EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[Eveleivibe]

Evey - I still say it's a bad tactic, even in a formal debate - ignoring obvious evidence that weakens your argument just means the next person in the debate has an easy score and 'wins'; ditto in an essay - it leaves you open to an easy criticism that brings your grade down. Surely a better way to win an argument/essay is to deal with your 'side's' weaknesses in convincing and creative ways (and if you can't find these, maybe try some different positions - seemingly not an option for raas though...). There's nothing as unconvincing as using sophistry to distract from the obvious flaws in your own arguments (says sophistry mcsophist).

I'd want any conversation/debate(whatever) to have some sort of dialectic aspect where each side learns from the other and some new 'synthesis' is created (even if only slightly refined but fundamentally unchanged ideas on both sides (as well as hopefully better mutual understanding (i suppose i'm just a goddamn hippy though ). I certainly learn from this thread, from all sides (especially ricko and raas (and cos it makes me look stuff up that i'm arguing about))

But you don't "ignore" the evidence. You leave it out, do a thorough search on it until you've an argument against it. So when people come at you to "win," you're ready. Kind of like chess - patience is the key!

I'd want any conversation/debate(whatever) to have some sort of dialectic aspect where each side learns from the other and some new 'synthesis' is created (even if only slightly refined but fundamentally unchanged ideas on both sides (as well as hopefully better mutual understanding (i suppose i'm just a goddamn hippy though ). I certainly learn from this thread, from all sides (especially ricko and raas (and cos it makes me look stuff up that i'm arguing about))

LIKE

"Ignorance may be bliss but knowledge is power!"

Evey

 

[parttime crackhead]

So if I say - In that big book called the bible, what does it say about slavery being awesome? And you had no answer for the slavery part, you'd think it ok to come back with "The bible isn't a big book! It's actually a very small book in comparison to a lot of others"?

 

[Eveleivibe]

So if I say - In that big book called the bible, what does it say about slavery being awesome? And you had no answer for the slavery part, you'd think it ok to come back with "The bible isn't a big book! It's actually a very small book in comparison to a lot of others"?

No I'd tell you that I have not yet looked and that I will get back to you when I have thoroughly researched the matter

Evey

 

[HouseFever]

Or you can agree on certain things and move on?

 

[Eveleivibe]

Or you can agree on certain things and move on?

Good point. Yes

Evey

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Christianity is the vilest stain this fair earth has ever seen, followed shortly by Islam and Aldershot Town FC

 

[rickolasnice]

Islam is *now* worse.

 

[parttime crackhead]

I'd have to agree. Islam* probably is the worst religion at the moment. The Christians got most of their religious mayhem over with a few centuries ago.

Unfortunately there is no devout Muslim on here to argue with about it. Or if there is he/she is keeping it quiet.


*Not necessarily all the religions fault right enough. It is mainly practiced in a pretty fucked part of the world. No doubt if all the people in that part of the world were Christian there would be right hardcore Christian nutters, Christian terrorist groups etc.

 

[Sammy G]

The word 'Islamic' seems to be readily associated with any atrocity that may occur in (or be perpetrated by a Muslim citizen of) a Muslim country. Whereas thousands of murders are carried out every year in the 'name of Christ', from the First world to the Third, and yet the perpetrator's religion is hardly ever identified as a motivating factor.

That guy who murdered prostitutes in Ipswich, for example. The people who carry out homophobic lynchings in Jamaica and elsewhere. Let's not even get started on Christian Africa. All written of as 'nutters', rightly, but homophobic nutters or misogynist nutters, not 'Christian nutters'.

That's important to remember too.

 

[Bella Figura]

I come from a country that is predominantly muslim and people are not fanatical lunatics. I reckon you guys have a skewed perception from media etc.

Think about the shit that happens in christianity's name in Uganda or whatever. it's not exactly representative of the religion as it's practiced by the majority but just some twisted backward version of it that hasn't caught up with human rights...

I reckon all the abrahamic religions are just as bullshit as each other. Wouldn't say one is worse though. They just go through phases of being used by different dickheads in dickheadish ways.

+ what Sammy said.

 

[Vurtual]

^ I agree Sam and Whoremoaning. Also, don't forget the recent major wars which at least two of the protagonists claimed to have done for a christian god (bush and blair) - and if we're talking numbers, no muslim country comes close to the body count of western capitalism/imperialism (an economic religion requiring faith). Is an inherent, unconscious white superiority complex and racist empire (as you could describe the western hegemony) not worse, whether secular or religious? (it's been both putatively)

Religion is a tool commonly used by states - it's not inherently evil: Islam can be (and has been) a cultured, sophisticated, ethical and science-friendly religion. If there's nutty islam around, look to why that version is being promoted; from the middle eastern despot's point of view, to use for control and stall social progress; from the west's point of view, we support the nuttiest of islam because they're our de facto allies against democracy and arab nationalism in the region (look at Mark Curtis' Secret affairs for proof) - ditto to why we're allies with the worst regimes (saudi arabia). Wahabi islam (and it's related terrorists) has spread massively due to the moneybags chucked at it from saudi, with our approval, as we often use these nutters (the terrorists, not the wahabi sheep/laypeople) as our agents (see syria/bosnis/kosovo/chechnya etc). How much of the death these unislamic bigoted people cause can you really lay at the religion and how much is just downstream effects of imperialism? (considering most people's interpretation of islam is peaceful (it's sort of the whole point really) - and don't quote me the quran without context please)

The majority of the world's muslims are sufi muslims (i read somewhere (EDIT: just checked and it's not true)) - these are often as tolerant and accepting as anyone and nuance their reading of the quran (the ones i've met anyway).

Also regarding nutty christian homophobes in uganda: did you know that the harsh anti-gay stuff has only got so extreme lately under the influence of a certain american christian nutter - he was really unpopular in the usa, but he went to uganda with his kill-the-homos message, marketing himself as a 'famous american preacher'. He has got a position in the government in question. I think the not-so-subtle 'aren't the africans terrible' stories often turn out to be at least as much to do with some western country's influence/meddling (eg Congo)

 

[Sammy G]

^ I agree Sam and Whoremoaning. Also, don't forget the recent major wars which at least two of the protagonists claimed to have done for a christian god (bush and blair) - and if we're talking numbers, no muslim country comes close to the body count of western capitalism/imperialism (an economic religion requiring faith). Is an inherent, unconscious white superiority complex and racist empire (as you could describe the western hegemony) not worse, whether secular or religious?

Glad you went there, Vurtual, because even in the aftermath of the banking crisis, which was caused by the very people whom the 'western world' (as well as other capitalist countries outside of the west, obviously) put their trust - their faith - in to effectively manage the world's affairs. Indeed, economists have taken the place of the clerical hierarchy, with the now-traditional finance section of breakfast news programmes the modern equivalent of the Latin Mass; understood by few, but blindly accepted as 'wisdom' from upon high, which needs to be interpreted and simplified in order for the flock to comprehend.

We accept the version of capitalism we've been lumbered with as part of a 'natural order'; a continuation of Darwinian processes, even when it becomes glaringly obvious that what's occurring isn't 'survival of the fittest' at all, but a desperate scramble toward destruction and / or extinction. Yet the economies we so depend on to sustain a way of life which is comfortable for a tiny percentage of the global population depend almost entirely on the perpetuation of those destructive and suicidal behaviours.

Why? As one man once said in a different context, "it's the economy, stupid".

Apologies for veering slightly off the main topic there, but it's often forgotten that westernised 'freedom' has a belief system all of its own, which is to all intents and purposes a 'religion', and one with as much blood on its hands as all the Abrahamic religions combined. Plus Hinduism and Buddhism. Hate to break it to the hippies, but Hindus and Buddhists can be murderous bastards in the name of their respective faiths too.

Over and out.

 

[Vurtual]

...Plus Hinduism and Buddhism. Hate to break it to the hippies, but Hindus and Buddhists can be murderous bastards in the name of their respective faiths too.

Over and out.

I agree - any religion (including economics) can be twisted by normal earthly human cuntiness (and the religion is not needed for said cuntiness, just power inequality i'd suggest). Neoliberalism and it's randian heart is completely faith-based: it's always failed on its own terms when applied fully.

However, it's a bit harder to twist buddhism to this end as its inherent niceness (which all religions have at heart) is often more explicitly and clearly expressed than most (i'm a bit biased but i think this is true - compassion is after all the main precept and the 'answer' of the religion). But that hasn't stopped the cuntiness altogether (as seen in burma - even from aung sang suchi (or whatever her name is); or the dalai lama in encouraging supression of certain sects; tibetan buddhist history of suppressing the bon-po (after pinching loads of their shamanic religion). These again are aspects of statecraft and temporal power of organised religion (another type of statecraft) more than religion itself. (you could argue that organised religion is religion, but i don't think so (none of them start out that way - that usually comes with death of the 'prophet')

 

[Sammy G]

Buddhism has only ever been a state religion in a few small countries which don't have a history of imperialism and warmongering. I suppose some would argue that has a lot to do with it's inherent pacifism, but you could also argue that its terminal nihilism perfectly suits the psyche of the oppressed minority, thus making it unattractive to would-be aggressors.

Of course, Buddhism is also the go-to religion for guilt-ridden capitalists in the West, so it can be indirectly blamed for that, I guess. :D

 

[Vurtual]

Buddhism has only ever been a state religion in a few small countries which don't have a history of imperialism and warmongering. I suppose some would argue that has a lot to do with it's inherent pacifism, but you could also argue that its terminal nihilism perfectly suits the psyche of the oppressed minority, thus making it unattractive to would-be aggressors.

Of course, Buddhism is also the go-to religion for guilt-ridden capitalists in the West, so it can be indirectly blamed for that, I guess. :D

Buddhism like all religions cater for in built human guilt complexes (capitalist or otherwise). Unlike many religions, Buddhism actually provides some effective solutions for that guilt (eg meditiation and mindfulness) - and a decent explanatory approach to guilt and suffereing (ie it's caused by desire - same as schopenhaur but less depressing).

I'm biased towards buddhism as a whole cos it has some aspects in common with good science eg humility in the face of absolutes (i tend to stick with gotama's view on metaphysical questions like life after death: whenever asked, he always refused to answer saying these things were 'unknowables'). There are also some aspects of 'falsifiablility' across the whole tradition (many positive precepts and ideas have been added modified and interpreted since gotama, albeit using yoga as an info source (though this a good source for some philosophy/psychology/spirituality questions). In some ways Buddhism is closer to philosophy and psychoanalysis than standard religions i'd say.

I think Buddhism relatively reduced tendency for imperialism is something more than just lack of opportunity, but because of the clarity of the ethics/morals that are fundamental to it (though it's a chicken and egg thing maybe). Sure the faith can still be used nefariously by states (or morph into one like in medieval thailand), but it's a harder job to twist it. Simpler less sophisticated religions (like western abrahamic ones) are more amenable to twisting either because lack of depth of the core message, or becasue misunbderstanding of the originals due to time distance and translation.

I personally see a similar positive heart in all religions, just some need more interpreting than others.

 

[Sammy G]

I think meditation is highly questionable as an 'effective solution' for anything other than relaxation (for which it's admittedly excellent, although demonstrably no more effective than simply sitting still).

Though I practice it myself to some extent, I despise the word 'mindfulness' with a passion, I'm sorry. :D

In any case, Buddhism has a monopoly on neither practice, and they're both readily accessible to people who don't want to deal with the supernatural baggage of Buddhism. Of which there is a fair old load, despite any parallels with science (which again are massively overstated by western Buddhists). Do you truly believe in reincarnation, for example? And if your suffering and indeed your very self is illusory, then what does your neighbour's suffering matter? Isn't it all just a game after all?

Buddhism is a very paternalistic religion, dominated by male monasticism, which is the very apex of the Buddhist spiritual 'kingdom', if you like. Surely that's a cause for concern?

That's to say nothing of the concept of the infallibility of the 'enlightened', which is just downright dangerous for obvious reasons. Ask anybody who was unfortunate enough to rub shaved heads with Chogyam Trungpa.

 

[Vurtual]

I think meditation is highly questionable as an 'effective solution' for anything other than relaxation (for which it's admittedly excellent, although demonstrably no more effective than simply sitting still).

Though I practice it myself to some extent, I despise the word 'mindfulness' with a passion, I'm sorry. :D ...

Well it's a damn sight more effective than what most other religions have to offer (which is what i was talking about - eg 'just eat this wafer' or 'wear this funny hat'). And i think it has real value, even if this is only from relaxation (and why do you think just sitting still isn't meditation?). Say what you like about mindfulness, it can be bloody effective as a practice (regardless of it's religious origin), though i'm also not too fond of the word, but more from association with californian new agey types (and now Google and the US military) - it's not the practice's fault though. (by the way, disclaimer: i never meditate or anything like that - partially laziness/paritally too difficult to shut my ego up without drugs - but i've seen how effective it can be for some people).

Don't get me wrong, i'd never join a religion, or recommend anyone else to: i don't want to do rituals or chant words in some funny language because an authority says so, however humble it seems (though mantras can be useful tools for ego-dissolution, like in chaos magick). And i've met a few deluded gurus in my time (and a couple of sound ones). But comparing religions, it still shines through for me (along with hindu cosmology (if not social ethics) and taoism). Just as systems of ideas they've got so much more depth and wisdom than the abrahamic ones usually exhibit (and this depth comes largely from yogic practices). I enjoy reading all religions and philosophies - i'll pick and choose what i think makes sense and discard or ignore what doesn't.

EDIT:
"And if your suffering and indeed your very self is illusory, then what does your neighbour's suffering matter? Isn't it all just a game after all?"

I think this misunderstands buddha's message which is compassion first. By meditiating on compassion he became 'enlightened' (whatever that means) - this is the heart of it, so will always matter. I don't believe in reincarnation (i'm agnostic but it seems unlikely), but neither did the buddha as far as we know (that's one of the 'unknowables').

There are various parallels with science and western philosophy in buddhism and maybe more in hindu cosmology - both of these have lots of variations of thought, so there's probably more unscientific stuff as a whole - but the parallels there are are strong i think (maybe accidental and translation based i grant, but maybe not in all cases)

 

[Sammy G]

Eating the wafer is transubstantiation, and a very beautiful, powerful magickal ritual.

Admittedly it's been shorn of its meaning and its power, but adapt it for your own ends (even using drugs as your 'host') and you'll find there's more to that seemingly-ridiculous practice than you might expect.

Why do I think just sitting down isn't meditation? I do! I just know that a lot of people would vehemently disagree with me; mostly the new agey types for whom we appear to have a mutual distaste. My favourite meditation method comes from Brion Gysin (via Uncle Al Crowley) - a full length mirror, plenty of cannabis and sitting absolutely motionless until the image in the mirror fades from view.

Picking and choosing is always a good idea. Just be sure you don't pick and choose to suit your own existing worldview or assuage your own guilt, which is the trap those pesky new agers fall into every time. As you already know.

 

[Vurtual]

I agree about the wafer rituals - and we have the similar pragmatic view of meditation and magick (i like the chaos magick attitude about belief (eg invoking spiderman instead of azazoth or something ) - i see this as very much in line with more advanced buddhist and zen ideas eg tibetan buddhists' pragmatic ackowledgement of the unreality of utilised 'deities', but nonetheless still using them mystically (as aspects of the mind - more psychoanalysis crossover).

I just prefer religions that have mystical aspects (ie DIY) - i see it as having an honesty closer to experimental science (my other favourite 'religion'). So i'll pick and choose religious ideas to fit what i've already 'empirically' mystically experienced

 

[Sammy G]

Kind of the 93 / 23 approach? That's the way I roll anyhow.

And invoking Spiderman! I've done similar stuff, and continue to follow my own somewhat ill-disciplined and fitful path. I've also fallen into the trap of losing my already-tenuous connections with consensus reality this way, hence the above warning. Then again, you're approaching it from a less dubiously-'poetic', more scientific and less narcissistic angle than the one from which I began, so hopefully that won't be an issue.

As long as you accept that I'm the Greatest Living Practitioner of Magick, of course.