man. Who knows? Given the state of "theology" these days, just about anything is possible. Nonetheless, in the Tradition of Christianity as it was translated from Judaism as it once existed, death was not the intention of God for His creation but rather, the result of man's disobedience. If it is considered otherwise today, that's fine with me! Thankfully, I still belong to a Church which holds the original understanding so I'm spared having to worry about it.

As for "original sin", that is - as I pointed out - a purely "Western" concept. It was not a part of the early Church nor is it a part of the Eastern Church to this day. Mankind inherits (according to both "early" and "Eastern") a "fallen nature" which causes a predelicition to sin; a "tendency", if you will. Individual people are responsible for their own sins - no one else's - including Adam's.

Tolkien's presentation of death as a "gift" given to men that they might escape the confines of Arda before the end of the world is very different from his own Roman Catholic understanding of the nature and cause of death. That's all I wished to point out and nothing more. However, it is very interesting given that much of his mythos has definite Judeo-Christian roots to find that he has departed so far from them in his presentation of death.

{P.S. What? Lotho? Am I off your "ignore" list? Will wonders never cease!}

Barliman Butterbur

05-18-2004, 04:24 AM

...if one reads the Bible - the Old Testament - I do believe that God tells A&E that if they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they will surely DIE. This presupposes that if they did not eat of it, they would NOT die. Did I read that wrong? Was death not - as St. Paul once called it - "the wages of sin?"

I'm not sure of your take on the Bible, M: do you take it as literal/divine word? I don't know how to react to your statements.

...lots of things have changed and perhaps death is now considered something other than the result of the fall of man. Who knows? Given the state of "theology" these days, just about anything is possible.

??? What do you think that the state of theology is these days? (And if it ain't right, what should it be?)

...death was not the intention of God for His creation but rather, the result of man's disobedience. If it is considered otherwise today, that's fine with me! Thankfully, I still belong to a Church which holds the original understanding so I'm spared having to worry about it.

This sounds like a statement of churchly doctrine. What is your Church, and what are its main tenets, so that I may understand where you're coming from?

As for "original sin", that is - as I pointed out - a purely "Western" concept. It was not a part of the early Church nor is it a part of the Eastern Church to this day.

Unfortunately it hasn't been taken out of churchly tenets as consequence of the harm it has done through totally unnecessary creation of fear and guilt.

Mankind inherits (according to both "early" and "Eastern") a "fallen nature" which causes a predelicition to sin; a "tendency", if you will. Individual people are responsible for their own sins - no one else's - including Adam's.

Do you accept this idea?

Tolkien's presentation of death as a "gift" given to men that they might escape the confines of Arda before the end of the world is very different from his own Roman Catholic understanding of the nature and cause of death. That's all I wished to point out and nothing more. However, it is very interesting given that much of his mythos has definite Judeo-Christian roots to find that he has departed so far from them in his presentation of death.

It is indeed interesting. I would conjecture that his experience on the battlefield brought him to reconsider what his religion was telling him at some level or other, even though he was a believing Catholic through and through. And I have seen that in many lives, death indeed comes as a gift and a welcome friend.

{P.S. What? Lotho? Am I off your "ignore" list? Will wonders never cease!}

Don't push your luck!;)

Lotho

Mrs. Maggott

05-18-2004, 03:07 PM

I'm not sure of your take on the Bible, M: do you take it as literal/divine word? I don't know how to react to your statements.Lotho

Yes, I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. However, Orthodox Christians do not translate Scripture literally - that is, that the "seven days" of creation are seven 24 hour days such as we experience here on earth. We believe that though there is much of Scripture that is in fact historically accurate (and that seems to be constantly reinforced by various archeological "digs" over the years), still much of it is in the form of parable such as Jesus Himself used when He taught. But whether Adam and Eve were actual human beings created to exist in a special relationship with God and then partook of the "forbidden fruit", thus marring (not ending) that relationship, is open to debate. However, the Church does understand that story to mean that at some time in our history as a species, we had the opportunity to have a special relationship with God and through disobedience, that relationship was, as I said, marred and broken if not ended. It did, however, require the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity - Jesus Christ - and His redemptive life, death and resurrection to re-establish that relationship and even then it was re-established within the context of a fallen world. Parenthetically, it appears that science has followed our human heritage back to ONE woman (see Time Magazine cover story several years ago) whom the researchers named (you guessed it!) Eve!

In any event, Orthodoxy does not believe in a literal word-for-word understanding of Scripture, especially given that in the West, the translations used were not the best, especially of the Old Testament. I hope this answers your question.

??? What do you think that the state of theology is these days? (And if it ain't right, what should it be?)Lotho

Come, my friend! When you have supposedly "Christian" churches who deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and all the rest of the fundamental doctrines which actually mean "Christianity" and embrace abortion, euthanasia, sexual license and other "modernisms" - all of which were and are condemned by the Church - I think that the state of present day "theology" speaks for itself! Indeed, I have much more respect for neo-pagans who make no claim to speak for "the Church" than I have for those who wrap themselves in Her outer appearance (smells and bells) like wolves in sheep's clothing in order to deceive those who are looking for the Faith. At least New Age syncretists and neo-pagans are honest enough to present themselves for what they are: NOT the Church!

This sounds like a statement of churchly doctrine. What is your Church, and what are its main tenets, so that I may understand where you're coming from?Lotho

It is a statement of doctrine, but it would take too long to explain it all here. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian (most people recognize the Church by its ethnic jurisdictional labels: Greek, Russian, Romanian, Albanian, American (yes, American) etc. But it is the early Church virtually unchanged since the first half of the first millenium. Doctrinally, the Orthodox Church stands with the Nicene Creed (4th Century) and has not changed Her doctrines since the Council of Nicea articulated our expression of faith. Of course, there have been other Councils (validated by the passage of time) and canons which have addressed various problems and situations which have arisen in the Church over the years (like the great iconoclast heresy), but that statement of faith remains unchanged. The Church makes nothing "doctrine" that is not in Scripture (hence it permits a belief in the assumption of the Virgin, but does not formalize the doctrine since it is not in Scripture). As I mentioned, we do not believe in the doctrine of "original sin", but rather in a "fallen nature" which gives mankind a predeliction towards evil.

Oh, and by the way, it is the Church which chose those books which are called "The Bible" today among many books which might have been incorporated. Those left out are called "Apocryphal" and often they are used in research, but The Bible as it appears in Christian churches today was "created" by The Church - and not vice versa. That is why Holy Tradition and the interpretation of Scripture by the Fathers of the Church carry the weight which they do in Orthodox doctrine, canons and liturgics.

Interestingly enough, when a group of very learned Protestants led by Peter Gilquist tried to determine if in fact the "early Christian Church" still existed, they engaged in several years of intense study including Church history, doctrine, liturgics and morals. After that time, they determined that the ONLY Church currently existing which continued in the ways of the early Church was in fact, the Orthodox Church - and they sought admission as a group to the Church. Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochean Orthodox Church in the United States welcomed them and presently they are under his jurisdiction with their numbers growing exponentially.

Now does this mean that the present day Orthodox Church in America or anywhere else is perfect? Hel.... er, heck no! In fact, Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory once lamented that the Orthodox Church was the right Church filled with the wrong people! A perfect example of this is the story told to me by an elderly Russian priest that the great C. S. Lewis in his journey to Christianity - after much study in the same way as Mr. Gilquist and company - wished to become Orthodox and approached an elderly Russian bishop in England to be received into the Church. The old bishop looked at him with wonder and said (imagine Russian accent here), "But my son, WHY do you want to be Orthodox? You are not Russian!" And so, Lewis became Anglican! But still, his works are used by the Orthodox Church to clarify and explain basic tenets of Christianity which still bind "Traditional" Churches whatever their so-called "denominations".

Unfortunately it hasn't been taken out of churchly tenets as consequence of the harm it has done through totally unnecessary creation of fear and guilt.Lotho

A hammer can drive a nail or split a skull; it is in the hands of the user as to what use it will be put. Church doctrine like anything else can be misused and HAS been over the centuries. As for "unnecessary fear and guilt", yes, that can happen (see Lewis' "A Pilgrim's Regress wherein he talks about an unhealthy and unproductive "fear" of God). However, in this day and age we are far more likely to see an absence of both fear and guilt. I happened on a "tribute" to Hugh Hefner the other night in which "recreational sex" was lauded to the skies! Frankly, there is no such thing! Sex is serious business and almost always has consequences whether emotional - depression, suicide, inability to form relationships - or physical - pregnancy or STDs including AIDS. Sometimes a little fear and guilt can be a whole lot less crippling than the consequences of their absence.

Do you accept this idea? Lotho

Yes. I find the concept of a "fallen nature" far more understandable and compassionate than simply stamping "sinner" on the head of every individual coming into the world. It explains why it is far easier to acquire and maintain BAD habits than good ones. It also permits an individual to accept blame for wrongdoing without crushing him (since no one is perfect) and also accept help in "getting back up and trying again" since every victory is a true victory and not just something we are "expected" to accomplish because we are born able to do it. It is rather like Christ's warning to the man that upon entering a feast he should take a lower seat at table rather than a higher one. It is infinitely more pleasant to be asked to move up than to be told we have to move down. If we see ourselves as sinners, then we can take heart knowing with every fall we can arise and that with every victory over our fallen nature - no matter how small - we progress daily towards God.

It is indeed interesting. I would conjecture that his experience on the battlefield brought him to reconsider what his religion was telling him at some level or other, even though he was a believing Catholic through and through. And I have seen that in many lives, death indeed comes as a gift and a welcome friend.Lotho

Yes. Of all Tolkien's mythology, his rather unique understanding of the mortality of man (and other beings) is virtually diametric to his faith. However, I seem to recall reading that it was a response to his making the Elves immortal and it came about during the writing of The Silmarillion (really, the FIRST book he compiled) which, as you know, is written from the point of view of the Valar and the Elves, not Men. He could hardly burden Men with death as punishment for that would have made Iluvatar and the Valar infinitely cruel since Men were virtually ignored while the Valar spent all their time on the Firstborn. So since death "had to be", Tolkien had to find some more acceptable explanation for its presence. The opportunity to leave the confines of the world (which would become infinitely wearying in time) and to have a place in the "Second Music" I guess filled the bill.

Don't push your luck!;)Lotho

Who knows? Without the films, there may be hope! :p

Gimmi

05-18-2004, 11:44 PM

This brings up an old question: Is evil a part of God's grand design, or did something slip and get away from Him (assuming for the moment that God as humans imagine Him actually exists)? In which case, He would not be all-powerful. A perennial question: indeed, a can with an endless ever-flowing supply of worms.

God allowed the possibility of evil in his "grand design". Adam was created with free will. It is not logically possible to have free will with no moral evil. It is up to those whose will is free, not God, as to whether or not there is sin, resulting in suffering.

Think about it this way: Creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate Him. Hatred (or sin) against God is evil and suffering will result. God is all-powerful and capable of destroying evil – but not without destroying free will.

Barliman Butterbur

05-19-2004, 12:09 AM

Barliman Butterbur

05-19-2004, 12:51 AM

Yes, I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. ...
Orthodoxy does not believe in a literal word-for-word understanding of Scripture, especially given that in the West, the translations used were not the best, especially of the Old Testament. I hope this answers your question...

Yes, abundantly! You are a believing Christian with a specific point of view.

Come, my friend! When you have supposedly "Christian" churches who deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and all the rest of the fundamental doctrines which actually mean "Christianity" and embrace abortion, euthanasia, sexual license and other "modernisms" - all of which were and are condemned by the Church - I think that the state of present day "theology" speaks for itself!...

Now I have a clearer idea of what you mean by the "fallen" state of theology. If you had it back the way you'd like, what would that look like? (Probably the opposite of what you decry.)

...I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian...it is the early Church virtually unchanged since the first half of the first millenium. Doctrinally, the Orthodox Church stands with the Nicene Creed (4th Century) and has not changed Her doctrines since the Council of Nicea articulated our expression of faith...

Wow — I haven't had contact with an Eastern Orthodox Christian since my first clarinet teacher at age 12! (Many years ago my father took gorgeous stereo slides of the interior of the then-just-opened St. Sophia Greek Orthodox Church in Los Angeles. Wish I knew where those slides were today! The stained glass windows were miracles in themselves.)

Oh, and by the way, it is the Church which chose those books which are called "The Bible" today among many books which might have been incorporated. Those left out are called "Apocryphal"...

So your holy book contains many more texts than the usual Western Christianity then.

...the great C. S. Lewis in his journey to Christianity - after much study in the same way as Mr. Gilquist and company - wished to become Orthodox and approached an elderly Russian bishop in England to be received into the Church. The old bishop looked at him with wonder and said (imagine Russian accent here), "But my son, WHY do you want to be Orthodox? You are not Russian!" And so, Lewis became Anglican! But still, his works are used by the Orthodox Church to clarify and explain basic tenets of Christianity which still bind "Traditional" Churches whatever their so-called "denominations".

I wonder how Tolkien reacted to that, in that Lewis hadn't become a Catholic.

A hammer can drive a nail or split a skull; it is in the hands of the user as to what use it will be put.

Ah, the NRA would love to hear you say that! ;)

Church doctrine like anything else can be misused and HAS been over the centuries.

Whence comes the saying, "God protect us from the things man does in His name."

As for "unnecessary fear and guilt", yes, that can happen (see Lewis' "A Pilgrim's Regress wherein he talks about an unhealthy and unproductive "fear" of God).[quote]

This doesn't sound like anything that is spread far and wide in this country. Here, the whole country is feeling the effects of Christian extremism and neoconservatism...

[quote]...in this day and age we are far more likely to see an absence of both fear and guilt. I happened on a "tribute" to Hugh Hefner the other night in which "recreational sex" was lauded to the skies! Frankly, there is no such thing! Sex is serious business and almost always has consequences whether emotional - depression, suicide, inability to form relationships - or physical - pregnancy or STDs including AIDS. Sometimes a little fear and guilt can be a whole lot less crippling than the consequences of their absence.

Well, I would think it depends on who's having the sex, no? Attitude counts, after all. But you make an extremely important point about the absence of appropriate fear and appropriate guilt. We need to have more of those, indeed, more appropriate shame. It gets tricky, because the extreme religionists have always caused severe damage in those departments.

I find the concept of a "fallen nature" far more understandable and compassionate than simply stamping "sinner" on the head of every individual coming into the world. It explains why it is far easier to acquire and maintain BAD habits than good ones. It also permits an individual to accept blame for wrongdoing without crushing him (since no one is perfect) and also accept help in "getting back up and trying again" since every victory is a true victory and not just something we are "expected" to accomplish because we are born able to do it...If we see ourselves as sinners, then we can take heart knowing with every fall we can arise and that with every victory over our fallen nature - no matter how small - we progress daily towards God.

Well, I part company with you about that one. Too many times that gets far too destructive: original sin = damaged goods to begin with. Uh-uh! Children are damaged by their damaged parents, and that frequently involves teaching them they are inherent sinners. None of us are inherent sinners. By the way, what IS a "sin," anyway? We either do something to harm ourselves and others, or help ourselves and others. We can choose either to help or to harm. But to be BORN as inherently sinful? Little babies fry in hell unless they're baptized? No way, sez I.

Of all Tolkien's mythology, his rather unique understanding of the mortality of man (and other beings) is virtually diametric to his faith.

As I said, I believe the trenches of WW I taught him things that were just as important as anything he learned in church, and colored those learnings — I would go so far as to say, applied a corrective to certain churchly teachings about death and the afterlife. His version is much more loving.

...Without the films, there may be hope! :p

Thus spake Eru: "There will always be The Films!":p

Lotho

Mrs. Maggott

05-19-2004, 02:09 PM

God allowed the possibility of evil in his "grand design". Adam was created with free will. It is not logically possible to have free will with no moral evil. It is up to those whose will is free, not God, as to whether or not there is sin, resulting in suffering.

Think about it this way: Creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate Him. Hatred (or sin) against God is evil and suffering will result. God is all-powerful and capable of destroying evil – but not without destroying free will.

God can, of course, do anything. However, Gentleman that He is, He chooses to play by the rules He Himself has set forth. As a result, once He created beings with free will, He does not (not "cannot") interfere with the actions of those beings even when it was to their detriment and eventual destruction. This is the age-old answer to the age-old question of how a benificent God can possibly allow terrible things to take place. For God to "step in" and "prevent" such things would "change the rules" of free will since most horrible acts committed by men were matters of free will at least on the part of those doing them.

Of course, if He simply walked away and left us to stew in our own juices, then He certainly would be accountable for many evil things. However, He created the Church (however much of a "hash" we humans have made of Her over the last 2000+ years), He sent His Son, the prophets, the saints and other attempts to guide mankind away from evil. To a large extent He has succeeded in that most human beings - fallible and fallen as we are - are not totally or even mostly wicked. Most of us are fairly ordinary "good" souls who, while we do make mistakes, are generally benevolent in our day to day actions. And when we do commit evil - accidentally or premeditatedly - we suffer the pangs of conscience that let us know that there in fact is a God who has set for us standards of acceptable moral behavior.

Mrs. Maggott

05-19-2004, 02:27 PM

Oh pulleeeesssssseeee....

Don't tell me, my wife and I were wrong enjoying it for the past 30 years.... :D

Or is it no longer "recreational" when the participants are married (with each other)? But I agree it had consequences...

...the "consequence" started to attend university last summer...
No, indeed! You and your wife are a perfect example of the joy and beauty of physical love which God intended! Thus do a man and wife become one flesh. Parenthetically, this understanding of the "oneness" of the marital couple is why under the law a wife or husband cannot be forced to testify against her/his spouse; it is a reiteration of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which states that a person cannot be made to testify against himself.

The Orthodox Church - unlike the Irish heresy of Janism in the Catholic Church - finds absolutely nothing sinful in the pleasure of physical love when it is between husband and wife. There is no 'puritianism' in the Church - although you will find it in certain groups within the Church who have decided - like the Puritans - if you're having fun you must be doing something wrong! But again, like so many other groups and individuals over the centuries in the Church, you do have actual heresy presented as Church doctrine and this often results in egregious acts being committed in the name of Christ and His Church. But, again, one has to go back to the Gospels in which Christ tells such "religious" people - "I never knew you!" Not everything done in the Name of God is godly or even humane. St. John Chrysostom when speaking about the priests and hierarchs of the Church was heard to say that the "walls of hell are lined with priests and the bishops are the candlestands!" and that was from a great Patriarch of the Church! So simply being "important" in the Church doesn't protect one from error. Only prayer, faith and humility go a long way towards doing that.

"Recreational" sex is sex viewed in the same manner as swimming or tennis or any "recreational" activity which by its very nature is superficial. Sex is never "superficial"; it always carries with it physical, emotional and even psychological effects that can never be totally avoided. Eventually something comes home to roost and since the advent of AIDS, that "something" can in fact be a death sentence. It might be possible for some people to equate 'sex' with 'recreation, but I would suggest that someone who does that might also consider Russian roulette "recreational". :eek:

Barliman Butterbur

05-19-2004, 04:54 PM

God can, of course, do anything. However, Gentleman that He is, He chooses to play by the rules He Himself has set forth. As a result, once He created beings with free will, He does not (not "cannot") interfere with the actions of those beings even when it was to their detriment and eventual destruction.

In that case I ask these questions:

•How does a believer know God exists? What is offered as proof?

•Why would such a God have a need to set up a relationship with lesser beings replete with really tough rules? What's the point? It sounds like a game, and considering the consequences to men, one helluva game of hardball. If God is perfect, God would have no needs in the first place, let alone creating beings to love Him and then kicking the **** out of them if they don't. And all that regretting that God does in the Old Testament. Does that sound like a perfect God? I think not!

He gets angry and floods the earth! That from a perfect loving God? "I am a jealous God, and shall have no other Gods before me." Jealousy? From God the all-perfect? And then there's that cute little passage in the Book of Micah: "The day shall come when the earth shall burn as an oven..." We can do that ourselves the way we're going! And if we don't do it, there will indeed be a day, at the end of the sun's life, when it will expand and destroy the earth.

•Why would such a God need to set up a situation wherein beings He (or She? Why not She?) created can destroy themselves, incurring eternal suffering through breaking rules they had nothing to do with setting up? What's the point of that outside of divine schadenfreude?

...This is the age-old answer to the age-old question of how a benificent God can possibly allow terrible things to take place. For God to "step in" and "prevent" such things would "change the rules" of free will since most horrible acts committed by men were matters of free will at least on the part of those doing them...

That a totally beneficent God allows horrible things to happen is a total contradiction in terms. It makes absolutely no sense. What's the point?

There's another answer that fits the facts just as well: Whether God exists or not (I postulate that to prove God's existence/non-existence is simply beyond the power of the human mind — as the cat who is inherently incapable of reading the newspaper), that, like it or not, men are in charge of their own affairs, and their screwups are their own fault. And yet another: that, observing the nature of what has transpired over the course of human history, that God, if She does exist, is totally indifferent to the affairs of men.

There is a whole discussion lurking in the wings about how and why humans believe in God at all (a case of magical thinking contributing to physical survival, brain hardwiring, genetics, evolution, the very nature and structure of belief acquisition), but it would probably belong in a separate thread.

Lotho

Mrs. Maggott

05-19-2004, 07:56 PM

The questions that you are asking require not only more space and time than are available here, but someone of considerably more knowledge and the ability to express it than I possess. Therefore, I recommend (highly) to you, C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". The book contains a number of essays that were the foundation of a series of lectures Lewis gave on the BBC. He answers quite succinctly and convincingly many of the perfectly valid questions you raise.

Furthermore, Lewis was a confirmed atheist who researched the matter thoroughly because he was challenged to do so by a much valued friend. When he had finished the task, he found himself (to use his own words) "dragged kicking and screaming" into the Church, something he really did not want to do. Therefore, you may find that his explanations are more apt to appeal to someone who wants actual hard answers rather than just the recitation of doctrine.

If you decide to give the book a try, let me know what you think when you finish it.

God bless!

Barliman Butterbur

05-20-2004, 01:52 AM

...I recommend (highly) to you, C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". The book contains a number of essays that were the foundation of a series of lectures Lewis gave on the BBC. He answers quite succinctly and convincingly many of the perfectly valid questions you raise. ...Lewis was a confirmed atheist who researched the matter thoroughly because he was challenged to do so by a much valued friend. When he had finished the task, he found himself (to use his own words) "dragged kicking and screaming" into the Church, something he really did not want to do. ...If you decide to give the book a try, let me know what you think when you finish it....

First I must finish my struggles absorbing three book's worth of the writings of Michael Schermer (which, once absorbed, will no doubt allow me to appreciate even more what Lewis had to say). I will keep the Lewis book on my list for future reading!

What would interest me even more than Lewis' BBC essays (the results of his becoming a churchman) are the reasons he allowed himself to be dragged kicking and screaming (I love that phrase, use it every chance I get) into religion if he really didn't want to.

May the Farce be with you!:D

Lotho

Mrs. Maggott

05-20-2004, 03:17 AM

What would interest me even more than Lewis' BBC essays (the results of his becoming a churchman) are the reasons he allowed himself to be dragged kicking and screaming (I love that phrase, use it every chance I get) into religion if he really didn't want to.
Lotho
To begin with, Lewis wasn't "dragged kicking and screaming" into religion but Christianity, something serious Christians consider a way of life rather than simply a "religion". Unfortunately, many Christians today no longer understand the faith in those terms but rather they look upon it as merely one other aspect of their lives, something they can do or not do depending upon a variety of circumstances, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with God. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that many Christian "denominations" are losing members - because they have become just another obligation in the lives of their adherents rather than the meaning of life itself.

As for the "why" of Lewis' behavior, I will say simply this: after he had expended a great deal of time and energy in thoroughly researching the matter, he came to the unhappy but unalterable conclusion that Christianity was correct. Once he had done that, he could no more turn his back on what he had learned than fly (without a plane, that is). He believed (rightly) that ignoring what he had learned simply because he didn't care for the conclusion he had reached would constitute intellectual dishonesty - not to mention a chance of eternal damnation. And so, albeit not all that gleefully, he became a believing Christian.

Tolkien was happy his friend had become a Christian, but he was sorry that Lewis' conversion had not led him to Rome - which, of course, Tolkien believed to be the ultimate destination of those wishing to be truly Christian. However, Lewis' background (Protestant Irish) mitigated against his becoming Catholic although - as I did mention - he had made a vain attempt at becoming Orthodox.

Barliman Butterbur

05-20-2004, 03:48 AM

To begin with, Lewis wasn't "dragged kicking and screaming" into religion but Christianity, something serious Christians consider a way of life rather than simply a "religion".

An excellent point. Indeed any sincere practitioner of any religion considers it a way of life rather than a set of weekly rituals to be grudgingly indulged.

...As for the "why" of Lewis' behavior, I will say simply this: after he had expended a great deal of time and energy in thoroughly researching the matter, he came to the unhappy but unalterable conclusion that Christianity was correct. Once he had done that, he could no more turn his back on what he had learned than fly (without a plane, that is)....

Now that intrigues me very much. He evidently saw no way out of the logic of what was presented to him, and accepted its premises as truth, which left him no other choice than but to become a Christian. I daresay someone else would not have given in quite as readily, or even have been convinced at all. Your book "Mere Christianity" sounds even more tempting. But alas, I have much reading to do before I get to it!

Tolkien was happy his friend had become a Christian, but he was sorry that Lewis' conversion had not led him to Rome - which, of course, Tolkien believed to be the ultimate destination of those wishing to be truly Christian.

Of course! How could it be otherwise?

***

And I have noticed that in the movies at least, it seems always to be the Catholics who are particularly beset by problems with demons, vampires, exorcisms etc. The latest case is the movie "Van Helsing," and I will not discuss any of the plot in case any readers plan to see it. Suffice it to say, it's a ripper! Super special effects, fabulously entertaining! All your gothic horror favorite characters are in it: Mr. Hyde (voiced by Robbie Coltrane); Dracula and his three wives; werewolves; Igor (Dr. Frankenstein's assistant); and Frankenstein's monster, who takes a crucial part in the story.

And I was happily surprised to find David Wenham (late of Faramir fame) taking a fine supporting comic role as a monk supremely gifted in the making of 19th-century James Bond-like superweapons, but otherwise clueless when venturing out of the church doors. Very funny part, and he certainly looked nothing like Faramir: a monk with the de rigeur Friar Tuck bowl haircut, red hair and stuck-out ears!

Barley

Mrs. Maggott

05-20-2004, 01:27 PM

Well, of course, there are serious Christians today who have become so "sensitized" to the ongoing criticism of the Faith by many in the establishment (indeed, by the establishment itself in many cases) that they go "hard over" where they needn't. For instance, many believe that the Harry Potter books exalt the occult and witchcraft which anyone who has read the books can testify is not the case. The Potter books like the old Oz books, attempt to teach children the virtues within the context of the story. The "wizard stuff" is merely a plot ploy to engage interest. Rowling herself has stated to children who ask her that she doesn't believe in "magic" except the wonderful magic of the human mind. But still, many very devout Christians are absolutely sure that the books are an attempt to lead children into the occult. And this is very sad because the Potter books are excellent insofar as their moral content. Friendship, selflessness, service to others, kindness and courage are presented as being far superior to selfishness, cruelty, venality and the desire for power. There is also a very strong element of redemption in the books; that is, those who were once on the wrong path may stop, turn around and regain the true way. These are all very "Christian" messages, but because they involve a magical (fictional) world of witches, wizards, ogres, vampires, werewolves and other fantastical creatures, many good Christians rail against them.

The Lewis book is very short (a small paperback) and it is divided into essays rather than a book one must read all at once if you require something to take to the doctor's office or read on the train. Also, other books of his that give great insight into many of the problems you mention are his original "journey" to Christianity called "A Pilgrim's Regress" which really is a sort of "fictionalized" allegorical recounting of his labors. Also, "The Great Divorce" touches on many of the misconceptions Christians have regarding the afterlife (heaven and hell). Then there are the famous "Screwtape Letters" - a wonderfully demonic little work involving letters from a major demon to a young temptor just going "on line", so to speak. And, of course, there is Lewis' "science fiction" trilogy, "Out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra" and "That Hideous Strength" as well as his very famous "Chronicles of Narnia". He also wrote "Surprised by Joy" regarding his wife and "The Problem with Pain" after her death. There are other books, but these give wonderful insights and explanations of Christianity (not just doctrine) and would help with many of your obviously valid questions.

God bless. ;)

Barliman Butterbur

05-20-2004, 05:33 PM

I am not avoiding your thoughtful post when I say that suddenly I'm not ready to get into a discussion about Lewis' "adventures in Christianity.";) It's just that I have suddenly fallen into one of those places in life (which happen more and more rarely at age 67) where I have come across concepts that are absolutely new to me, something on the order of (after many years of thinking that I had finally settled age-old cosmic matters) coming across a new color or flavor! I am referring to the writings of Michael Schermer — Why People Believe Weird Things; How We Believe; The Science of Good and Evil — this trilogy is the size of LOTR (www.skeptic.com) — and I can feel my whole belief structure getting whipped around — it's like the foundation of my spiritual/cosmic viewpoint is being taken apart and reassembled in a different configuration! It's wild fun but complex, and it will take quite a while for me to absorb all this new stuff into my psyche, to the point where I can apply it with comparative ease and effectiveness.

We can talk about lighter stuff if you wish — favorite recipes, etc. — but for now and for some way into the future, I see I do not have what it takes to discuss the more cosmic matters until I have added this new knowledge to my spiritual/intellectual armamentarium and thoroughly digested it (I think I may have mixed my metaphors there).

Barley

Mrs. Maggott

05-20-2004, 06:35 PM

I fully understand that of which you speak (so to speak). Indeed, it was a revelation to me when several years ago, neurologists discovered that mankind is "hot-wired" to "believe"; that is, religion, faith, whatever else you care to call it is part of our fundamental human neurological/biological makeup and not merely an intellectual pursuit! No other creature has such neural paths in its brain however "intelligent" - except man!

My only advice on your new found reading material is this: yes, much of what we do is pre-ordained in our makeup. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is without meaning. Indeed, one wonders why a purely material evolutionary universe would produce such a situation. Surely, it is far more likely to have been the intentional act of a Being Who wished to have a relationship with us which included "worship" than something that just "happened" because the primeval ooze was hotter than normal on that day.

But, by all means, wait to read Lewis until you have digested your current feast. If there is one thing I have learned over my almost 63 years is that God allows things to happen in His own good time and for His own good reasons!

God bless and happy reading (only don't get a hernia picking up such big books!). :p

Barliman Butterbur

05-20-2004, 07:09 PM

I fully understand that of which you speak (so to speak). Indeed, it was a revelation to me when several years ago, neurologists discovered that mankind is "hot-wired" to "believe"; that is, religion, faith, whatever else you care to call it is part of our fundamental human neurological/biological makeup and not merely an intellectual pursuit! No other creature has such neural paths in its brain however "intelligent" - except man!

That's part of what I'm reading about.

My only advice on your new found reading material is this: yes, much of what we do is pre-ordained in our makeup. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is without meaning. Indeed, one wonders why a purely material evolutionary universe would produce such a situation. Surely, it is far more likely to have been the intentional act of a Being Who wished to have a relationship with us which included "worship" than something that just "happened" because the primeval ooze was hotter than normal on that day.

For myself, I believe that how we are today has followed from the "prime directive" of physical survival. Then, Maslovianlike, everything else developed from getting survival problems resolved and filling in the resulting "down time" with higher pursuits over the millenia.

...don't get a hernia picking up such big books!). :p

These days, the most likely scenario of my getting a hernia comes through casting off from a banquet table with a generously (over)loaded tray...

Barley

Mrs. Maggott

05-20-2004, 09:20 PM

Ah... a true hobbit with his priorities in the right place! :p ;)

Gimmi

05-20-2004, 11:54 PM

•How does a believer know God exists? What is offered as proof?

No sense to you, but the proof is literally in everything I sense.

•Why would such a God have a need to set up a relationship with lesser beings replete with really tough rules? What's the point? It sounds like a game, and considering the consequences to men, one helluva game of hardball.

Analogy: Why do I have a need to set up a relationship with a dog (a lesser being) replete with really tough rules (e.g., she can’t pee in the house)? Simple, I love dogs for the joy they bring me when we play games such as one helluva game of fetch with a hardball! Now if the question is “Why does MM have a need to set up a relationship with a cat?... :p

If God is perfect, God would have no needs in the first place, let alone creating beings to love Him and then kicking the **** out of them if they don't. And all that regretting that God does in the Old Testament. Does that sound like a perfect God? I think not!

Looking at the bible systematically, there is a large love, sacrifice, and fellowship theme. Certainly, God has no needs, there is no lack in Him. The bible says that God is love. It says that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…" The nature of biblical love is to give. God, the son, said, "No greater love has anyone than that he lay his life down for a friend." The bible says we are called into fellowship with Christ.

It seems to me that God desired to create us in order that He might be able to simply love us and have fellowship with us. In fellowship, He is glorified. Like you implied, God didn't need to create us due to any lack in Him. But God's doing so and His desire to love us and fellowship is not a weakness in Him, rather I believe a manifestation of His character of love.

He gets angry and floods the earth! That from a perfect loving God? "I am a jealous God, and shall have no other Gods before me." Jealousy? From God the all-perfect?

Because of evil in the world. Was His anger wrong? Was His punishment wrong? Taken in context (please read the context) was His jealousy wrong? If the answer is no, then does that make God not “all-perfect”?

•Why would such a God need to set up a situation wherein beings He (or She? Why not She?) created can destroy themselves, incurring eternal suffering through breaking rules they had nothing to do with setting up? What's the point of that outside of divine schadenfreude?

The point is most definitely outside of divine schadenfreude. Some thoughts (except for number one, these are just arguments):
1. First and foremost, God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we simply cannot understand. We have confidence in God knowing that His ways are above our ways and we live by faith. But I understand that this is an unfulfilling answer, so…
2. Free will means the possibility of evil or rebelling against God. Suffering, is an unfortunate product of evil, thus proof that anything contrary to God’s wishes is bad, harmful, painful, and leads to death.
3. God gave Adam authority. When Adam rebelled against God, he changed the very nature of man and creation. Creation was no longer a paradise, people became sinful. Death resulted. God does not leave us alone in “divine schadenfreude” in this fallen world. He continues to point us to Himself, to truth, to morality, to love. He used evil and sinners to sacrifice His Son that we might again have eternal life. He proves His sovereignty over evil, suffering, and rebellion, that He is worthy of honor and glory.
4. If God should end evil and suffering, when should He stop? If God stops only some of it, then we would still be asking the same question of why the rest exists. Therefore, for your argument to be effective, He must stop all of it. Murder and rape is wrong, hatred and bigotry in your heart is wrong. Both must be stopped which means freedom of thought and free will. God has chosen not to do this. Again, this points to God permitting evil and suffering because of Him allowing us free will.
5. God uses suffering to do good. In other words, He produces patience through tribulation, or saves someone through it. Look at Joseph who says, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good". And of course, Christ.
6. For a triumphant ending: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Barliman Butterbur

05-21-2004, 03:07 AM

No sense to you, but the proof is literally in everything I sense.
...

You are a true believer, and I have no quarrel with anything you say as long as you don't try to force me to believe it.

Barley

Mrs. Maggott

05-21-2004, 02:15 PM

You are a true believer, and I have no quarrel with anything you say as long as you don't try to force me to believe it.

Lotho
Ah, but my dear Lotho! That's the whole point! True believers never try to force ANYONE to believe! Why did the early Church grow as it did - and continue to grow even when being a Christian was literally a death sentence? Because Christians lived their lives in such a way - showing love, compassion, mercy, charity and manifesting the miracles and wonders of a life in a relationship with God - that others simply wanted to be a part of it. One early pagan chronicler noted with wonder that these "Christians" could be seen wandering in his town's garbage dump early in the morning rescuing infants that had been left there to die! He just couldn't get over anyone caring about someone that wasn't "theirs" (in their family).

Indeed, we have grown up in a culture which has at least the foundations of Christian morals and so we cannot recognize the fact that in the non-Christian world, especially the ancient pagan world, nobody gave a fig for anyone that wasn't a direct family member. The old lady next door could starve to death and it wasn't any of your business so your weren't obligated to do anything about it. Christianity changed all that. There were no orphanages or hospitals before Christianity. Even the Jews who were constrained to certain standards of kindness by their religion were not obligated to care for those outside of their family and/or tribe and they certainly were not even involved with - much less caring about - Gentiles. The parable of the Good Samaritan which is so familiar to us was a revelation to the Jews of Jesus' time. Considering a Samaritan (who was worse than dirt) as a "neighbor" was revolutionary!

In the beginning Christianity was spread not by the sword (like Islam), but by the words and the deeds of Christians. No one was "forced" to do anything. Unfortunately, when the Faith became intwined with nations and their desire for empire building and conquest, it often became at least an excuse for those activities. Bringing God to the heathens was more likely an exercise in having one's "flag" fly over newly conquered territory. The fact that those actions could be disguised in the light of "spreading the Gospel" was merely a sop to many people's conscience. However, by its very nature, Christianity was to be preached and lived. No one can force anyone to believe. Under certain circumstances, one can be forced to exhibit outward signs of belief or unbelief (Christians under the Communist yoke), but that never constitutes belief which is something that the individual must consciously choose him or herself. An unwilling "believer" is no believer at all.

As for cats: I have a dog and love her, but cats!! When you have a relationship with a dog, it is master to underling; with a cat, it's equality at it's best! A dog has a master; a cat has staff! :p

Barliman Butterbur

05-21-2004, 04:39 PM

Ah, but my dear Lotho! That's the whole point! True believers never try to force ANYONE to believe! Why did the early Church grow as it did - and continue to grow even when being a Christian was literally a death sentence? Because Christians lived their lives in such a way - showing love, compassion, mercy, charity and manifesting the miracles and wonders of a life in a relationship with God - that others simply wanted to be a part of it.

Wahoo! Would that that were still true! If indeed true believers never try to force anyone to believe, then I can only conclude from your statement that suchlike as the Crusaders, Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, along with the more aggressive stripe of Christian fundamentalists — in other words, those who proselytize, and also those who run missions (ranging from friendly discussion and shelters for the homeless, and who run children's charities in exchange for coming to Jesus — to the extreme of ramming it down your throat a la the Inquisition) are not true Christians. Do you really mean that?

...we have grown up in a culture which has at least the foundations of Christian morals and so we cannot recognize the fact that in the non-Christian world, especially the ancient pagan world, nobody gave a fig for anyone that wasn't a direct family member.

I need some clarification about the above statement. By "we:" are you speaking of Western culture generally, British or American society, what? And as for pagans, if you mean Wiccans, I have never run across a nicer bunch!

There were no orphanages or hospitals before Christianity. Even the Jews who were constrained to certain standards of kindness by their religion were not obligated to care for those outside of their family and/or tribe and they certainly were not even involved with - much less caring about - Gentiles. The parable of the Good Samaritan which is so familiar to us was a revelation to the Jews of Jesus' time. Considering a Samaritan (who was worse than dirt) as a "neighbor" was revolutionary!

I think here you need to be very careful of your claims. Jewish culture, especially the orthodox variety, has always been highly active in charitable works and institutions, to say nothing of education. And if they were not particularly motivated to help out those who were trying to wipe them out over the centuries, well, I can understand that.

In the beginning Christianity was spread not by the sword (like Islam), but by the words and the deeds of Christians. No one was "forced" to do anything.

That may be, but there were times in the past when Christianity was at least as aggressive as Islam (as mentioned before: the Inquisition; the Crusades). Today's proselytizing methods are admittedly more subtle and pleasant.

... No one can force anyone to believe. Under certain circumstances, one can be forced to exhibit outward signs of belief or unbelief (Christians under the Communist yoke), but that never constitutes belief which is something that the individual must consciously choose him or herself. An unwilling "believer" is no believer at all.

Tell that to those who were willing to torture and burn people at the stake trying to get them to say otherwise. "God save us from the things done in His name." But I don't want to fan flames. The point I want to make is this:

There are many Christians who, by their unswerving belief that "I Possess the Only Divine Truth and That Sets Me Above Just About Everyone Else" become arrogant and smugly superior, and that leads to thinking of everyone else as inferior, which further leads to intolerance, disrespect, which evolves to hatred and violence. The perfect example of such arrogance is that bumper sticker that says: "We're not perfect, just forgiven." Well where the hell does that leave the rest of us???!!!

I have known a great many wonderful Christians in my life who grace it. But these Christians are all too rare: they see Christianity as a religion that includes respect for the other person's way of life — and religion — no matter what it is, and see all things — including other ways of living — as manifestations of God's will. These Christians don't go to church as much as some others do, don't engage in formal rituals particularly, and don't pray as often — but their actions are loving, humane and respectful. And they are from all the varieties of Christianity. That makes them the kind of Christian that — assuming God's existence for the moment — She is proud of! And, funny thing: One need not be a Christian or member of any religion, or even a believer in God to be that good a person.

As for cats: I have a dog and love her, but cats!! When you have a relationship with a dog, it is master to underling; with a cat, it's equality at its best! A dog has a master; a cat has staff! :p

We're both on the same side on this one! I am a cat person 100% (and unfortunately I am so allergic to them that I can't own one), and cannot stand barking, fawning, vicious, yapping/yipping stupid dogs! (I think all city dogs ought to have their fangs and vocal cords surgically removed.)

I live in an apartment with a balcony facing the sidewalk. And every day, here come the "dog people," trained by their dogs to follow them, each connected to their dog by a leash. Some dogs have their people better trained than others. The better trained come after their dogs with poop bags and clean up after them while the dogs bark loudly at each other, threatening to destroy each other (by the tone of the snarling and yipping) from accross the street late at night when people are trying to sleep. And if they aren't doing that, they socialize by sniffing each other's butts. Dogs — you can have 'em! (I feel so much better now!:p)

Barley

Mrs. Maggott

05-22-2004, 12:07 AM

Wahoo! Would that that were still true! If indeed true believers never try to force anyone to believe, then I can only conclude from your statement that suchlike as the Crusaders, Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, along with the more aggressive stripe of Christian fundamentalists — in other words, those who proselytize, and also those who run missions (ranging from friendly discussion and shelters for the homeless, and who run children's charities in exchange for coming to Jesus — to the extreme of ramming it down your throat a la the Inquisition) are not true Christians. Do you really mean that?Lotho

Let me see if I can address some of your issues at least very superficially: there is nothing "unChristian" about running missions or feeding the hungry or doing charitable acts in the Name of Christ and letting those you are serving know that you are in fact serving them in Christ's name. However, when one makes some sort of "bargain" out of the service - believe in Christ or you don't get the soup - then the most "Christian" person in that situation may well be the fellow in need of the soup rather than the "Christian" who is using extortion to gain a convert! Better by far to give the charity and to preach the Gospel (the Great Commission) quietly rather than attempting to "force" a conversion - which, as I noted before CANNOT BE DONE! I see nothing wrong with preaching. After all, it is what Christ told His followers - to bring the Gospel to all men. But the word "Gospel" means "Good News"! Not, "Do it my way, or else!!"

Consider: Albert Schweitzer made more converts to Christ in Africa through love, the Word and the use of his medical skills than all the priests, monks and missionaries combined who used the strength of their European countries to "gather converts"! Schweitzer's converts KNEW he loved them as Christ loved them. That's what makes converts. Not soup or charity or threats! Love brings people to Christ and anyone who calls him or herself a "Christian" but doesn't know that is more in need of conversion than the veriest pagan.

I need some clarification about the above statement. By "we:" are you speaking of Western culture generally, British or American society, what? And as for pagans, if you mean Wiccans, I have never run across a nicer bunch!Lotho

Yes. Western Civilization has as its moral foundation, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Other civilizations also recognized these great virtues as virtues and lived by them. Indeed, only the most perverted cultures like the great tyrannies of the 20th century have rejected this understanding of "virtue" and chosen others in their stead. Christ says in Scripture to His Apostles that He has "other sheep" (followers) of whom they do not know. St Paul speaks of Gentiles and pagans who have God's Law written on their hearts! Indeed, in several instances in the Gospels and in Acts we are told of godly Centurians, hardly your average candidate for sainthood!

It is necessary to understand here what many Christians, alas, do not understand. When Christ talks about "judging others", He is not speaking of the necessary judgments that we must all make in life - is this person honest or dishonest or can we trust this person or not or should we marry him/her - but, rather, we must not make judgments about where other people stand with GOD! We are forbidden as Christians to do this and, in fact, this was one of Jesus' main disputes with the Pharisees who were constantly deciding where their fellow Jews were in relationship to God because they considered themselves "the standard" from which that judgment could be made. However, they failed miserably in the very important virtue of compassion, mercy and forgiveness so they were more condemned than the people that they routinely condemned because of their ignorance or sinfulness! Christians who "decide" that if you aren't a Christian (or a Baptist or a Catholic or an Orthodox), well, you're just damned - are being themselves disobedient to Christ's own command not to judge one's brother. No one knows where ANYONE stands with God except God! This is exactly why St. John Chrysostom was able to say with conviction that the walls of hell were lined with priests and bishops were the candlestands. These people believed that their clerical office saved them and often lived very unChristian lives indeed. But God does is not a regarder or persons nor is He influenced by how rich we are or how popular we are or how important we are or how "religious" we are - if our "religion" is without the love and foregiveness He Himself demanded of us.

I think here you need to be very careful of your claims. Jewish culture, especially the orthodox variety, has always been highly active in charitable works and institutions, to say nothing of education. And if they were not particularly motivated to help out those who were trying to wipe them out over the centuries, well, I can understand that. Lotho

Such institutions were manifest in later Jewish society - after the diaspora. Of course, the Jews were in the forefront of the understanding of the sanctity of life. Hippocrates from whom the great Oath of Physicians came was a Greek Jew. Prior to his teaching, the physician and the sorcerer were one and the same and you were as apt to be killed by a doctor as healed by one. But the Mosaic teachings and the understanding of man being created in the image and likeness of God led Hippocrates to insist that his students swear an oath to "First do no harm", an oath which also included prohibitions against abortion, euthanasia and assisting or counseling suicide.

However, as the Jews were (as you yourself point out) a people who kept to themselves, most of their humane doctrines and institutions were limited to their fellow Jews. Only when Christianity (which had its moral as well as its theological foundations in Judaism) became the religion of the Empire did such concepts find culture-wide expression. Hence, before Christianity there were no orphanages for the children of any race or religion nor any hospitals who cared for [/I]everyone[/I] in the society. In a way these things and the ideas that led to them did come through the Jews, but not from the ever more marginalized Jewish presence after the fall of Jerusalem. Rather, they arose from Judaism's "descendant", Christianity.

end of part 1

Mrs. Maggott

05-22-2004, 12:09 AM

That may be, but there were times in the past when Christianity was at least as aggressive as Islam (as mentioned before: the Inquisition; the Crusades). Today's proselytizing methods are admittedly more subtle and pleasant.Lotho

Again, you are confusing the people with the Church. What has been done in the Name of God doesn't necessarily carry His blessing. Christ tells some in Scripture that though they cast out demons in His Name and even raised the dead, He doesn't know them! Such are the people of whom you are speaking here. Frankly, I am of the opinion that if Inquisitors and Crusaders (who frankly were more interested in plunder and rape than religion) had actually happened across Jesus of Nazareth in the course of their activities, they probably would have crucified Him again! And remember, the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and gained for the West the (almost) eternal emnity of the Eastern Church. In fact, the relationship between the two Churches was so bad that many Orthodox preferred the Moslems in the Holy Land to the forces of the West. The old saying was, "better the Crescent than the Mitre!" for the Moslems were not interested in "converting" Christians (until later, that is), but the Catholic Church treated their Eastern brothers (who were only considered schismatics and not heretics as the Protestants were later to be named) with great cruelty in attempting to force them to accept the primacy of the Pope. It's a long and ugly history that has about as much to do with Christ, faith and love as spiders have to do with ice cream.

end of part 2

Mrs. Maggott

05-22-2004, 12:10 AM

Tell that to those who were willing to torture and burn people at the stake trying to get them to say otherwise. "God save us from the things done in His name." But I don't want to fan flames. The point I want to make is this:

There are many Christians who, by their unswerving belief that "I Possess the Only Divine Truth and That Sets Me Above Just About Everyone Else" become arrogant and smugly superior, and that leads to thinking of everyone else as inferior, which further leads to intolerance, disrespect, which evolves to hatred and violence. The perfect example of such arrogance is that bumper sticker that says: "We're not perfect, just forgiven." Well where the hell does that leave the rest of us???!!!Lotho

I told you about the young girl who said that she believed that Christ was the Son of God and that meant she was saved. I told her that Satan also believes that! Does that mean that he is saved? Yes, Christians do believe that we possess the Truth in its entirety for if we did not, what possible reason would we have to preach it - or for that matter, to believe it? Would you wish to tell others about or even believe in yourself, God the Fairly Competent?

If I think that my belief is true, then I am obligated to tell you so - but not to make you feel bad or inadequate or stupid and still less to hold myself out as an example of what everyone should be. Rather it is only to say that I have found the Way. If we both wanted to get to New York City and my route was more direct than yours, you would not mind if I told you about it. The ultimate choice of whether you took is and always would be yours. Furthermore, I could not take credit for that better route since I did not create it but in fact, learned of it from others myself.

However, if I act in such a way as to put the lie to what I am saying - and this is the case with many "Christians" - then not only am I doing a disservice to you (for why should you believe that I have found the truth when I am hardly a person worthy of your respect?) but also to Christ since I am ostensibly speaking in His Name! Can an unrepentent liar preach honesty? I think not! Can an greedy or lacivious person preach continence whether of money or sex? No. Can a glutton preach astheticism? Hardly! Can a person puffed up with pride preach humility?? !!!! Hence, many "Christians" do more damage to the Faith when in their "preaching" they look for the speck in their brothers' eyes while busily ignoring the beam in their own - as Christ again cautioned in Scripture. St. Seraphim of Sarov said it best: "Save yourself and thousands around you will be saved!" Unfortunately, far too many who wish to bring Christ to others think that they can do so by browbeating them rather than acting in such a way that people want to know how they too may achieve that aspect of love, inner peace and joy.

Of course, as I have said, much of what many people think constitutes "belief" is nothing more than habit. If I say I believe Christ is my Lord, then I should be willing to act that way and, if required, lay down my life for my "neighbor"; that is, my fellow men. This is why one Catholic priest was canonized. In Auschwitz, a Jewish man was chosen to be led to the gas chamber but the priest stepped forward and asked to take his place. He was allowed to do so. Did he save them man? Probably not. Probably the man was gassed the next day. But the fact is that when the opportunity arose, this true "man of God" actually did lay down his life to save another. That's what it means to be a true Christian, not all the palaver and talk! Again, we do not know - and are not supposed to speculate - where any other soul stands with God. As a very wise priest once said, a good pagan is more pleasing to God than a bad Christian! Labels and bumper stickers do not please God! Living according to His command - and especially the command that we love one another - pleases Him.

I have known a great many wonderful Christians in my life who grace it. But these Christians are all too rare: they see Christianity as a religion that includes respect for the other person's way of life — and religion — no matter what it is, and see all things — including other ways of living — as manifestations of God's will. These Christians don't go to church as much as some others do, don't engage in formal rituals particularly, and don't pray as often — but their actions are loving, humane and respectful. And they are from all the varieties of Christianity. That makes them the kind of Christian that — assuming God's existence for the moment — She is proud of! And, funny thing: One need not be a Christian or member of any religion, or even a believer in God to be that good a person.Lotho

There is an old poem called Abou Ben Adhem (I think that's how it's spelled). It is about a good man who wakens in the night and sees an Angel writing in a golden book. Abou asks the Angel what he is writing and he tells him he is writing down the names of those who love the Lord. Abou asks if his name is in the book - and the Angel tells him "no". Alas, Abou then asks the Angel to at least put his name in the book of those who love their fellow men. The next night the Angel appears again and this time with a book which names those whom God loves. And lo! Abou's name leads all the rest! It is easy to "love God" Who is mostly a "concept" to men. It is infinitely harder to love our annoying, aggravating, miserable, wretched, awful, stinky and frustrating fellow men! But that is what we are constrained to do, as Christians at least. St. James said, "He who says he loves God and hates his brother is a liar!"

We're both on the same side on this one! I am a cat person 100% (and unfortunately I am so allergic to them that I can't own one), and cannot stand barking, fawning, vicious, yapping/yipping stupid dogs! (I think all city dogs ought to have their fangs and vocal cords surgically removed.)

I live in an apartment with a balcony facing the sidewalk. And every day, here come the "dog people," trained by their dogs to follow them, each connected to their dog by a leash. Some dogs have their people better trained than others. The better trained come after their dogs with poop bags and clean up after them while the dogs bark loudly at each other, threatening to destroy each other (by the tone of the snarling and yipping) from accross the street late at night when people are trying to sleep. And if they aren't doing that, they socialize by sniffing each other's butts. Dogs — you can have 'em! (I feel so much better now!:p)Lotho

I have a Peke and I lover her, but cats are still my favorites! Right now, my Little Girl (named for a former very special cat) who looks rather like a fuzzy black and white bowling ball is sleeping next to me as I type. I believe Dr. Samuel Johnson of dictionary fame had a cat named Hodge who slept next to him as he worked! I am sorry your allergies prevent you from having one. Who knows? Maybe some day they'll come up with a "cure-all" for people with allergies. One thing I am very glad of is that I am not allergic to animals! Only their eventual death saddens me to the point where I wonder if I want to go through it all again... But somehow, I always do.

God bless! ;)

Barliman Butterbur

05-22-2004, 02:45 PM

...when one makes some sort of "bargain" out of the service - believe in Christ or you don't get the soup - then the most "Christian" person in that situation may well be the fellow in need of the soup rather than the "Christian" who is using extortion to gain a convert!...the word "Gospel" means "Good News"! Not, "Do it my way, or else!!"

You must be unhappy about the current general state of Christianity in the world then.

...Schweitzer's converts KNEW he loved them as Christ loved them. That's what makes converts. Not soup or charity or threats!

My kinda guy!

...only the most perverted cultures like the great tyrannies of the 20th century have rejected this understanding of "virtue" and chosen others in their stead....

It is necessary to understand here what many Christians, alas, do not understand. When Christ talks about "judging others", He is not speaking of ...rather, we must not make judgments about where other people stand with GOD! We are forbidden as Christians to do this... John Chrysostom was able to say with conviction that the walls of hell were lined with priests and bishops were the candlestands.

"Tell me, Pretty Lady, are there any more at home like you?" Your understanding of Christianity is refreshing and dismaying at the same time (because it seems to be so comparatively rare).

...the Jews were in the forefront of the understanding of the sanctity of life. Hippocrates from whom the great Oath of Physicians came was a Greek Jew. Prior to his teaching, the physician and the sorcerer were one and the same and you were as apt to be killed by a doctor as healed by one. But the Mosaic teachings and the understanding of man being created in the image and likeness of God led Hippocrates to insist that his students swear an oath to "First do no harm", an oath which also included prohibitions against abortion, euthanasia and assisting or counseling suicide.

Frankly I think "Do No Harm" is a better statement of conduct that the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. "Do Unto Others..." in the hands of a madman or a Hitler or a Ghengis Khan can — and has done — do great harm to many. Some can say, "Well, 'do no harm' — that means I can ignore you.'" Of course there is no such thing as benign neglect. You can't leave a person alone who needs help.

I think "charity" has arisen by various paths through all religions.

On to Part Two (phew!)

Barliman Butterbur

05-22-2004, 02:51 PM

Again, you are confusing the people with the Church. What has been done in the Name of God doesn't necessarily carry His blessing.

You can say that again! As I said before, "God save us from the things man does in His name!" I wish I could remember the exact quote, but someone said that by no other way is evil done so easily, so easily rationalized, and with a cleaner conscience than that done in God's name.

On to Parth Three (*puff!* *pant!*)

Barliman Butterbur

05-22-2004, 03:12 PM

I told you about the young girl who said that she believed that Christ was the Son of God and that meant she was saved. I told her that Satan also believes that! Does that mean that he is saved? Yes, Christians do believe that we possess the Truth in its entirety for if we did not, what possible reason would we have to preach it - or for that matter, to believe it? Would you wish to tell others about or even believe in yourself, God the Fairly Competent?

Hee hee! Of course you do! That's the point: each religion, no matter how different it is from the others, preaches this same assertion: "I Am the One True Way!" Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism (well, not Hinduism, but I'll get to that in a second) all insist that they are the One True Way, and of course by implication everyone else is in serious error. Hinduism says "All is God: all matter and energy (matter and energy being congealed forms of Spirit, matter more so, energy less so), all that exists and does not exist, all that we understand and will never understand. And it also includes you, me, and — quite literally — the lamppost!" So Hinduism includes all religions as aspects of itself.)

If I think that my belief is true, then I am obligated to tell you so - but not to make you feel bad or inadequate or stupid and still less to hold myself out as an example of what everyone should be. Rather it is only to say that I have found the Way. If we both wanted to get to New York City and my route was more direct than yours, you would not mind if I told you about it. The ultimate choice of whether you took is and always would be yours. Furthermore, I could not take credit for that better route since I did not create it but in fact, learned of it from others myself.

Would that there were more Christians with this understanding! You and I both know that proselytizing gets out of hand whenever zealots, bigots and fanatics take it and force it down the throats of those who are other-than-they-are.

...much of what many people think constitutes "belief" is nothing more than habit. If I say I believe Christ is my Lord, then I should be willing to act that way and, if required, lay down my life for my "neighbor"; that is, my fellow men. This is why one Catholic priest was canonized. In Auschwitz, a Jewish man was chosen to be led to the gas chamber but the priest stepped forward and asked to take his place. He was allowed to do so. Did he save them man? Probably not. Probably the man was gassed the next day. But the fact is that when the opportunity arose, this true "man of God" actually did lay down his life to save another. That's what it means to be a true Christian...

I daresay that's what it means to be simply a good person, and there are such persons who belong to no particular creed or path.

There is an old poem called Abou Ben Adhem (I think that's how it's spelled). It is about a good man who wakens in the night and sees an Angel writing in a golden book. Abou asks the Angel what he is writing and he tells him he is writing down the names of those who love the Lord. Abou asks if his name is in the book - and the Angel tells him "no". Alas, Abou then asks the Angel to at least put his name in the book of those who love their fellow men. The next night the Angel appears again and this time with a book which names those whom God loves. And lo! Abou's name leads all the rest!

Good lord! My mother used to read that poem from time to time! hadn't thought of it in years!

I have a Peke and I lover her, but cats are still my favorites! Right now, my Little Girl (named for a former very special cat) who looks rather like a fuzzy black and white bowling ball is sleeping next to me as I type. I believe Dr. Samuel Johnson of dictionary fame had a cat named Hodge who slept next to him as he worked! I am sorry your allergies prevent you from having one. Who knows?...

When I lived with my parents we had a cat, despite my problems with allergy, called Whitey — a black cat with blue eyes. If you rubbed his fur back it was white — only the tips of the fur were black. We had him 17 years or so, and I had built up an inadequate immunity to him. My parents put him to sleep (years later when I was in my first marriage) because he had been poisoned from an abscessed tooth. It would have been nice had they warned me first. But that was my mother for you. I still miss him.

death saddens me to the point where I wonder if I want to go through it all again... But somehow, I always do.

I've had pets and I've had children. Children are worth the care and the travail (because of the joys); at this point in my life, pets are not.

Barley

Mrs. Maggott

05-22-2004, 04:25 PM

I haven't time to do more than make a quick comment. Yes, I am very unhappy about the state of Christianity (or what passes for it) in today's world. Most of those "in charge" in the various churches (without the capital "C") don't seem to understand at all! They either try to appeal to people by letting them do whatever they want so they won't appear to be "judgmental" - and so abandon them in their sin to suffer its consequences both here on earth and afterwards or they set themselves up as scolds, nags and self-righteous prigs, "holier than thou" types who couldn't convert a ten into two fives! They become the message rather than the messenger. Christ is lost except as a "talisman", a word proclaimed in every other sentence and used as a club to either get people's attention (and annoy them, doubtless) or as an excuse for telling them that they are doomed to hell! If the Christ that they preach was actually THE Christ, I'd go back to my old Celtic druidic traditions and spend my time looking for virgins and oak trees! Of course, the latter are far easier to find than the former these days!

Anyway, read Lewis if and when you can. You will get a MUCH better understanding of what the Faith should be!

Well, must go now. Hoping to reply more fully later but now - duty (and Davis & Venturini, Esqs.) call!

God bless! ;)

Barliman Butterbur

05-22-2004, 09:24 PM

If the Christ that they preach was actually THE Christ, I'd go back to my old Celtic druidic traditions and spend my time looking for virgins and oak trees!...

Sounds like a plan!:D (Actually, I think I'd spend my time looking for virgins IN oak trees!:D)

Barley

joxy

05-27-2004, 10:29 PM

This is why one Catholic priest was canonized. In Auschwitz, a Jewish man was chosen to be led to the gas chamber but the priest stepped forward and asked to take his place. He was allowed to do so.
Maksymilian Maria Kolbe, a Franciscan priest, volunteered his life in place of Franciszek Gajowniczek. He was then starved almost to death, and was killed by an injection. He was beatified - recognised as a saint and martyr - in 1982.

Isthir

05-30-2004, 07:52 AM

Mrs. Maggott

05-30-2004, 02:27 PM

I will state before I begin that I read only the last page of posts, so please do forgive me if I talk about something that has already been gone over.

Now, as for Buddhism saying 'we are the way'....you are correct as well as incorrect. The Buddha simply stated that he had found a way and shared it with others. It search most likely shaped the way that he found. Do you get what I am saying?

*Grumbles and has to go, but will post the rest of my thoughts later*

-Isthir
One of the most profound differences between Buddhism and Christianity was stated by Fr. Thomas Hopko who spoke about his long association with a Buddhist sage and in one of their conversations, the sage told him that in Buddhism, "if one meets the Buddha, one is to kill the Buddha. In other words, the concept of the faith is not to be "like" the Buddha or one with him. Fr. John then told the sage that in Christianity, if one meets the Christ, then one must let the Christ kill him! In other words, only through Christ "slaying the old man" - the unredeemed human self - can one find salvation. Of course, once an individual has let his "old man" be slain by the Blood of the Lamb, only then can that person become what God intended for him. So, in fact, we can only achieve what we really are by surrendering ourselves to Christ (the opposite of the Buddhist concept) and allowing Him to give back to us our humanity raised to its true nature, that of a child of God Himself.

Many people misunderstand the call to be "obedient" or "submissive" to God to mean that we have to give up our "selves". That is entirely untrue; indeed, the opposite it the truth. It is only when we are willing to submit ourselves to God that, in fact, our true selves are revealed, the people we were supposed to be restored to us and ultimate freedom attained. If you will, it is a sort of "surfer" thing: if you fight the wave, the wave will sink you or, at best, you will struggle endlessly without achieving anything. However, if you go with the wave - however much control you feel you have lost in the direction you are taking - you will ride into glory!

Barliman Butterbur

05-30-2004, 04:25 PM

I will state before I begin that I read only the last page of posts, so please do forgive me if I talk about something that has already been gone over.

Now, as for Buddhism saying 'we are the way'....you are correct as well as incorrect. The Buddha simply stated that he had found a way and shared it with others. It search most likely shaped the way that he found. Do you get what I am saying?

*Grumbles and has to go, but will post the rest of my thoughts later*

-Isthir

I'm not sure whom you're quoting, but my (admittedly inadequate) studies of Buddhism has never shown me a quote as arrogantly authoritative as one that would say that Buddhism is "the" way. It is "a" way, as you point out.

And looking at MM's posts on this, I'm thinking that it is interesting to get Buddhism — a way of life that evolved as a no-God offspring of Hinduism — and Christ mixed up together. A bit of oil and water, no? I believe that — contrary to M's assertion — the most profound difference between Christianity and Buddhism (indeed between Buddhism and all other religions) is that Buddhism postulates no one central God as do Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It does however, being the child of Hinduism, postulate a whole pantheon of lesser gods. The main thrust of Buddhism is compassionate and kindly behavior towards oneself and others, and that's what makes it so appealing to me personally. One does not need to believe in God to be a "godly" person.

On the other hand, Hinduism is the ultimate inclusive religion that states WHATEVER is (and by implication therefore isn't), is God: all forms of matter, energy and nothingness — including all sentient and insentient life and all other religions that are so doctrinaire as to be at war with each other.

Barley

Isthir

06-01-2004, 07:41 AM

I am curious as to the gods of Buddhism. I never thought there was any, for the Buddha never described himself as divine, nor of the afterlife, or a higer power....as far as I know anyways.

-Isthir

Barliman Butterbur

06-01-2004, 08:10 AM

I am curious as to the gods of Buddhism. I never thought there was any, for the Buddha never described himself as divine, nor of the afterlife, or a higer power....as far as I know anyways.

-Isthir

This will get you started: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/066313.htm. And of course a Google search will get you more than you ever wanted to know!;)

(And don't forget The Tibetan Book of the Dead.)

Barley

Isthir

06-02-2004, 06:58 AM

This will get you started: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/066313.htm. And of course a Google search will get you more than you ever wanted to know!;)

(And don't forget The Tibetan Book of the Dead.)

Barley
Very interesting stuff there. I was just talking about the core of Buddhism....what the Buddha taught. As it says in your article, Buddha rejected all gods, but knew that it was not his place to tell others to do away with their gods. A little bit more of a tid bit. Buddha actually studied under the Hindu religion for quite some time before he became disillusioned with it and went out to find the truth. *Shrugs*

Hey, Barliman, how interested are you in the Philosophy of Religion?

Barliman Butterbur

06-02-2004, 03:40 PM

...Buddha rejected all gods, but knew that it was not his place to tell others to do away with their gods. A little bit more of a tidbit. Buddha actually studied under the Hindu religion for quite some time before he became disillusioned with it and went out to find the truth. *Shrugs*

Hey, Barliman, how interested are you in the Philosophy of Religion?

What you say is true: the gods of Buddhism have nowhere the importance of those in Hinduism. To put something you said in a little sharper focus: When the Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) was alive, there was nothing BUT Hinduism. He was "the beginning of Buddhism" if you will, much as Jesus became the focal point of Christianity, the child of Judaism.

As to your last question, I was a "seeker" for many years, starting with a formal study of the mainline religions (a la Joseph Campbell) I was involved in a Zendo in Los Angeles for a while, and dropped out because the Zenmaster was a drunk. Then I found and stuck with a Hindu path for about 20 years. I left it because of the scandal connected with the so-called spiritual leader.

As of now, I am what you might call a "devout agnostic.";) For me, the God of the various holy books is God created in man's image. I am now fully convinced that we can never know whether such a being exists for the same reason that a cat is incapable of reading. So it's neither provable nor disprovable as far as I'm concerned.

Lately I have been very interested in the writings of Michael Shermer, the founder of Skeptic Magazine (www.skeptic.com). There were two other prior books which had a profound influence on my thinking along these lines (now both out of print): "Positive Illusions" by Shelley Tailor and "I and That" by Alex Comfort.

Right now, what is important for me is how people treat themselves and each other, all the rest of it being side commentary. There are some spiritual leaders whose thoughts I hold as being exceptionally important: The Dalai Lama XIV, Shunriyu Suzuki, Ananda Mayi Ma, and the wisdom writings of the I Ching (the Richard Wilhelm translation). Thoughts from these sources center on human interaction. My main objection to organized religions is that the real wisdom is inextricably all tangled up with doctrinaire flapdoodle.

I am envious of those who have a comforting religious view that gives them a sense of cosmic purpose, even if it is a "positive illusion."

Barley