Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

Tolerance goes both ways BTW.

 

That statement means that you misunderstand the paradox.

 

God in Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam, monotheism in general) is in a different category than created being - he is uncreated. Part of the poverty of our education system and one reason it can't be usefully described as liberal education anymore is that categorical thinking is lost on most, and they (unconsciously mostly) assume that methodological materialism is the only category of thought that is rational.

No, but it does mean that he did not agree with your absolutizing, that creationism taught in (what is in fact a very small minority of even Christian schools) is a threat to rational thought, tolerance, science education, and civilization itself. To the progressive mind, people who do not agree with its fundamentals are perceived as an existential threat. This indicates that progresivism is a kind of fundamentalism, an intolerance...

 

I can't speak for others but for me, in order to make sense of my world/reality, I need to understand how and why things work or are as they are. So regardless of what is or isn't taught in schools, for me to understand the concept of God, I need to understand how God came about, etc. My comments on this subject are apolitical and have nothing to do with mass education or anything of the sort. There was a time in my life when I believed in the existence of God and prayed and did my best to follow the tenets of being a "good" person (I sill do the latter). I wasn't a "proper" believer as I wasn't religiously schooled, didn't read the bible, never went to church. Ascribing my current thoughts/beliefs on the subject on liberal education is a non-starter in my case.

Anyway, I'm not arguing any point. Just explaining where I'm coming from.

 

Yes, we all crave meaning and the intelligibility of life and our place in it. May I make a suggestion. Read good literature and at the same time stay away from the Bible, religion, and psycho-spiritual "systems" and "explanations". By good I mean literature that helps you imagine a world, a cosmos, a universe that is not what you presently believe it is, or perhaps better, more than what you believe it to be. For historical/cultural reasons (writers are after all embedded in history), this would mostly be literature (there are exceptions of course) that is old, say written before the year 1900. Good literature allows you space to breath, a safe space where you can see (often for the very first time) your most basic assumptions, without having to defend yourself to others, burdened by moral or philosophical axioms that somehow are always compelling you to their defense.

 

Christianity says that God has no beginning and no end. In other words, God has always been and will always be. God created everything, including time and space, and they have no effect on him.

 

This is terrible advice. Even you are not religious or are even an atheist, studying religion, religious scholars, and religious philosophy is essential to enlightenment! After all, Man has been worshipping deities since at least 25,000 B.C.E.

 

Human beings been inherently spiritual experience imo. If they don't believe in a religion they find emotional and philosophical meaning in something else. Taking control of and responsibility for your own rituals (whatever they are) is the best way to make sure you both find meaning in your own life and don't hurt others.

 

Original sin? Good God!

Wait... let's just rethink the word good there.

 

Not now, today, in current western civ. are we "enlightened". We live in the ruins of a recently deceased (by historical standards) Christendom, where what it means to be human and educated is in a confused state, often (relevant for many here) the horizon appears to be very limited, the cosmos nothing more or less than a grand machine, an infinity of cause and effects. The narration (inner story) of one's reflection on our own particular place in this machine is constrained by an uncompromising nominalistic grammar. You can not be 'enlightened' by that which you can not take on its own terms, even if they are not ultimately your terms. You can not be influenced (good or bad) by "the other" if you are always reducing the other to The Machine - a mere artifact of what you believe yourself to be.

So for those of today for whom The Machine is all there is, it's useless to "study" religion, philosophy, or most any other aspect of human history/culture that does not presuppose The Machine, which as you point out is in fact most of the goods of humanity through history.

This is true for Christian's as well. A person first has to be human, before they can be a Christian. Machines (of any kind - even complicated bio-chemical ones) can not be a Christian, though many modern Christians attempt to this very thing, but most folks, especially non-Christians, see them for the Frankenstein's they actually are.

 

Christianity has a lot to answer for.

The idea that a baby, a new life, is born a sinner in need of redemption, is just awful.

And that OT god seems to have wanted a couple of pets, not intelligent beings, hence the forbidden fruit. Is that how the human race should have developed?

Yes, it is an amazing book, and as we are on the subject, I have a recommendation: Robert Crumb's version. Apparently, he started with the idea of taking the piss, but soon decided to draw it literally. I doubt such a thing has been done for centuries. Anyone with even a passing biblical interest (includes me. Or did: not so keen on going into that stuff again now) should take a look. Anyone with an interest in illustration should take a look.

And then they should seek out Furry Freak Brothers cartoons.

 

I don't.

But, I'm still interested in understanding others' views. Understanding others is a large part of understanding the world at large.

 

Sorry, but Christianity doesn't deserve any more or less approbation than many other (all?) religions in regards to abhorrent doctrine. In your own milieu, have you not noticed the reprehensible shit that Hindus and Muslims have been doing to one another since time immemorial? And both to the Sikhs (until they needed them)? How many people did Mao and Stalin kill in the name of their own civic religion? The US and its leaders in the name of theirs? Seems a blindered view.

Edit: Love R. Crumb and the Freak Bros tho.

 

A guy with a collar told me once when I sought some confidence during difficult times: "faith has no middle path, you either take a shortcut, or you take the long way around".

I think much of the "talking past each other's positions" that occurs is due to mistaking the shortcutters for the longway-rounders, and vice versa.

 

And then there's the opposing view that the cat or fish are inherently at rest with the absurdity of existence where humans, due to their enhanced intellectuality, generally cannot handle it, instead relying on elaborate belief systems that obscure the unsettling nature of self-awareness with symbolism and social rituals.