Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to The Bible and the Koran, Part VIII
Foliage
Back at ya! xoxo
And look after yourself...
posted by
Nautikos
on April 30, 2007 at 4:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
It's difficult to type right now as I'm backspacing more than I'm typing....please don't think for a second I'm not interested in learning........I've taken my chemo and it takes over my body including my fingers. I'll come back to all of this and hope you'll be waiting to catch me and my learnings. All my very best to you and your life.......... Love, Mary xoxoxoxoxoxo!
posted by
FoliageGold
on April 29, 2007 at 8:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Foliage
As to your other point - it all depends on what you mean by 'small'. In many ways it was much larger than it is today. And what seems like 'close proximity' to you may not at all be 'close proximity' to them...different cultures have different notions of that...
posted by
Nautikos
on April 29, 2007 at 8:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Foliage
The 'unschooled' don't write history because they can't write, nor do they understand history. History necessarily has to do with broader patterns that may well affect, but are never co-terminous with the individual's life.
The writing of history is a fairly recent phenomenon, not much more than 2500 years old. Those who recorded the events of their day were necessarily educated, but rarely were they among the 'rich'.
posted by
Nautikos
on April 29, 2007 at 8:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut: Part VIII
Okay, it's my understanding that most of the written history of course is transcribed by the literate and they being the one's who could afford 'schooling'. So, this is a certain sector of society, yes? So what I'm wondering about is how history was seen by those less fortunate. I think they'd have a much different view. No bashing me over the head with a millipede here. lol
Back then, the world was, 'small', yes? As regards land mass and peoples transversing within so many cultures and religions. I'm just thinking about the time I spent in Israel for instance. The old walled city vs the rest of Jerusalem and all the other cities in Israel....and then Lebanon, etc. I don't know if I"m making this any clearer or not...... --Joy!Mary
posted by
FoliageGold
on April 29, 2007 at 2:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Foliage
I would strongly dispute the notion that history has been recorded by the rich. And I don't quite understand this statement: "I cannot understand how any peoples' could get along living in such close proximity".
posted by
Nautikos
on April 29, 2007 at 6:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Wow, this is fascinating. It was good to read about the socio parts of religious societies. Read as though there's a hierarchy and I guess there is. I cannot understand how any peoples' could get along living in such close proximity. History has been recorded by the rich, so I wonder about that, too. --Mary
posted by
FoliageGold
on April 28, 2007 at 8:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Actually, the Arabs main resource was the Greek library at Alexandria
which was a conquest of the Muslim Empire. Mahomet, himself, had the resource of caravan travellers by virtue of his first wife's business. As a consequence of this oral transmission of information, he got many of the details wrong, e.g. making the Virgin Mary part of the Trinity.
posted by
cpklapper
on April 1, 2007 at 10:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
"And yes, I would not want to deny that it is possible to 'think' oneself through to God, but it would still require at least a prior leap to faith. What I said my not hold in all cases, but I still think it holds generally, and I think it can be shown empirically.
On the other hand, I would also argue that all of science, literally everything, from Big Bang through expanding universe and of course evolution, is absolutely compatible with a concept of God, although not with revelation, of course..."
Well, seeing as how you haven't yet come to discuss this on my porch, I have no recourse but to keep on commenting here to your comments of my comments pard. -;)
Oh, and I am one of those people that actually does 'hear' God talk to me. No, no, not in the conventional way you understand, but in my life~ God of my understanding~ 'Spirit' has spoken to me many times.
No Bible class here, no religiosity here, but I have definitely had some experiences that changed me and my life and I have no other explanation for it.
In time I think science and God will be together and all of these things will be perfectly understood. So, my experiences did not require any 'leap' of faith, however my mind has been directed to do somethings , many times, and I have done what I was directed to do and survived some mind boggling events.
So, in that second paragraph of yours I quoted here, I agree that science and a concept of God do live together, and with relevation to each individual human being, listening, no matter their religion or lack thereof.
I really enjoy what you have to say my friend.
posted by
WileyJohn
on March 27, 2007 at 10:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Mark
thanks for the comment. It's nice to have at least a few people reading this! As you can see from the number of comments, this is not a terribly popular topic...
As to TAPS' comment, the notion that anything was tailored by God is strictly her own, as she points out when she says, 'and I hope that anyone who reads this understands that the words "Tailored by God" are mine and not what you intended in your writing.'
TAPS is a dear friend of mine, who understands and accepts that this agnostic is convinced God never 'tailored' anything, nor spoke to anyone, ever...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 25, 2007 at 5:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Happy and just a little bit scared
I just wanted to say that I thoroughly appreciated your blog/column. It's hard finding intelligent writings on Blogit and yours gave me real food for thought whilst also educating my dumb arse. I will definitely be coming back to read more.
At the same time I was slightly scared by TAPS comment. I have I completely misunderstood her? Her comment "tailored by God" is in my view a complete misreading of what you meant and smacked of someone reading into something to suit their own fervored beliefs. You didn't mean that you believe it was tailored by God itself, did you? Surely you meant that it was tailored by more earthly forces. Or am I the one holding the wrong end of the stick?
posted by
Mark_Simmons
on March 25, 2007 at 3:44 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
thanks for your extensive comment. I just hope that you'll also like what comes next...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 24, 2007 at 9:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Yesterday I tried to read this post when I was in a hurry and could not keep my mind focused on what I was reading. In such a case it is useless for me to continue, so I gave up for then and went on about my way. Today, I am again impressed with the way that you are presenting this material. I just love the things that you have to say about Christianity.
These things are so true and I am so thankful that it is so: Into this world of decaying beliefs Christianity spread with a certain vigor and a message of hope....in the beginning, it was very much the faith of people on the margins of their societies. It was a religion tailored for those on the margins, since it offered hope for a better life in the ‘beyond’ to people who had no hope in this life (Tailored by God, what better way to express it.)....the religion of slaves and the ‘lower orders’, and it took several hundred years to become accepted in polite society....spread among the many different cultures that were assembled under the aegis of the Imperium Romanum....filled a kind of spiritual vacuum.....moved from the margins firmly into the centre. There is no vacuum for Mohammed to fill....
Mohammed was a wise man to focus on the ritual of prayer. I hope that you do not mind me excerpting your works here, and I hope that anyone who reads this understands that the words "Tailored by God" are mine and not what you intended in your writing.
posted by
TAPS.
on March 24, 2007 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply
OTA
Great! And thanks for the beer...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 24, 2007 at 8:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Im still reading this..
posted by
Blue_feathers
on March 23, 2007 at 5:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Wiley
you have certainly raised an interesting point. I remember reading some of Teilhard's work some years ago, and would say that I was impressed with his deep humanism. As to his faith, I would have to go back and check, but I would suspect that it takes a form rather different from conventional concepts of a 'personal' God. During the time of the inquisition he would probably have burned, lol.
And yes, I would not want to deny that it is possible to 'think' oneself through to God, but it would still require at least a prior leap to faith. What I said my not hold in all cases, but I still think it holds generally, and I think it can be shown empirically.
On the other hand, I would also argue that all of science, literally everything, from Big Bang through expanding universe and of course evolution, is absolutely compatible with a concept of God, although not with revelation, of course...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 23, 2007 at 4:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
I shall
posted by
Nautikos
on March 23, 2007 at 4:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Please come visit me here.
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Justsouno_3/
posted by
Justi
on March 23, 2007 at 2:15 PM
| link to this | reply
I would like to understand that excellent blog entry better. Don't people like Teilhard de Chardin, a philospher and Catholic Priest, kind of call your statement,"philosophy is corrosive of faith" into question or discussion ?
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), French Roman Catholic priest, geologist, paleontologist, and philosopher-theologian, noted for his evolutionary interpretation of humanity and the universe and his insistence that such a view is compatible with Christianity.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
posted by
WileyJohn
on March 23, 2007 at 8:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Enigmatic
No need for the "comfy chair!" As Canadians, and hence loyal (in most cases) subjects of H.M. the Queen, Elizabeth II, we are allowed to say 'bloody' any time we bloody well choose...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 23, 2007 at 4:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Erkin-am
thanks for dropping in! Take your time...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 23, 2007 at 4:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Justi
Of course he knew the Old Testament! My reference to the absence of a blue-print was not meant to refer to doctrinal matters, but rather to the practical task of structuring worship and ritual.
posted by
Nautikos
on March 23, 2007 at 4:15 AM
| link to this | reply
Thank you, Pat.
It's nice to have a few readers left...
posted by
Nautikos
on March 23, 2007 at 4:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
You are also annoyingly sensible, and I suspect you may be, or at least have some ties to, "Britisher Pigs" - when you use words like "bloody", in your comments to me! I just may have to put you in the "comfy chair", to make you confess!
posted by
Enigmatic68
on March 22, 2007 at 10:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
But he did have a blue print the Old Testament. The Arabs were a pinicle in education, arts, learning and they had the largest base of natural resources in the world. God gave his blessing to them. It was a lot better until this loon came along copied and revised the Bible.
posted by
Justi
on March 22, 2007 at 7:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
i read half of this article , because it s so long , evening i will read other part . wish you happy day , will come my little garden
posted by
Rosetree
on March 22, 2007 at 6:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Again, well thought out, well written, informative, disturbing. Thanks!
posted by
Pat_B
on March 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM
| link to this | reply