I have quite a good memory... so far. Names and titles have started falling out and I have to look up infrequently-used words. Not senile dementia yet.
These moments with the bible, probably a couple of weeks apart, were significant. It's far easier to ponder doubt when you're alone, reading, then to question resistant adults.
Speaking with indefinite style
-
marjoram_blues
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: Speaking with indefinite style
Yes, I can see that they hit home with you. Did it shock you?Skip wrote:I have quite a good memory... so far. Names and titles have started falling out and I have to look up infrequently-used words. Not senile dementia yet.
These moments with the bible, probably a couple of weeks apart, were significant. It's far easier to ponder doubt when you're alone, reading, then to question resistant adults.
My early relationship with the Bible was probably either it being read out loud at either school, church or grandad's. I remember playing games with it. Memorising and reciting the order of the books so as to be first to find the quote when chapter and verse shouted out.
If I read bits I considered not very nice, I would rationalise that it wasn't really Jesus.
JC, it's all coming back to me now...
Re: Speaking with indefinite style
Did it shock me? I don't think so. I'd never been all that worshipful: piety wasn't part of our normal life. I vaguely recall being shocked, or whatever passes for shock in a four-year-old, by the big yellow feet of the Christ effigy at a Good Friday mass. He was laid out on a stone slab about as high as my chin, so I was literally face-to-sole with the Saviour. It wasn't at all like the pictures with little lambs and gilded halos. Mostly, though, I remember being shushed when I remarked upon it.
I was shushed a lot in my formative years - it's hard to refrain from remarking on such a peculiar world.
I think, with the fig tree incident, I was disappointed, let-down, dismayed. That's the behaviour of an ordinary man, from one who goes around preaching at ordinary men how they ought to behave. But I could forgive a snit. I could never forgive deliberate cruelty to helpless animals. Indeed, i never have. That incident was the first stage of opening a vista on the Christian - and later, Jewish - attitude toward other species, servants, children, women, other peoples - and it's wrong.
I was shushed a lot in my formative years - it's hard to refrain from remarking on such a peculiar world.
I think, with the fig tree incident, I was disappointed, let-down, dismayed. That's the behaviour of an ordinary man, from one who goes around preaching at ordinary men how they ought to behave. But I could forgive a snit. I could never forgive deliberate cruelty to helpless animals. Indeed, i never have. That incident was the first stage of opening a vista on the Christian - and later, Jewish - attitude toward other species, servants, children, women, other peoples - and it's wrong.
-
marjoram_blues
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: Speaking with indefinite style
I think any difficulties I had with any negative or illogical parts of the Bible must have been outweighed by the positives; for I kept it as some kind of a comforting treasure. What positives? Well, I enjoyed the Concordance, starting with 'Abandon' and ending with 'Youth'. I found some consolation there in 'Time': ' a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance'.Skip wrote:Did it shock me? I don't think so. I'd never been all that worshipful: piety wasn't part of our normal life. I vaguely recall being shocked, or whatever passes for shock in a four-year-old, by the big yellow feet of the Christ effigy at a Good Friday mass. He was laid out on a stone slab about as high as my chin, so I was literally face-to-sole with the Saviour. It wasn't at all like the pictures with little lambs and gilded halos. Mostly, though, I remember being shushed when I remarked upon it.
I was shushed a lot in my formative years - it's hard to refrain from remarking on such a peculiar world.
I think, with the fig tree incident, I was disappointed, let-down, dismayed. That's the behaviour of an ordinary man, from one who goes around preaching at ordinary men how they ought to behave. But I could forgive a snit. I could never forgive deliberate cruelty to helpless animals. Indeed, i never have. That incident was the first stage of opening a vista on the Christian - and later, Jewish - attitude toward other species, servants, children, women, other peoples - and it's wrong.
So, perhaps my first taste of philosophy...
That could only be a Yes.
As for any emotional sense of a personal Spirit God...yeah, I thought I had some kind of relationship but could never picture Him as the guy in the sky...
So, still a daydream believer in my teens and early twenties. '..hiding 'neath the wings...'
Oh and yes, the term 'theist' had not yet entered my sweet'n'sour little head.
When did you start getting into such arguments?
Re: Speaking with indefinite style
I can think of worse places to begin a study of philosophy than Ecclesiastes. Best book in the whole collection, hands down. (I also rather like Psalms and Solomon's love poetry, as well as the popular fiction - Esther, Ruth, Sampson, Jonah an' them.)
In my late teens, it was fashionable (it was the ecumenical 60's!) to sample religions, attend church with friends of other faiths, experiment with folk mass and outdoor meetings. I even went to a service in sign language one time. (I far and away prefer Knox Presbyterian for their architecture and organs, as well as their style of service; I suppose it comes closest to the whitewashed country church of my summer vacations.) I don't think we argued much, but we talked an ocean. There was also a program of after-class discussions in my school: each day of the week, an expert came to our library to talk with interested students about their profession. Thursdays was Father K, a cheerful, articulate young priest who wasn't a bit fazed by skepticism or incredulity, and was open to science. Some of my brightest contemporaries would show up for that circle. We threshed out the whole creation vs evolution thing, and I'm still amazed at the ignorance of so many semi-pro theists who stalk the forums today.
That was probably my fist experience of formal argumentation.
But by then, I had learned enough of man's and nature's viciousness that even Francis Thomson couldn't convince me that the Hound of Heaven http://www.bartleby.com/236/239.html was my friend. Well, I mean, a 'perfect' being who is so angry with his creatures for being what he made them that he can't forgive them unless they sacrifice a perfect son he begets for that single purpose.
How can anyone get past the logic of that?
Hard to say. My mother had a pet JW one time - a bishop, they sent when the rank-and-file couldn't answer her - 'cose they're only allowed to read the highlited bits. She was a dab hand at scripture (also poetry, folk songs and maxims, which she collected. I never thought much about it, but she must have had a phenomenal memory; mine is nowhere near.) and they let me sit in - quietly - on their biblical discussions. I would have fifteen or so. She had plenty to say about Jehovah's duplicity and cruelty; never believed the book was true. She'd seen victor-revised history, close up, under Soviet rule and recognized the style.When did you start getting into such arguments?
In my late teens, it was fashionable (it was the ecumenical 60's!) to sample religions, attend church with friends of other faiths, experiment with folk mass and outdoor meetings. I even went to a service in sign language one time. (I far and away prefer Knox Presbyterian for their architecture and organs, as well as their style of service; I suppose it comes closest to the whitewashed country church of my summer vacations.) I don't think we argued much, but we talked an ocean. There was also a program of after-class discussions in my school: each day of the week, an expert came to our library to talk with interested students about their profession. Thursdays was Father K, a cheerful, articulate young priest who wasn't a bit fazed by skepticism or incredulity, and was open to science. Some of my brightest contemporaries would show up for that circle. We threshed out the whole creation vs evolution thing, and I'm still amazed at the ignorance of so many semi-pro theists who stalk the forums today.
That was probably my fist experience of formal argumentation.
But by then, I had learned enough of man's and nature's viciousness that even Francis Thomson couldn't convince me that the Hound of Heaven http://www.bartleby.com/236/239.html was my friend. Well, I mean, a 'perfect' being who is so angry with his creatures for being what he made them that he can't forgive them unless they sacrifice a perfect son he begets for that single purpose.
How can anyone get past the logic of that?
-
marjoram_blues
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: Speaking with indefinite style
Skip wrote:I can think of worse places to begin a study of philosophy than Ecclesiastes. Best book in the whole collection, hands down. (I also rather like Psalms and Solomon's love poetry, as well as the popular fiction - Esther, Ruth, Sampson, Jonah an' them.)
----
M: You know what - I had a wow moment last night, yes I did. I opened up the aforesaid Bible to Ecclesiastes and read the Introduction.
Apparently it 'contains the thoughts of 'The Philosopher', a man who reflected deeply on how short and contradictory human life is...and concluded that 'life is useless'...Many of the Philosopher's thoughts appear negative and even depressing. [a 'No' ?' ] But the fact that this book is in the Bible shows that biblical faith is broad enough to take into account such pessimism and doubt'.
Had to laugh when I began reading Chapter 1: 2-11. Certain PN posters could just have easily written that
----Hard to say. My mother had a pet JW one time - a bishop, they sent when the rank-and-file couldn't answer her - 'cose they're only allowed to read the highlited bits. She was a dab hand at scripture (also poetry, folk songs and maxims, which she collected. I never thought much about it, but she must have had a phenomenal memory; mine is nowhere near.) and they let me sit in - quietly - on their biblical discussions. I would have fifteen or so. She had plenty to say about Jehovah's duplicity and cruelty; never believed the book was true. She'd seen victor-revised history, close up, under Soviet rule and recognized the style.When did you start getting into such arguments?
----
M: Your mother sounds wise and positive; listening and discussing with JW - who knows she may even have persuaded them to look again...
I have never read the book of JW - I usually close or not open the door with a negative. I don't know what you mean by 'victor-revised history' in this context - or the style it takes.
----
In my late teens, it was fashionable (it was the ecumenical 60's!) to sample religions, attend church with friends of other faiths, experiment with folk mass and outdoor meetings. I even went to a service in sign language one time. (I far and away prefer Knox Presbyterian for their architecture and organs, as well as their style of service; I suppose it comes closest to the whitewashed country church of my summer vacations.) I don't think we argued much, but we talked an ocean. There was also a program of after-class discussions in my school: each day of the week, an expert came to our library to talk with interested students about their profession. Thursdays was Father K, a cheerful, articulate young priest who wasn't a bit fazed by skepticism or incredulity, and was open to science. Some of my brightest contemporaries would show up for that circle. We threshed out the whole creation vs evolution thing, and I'm still amazed at the ignorance of so many semi-pro theists who stalk the forums today.
That was probably my fist experience of formal argumentation.
----
M: I didn't have that experience. In fact it was the total separation from my friend our first day at school which started me off getting mad at religion. Aged 5, my Catholic friend crossed the street and yelled something about me being a Proddy. However, I was always intrigued and bought a book later - ? teens - about Comparative Religions...
Formal argumentation - again, no real access to that either. Even at Uni - yo-yo'd between the holy crew and the drinking crowd. Kept things separate. And remained ignorant of the Theist v Atheist arguments until much, much later. Still calling myself a Christian...when did that stop?
----
But by then, I had learned enough of man's and nature's viciousness that even Francis Thomson couldn't convince me that the Hound of Heaven http://www.bartleby.com/236/239.html was my friend. Well, I mean, a 'perfect' being who is so angry with his creatures for being what he made them that he can't forgive them unless they sacrifice a perfect son he begets for that single purpose.
How can anyone get past the logic of that?
----
M: First I've heard of Francis Thomson - will read the poem later...
Yes, God and the Crucifiction/Resurrection job - I'm sure some can get past that scenario; it's not about logic but faith that He is Love and who are we to question it ?
It reminds me of the love affair one has for a spouse- in the beginning, all is well. Then the rose-tinted specs fall of the end of your nose. You try to remain faithful - in mind and body because what else you gonna do ? Things deteriorate - you want a different life, but so many obstacles lie in your way. There is still residual love and care for the person and family. The Yes I will, travels through the doubts and uncertainties to a No, I won't. I can't go on like this. I don't even like Him.
At what stage do believers become ex-believers? No real answer to this. We all have different life circumstances. That is why it is ridiculous to brush all non-theists with a 'Nein, nein, nein' stick. Walker has yet to explain his 'Neinism'.
As for it being negative to say 'No' and move on. How ridiculous. It is a positive step away to a different life. Divorce is never easy.
Re: Speaking with indefinite style
We are the most clever ape this planet has produced so far. We questioned the necessity of being cold and built fire and houses. We questioned the necessity of being hungry in winter, and learned to cultivate grain and dry fish to store away. Questioning is what we do. When some questions (Who died and made this bozo emperor? Why is my country so often wrong? How is killing your son a proof of love?) are sequestered behind a wall in our heads, our heads implode and we start killing one another.Yes, God and the Crucifiction/Resurrection job - I'm sure some can get past that scenario; it's not about logic but faith that He is Love and who are we to question it ?
It's a very interesting book, that bible. It's not all of a piece: it was collected from available writings of the time by a committee. Some good literature snuck in.