Belief vs. Reality?

[kengs333]

Of course millions of Christians do pray for help with their finances, but you did not see fit to single them out for ridicule rather than native spirituality;

What am I supposed to do, list every issue that I have with how other people misinterpret the Bible in a lengthy preamble before I make a comment about Indian "spirituality"? I was posting in response to a specific topic. When you brought up the issue of personal finances and football, I posted a relevant answer. I suppose I should have covered myself by also stating that I also have issues with practice by some primitive tribes of shrinking heads or the fact that some people don't like mustard on their hotdogs, lest someone comes along and thinks that I "did not see fit to single them out for ridicule" either...

and even in your case, you purport to have faith in a long-dead man named Jesus.

You should, too.

My point is not that you're somehow ill-suited for modern life due to your supernatural beliefs, but that parity of reason demolishes any significant distinction between you and the woman whose beliefs you were ridiculing, on that front.

Yes, there is a clear distinction between me and her, Christians and pagans (or however you would like to classify her "spirituality")... Anyone who would suggest that there isn't is either ignorant of Christianity, or is willfully being malicious. In both respects that only reflects poorly on you and really doesn't bother me, if that's what you're trying to accomplish.

[jefferiah]

Again, I would argue that you don't really understand Christianity if you decide to make such assertions about Jeffrey Dalmer being Christian.

Well actually this may be true, Kengs, that Dahmer was a Christian, but it still does nothing to help this person's argument. Dahmer converted to Christianity in prison a few weeks before he was killed. So Charter Rights example is a dud.

Edited January 2, 2008 by jefferiah

[Kitchener]

What am I supposed to do, list every issue that I have with how other people misinterpret the Bible in a lengthy preamble before I make a comment about Indian "spirituality"?

What do you think prejudice and bias are, if not the unthinking criticism of one thing while similar things are given a free pass? You didn't make some arbitrary "comment" about the woman's spiritual beliefs; you ridiculed them because of their supernatural content. (And, of course, made a crass and foolish generalization about an entire community being shit-eaters. Let's not forget that charming and entirely non-religious aspect of your post.) And I pointed out (and you've happily confirmed) that if she'd believed that your dead guy was watching her garden instead of her dead guys, you'd be just hunky-dory with that. It wasn't meant to make you feel bad. It was meant to point out the provincial thinking and unprincipled standards produced by your hostility to first nations people.

, there is a clear distinction between me and her, Christians and pagans (or however you would like to classify her "spirituality")... Anyone who would suggest that there isn't is either ignorant of Christianity, or is willfully being malicious.

There are differences between any two forms of supernatural conviction. They just aren't differences that matter to whether their various devotees have supernatural convictions.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Kitchener

[charter.rights]

Funny you should make such an assertion... I was watching "Fish Out of Water" the other day on APTN and the host stopped by Six Nations where visited a Six Nations elder who was tending to her "three sisters garden". This woman made some really strange remarks about having "helpers" in the form of six or seven "sisters" in the form of spirits and mythical "little people" who tend to the garden. She said this with quite a straight face, I might add. She also dresses her squash with raw manure, and even dabbed some with her finger and tasted it (she also coaxed the host into doing it).

So this is basically the state of reality on Six Nations: elders believe that mythical spirits grow their gardens and they go around literally eating s--t--no wonder their children and grandchildren can't deal properly with modern society.

I wanted to check this out because it didn't resemble anything I had heard before, so I asked a Mohawk Elder / friend today.

What SHE said was that Mohawk teachings are highly metaphoric and that any one who is talking about helpers, is really referring to the various components that go into gardening. Acknowledgment and gratitude is offered in their Thanksgiving Address referring to the "little bits" (I think these were insects) , the Thunderers (lightening fixes air borne nitrogen into the soil), the Waters, the plants the fruits and vegetables the trees and so on as spirits that help us all live. The use of metaphor to remember a science lesson is an interesting way of memory retention and given that the Iroquois seem to have a rich oral history, it would stand to reason that they would use story-telling complete with characters invented to represent the components to remember all that is need to grow certain plants.

I was also intrigued with the use of raw manure and raw fish as a base for some plants. This Elder told me that some strains of squash have been adapted over the years to resist the normal burning of raw compost, or fresh manures and that the process of decomposition actually warms the soil mounds, thereby allowing early crop planting while feeding the plants (after they fully compost) at a critical time. She also told me the fish is put under corn mounds (which are typically planted in circles) for a similar reason. As traditional farmers going back thousands of years it appears that the Iroquois still have one up over us- who can't resist pouring chemicals into our soil and water and failing to connect excessive pesticide use with failing crops.....

Organic and natural is ok.

As far as tasting sh*t...you've been trying to get us to eat your sh*t for quite a while with no success. Perhaps you have too much a flavor for. Perhaps you should ask your wife to eat it since you have such an insincere regard for women, you could prove once and for all you are right!

[charter.rights]

Speaking of "backward country and simplistic"...

Cannibalism among Indians is not "just 'stories'" rather is documented archeologically using the same archeological methods that have revealed other aspects of Indian culture that Indian activists use to reconstruct a culture that they can identify with.

Again, I would argue that you don't really understand Christianity if you decide to make such assertions about Jeffrey Dalmer being Christian. First of all, as your link suggests, Dalmer was a homosexual; homosexuality is a sin by Christian standards, and this really disqualifies him as being a Christian. The fact that he would then become a cannibal because he supposedly was resentful of the fact that he was a sinner is not an excuse; there is never any justification for becoming like that, and resorting to such evil is the result of being evil--not being Christian.

Needless to say, the fact that you can make such assertions about Christianity just reveals what darkness you yourself harbour.

I understand the Christ very well....and I also understand where your dependence on dogma comes from....Since you can't experience Christ, you must invent a version of it to satisfy your false sense of superiority.

And the point of indigenous cannibalism are nothing but stories - even from the anthropologists who have guessed at the meaning of Mayan hieroglyphics. As far as Iroquois there was only one cannibal story, and again it was mostly metaphoric.

Edited January 2, 2008 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

Well actually this may be true, Kengs, that Dahmer was a Christian, but it still does nothing to help this person's argument. Dahmer converted to Christianity in prison a few weeks before he was killed. So Charter Rights example is a dud.

Actually he was born and brought up a Christian. And the conflict that caused him to kill was between his gay preferences and his strict upbringing.

Jeffrey Dahmer is the son of a Born Again Fundamentalist (Church of Christ) father.

From the article. Christianity cause him to kill and cannibalize his victims.

Edited January 2, 2008 by charter.rights

[jefferiah]

Actually he was born and brought up a Christian. And the conflict that caused him to kill was between his gay preferences and his strict upbringing.

Jeffrey Dahmer is the son of a Born Again Fundamentalist (Church of Christ) father.

From the article. Christianity cause him to kill and cannibalize his victims.

He obviously did not see himself as a Christian prior to his being incarcerated, or else he would not have converted.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer he explained why he did the horrible things he did:

The people watching me all have desires. Some of them may be a desire to exercise and work out; others to go to a movie; others they like ice-cream or fast food, but people have desires. People are going to satisfy their desires unless they've got sufficient reason not to. So if a person likes fast food, or likes to exercise or go to movies, they're going to do that unless there's an overriding reason that says they shouldn't do it for some other reason. When I was in high school I found myself with the desire to torture animals. I did not believe in God so I did not believe there was any judgment after death. I did not believe we were here for a purpose. It seemed to me that we evolved from slime, and eventually when we die our particles are gong to return to slime. I have four-score and ten-75 years or so on this earth if I'm lucky. Given that I wasn't here for a purpose, and that I'm going to die and that's the end of me, and there's no reason I was here, I could not find any sufficient reason to deny the satisfaction of my desires, and so I tortured animals. It became a point where that no longer satisfied me, and I decided that what I needed to do was torture human beings. And frankly I couldn't think of a reason why I shouldn't given my view of reality.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/eulogymeaning.htm

So Dahmer himself attributes his criminal activity to his atheism. He clearly states that he did not believe in God and that is usually a requirement of the religion I think. His father sent him some Christian science material or something in prison. And then he converted.

Your example is a dud.

Edited January 3, 2008 by jefferiah

[Wilber]

Actually he was born and brought up a Christian. And the conflict that caused him to kill was between his gay preferences and his strict upbringing.

Jeffrey Dahmer is the son of a Born Again Fundamentalist (Church of Christ) father.

From the article. Christianity cause him to kill and cannibalize his victims.

He was a nut case, there are lots of gay Christians.

[Melanie_]

Good point, Jefferiah. Religion for most of its history has served the purpose of guiding those who are incapable of figuring out for themselves what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. Sometimes people who require external controls look to religion to determine their actions; the promise of eternal life and threat of eternal damnation is a rudimentary but effective check on their selfish and antisocial predispositions. Manipulative, but effective.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Melanie_

[cybercoma]

Dahlmer had a "desire" to torture human beings. Whether he was Christian or Atheist didn't matter at that point. Most people don't find satisfaction in torturing animals or other human beings, those that do those types of evil things would do so with or without religion.

[charter.rights]

Dahlmer had a "desire" to torture human beings. Whether he was Christian or Atheist didn't matter at that point. Most people don't find satisfaction in torturing animals or other human beings, those that do those types of evil things would do so with or without religion.

Ah, but it raised the question:

How can such an evil person be raised in a Christian household UNLESS evil, violence and abhorrent behavior are components of Christianity? Remember that Christianity contains and forgives sinners and its beginning started in a God-approved violent act.

[capricorn]

Sometimes people who require external controls look to religion to determine their actions;

Melanie, this may be true for some adults and if it works to make them better persons that's good. But what about children who are brought up in a religious environment? For example, I was sent to Catholic schools with nuns as teachers. As a child, I had no way of knowing whether I was a good or a bad person. Initially, my parents made it clear when I misbehaved and that's where I was first taught what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. The nuns acted in a similar manner in my interaction with classmates in school. Whenever I misbehaved some type of admonishment or punishment followed.

the promise of eternal life and threat of eternal damnation is a rudimentary but effective check on their selfish and antisocial predispositions. Manipulative, but effective.

I was introduced to the concept of heaven and hell as a child well before I knew whether my conduct would lead me to one or the other. I must admit it made an impression on me at the time but today I am indifferent to the concept. I became a non-practicing Christian around the age of 18 but to this day I pray in private.

I consider myself to be a good person. Had I not been exposed early on to Christian teachings, I think I would still have turned out to be a good person. But those early Christian teachings have somehow given me a lift at various stages of my life. I have a feeling of belonging to something large. Perhaps it is that something that some adults look for when they turn to religion in times of crises.

[capricorn]

How can such an evil person be raised in a Christian household UNLESS evil, violence and abhorrent behavior are components of Christianity? Remember that Christianity contains and forgives sinners and its beginning started in a God-approved violent act.

Evil persons are raised in households of all creeds, and sometimes the parents are oblivious to the actions of the evil child. You yourself said you were raised Christian. How can you say that Christianity forgives sinners. You should know that God forgives sinners, not Christianity itself.

The God approved act you allude to, would that be Jesus' crucifixion?

[charter.rights]

Evil persons are raised in households of all creeds, and sometimes the parents are oblivious to the actions of the evil child. You yourself said you were raised Christian. How can you say that Christianity forgives sinners. You should know that God forgives sinners, not Christianity itself.

The God approved act you allude to, would that be Jesus' crucifixion?

Forgiveness is the mainstay theory of the New Testament. Christians are taught that forgiveness for sins is a must - that WE are to forgive. Yet for years the Church taught that penance freed us from those sins, so we could go back and sin again, and again.

The first violent act of Christianity was the Crucifixion, yes. And many more violent acts follow Christianity right through history into the 21st century.

I wasn't raised Christian, and am not a Christian. I did however at various times attend different churches of various denominations in order to gain a perspective of what each was offering. In the end I recognized the hypocrisy and often perversion of the Bible. I can see how people can need the church - even some stuck there for their whole lives. However, for me the Church was but a stepping stone to spiritual freedom, and communion with the Christ.

I've met many people like Kengs333 (and maybe even met him personally) and would note that they while they spew the Bible verse by verse they really have no clue what the real meaning is. These are spiritually corrupt people, and perhaps many of them were psychopaths.

Edited January 3, 2008 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

The first violent act of Christianity was the Crucifixion, yes.

If you omit the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, the near stoning of the adultress, the cutting off the ear of one of the police by Peter(?), the hanging of Judas and the scorging of Jesus...then you are correct.

[kengs333]

Forgiveness is the mainstay theory of the New Testament. Christians are taught that forgiveness for sins is a must - that WE are to forgive. Yet for years the Church taught that penance freed us from those sins, so we could go back and sin again, and again.

A complete misrepresentation. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Asking for forgiveness from sin is not a ploy to legitimize sinning.

The first violent act of Christianity was the Crucifixion, yes. And many more violent acts follow Christianity right through history into the 21st century.

Are you actually claiming that Christ being crucified is an act of violence on the part of Christianity?

I've met many people like Kengs333 (and maybe even met him personally) and would note that they while they spew the Bible verse by verse they really have no clue what the real meaning is. These are spiritually corrupt people, and perhaps many of them were psychopaths.

I don't think we've met and I'm very skeptical about your claim about the people you've met. I'm under the impression that this is yet another veiled slur specifically against me, and so I'm asking you to refrain from this kind of conduct in the future--whether or not it's against me.

[charter.rights]

A complete misrepresentation. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Asking for forgiveness from sin is not a ploy to legitimize sinning.

Are you actually claiming that Christ being crucified is an act of violence on the part of Christianity?

I don't think we've met and I'm very skeptical about your claim about the people you've met. I'm under the impression that this is yet another veiled slur specifically against me, and so I'm asking you to refrain from this kind of conduct in the future--whether or not it's against me.

For years the Catholic Church taught that penance was all that was needed when one sinned. It got to the point where there was such a cycle of sin and penance that the Church finally gave up.

Yes, the Crucifixion was the violence that Christianity was born from. As well, the Crucifixion is celebrated each year and ritualized. Christian is a violent and spiritually corrupt system of religious dogma, designed to oppress and condemn those that don't agree with the backward and simplistic views of the Church and its followers.

Your skepticism is not important.

[M.Dancer]

For years the Catholic Church taught that penance was all that was needed when one sinned.

The catholic church has never taught that penance was all that was needed. Your ignorance in the subject is not important.

[Melanie_]

Melanie, this may be true for some adults and if it works to make them better persons that's good. But what about children who are brought up in a religious environment? For example, I was sent to Catholic schools with nuns as teachers. As a child, I had no way of knowing whether I was a good or a bad person. Initially, my parents made it clear when I misbehaved and that's where I was first taught what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. The nuns acted in a similar manner in my interaction with classmates in school. Whenever I misbehaved some type of admonishment or punishment followed.

I was introduced to the concept of heaven and hell as a child well before I knew whether my conduct would lead me to one or the other. I must admit it made an impression on me at the time but today I am indifferent to the concept. I became a non-practicing Christian around the age of 18 but to this day I pray in private.

I consider myself to be a good person. Had I not been exposed early on to Christian teachings, I think I would still have turned out to be a good person. But those early Christian teachings have somehow given me a lift at various stages of my life. I have a feeling of belonging to something large. Perhaps it is that something that some adults look for when they turn to religion in times of crises.

Children are socialized to learn right from wrong, but the motivation for good or bad behaviour changes as they mature. Young children are motivated solely by rewards and punishment, and organized religion depends on adults never progressing past this early stage of moral development. From what you are saying about your own spiritual journey, it sounds like you can find comfort in religion without using it as a crutch or depending upon it to think for you.

[kengs333]

Children are socialized to learn right from wrong, but the motivation for good or bad behaviour changes as they mature. Young children are motivated solely by rewards and punishment, and organized religion depends on adults never progressing past this early stage of moral development. From what you are saying about your own spiritual journey, it sounds like you can find comfort in religion without using it as a crutch or depending upon it to think for you.

The "bold" line is a grievous misrepresentation of Christianity. Nor is Christianity a "crutch".

[Kitchener]

The catholic church has never taught that penance was all that was needed.

Of course it does; the term "penance" strictly denotes the sacrament of confession and absolution in its entirety.

In the more popular sense of non-ritual acts that one performs as a sort of punishment or learning opportunity, in order to be forgiven, well, the Church has never generally set the bar that high for forgiveness.

Confession and the Act of Contrition followed by the priest's absolution are entirely sufficient for the forgiveness of sins in the Catholic Church, even if the confession is motivated merely by the fear of Hell.

[M.Dancer]

Of course it does; the term "penance" strictly denotes the sacrament of confession and absolution in its entirety.

In the more popular sense of non-ritual acts that one performs as a sort of punishment or learning opportunity, in order to be forgiven, well, the Church has never generally set the bar that high for forgiveness.

Confession and the Act of Contrition followed by the priest's absolution are entirely sufficient for the forgiveness of sins in the Catholic Church, even if the confession is motivated merely by the fear of Hell.

Not quite and not in the least.

It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.

While this sacrament as a dispensation of Divine mercy facilitates the pardoning of sin, it by no means renders sin less hateful or its consequences less dreadful to the Christian mind; much less does it imply permission to commit sin in the future. In paying ordinary debts, as e.g., by monthly settlements, the intention of contracting new debts with the same creditor is perfectly legitimate; a similar intention on the part of him who confesses his sins would not only be wrong in itself but would nullify the sacrament and prevent the forgiveness of sins then and there confessed.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

In the catholic tradition, confession and penance followed by repentance are what is needed for forgiveness. One cannot simply commit any given sin on a saturday, confess on sunday and do it again the next week and expect divine forgiveness as a given. If they do they have a very shallow idea of catholicism.

[Kitchener]

Not quite and not in the least.

Nothing you wrote or quoted was inconsistent with anything I wrote.

Contrary to the only words of yours to which I responded, the sacrament of penance is sufficient for forgiveness, because it refers to the entire process -- including genuine absolution. The conditions necessary for genuine absolution are a distinct question. That penance, in the sacramental sense, does indeed include the forgiveness of sins is utterly straightforward.

In the catholic tradition, confession and penance followed by repentance are what is needed for forgiveness. One cannot simply commit any given sin on a saturday, confess on sunday and do it again the next week and expect divine forgiveness as a given. If they do they have a very shallow idea of catholicism.

I guess you'll have to show me where I denied any of this. I did point out that fear of punishment counts as sufficient grounds for the forgiveness of sin, provided that one undergoes the sacrament of penance; but in my defense, that is perfectly correct according to Catholic doctrine, and has been perfectly correct since 1563 at the latest.

[M.Dancer]

Nothing you wrote or quoted was inconsistent with anything I wrote.

Contrary to the only words of yours to which I responded, the sacrament of penance is sufficient for forgiveness, because it refers to the entire process -- including genuine absolution. The conditions necessary for genuine absolution are a distinct question. That penance, in the sacramental sense, does indeed include the forgiveness of sins is utterly straightforward.

I guess you'll have to show me where I denied any of this. I did point out that fear of punishment counts as sufficient grounds for the forgiveness of sin, provided that one undergoes the sacrament of penance; but in my defense, that is perfectly correct according to Catholic doctrine, and has been perfectly correct since 1563 at the latest.

No you're right. I just read what you wrote too quickly. I was repondiong to the notion that penance alone (without repentance) would suffice.

....but to add to that, while protestants feel that faith alone will earn you heaven, catholics are more inclinedto faith plus acts....

[Kitchener]

No you're right. I just read what you wrote too quickly. I was repondiong to the notion that penance alone (without repentance) would suffice.

Right. But that's not so much false as confused, since penance, in the Catholic sense, includes repentance -- or at least attrition.

....but to add to that, while protestants feel that faith alone will earn you heaven, catholics are more inclinedto faith plus acts....

A bit too sweeping for my tastes. I certainly know plenty of protestants who hold the importance of works, and plenty of Catholics who seem content to go through the motions.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Kitchener