LOL, I saw the words "pig story," and my mind immediately went to the pig chapter in Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex, which I just started.

*squeal*

complete departure....
o i LOVE the pig story! a biofiction of John Fox has the woman who loves him looking at Fox's MO of going into a town, gtting people all riled up and then leaving before they all got arrested and seeing Christ in a much cooler light. Like yr this pig farmer, back from a trip to negotiate a price and you get home and yr wife says some longhair came through with his posse and cast the devil out of the local idiot and into YOUR pigs who forthwith trashed themselves over a cliff. no sense of mundane consequence, these holy rebels...

Regarding Jackie's comment: "Jesus is okay, even if he DOES have a stupid grin. He's not so much into the smiting, and more into the forgiveness and loving each other."

(ps. Hi, Jackie! I'm new around these parts.)

not to be too contentious, but perhaps he is "more into forgiveness" according to the majority of bible stories (i haven't read them), but i know in the essay collection "Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell, he talks about the story where Jesus casts the demons out of someone who was possessed and directed the demons into pigs. He then drove the pigs off a cliff to their deaths. And i think there was another incident in the narrative where Jesus smote a Fig Tree and made it wither to tell a story. Russell points this out as unnecessary cruelty. I know there are some other oddities as well where a critical reading indicates Jesus was actually (at certain times) promoting the rule of the leaders or rich over the poor. "Know your place" kind of stories. And finally, i understand there are some references Jesus makes about the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" kind of stuff, to come down as punishment on those who would question him. At any rate, Russell says, Jesus doesn't live up to true compassion and so demonstrates he isn't deserving of being held up as the epitome of all that is good. Maybe you're right Jackie that he is generally into compassion, but Russell says "generally" isn't good enough.

On a connected note, I've read that a psychological subtext of the crucifixion is the driving force behind Christian's (perhaps mainly Fundamentalist) support for the death penalty. The Government is the Judge (much like God) and if God says you must die, then so be it. If torture and execution were absolutely wrong then God wouldn't have done so to his own "son." Therefore, there are times when execution is for the greater good of all and should be approved of. To question the validity of it is to indirectly question the crucifixion.

Interesting thread on paganism vs. humans being in god's image. I think toward the outcome of these positions (regardless of which is "true"). In general, worshiping nature seems like it would have a more beneficial outcome for an intelligent species because it would set your species in the context of nature, as a part of nature. It would pretty much eliminate environmental destruction, deforestation, etc. Nature doesn't exist to serve us, we would live in balance with it. On the other hand, thinking of oneself as being created in god's image sets humans apart from nature and in fact above nature. It lends itself to thinking that god lords over us so we get to lord over nature because we are better than it. We are special.

So...i guess what i'm saying...it's too bad paganism didn't win out as a guiding narrative of civilization.

I agree. I think it takes real courage to talk with enemies, instead of attacking them with force. It is threatening to one's internal world view, which is a frightening thing.
It also takes courage to examine one's faith, and to ask questions that might not have good answers.

(lori - does this preclude choclate-dipped fruit rind too? say it ain't so.)

anyway -late to the food fest but must have been channeling since i have eaten pret near everything fat or sweet in mahwolehouse.

please forgive straying back to the topic - i found part of what i have been trying to say, said more tenderly: ( or skip to food below second line)
________________

What i KNOW is that any vision pursued fearlessly will eventually encompass everything, and that with that embrace comes compassion and respect for other approaches, other experiences.

I know that where there is fear there is neither love nor respect, so i have learned to understand that people who speak and act hatefully or disrespectfully are afraid.

And that that goes for me, too. I know that is pointless to fight fear with fear, but that sadly the blustering voice of fear can be a siren call to the weakest part of my resolve to speak from the self-respect that would let me stay respectful of others.

____________

i am not so much a baker of brownies as a found-object dessert collage person. think stoned assemblage only just not stoned.

for them that top, please try whipped cream with maple syrup and ginger. yes.

equipment-free and arguably more subtle: ricotta - the amazing sushi-of-cheese had-dipped kind - ricotta with either a bit of liquid sweet ( honey/maple syrup) or some jam smashed in to it. dip for fruit, cookies , whatever.

but my fave thing to put ricotta on - just plain - is a large, thick cookie so full of ginger it stings, warmed up in the toaster-oven. i order the cookies from O Bread in Vermont but i'm sure ya'll could make something nearly as brave. re-heating such cookies does wild things to the ginger factor.

and yar - ginger is to my sweet palate what garlic is to my savory - can't have too much.

Blech. No jam on chocolate, I'm a purist. Whipped cream is OK tho.

Noo. Although damson plum sounds good on toast. I don't know if I've ever had damson plum jam.

Nope, no raspberry jam, just damson plum?!? I don't think so...

Blackberry works too, and cherry. Peach totally does not work. And marmalade would just be frightening. But raspberry is the best.

Oooh, raspberry jam with chocolate! I wonder if I have any in the house...

Oh the brownie waltz.
I was dancin, with my darlin, to the choclatey waltz.

You know what I like to do? I like to swirl a spoonful of raspberry jam in a swoop across my brownie mixture right before it goes in the oven. So every brownie has a little raspberry strip.

"And if we are made in God's image"

Jude: nah. vicey versa.


Yeah, that's what I think, too, Jude.

Tonight, I'm using my witchy powers to conjure up a pan of brownies. Now, if only I could make them cook faster...


:::Does the waltz of baking brownies around Bunny doing her fandango...:::

Aw Jude, I wasn't maligning your contentions. I live in a multiverse where there's more than one way to be right. Because its my head and I can organize it how I like.
::Does a witchy fandango in honor of all the spirits of the heart::

"And if we are made in God's image"

nah. vicey versa.

" (jesus) He's not so much into the smiting, and more into the forgiveness and loving each other."

which was the foundation of my poor maligned contentions from the get go, here and elsewhere. he also knew when to turn the other cheek and/or give up. it is all a very odd life, but the moon is always with us.

_______________

Two or three things i know for sure and one is that i would rather go naked than wear the coat the world has made for me.
dorothy allison

To come to the deep place where nothing has to be renounced or given over... in that warm light... and that great sanity, that sun, the feminine power.
may sarton

The ages which survived through her sympathy; the centuries subtly informed by her compassion. The year when her anger gave her clarity and all her weeping was filled with intelligence. The morning of her full powers.
susan griffin

you are a witch
by being
female;
untamed;
angry;
joyous;
immortal.

the heart of long, connected old feeling...
the stone heart is the surprise of a shape unexpected,
a capacity long forgotten or denied.
passion & gentleness & wisdom & patience & strength
in a shape men cannot fathom, i am the heart of stone-
i am every lie fear ever told me turned inside out &
singing

texts from witch box number one, 1999

The horror the horror the absolute paganism!!
Hee hee!
Bunny dances around under the waxing crescent moon in honor of her fellow Axis witches.

Oh, right. I forgot that about witches, Lori. And I even have TWO black cats!
I'm with Jake. Jesus is okay, even if he DOES have a stupid grin. He's not so much into the smiting, and more into the forgiveness and loving each other.

Jackie, but aren't ALL witches evil?


The horror, the horror, the absolute paganism!

When Jake sleeps over at his best friends' house on a Sat, he accompanies the family to the Unitarian Church Sunday sermons. I finally got around to asking him how last Sunday's was. The kids saw a film about Jesus, but "it was stupid, he had the stupidest grin for the whole time." This led to a short discussion on Jesus, and Jake says he was a good guy, but the Jewish god is a real asshole!

I immediately knew what he meant.

Yeah, I knew what you were getting at Bunny. For myself, it began with the rejection of that silly story and then worked its way through a lot of other exploration too and eventually ended up without belief. BUT, I still do the exploring, no longer looking for a belief, but b/c religion is just so damn interesting.

Jackie, that imaginer line just made me think of David's underpants... (I am doing laundry right now. Yep, it's a happenin' Halloween Friday chez Mindy!)

:)

Actually, the witch of the northwest isn't wicked, exactly. She's just a little mischievous sometimes.

So says the wicked witch!

And if we are made in God's image, with the brain and mind of God, then whatever we imagine God to be, that is what God IS.
At least, to the imaginer.

Got it. Point I'm making is, just because I reject somebody else's silly story doesn't mean I am then required to reject the entire idea of divinity. Its not necessarily a choice between the abusive boyfriend god or no god at all. I can tell my own stories if I want to, I can do my own explorations.

I think Jude was saying that it was those qualities about Yahweh that make Jude reject him as an object of worship.

?

I mean that saying that some particular god story is silly doesn't mean anything one way or another about the nature or the existence of the divine. Any more than the fact that the little Georgie and the tree story is silly means that George Washington was a bad president or didn't really exist.

welp, me being wrong is about as predictable as you being brilliant, but i don't get what george's mythical tree has to do with it. ?

Nah. It really doesn't.

Just because somebody tells me a stupid story about George Washington and a little axe and a cherry tree...

"The God as abusive boyfriend theory"

and that, to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox, about wraps it up for god.

"Living With A Bipolar Creator-Deity" LOL Oh I love that! Well, I always told my parents that if I was going to hell I was throwing one hell of a party (pardon the pun), cause all my friends were going too.

You know, I find it interesting that the Greeks had a whole pantheon of Gods that misbehaved regularly and humans understood it as part of how it all worked, but they did their best to compensate for their dieties' inhumanity. Now the heaven & hell types believe their god is this omnipotent force looking down at everything little thing they do waiting to judge them, but they won'd admit that there is any abuse going on. Doesn't that just fit the stereotypical abused spouse who keeps saying "oh, He didn't mean to hurt me... it was something I did to screw up & make Him mad. He's sooooooooooo sorry!".

And, the ironic thing is that Jesus didn't describe that kind of god at all. Well, being a pupil of Buddha he got groovy with the 'Love Everybody & Look Inward for the Kingdom' thing anyway. ;)

Oh, I love "God as abusive boyfriend theory" - it describes it perfectly.

I don't even believe in a literal hell or the devil. I'm convinced the devil is a social construct designed to allow people to dodge personal responsibility for their own moral failings. I've seen waaaay too many people use some hokey, "The devil made me do it" excuse, without any irony, instead of just saying, "Geez, that was a shitty thing for me to do."

I always thought hell was so petty. I mean, has this omniscience never heard of rehabilitation? i guess even god has its limitations. (Irony!)

To be brief, boxers.

"Omnipresent Loved One not fully in control of his emotions" is way FUNNY!!

"God as abusive boyfriend" made me think of the Onion report:

God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder


Jurgens is in the process of forming a support group, "Living With A Bipolar Creator-Deity," for all of humanity to "get together and discuss their feelings about living in a universe run by an Omnipresent Loved One not fully in control of his emotions."

LMAO!!!

Well said David.
I also feel little inclination to believe in a God who, while omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient still feels the need to throw a tantrum and hurt lil ole me if I don't pay enough attention to him. The God as abusive boyfriend theory?
Certainly not my conception of divinity.

Yeah, but for most of us when those conversations happen to us when we have just begun to doubt, we don't usually have the requisite knowledge to call foul on the wagerer's logic. We sense that something sucks about the argument, but it's mostly about what it implies about God rather than that the argument itself is hokey--though there's that feeling there, too. (And at the time for me, it was a given that all the other gods were wrong anyway, so I wouldn't've made the argument "What if we're both wrong" because OF COURSE Judeao-Christianity if right! Such is the nature of religious programming. Very hard to shake off.)

I don't know about every object, but I might be interested in those undies... boxers or briefs?

:)

Anyone who has ever felt a twinge of fear-threat from the "common sense" blackmail of Pascal's Wager can rest easy. Here's why:

The logical problem with the Wager (if you want to consider it as a logical cost-benefit threat) is that you could equally apply Pascal's Wager to every religion. Is the god i'm supposed to worship Muhammed, Yaweh, Jesus, Brahman, Buddha, Osiris, L. Ron Hubbard or perhaps that pair of underwear i mentioned in my earlier post? Since Pascal's Wager in no way helps you decide between competing deities, it has to be discarded as a meaningless proposition. Unless, of course, you want to worship every object that exists...just in case...

Yep, that's the big ole trump card: If you're right, nobody loses. If I'm right, you're screwed! **boogedy*boogedy*boogedy**

Good lord, is THAT what Pascal's Wager is? I always thought it was something to do with science or math.

Suddenly some references I never understood just became a lot clearer. :D

I feel about Pascal's wager that if God was petty enough to not mind being worshipped out of fear of going to hell then that's not a diety I think very highly of. (And OH what human qualities that diety has... Hmmmm...)

Actually, the beginning of my journey to atheism began with my recovery and AA's spiritual loophole "God as we understand him." Well, I definitely didn't understand that God had a penis, so that irritation got things started for me, but mostly I went round and round with the god that I was raised with--the fire & brimstone, vengeful, wrathful god of the evangelical Protestant persuasion--and finally decided that if that's the only god there is, well then I'd rather just go to hell. Seriously. That was a powerful and pivotal moment for me. To stare in the face of this thing that had been used to shame you into behaving (of course, I never behaved, but I sure as hell carried the shame) your entire life and say, "Fuck off!" Whew!

Actually, the reformulating my conception of God began even before that with Conversations with God : An Uncommon Dialogue, but even though Oprah said that version of God was OK, the old version clung (clinged?) visciously--jealously, hahaha. It took a couple more years--and a couple more bottoms--to get rid of the sadistic, spiteful tyrant. The next big step was realizing that I was no longer afraid to die. (I didn't want to die. I just wasn't afraid to anymore. And wow, that was such a load off.) And eventually after a couple more years and a lot more social science classes (and WAY too much conservative Christian advancement in politics) the rest of the supernatural stuff just fell away, too.

:)

I have completely lost track of which thread is our "religion and science" thread, since there are about 5 likely candidates. I'll post this here, then:

In a class I'm taking, one of the readings we just had is about whether science and religion have to be incompatible, and the articles mention two different books on the subject.

The first is The Language of God A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project who is also an evangelical Christian.

The other book, The Challenge of Creation Judaism's Encounter with Science Cosmology and Evolution is by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, an Orthodox rabbi.

Both are supposed to be very good, although not without flaws.

I love that all of us, from the atheists to the religious to the spiritual, have come to our positions through thoughts and feelings personal to us.

By way of further explanation, I dated a Catholic guy in college. He was your stereotypical right-winger, obsessed with sin, thought his way was the only way, etc. His tactic to try to convert me was, "Why take the gamble? If you accept Jesus, and it's all false, the outcome is far better than if it's all true and you end up in hell for rejecting him." This was also his answer when I would ask him what his religion meant to him.

The thing that killed me about this was that it turned religion into a cold, clinical cost-benefit analysis. It's asking, "What can it do for me?" rather than exploring...well, just about anything that we've talked about here. It doesn't involve feelings or personal examination or reflection on life and the world and everything in it. What good is religion if it's simply seen as a rubber-stamped ticket to the next life rather than as a personal expression of our experiences?

Sherrie: thank you for your beautiful, thoughtful post. Your remarks about a possible (re)convergence between science and religion reminded me of a brilliant lecture I attended, given by the biologist E.O. Wilson. He was promoting his new (then) book, Consilience, and arguing that the sciences and humanities are not separate, discrete areas of inquiry, but branches of the same tree. I'm not sure I agreed (or understood) every point he made, but I did like his ideas about unity and common purpose, as it concerns disciplines that are too frequently seen as oppositional.

Well I guess you never know what's going on in the background though. :D
I heart this thread too.
I resonate with what Sherrie said about respecting and embracing that everybody has a unique path. I also agree (hope) that the science/religion antagonism has a lot to do with history and where we are in it at present.

I am very impressed with this thread! (We are being so bonobo-ish! Well, except for the sex thing...)

:)

Beautiful post Sherrie, I find affinity in much you say.

So... I stumbled on this thread while trying to distract myself from the political/religious craziness that is happening in my life, and I just have to say, to all of you, Thank You! I have needed to hear from intelligence, heartfelt, sensible people who 'know that they do not know' whom god really is.

I grew up in a moderate but devout Mormon household and left the religion when I was 16. Which caused some ripples in my family, to say the least. Mostly it was because something beyond myself was calling to 'seek elsewhere'. When you grow up in an environment where it is paramount to belong to a group, not question but to model yourself after those who tell you what to believe, it is so hard to jump into that void of nothingness and still find yourself intact. I went from religion to religion, pagan to hindu to native american to many others, wondering why I didn't fit in because I found a little bit of Truth in all that I sought, but nothing that I could immerse myself in as 'my religion'. Quietly I found solitute in reading different ideas and beliefs that showed me, ultimately, that there seem to be 'many paths to one Truth'... and that Truth, to me, seems to be what you are discussing here. There is something Divine out there, and within us as well, that connects us all but can be interpreted and expressed in so many, many different ways. But, isn't that the whole point? We are all unique, strange, and formed in our lives with a viewpoint that no other person can ever duplicate. So, how could we possibly see or describe that divinity within us exactly as someone else can? And, I think there is a beauty to that if you look for it.

I often find myself trapped in the thinking that something is wrong when I can't find my own brand of spirituality in a single group... yet, when I am feeling centered I know that this is exactly how it should be. I love hearing others ideas and beliefs and viewpoints, when expressed with a true intent to simply share and not judge or convert. I do believe that this is what could bring unity with our entire race, if people could simply accept that it is a unique path for each of us and to appreciate that path in others rather than degrade, mock and point vile fingers at others that differ from us. I believe we need to appreciate what is in each others hearts without fear or rejection.

One more thought. Some here have mentioned the divide between science and spirituality, and, as I see it, they are separate paths that diverged from the same original source. In my reading, about quantum physics and ancient beliefs, it feels that they are simply two different ways of describing the same natural order of things. I get so excited when I hear of science putting forth theories that connect right with ancient ideas of us all being one at the core, and of how our very thoughts and beliefs can affect the world around us if we can but know how to direct the intent of our beliefs in a positive way. I really believe that as science progresses, as well as a more open spirituality, they will begin to merge back together yet in a new, enlightened way. This may be idealistic, but it feels as if we are so much children trying to describe things we haven't conceptualized yet in a mature way. I am heartened by these ideas, and by reading others viewpoints of knowing that something is out there... name it what you will... and that it is the same as what is inside of us. Our spark of divine, of consciousness, of human nature, whatever you feel it is, if we can all simpy connect to it and be honest about what we truly feel as well as be open to the Truth within ideas we may not want to face, then I believe there is more hope to our human race than we realize.

Thanks again for all your words, they have helped me find hope again in such a mad world.

Re: message 137. Thank you, Lori! I agree with what you say about religion being a play for earthly power. While i like the idea of individual spirituality, i can't help but think that religion was invented by those seeking to become controllers and tellers of others. Those who control the word, control the world. Stories are symbols, and symbols create our identity. So religious inventors got to define identity for a lot of people. That's power.

Kristjan I think the problem is that you are talking at us rather than with us. Several people have now attempted to suggest to you that your points, however valid or invalid they may be, are not really germane to the larger discussion because they take one of several examples in one short comment among many, and highjack the whole thread to belabor this small detail at very great length. In other words, you are bringing the conversation to a halt in order to beat a dead horse. Your response each time is to restate your arguments at greater length. You seem to me to be behaving as if this conversation is some kind of competition which can be won. Let it go, man, let it go!
Edit:: After reading Lori's. Holy cross post batgirl! My impression of Judaism is that it isn't particularly focused on concerns about the afterlife. Is that a correct impression in your experience?

David, I finally had a chance to read your post, and I like very much your position about energy having no boundaries, taking it to the Ommmm viewpoint! This expresses my personal belief that death is a transformation, where does that energy go? I'll never know. Or perhaps some higher form of me will, who knows? I too was raised Jewish, it's interesting that we have arrived at similar philosophies. And there are many like us that I know.

I muse about death - for me the teachings are heaven and hell especially from the Catholic Church are merely plays for power on this earth, this physical manifestation. Obey me or else you'll go to Hell! I don't fret too much about death, and it is not the cause for my spiritual quests - it is my belief that if we live on, as energy, or whatever, the Lori won't be present anyway!

Apparently ...

To return:

My original premise stated in #112
Demonizing / dehumanizing those outside your community is still the most common precursor to violence. That doesn't happen within the community.

To which a counter was proposed in #115 stating that the Haudenosaunee did not dehumanize outsiders:

But what about the Haudenosaunee [...:] Clearly it is possible for humans to live in groups without needing to demonise outsiders, because humans have done it.

In order to examine my premise we must look at two things. Group membership AND intergroup violence. I have presented data supporting the fact that the confederation As A Group did engage in violence against other groups and that they also engaged in dehumanizing behavior. This would appear to me to invalidate the counter argument.

The fact that the confederation was not originally a single group is not debated and I am not sure where you get that impression from since I have clearly acknowledged that history. Nor have I argued that it is impossible for group membership to change (outsiders to become insiders) ... especially when that is false prima facie (in fact I illustrated this happening in my own argument).

In addition, No where have I indicated that ALL intergroup behavior requires violence ... only that IF [sustained:] violence occurs, it is typically preceded by behavior which highlights how the targets are not you nor are your equal. In support of my argument of group dynamics, I tried to indicate when and with whom violence MIGHT occur and with whom it was expressly forbidden. I am still at a total loss as to how either of your points counters my assertion that dehumanization typically precedes violence.