Gods Intention

[JackK]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.

As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.

Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.

While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause. It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible. My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.

And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.

I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JackK

Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.

The quote is from an essay "tipperary" found in a collection of essays (he calls them soliloquies) entitled "Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies." If you can't get the book at the library, you can probably find the essay (or the entire book) on line. It is elusive and sometimes hard to track down. It was, for me, one of the most influential essays I have ever read. Read it a long time ago in my college days when I was more impressionable. But rereading it impresses me as much or more than it did then. Only that which is in quotes in my post is Santayana's. The rest is my extrapolation from what he says. Though it was written in 1922, I think, it is timeless and relevant today. If you can't find it, let me know.

While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause.

I have to respectfully disagree. If I knowingly twist something you say as an excuse or a cause to commit a murder or other mayhem, especially if what you say directs me to do the opposite, the direct cause would be my personal motives, not your words. If a sympathetic jury was persuaded that you didn't maliciously twist words and was erroneously inspired by them to do harm, they might let you off with a lesser sentence depending on the severity of the crime, but could not condemn the words whose meaning was the opposite of what you interpreted. The direct cause would not be the words but your misinterpretation of them. Otherwise, since good can be so easily corrupted and then be the cause of evil, why do good?

It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible.

It matters because it demonstrates that the bible was not needed. Therefor it was not the cause.

My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.

Sure, it makes sense to believe that extremism exists, not only in both, or all, religions, but the same sense would lead you to believe that extremism exists in all things human. The problem with making anything useful of that sense is that those you consider to be extreme believe that they are not, and, perhaps, that you are. If by extreme you simply mean out of step with the majority of a group, that could "mean" innumerable things. It could be a pejorative difference to those who have collectivist mentalities, or it could be a desirable trait to individualists. Being extreme, in itself, says very little other than a severe difference. Extremities can be simply functional with no connotation of "good" or "bad." On the other hand, they can be descriptive moral or social qualities. You can be extremely good or extremely good at something. Or extremely bad. But, again, the good or bad can be a matter of opinion.

As for Mourdock's supposedly "extreme" view, there are obviously differing opinions whether his belief is good or proper or correct. If the extreme is merely that his views are a minority opinion, there is no quality to that other than numbers.

And so much of history, whether it be religious, political, economical, social, whatever, is, as you say, "stained in blood." That is part of nature's eternal war. Those that think that the blood staining will stop if we could all just get along and all think the same way,and that clashes among differing tribes will melt by a universal peace treaty (without victory) don't have a very clear picture of what drives humanity.

And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.

I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.

Spiritually, we have a lot in common. George Carlin, not so much. He's VERY (extremely?) funny . . . but not so deep. Perhaps, I have learned to be more tolerant of "extremists" when they have no impact on my life--such as mourdock's supposed extremism. Extremism can be a spice of life. It can lead to "good" change as well as "bad." The mediocre in-between seldom moves anything.