'Religion' what is it?

[Hearthcoal]

'Religion' what is it?

Anyone interested in seeing our previous posts can click on the link above and hop over to the Old Discussion thread.

We had quite a vigorous discussion going. Sky started it all by asking

.. what is 'religion'? Does it refer only to organised 'religion'? It seems like a wider concept doesn't it? What is it that people seek 'religion' for? Is it to gain an appreciation of their purpose? Have your say. Let's discover what it all means? Maybe we can even find those answers that those who pursue 'religion' seek. Who knows? At the very least it will be an interesting exercise.

[Hearthcoal]

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name if thou canst tell?

Proverbs 30:4

When I read this portion, it reminded me of SRD's creator and all of the questions that we have posed about him and about the concept of a creator in general.

[danlo]

For a interesting bent of creationism go 2: my post Re: Foul vs Creator on pg.2 of Why Bother w/the Land Only on the old forum. Hey Hearth! Is there any way u can link us 2 that topic? I haven't studied ur message yet on how 2 construct links--but will go look @ it now...d

[Bannor]

Well, I read a whole lot about religion in the "old posts" and it was certainly interesting. There are a lot of good minds here at this forum. I am a Christian, but I respect the other viewpoints as well because I am also an American. God has done a lot for me, and I can see the evidence in my life. It is certainly possible to live a moral life without Christianity, and sometimes (I think) harder to live one with Christianity because we get attacked more often. Thanks for the chance to express my views.

[Hearthcoal]

Why bother with the Land only?

This what you are looking for Danlo?

"Why bother..." is infamous, not only for your thoughts on Creation, but also for Skywier's use of the words Colossus and erection in the same sentences. My, my!

[Skyweir]

oh good gravy .. not that topic page again!! .. that was a most innocent slip of the keyboard!! ..

I am so excited that you brought this topic page over here .. and I think a link to the original page would be great .. this thread was one that I really found stimulating .. (not the colossus one .. religion one!!! ofcourse)

I will return when I have refocussed my comments and revisit the original thread .. confronting all those awful ads again!!

Good job hearthcoal ..

[Guest]

Wow! that was quite a discussion you guys had going! I'm starting to appreciate my luck for landing here in Kevin's Watch. It's not that often that I find people who can have a civilized discussion on such heated topics with out flames.
I haven't given much thought to religion, I come from a non-religious background. Actually, now that I am writing these words, I think it's not completely true. I think I was brought up under the wings of the 'religion of science' - the Church of Reason as Robert Persig called it. In a way science is a religion, and it's god is logic, rationality. But this religion lacks in the realm of morality and spirituality. It's followers (including myself) seem to be missing something in life. I feel that I'm constantly searching for that something.
pitchwife

[Skyweir]

pitch .. have you visited the original thread that HC has linked .. if not give it a gander and please please lets generate some more discussion on this topic ..

Its a cool topic .. and again I will leave this thread without any contribution myself .. still havent revisited the original thread myself in a while and to make a genuine contribution .. I find I really need to be on that wave length ..

I mean that we are exploring the very essence of humanity when discussing these things .. are we not?

an oft quoted expression I really like and identify with ..

[Men and women] are not mortal beings having a spiritual experience .. they are spiritual beings having a mortal experience

[Fist and Faith]

OK, I guess I missed all of this religion stuff. It looks like it's been 9 months since it all ended.

However, I just wanted to tell comment on aliantha's:

And lately I have begun to acknowledge that all religious traditions are paths to the same place. There is no *one* that gets you there.

I've always liked this attitude. The best examples of this that I've seen are Eknath Easwaran's introductions to his translations of the <I>Upanishads</I> and <I>Bhagavad Gita</I>, and <U>Conversations With God</U> by Neale Donald Walsch. Both do a fantastic job, imo, of combining wisdom and beliefs from many cultures and time periods, and making sense of it all.

And here's a few more quotes saying just what aliantha said.

<I>Wakan-Tanka</I> taught each tribe to believe in ways that work best for them. It depended on where they lived, and the way they thought about spiritual things. ...... Once, I went to a Native American conference in Minneapolis. While I was there I visited with a medicine man from a Washington tribe. He lived two thousand miles from my country. But his God had taught his ancestors that He is the source of all power. This man was also taught that everything has a spirit. Even the rocks and plants have a spirit. And he said that many white people don't know how to see this because they have no connection with the spirit forces of Grandmother Earth. All of these are things I have been taught also. -- Fools Crow

The heritage, the philosophies, the message that came from God through Nature to the Indian people, these are the same as what Jesus Christ means to Christians. God came through Jesus Christ and his disciples to the people just as He came through His agents in Nature to the Indian people. The latter is called paganism... Yet there is no difference. It is the same God. - Allan Wolf Leg

What I am committed to is taking the Bible seriously. Not as a basic text on physical science, biology or even history, but as the faithful attempt by many authors to tell the story of God's relationship to people. It tells me a great deal about who God is, and in the process I learn about who I am as well. -- Matthew (A guy I used to email with a lot)

From the earliest times, Hinduism has proclaimed one God while accommodating worship of him (or her, for to millions God is the Divine Mother) in many different names. "Truth is one," says a famous verse of the Rig Veda; "men call it by various names." A monastic devotee might find that Shiva embodies the austere detachment he seeks; a devotee who wants to live "in the world," partaking of its innocent pleasures but devoted to service of his fellow creatures, might find in Krishna the perfect incarnation of his ideals. In every case, this clothing of the Infinite in human form serves to focus a devotee's love and to provide an inspiring ideal. But whatever form is worshipped, it is only an aspect of the same one God. -- Easwaran/Bhagavad Gita

The Upanishads are not systematic philosophy; they are more like ecstatic slide shows of mystical experience - vivid, disjointed, stamped with the power of direct personal encounter with the divine. If they seem to embrace contradictions, that is because they do not try to smooth over the seams of these experiences. They simply set down what the rishis saw, viewing the ultimate reality from different levels of spiritual awareness, like snapshots of the same object from different angles: now seeing God as utterly transcendent, for example, now seeing God as immanent as well. These differences are not important, and the Upanishads agree on their central ideas: ... -- Easwaran/Upanishads

For twelve years, under the guidance of various gurus, he submitted himself to spiritual practices of assorted religious systems, including Christianity and Islam. Each direction led him to illumination, so that he could declare on the basis of personal experience that the followers of all religions alike could realize the ultimate reality if their surrender to God was sufficiently intense. -- Ramakrishna's entry in <U>The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion</U>

I like to collect quotes on various topics. heh

[Hearthcoal]

by Nerdanel

Speculative theology weirdness:

The Würd can be interpreted as Word. One is reminded of the Word of God from the Bible with which He created the world. In Gnostic traditions Christ is called Logos (Word).

So, is the World Worm the Creator's son? The next time we'll see it, it will trigger the end of the world, much like Christ is supposed to, although by different means.

Also remember the word wyrm which means dragon. There is a certain prominent dragon in John's Revelation, which I think most people have heard of. Wyrm is actually closer to Würd than Worm is. English doesn't have that particular ü sound, but in several languages y is used to denote the same sound as German ü. Is this indication for Lord Foul somehow possessing the World Worm (the Christ-equivalent!) at the end of the Third Chronicles? That way he could potentially survive awakening it.

Potentially, if Creator and Lord Foul are sides of a same being, the World Worm could be also counted as one. After all, the Christ and the father God are supposed to be the same according to the very important principle of Holy Trinity. That way, if Thomas Covenant and Lord Foul are also parts of the same person and that was how Covenant defeated Foul in the end of White Gold Wielder, Foul could conceivably use the tactic to the World Worm as well as to some degree back to Covenant. There may also be subtler methods for Foul to discover that utilize the mental connection he may have on some level with the other two and potentially try to infiltrate their personalities.

End speculative theology weirdness.

Interesting theology there Nerdanel, couple of impressions:

When the wyrm wakes to signal the end of the world, it will be a complete detruction and annihilation. No mention in the myths of afterlives, heaven, golden cities, etc. So in that respect the Wyrm is more like the Sta-Puft marshmallow man then Christ. But Creator/Wyrm/Foul does make for an interesting trinity. (Where's Neo?)

Also, the greek word that John uses to start his gospel is often translated as "word", "book", or even "Bible" in some very loose translations, but the greek logos really just means "truth" (from whence we get logic). There is no connotation of a written truth, just truth. So there is no direct connection with word/wyrd/worm (how'd you get that umlaut?).

There is a dragon in the Revelation of John (not the same John by the way, there is absolutely no eveidence to support common authorship except tradition, and plenty of textual, stylistic, and grammar evidence to suggest two independent authors). As well as seven headed sea-beasts (Rome), whores (Babylon), and numerically coded beasts (Nero). Did we ever learn any Land end-times myths other than just "the Wyrm wakes up and trashes the place"?

The creation story in Genesis is indeed told twice. Most scholars attribute this to the comingling of two different ancient stories/texts. In the one man and woman are made at the same time, the other has the familiar Adam's rib stuff. The order of exactly what is made when is slighty different as well. This is paralleled in the Noah story, there are two accounts of how many animals to take. One simply says two of everything, the other says "seven of the clean beasts" - so there would be some to sacrifice afterwards. Again, comingling and later editing of two separate earlier texts.

Of course the obvious Christ figure is TC, sacrificing himself in the end (but returning as a spiritual being) to save everyone else. If you want another trinity, how about Creator/TC/Linden? Linden as the Holy Sprit, breathing life into the Land, healing, comforting..

WTF?! Why are there 2 creation stories?

I am posting these quotes first. My remarks will follow in the next post.

- Hearthcoal

[Hearthcoal]

Hypothetically speaking: why couldn't the author of the Gospel of John also be the author of the Epistles of John and the Apocalypse of John? Simply, because something is traditionally believed doesn't necessarily make it inaccurate (after all, Aristotle is traditionally believed to be the pupil of Plato).

One of my favorite principles is called Occam's Razor (aka the Principle of Parsimony). Named after William of Occam, the medieval philosopher (born in England, c. 1285 or) who first posited that, "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Put another way, "plurality should not be assumed without necessity." A modern variation is the one mentioned in the movie Contact, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one.

I suppose we could argue about whether the simpler explanation is that one man produced the various writings ascribed to John or that two or more men wrote them.

I'm going with the first explanation (one man wrote all five books). The other option raises more questions than it answers, namely, "Why?" "Why write a book and then claim that someone else did?" At that point, things really get complicated (conspiracies, rivalries, machinations of all sorts).

Regarding the records of the Creation and of the Flood in the Bible: there is no reason to believe that the author of Genesis did not simply relate the Creation twice (once in detail and once in summary) and, a few chapters later, the Flood twice (one in detail and once in summary).

Strumstring attributes the variations to "co-mingling and later editing separate earlier texts." To this I ask, "why not one text, one author?" What is the problem with that? And where is the hard proof that this is not the case?

- Hearthcoal

[Guest]

Mmm maybe it's just me but religion's the hammer and we're on her anvil

[Worm of Despite]

Erm, okay. Might as well put in my two bits.

No use for me to deeply discuss anything religious when I don't care for religion at all. Right now, the world is like John Lennon’s “Working Class Hero”, and I hope the world turns out to be like one of his other songs, Imagine. Some might say, “that’s a Utopia--which means it can’t exist.” Well, the folks who first said perfection was unattainable probably would've one day graduated to these slogans as well:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And then, one day:

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

[danlo]

U mean 2 say he's NOT, right now, @ this very moment

[Guest]

It is an interesting story. A fable. A myth.

[The Leper Fairy]

I'm not a very religious person, but I'm not completly against religon, what really bothers me though, are people who get fanatical about it. They believe that everything that happens to them or they do can be justified because they worship God and anyone with a different religion will go to Hell. I think that all the religions (well most of them) are, in essence, the same thing. Even those with multiple gods.

(awww, and what a cute emoticon! --> )

[Worm of Despite]

Well danlo, there aren't Big Brother posters watching just yet! And was "Guest" referring to 1984 as a story--myth? Sort of need some clarification there.

Thought I’d give an example of most Christians in the area where I live:

I was talking to a guy about the bible and such, and he was talking about Noah's ark and all that, and the Garden of Eden, and I started to tell him how the bible is sort of a melting pot of past legends and some history. I told him there have been past flood stories--long before the bible. I further said something--not sure exactly what--but I had heard from my English Lit teacher about the thing about Adam and Eve and Company as sort of a metaphor or whatnot. I was telling the guy, "You shouldn't pay attention to the actual events and take them to faith, because they're very much fable and myth--you should pay attention to the message/moral of the stories--not the exact details." And he got all in my face and went, "David, do you believe in the crucifixion?! Every single thing that happened in the bible is absolutely true." He wouldn't see it any other way; lots of Christians are Archie Bunker like that . . .

[Hearthcoal]

...no one has to travel far to see examples of Christians who are obnoxious.

Foul has subtly raised several good points:

1. There are many who believe the Bible should be understood as metaphor or symbol.
2. There are many who believe the Bible should be understood literally.
3. There are those who really could not care less.

The biggest problem is not that so many people disagree about how to understand the Bible, but that so many people are rude to anyone who does disagree with them.

People who understand the Bible as metaphor should respect those who take it literally. People who believe the Bible literally should respect those who don't. Each side should be modeling what they claim to believe.

It frustrates me a great deal that most of the general debate about religion becomes so emotionally charged. (KevinsWatch is probably the exception to the rule.)

There are many controversial topics (religion, abortion, homosexuality to name a few) that I have questions about. I wish there was someone "from the other side of the issue" that I could talk to, ask questions and get rational, well-thought out answers.

I am not interested in persuading anyone to see it my way. I want to see it their way. I want to understand why they think the way they do about these subjects.

It seems to me that the people who are the most vocal on controversial issues are usually the people who have thought about them the least (and consequently have the least to say).

- Hearthcoal

[Skyweir]

I love these kinds of topics and really enjoyed the one over on the ezboard when we were there!!

I agree the Watch is a good place to have an open discussion like this and be relatively confident that people arent going to get abrasive!

I have thought lots about 'religion' 'the meaning of religion' 'god and the universe' .. and usually have a lot to say .. does that make me obnoxious??

*shrugs* well it doesnt matter much .. I wont add anything now .. lets hear your questions Hearthcoal?? I have questions too ofcourse .. there are always questions .. answers are always a bit more difficult to aquire .. and a consensus of opinion is rarely ever achievable ..

I think appreciating that fact is a good starting place ..

ok I'm in .. lets explore!!!

[Worm of Despite]

*Stretches and makes a really fake yawn* Well, that was some fun exploring! Gee, I'm tired. *Runs*