Comments on Sitting there, nodding their heads in chorus

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to Sitting there, nodding their heads in chorus

Of, amdg, when I say

'No it is not,'
I am referring to your question 'Is that contradictory?' not ' Why is that so hard to swallow?'
You are very wrong when you say 'It's that humanity seems to have these similar ideas about the existence of this type of being, though the particulars may differ. I think that's indicative of something.'
As I pointed out, this is not true.
Also, if it were true it would still prove nothing. if anything it would just help to prove the fact that the Bible is written by man based off of past mythology and superstitious ideas.

posted by kooka_lives on July 4, 2004 at 8:51 AM | link to this | reply

amdg

No it is not, but that is not what you said. Then when you tried ot explain you made less sense and went on to claim that no one would ever make a great evil to fight against their great good. You were not at all thinking before you wrote your comments.

Here are your words again, "Your only argument against me is that people create this bad guy because the God they created has to have something to fight against. THAT begs the question and THAT'S illogical."

First off, begs what question? And it is not at all illogical. It is all part of writing fiction.

And it is still not what you seem to think it is. Often those demons and such are just there. there are not evil or good. They are often just creatures. It you look through ht Greek and Roman myths you will find that nothing is really good or evil in them. Often the heroes are just larger than life and are not the great noble heroes who go around helping others, but rather are more concerned with their own well being above all else. And the creatures who end up being the adversaries are not evil, but just misunderstood, fighting for its own survival or like a guard dog, trained to attack trespassers. In fact the idea of having a truly evil being of any kind is much rarer in mythology. Gomedome talked about The Coyote and the Raven, and neither of them fully evil. They are tricksters and are playing around, but it is not necessarily to an evil means. They are not trying to make us evil or bring us down and often end up doing good through their ways.

So your logic is very flawed here. You are trying to push your own beliefs into an area that they do not fit. You so wish for the other cultures to have something, anything, like Satan or demons or some great evil that you will say so, but not follow through with any real examples, but in your mind you do not need to.

Looking at this, good and evil are fairly new concepts to man. Before the Bible came along it seems like it all had to do with more realistic ideas of survival and dealing with human faults and emotions. Would be interesting to really study on on this. I wish I had the time to. I would bet there is a pattern to it all though. The tribal, more peaceful level of humanity would have no need for the ideas of good and evil, because there would be no need for power (The ideas of good and evil are very much based on power and who has it) in such societies. Instead there would be concerned with just making it day to day and so their myths would reflect this.

Anyway, the whole point is that you are wrong about what you are claiming. There are no facts to back up your statements at all. You need to go and study mythology before you make any such statements about mythology.

posted by kooka_lives on July 4, 2004 at 8:46 AM | link to this | reply

and...

my point is not that every culture gets it'd ideas from Christianity. It's that humanity seems to have these similar ideas about the existence of this type of being, though the particulars may differ. I think that's indicative of something. Why is that so hard to swallow?

posted by AnCatubh on July 4, 2004 at 1:51 AM | link to this | reply

let me explain

I meant that every culture that I could think of has devils, demons, evil doers, etc, not that every culture has an evildoer exactly like the Christian notion of
Satan. Is that contradictory? I don't think so. I was trying to make a further point about why it is that so many cultures have these adversarial figures, even cultures that have not embraced Christianity. I evidently didn't express myself very well.

I don't think that's an inflammatory statement. It's a valid question.

posted by AnCatubh on July 4, 2004 at 1:42 AM | link to this | reply

amdg

You are just so full of it.

You said 'ever wonder why satan figures exist in every culture (that I can think of)?'

Then in your next post you said ' I didn't say all cultures' notions about Satan were like Christianity's.'

Those two lines do not agree with each other at all. Your reasoning as to why the second line does not agree with the first was nonsense and did a piss poor job of defending your idea. You proved to me that you are not looking at the different cultures and really seeing what their myths are, but instead you are trying to force your own ideas into their myths. You are not addressing the points I am making, but instead looking for other ways to keep off topic as much as possible. This has been the way too many Christians here debate when they know they have made mistake and can not defend what they are saying.

It has nothing at all with the fact that we do not agree. If you really read through my post and the replies there you will see that the few times a Christian has made a well thought out reply I have complimented them. You are not making well thought out replies and instead are making yourself look bad and helping me to make my points.

posted by kooka_lives on July 3, 2004 at 7:30 AM | link to this | reply

and you still missed my point entirely

posted by AnCatubh on July 3, 2004 at 12:24 AM | link to this | reply

wow!

Nothing I said doesn't make sense-you've got problems with humility. The moment someone says something that doesn't jibe with what you think, you say what you just said below. What don't you try telling me where it is I contradicted myself?

And you don't know the first thing about what it means to be a Christian.

posted by AnCatubh on July 3, 2004 at 12:22 AM | link to this | reply

amdg

Wow, you are getting worse when it comes to making sense.
First you contradict yourself like crazy and then you completely dodge the real point, trying to dance around the issue and make it look like it is others who are not making sense.
You are showing you true Christians colors here.

posted by kooka_lives on July 2, 2004 at 7:27 PM | link to this | reply

speaking of Hell

Sartre's NO EXIT

posted by Xeno-x on July 2, 2004 at 7:52 AM | link to this | reply

It's all Greek to anyone who has sense to read it.

to be more plain for amdg

the greek words for rock -- when Yeshua was speaking to Simon, using him as examplary for all the Apostles -- the word was the word for pebble.  When speaking of the rock on which he would his church, the rock was boulder -- this is the greek words found in that passage.

I glean from this that Yeshua wanted the apostles to know that they were indeed rocks, but compared to the foundation on which the ekklesia (voting body in the Hellneistic world) would be bult, they were very small indeed.  For a rock as a foundation, compare Matthew 5 through 7 -- the house built on a rock as compared to one built on sand -- certainly not referring to Simon Peter.

 

posted by Xeno-x on July 2, 2004 at 7:51 AM | link to this | reply

westwend

I am NOT quoting from the King James bible. I am quoting from the Vulgate-St. Jerome around 378 AD, translated in the late 1500's into English, known as the Douay-Rheims bible.

No, kooka, I ain't on drugs-that would be your old man. I have no idea what he's talking about...

posted by AnCatubh on July 1, 2004 at 11:48 PM | link to this | reply

telynor

I read it.
It was good, not his best work.
But it did have some good ideas in it.
And Hell seemed a very freindly place in it.

posted by kooka_lives on July 1, 2004 at 10:47 AM | link to this | reply

Hmnn,

You'd probably like reading Robert Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice. A very thoughtprovoking novel, where hell doesn't sound too bad. Me, I figure there isn't any god or devil, at least what we puny humans with our little brains can understand. A favorite comedian of mine stated that "There is no Devil, it's just God when he drinks." Cheers.

posted by telynor on July 1, 2004 at 9:58 AM | link to this | reply

all sorts of satans -- oodles of devils, dozens of demons

they're in every culture -- in every religion.

Bhagavad Gita???  -- did I get the name right -- takes us through a lot of gods, goddesses and demons.

whose demons are real?

posted by Xeno-x on July 1, 2004 at 9:55 AM | link to this | reply

amdg

What drugs are you on?

Your own words 'ever wonder why satan figures exist in every culture (that I can think of)?'

I would put less the 5% of cultures have a figure that is anything like the Christian Character of 'Satan'. Most of it depends on their style of story telling. If their gods are all filled with the common human flaws, which is the most common version of gods, then there is little need for any great force of evil due to the gods themselves being able to both the bad and good guys in the stories. You only need that great evil when you have the great good.

Is it illogical for someone to create a bad guy for their good guy to fight?

Go and do some real studying of myth and story telling. Whenever there is a great hero, he almost always has to have a great villain to defeat in order to show just how great a hero he is.

posted by kooka_lives on June 30, 2004 at 10:33 AM | link to this | reply

There are rocks and then there are rocks

Peter was a pebble -- that was the Greek word Yeshua used.
Then Yeshua used the word that means a huge rock as that on which he would buld his church.
Yeshua was likening Simon and the disciples to the pebbles in the stream where they were.
and the Rock was like the Mountain looming over them at that location -- which was a cave-grotto out which issued the spring that was the source for the Jordan River.
Simon and the disciples: little pebbles -- The spiritual foundation: the Rock.

And I've got the keys to Spiritual Realms -- many of us do -- what we bind to us through revelations is just as good as if it were bound in the Spiritual (heaven) -- and what we let go . . .

You're quoting from King James. I've come up with my own translation of the Sermon on the Mount -- it's in TRANSLATIONS -- you can compare to King James -- KJV sepaarates the individual from other individuals -- what I gleaned from the original is that it emphasizes human interrelationships and concepts that are actualizable.

KJV does not do that.

You're doing Matthew 19:29-30.

It's like the young rich man who couldn't give up his wealth to the poor. Or the pearl of great price -- if you see a value in something, if you want it, you should be willing to sacrifice greatly for it.

I don't consider this arguing -- I'm presenting my view and you are presenting yours, AMDG -- we can let the reader decide between the two -- or even contribute his/her own viewpoint.

Sorry Kooka -- we've made your blog into a debate zone.

You can throw me off of Red Rocks when I get out there.

posted by Xeno-x on June 30, 2004 at 6:54 AM | link to this | reply

hindus believe in Satan, for one

I didn't say all cultures' notions about Satan were like Christianity's. I'm saying many cultures have some kind of bad guy evil doer. You just acknowledged as much. Your only argument against me is that people create this bad guy because the God they created has to have something to fight against. THAT begs the question and THAT'S illogical.

westwend
The tradition of celibacy was long before the middle ages. No shit Peter was married. Says so right there. He left his family to answer the call of Jesus. The twelve Christ called had a special vocation. In the years shortly after Jesus' death, the problem of men leaving their families behind as a rule was evident and it was decided that those who chose this life not get married. Christ's words exhorting those who would follow him to lose their life, deny themselves, etc. are pretty damn clear. Read Matthew XIX. These teachings were the basis for priestly celibacy. Read St. Jerome. And can I remind you again?:Jesus wasn't married, either.

'the first(supposed) pope'
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in heaven.And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee keys of the kingdom.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven:
And whatsoever thou shalt loose upon the earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Matthew XVI v.xvii
Are you gonna find a way to explain away this, too?

Look deeper into this idea of devils and boogeymen. Why do we fear? Why do we hope?
What did men make of dreams and nightmares? Boogeymen? Did man's imagination create this? How and why would the human imagination conjur such a thing?

posted by AnCatubh on June 30, 2004 at 3:35 AM | link to this | reply

SOURCES OF SATAN AND GOD

dreams and nightmares.
imagine what the first people made of them.
"primitive" religions still have demons hiding all over the place.
dreams and nightmares.
seem pretty real.
then to scare children, there must have boogeymen and then dreams and nightmares.

also, Satan means adversary, not necessarily an actual person.

too much medieval thought in religion.

it's like celibacy of priests -- cococted in the 16th or 17th century for a power play and now it's played up like it was there along and the reason given is that the "first (supposed) pope", Peter was celibate; yet there in the Gospels for all to see is Peter's MOTHER-IN-LAW, meaning he was married, thus not celibate.

A lot of concepts are from the same medieval point of view and played up as having been dogma all along.

this is the 21st Century, not the ninth or sixteenth. Let's grow up people.

There is no Satan.

He has already fallen like a comet or star, as Yeshua said -- and the reason he's fallen is that he is recognized as having never existed in the first place -- poof!!! -- no satan.

posted by Xeno-x on June 29, 2004 at 6:31 PM | link to this | reply

amdg

Well that is first off untrue, if you study mythology you will see that most of the times all of the gods end up being neutral, with no great good or great evil among them. Loki, Hades and such were not bad, even though various modern versions have turned them so. The goods and evils of the world just were. There was no great evil force behind any of it.

For those beliefs that did form a great evil they also had a great good character, so you need the balance. What is the point of having a perfectly good hero (Or God) if there was not a great evil for it to fight against.

Very weak point there with no real logic or facts to back it your idea there. Please tell me about some of these culture that have the 'Satan' character which fits into the idea of 'Satan' the Christians have created.

posted by kooka_lives on June 29, 2004 at 5:37 PM | link to this | reply

ever wonder why satan figures exist in every culture(that I can think of)?

Non-believers are quick to make that assertion but want to sidestep the idea that maybe these figures exist in lore becuse they actually do exist and have made themselves known. just a thought. Would read something you wrote investigating that..

posted by AnCatubh on June 29, 2004 at 4:06 PM | link to this | reply

labguy

"Whatever he wishes us to do there, we do. You might imagine that it is much like a company where everyone is ruled by their most selfish desires and everyone inflicts as much pain on everyone as possible to gain power, everyone is told exactly what to do, and is ruled by an iron (and brutal) fist if they do not do as told."

If everyone is out for power, then how does anyone rule anyone else? That made no sense at all.
Also, if you look at the Bible, God is the one who rules with and iron and brutal fist if we do not do as we are told.

The idea of Satan most likely came from many places, as such man-made characters often do. Someone took bits and pieces from various myths and some real figures from history and threw them together to create the idea of Satan. You king there is a good candidate as one of those pieces.

posted by kooka_lives on June 29, 2004 at 3:44 PM | link to this | reply

Y-L-F

I really have no clue what that has to do with anything I have said here.

posted by kooka_lives on June 29, 2004 at 3:38 PM | link to this | reply

Satan

You are absolutely correct that the character of Satan as the Bible has created him (actually, as John has created him) makes no sense.  But I would like to interject that there is a much more mundane concept behind this than the "fires of hell" visual that we are used to.  The basic idea is that we are creatures of both body AND spirit, and God rules the spiritual world.  Satan rules the physical world.  If we want to be with God, we let go of our body (earthly desires) and do so (actually very, very much like the Buddhist's Nirvana).  If we cling to earthly desires (sins, etc.), we are given over to the one that rules the afterlife of the flesh (Satan).  Whatever he wishes us to do there, we do.  You might imagine that it is much like a company where everyone is ruled by their most selfish desires and everyone inflicts as much pain on everyone as possible to gain power, everyone is told exactly what to do, and is ruled by an iron (and brutal) fist if they do not do as told. 

 

However, I do not believe that even this vision of hell exists--it is quite clear from even a rudimentary study of Judaist and Babylonian history that Satan was actually the king of a particular city of the Babylonian empire (whose name I now forget), a city where worship of an evil god was widespread and compulsory, and which was destroyed in a massive fire which was caused by volcanic forces (according to geologic evidence of the ruins of said city).  The god of this city had two horns on his head, ala the devil, and it's most famous name is nearly identical to Satan. It does not take a great stretch of logic to understand the Satan mythos from here.  This is outlined very well in the book "Return to Sodom and Gomorrah" by Charles Pellegrino--I highly recommend it.

 

Rather, I believe that we live in a world that is exactly as it seems, old, beautiful and exactly as its creator made it.  If you experience it without judgment or preference for your self, you find that there is very little about it that is lacking.

posted by Labguy on June 29, 2004 at 2:40 PM | link to this | reply

Also, this is the beauty of writing - you can make your opinions known

about what you see in the world, but since you are speaking to a general audience, it doesn't open the door to direct contact with those who disagree.  It's a self-protecting benefit.

posted by TARZANA on June 29, 2004 at 1:35 PM | link to this | reply

Turn away from sin or you'll be punished - now it makes sense.

Here's the meaning:  If you continue to look at something that YOU consider to be bad, you will be driven to criticize, lash out at the person you consider to be guilty.  Then the one who looks at YOU in such a way will be given the opportunity to punish YOU.  It all makes sense now.  Turning away from sin, for the person who is not sinning themselves, is the act of protecting yourself from a cycle of senseless punishment from sources that really don't know you.

posted by TARZANA on June 29, 2004 at 1:33 PM | link to this | reply

Mavisellen

I have no problem with people believing in God or whatever higher power they believe in. The main point of this whole Blog is that beliefs should be personal and thought out. I put up questions and hope to get debate. I am not trying to say it is wrong for a person to believe in God, just know why you do it and do not be afraid to question those beliefs. Don't be a mindless sheep following the crowds and just agreeing with what is being told ot you. Go and read the Bible and figure out what it is saying for yourself. I do not believe in God and I know why I do not believe and I often state those reason here in order to show people my way of thinking. it does bring up debate and I hope it gets people thinking. I am not expecting to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I am just hoping to get people to think for themselves and see that what the church often tells you is filled with flaws and not thought out, and does not have all the answers the church claims it to have. Some people get a great comfort out of beliefs, I will not deny that at all and when used right beliefs can be a very good thing.

posted by kooka_lives on June 29, 2004 at 10:53 AM | link to this | reply

I partly agree.

Hi I enjoyed reading what you had to say but with reservations. I have watched quite a lot of people die or have life changing injuries or diseases and occassionly it is so obvious that someone is helped by having a simple thing called faith. I am not going to presume to tell them they are wrong. If you have the time and inclination I have 2 poems on the site that back up this feeling. Mavis's poems, Belief and Somewhere In Between. I believe but it is very private and simple. I talk to God and shout at Him sometimes, and it may seem irreverant but I often have my conversations when on the loo because it is one of the few times I can't move off and do somrthing else. The other times are when I am walking. By the way not all my poetry is religious I don't have a style. I write about everything I feel. Keep up with writing I enjoyed it. Thanks.

posted by Mavisellen on June 28, 2004 at 11:09 PM | link to this | reply

that is, when I get around finishing it

been working on the boys summer curriculum. I think, for onco, they'd rather see me writing on blogit. Anything but math...

posted by AnCatubh on June 27, 2004 at 11:52 PM | link to this | reply

westwend-odd you should mention those things

My reply to you about where I'm coming from spiritually has much to do with the things you said in your last comment here. Look for it, if you care to, on my +AMDG+ blog in this category.

posted by AnCatubh on June 27, 2004 at 11:01 PM | link to this | reply

kooka- no argument from me

televangelists(most, not all) are spellbinders. Intentionally. I've never liked to hear the Word dealt with so because I think we should use our highest part, i.e. our intellect, in approaching it, as well as an open heart. If you think God gave us reason, what do you think he wants us to use it for?

I don't dig or buy the "high on Jesus" stuff because feelings are transient and it isn't possible to walk around with spiritual euphoria 24/7. Truth is constant, however, and pursuing it with your heart and mind does bring inner peace. And I can certainly see why this spellbinding stuff turns off a non-believer. I still think the followers' hearts are probably in the right place, though.

posted by AnCatubh on June 27, 2004 at 10:58 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka

Look and make sure you didn’t inadvertently send them $29.95 while you were hypnotized. I have a lot of concerns with some televangelists as well.

posted by telemachus on June 27, 2004 at 5:40 PM | link to this | reply

It's like movies

or other forms of entertainment
you've got to have a plot.
a good guy
a bad guy
antagonists
protagonists
maybe even a smoking gun
but if you introduce the gun in act one you've got to fire it in act three.
the bad guy comes along and makes victims (us) and along the way, he has this army of cohorts.
then he also tempts his victims (us) and converts several of them (our enemies) to his way. and his cohorts also have the power to inhabit some of the victims (us) --or someone you know - so that they, as victims also become part of the bad guy's crew.
then we have the "good guy on the white horse (you know who that is)" who comes along and saves the day.
But not before the darkest hours come along (of course, it's darkest just before the dawn).
great drama.

like the movies like it it takes away from reality though.

you want Star Wars, see Star Wars. At least at the sci-fi conventions you choose to pay your money and get involved.

posted by Xeno-x on June 27, 2004 at 5:02 PM | link to this | reply

Most churches

like that are very much like a cult.  They all form together in one meeting place, church; (which, by the way, has WAY too much money to be building a church like that!)  They all sit back, listen to the preacher, and nod their heads, like you said.  It seems as if he is leading a major cult and filling people minds with a great amount of mumbo jumbo and taking a collection because the church needs a new "company" Cadillac. 

I believe, and this is a completly personall belief, that this so called devil lives inside of you and not an actual being.  I do believe of the fallen angel and all that gab, but he lives inside of you and tempts you.  It's hard for me to believe that God created Hell because if He is understanding and forgiving, why would He need such a place? 

Thats just me.  Good post!

-Josh

 

posted by Josh9901 on June 27, 2004 at 2:23 PM | link to this | reply

good blog

The TV preachers are basically hypnotists.  They use certain words, a particular tone of voice, body language,  repetition of phrases, etc., to put their audience into a trance.  It's very seductive, what they do.  And if they're really good at it, they can get their audiences to completely suspend the thinking process.  Permanently.

posted by lonebutte on June 27, 2004 at 2:18 PM | link to this | reply