Again, the manner in which “I” construe religion down through the ages is that, first and foremost, it revolves around connecting the dots between the behaviors one chooses on this side of the grave as that pertains to the fate of “I” on the other side of the grave.
After all, it’s not for nothing that so many religious denominations feel the need to go out and save souls.
Here one can “say” anything. One can “believe” anything. But there either really is a God/the God up there bent on judging what we do down here or there is not.
And, if there is, one way or another the Holocaust figures into it.
And, come on, why on earth do you suppose religions were invented if not to insist that not only is there a reason for Nazis and for everything else but you damn well better accept our reasons…or else.
The “or else” part varying from one denomination to the next. Just as with the part about “Judgment Day”.
There is a difference between participating/opposing the Holocaust and explaining why there is a Holocaust. You asked about the latter : “how do the faithful explain things like the Holocaust?”
That’s your view of religions and everything “damn well better” fit that view … or else.
From my perspective, the most important difference of all is still the gap between what any particular individual/mere mortal did to participate in or oppose the Holocaust, and whether or not there is a God/the God up there ready, willing and able to judge it. Same with conflicting explanations. With God there is the official explanation. The only one that counts in regard to your fate on the other side of the grave.
Really, why do you suppose there are millions and millions of religious adherents here on planet Earth who take this part very, very seriously?
Thus…
Huh?
I challenge you [or anyone] to cite a single post of mine in which I argue that others had better share my own view of religion “or else”.
Or else what?
Again the irony being that over and again I note that my own value judgments here are no less existential fabrications rooted in dasein. That I am not able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think like I do. That, given the way I do think about all of this, “I” am a fractured and fragmented individual who has thought himself into believing that his own existence is essentially meaningless and that all too soon “I” will topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.
Indeed, I’d better come across a frame of mind that changes this…or else. [-o<
Over and over, you try to fit every religion into your preconceived ideas about religion.
Or else … you don’t know what people are talking about. You revert to restatements of your interests. You tell people that they do not need to read your posts or to reply to your posts. You repeat the same questions that you just asked.
is not a value judgment, it is an assertion of fact. In a rhetorical question form, with a period at the end. The issue of the reasons why religions were invented is a question about what is or was factually not about beauty or morals.
So
Is irrelevent, since it has to do with value judgments. what is good and bad. Not what is or was or isn’t or wasn’t.
For a discussion of how iamb is trying to hijack this thread…
Religious people of poor moral judgement will lie quite easily about a god they do not know.
As to me. I am a Gnostic Christian that came out of the Catholic/Christian tradition. I use the more mystical writings put into Jesus’ mouth.
Those fit, given that we hold no supernatural beliefs.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
I’m all about it… the esoteric core of all religions and in fact the human psyche religious or not. But not everybody is. In fact most people don’t seem to be. So it remains the goal, the dream, the Omega point of evolution.
That’s not what I meant. I was talking about the nature of the deities - whether real or imagined - which were much more human than the modern versions of the Abrahamic deities. Emotions, grudges and so on.
Also, I still can’t see, as i said above, how the Jews have not corrupted their religion. They created Yahweh, the genocidal character you are complaining about. Unless you mean they never denied his genocidal nature.
Regards
DL
[/quote]
That’s not what I meant. I was talking about the nature of the deities - whether real or imagined - which were much more human than the modern versions of the Abrahamic deities. Emotions, grudges and so on.
Also, I still can’t see, as i said above, how the Jews have not corrupted their religion. They created Yahweh, the genocidal character you are complaining about. Unless you mean they never denied his genocidal nature.
[/quote]
K T
Jews know that they are looking at a myth. Too many Christians are not that bright and believe in a literal Jesus.
And yes, I am aware of the loony right wing in Judaism. As in Christianity and Islam, statistically insignificant. The fat right wing is the problem.
God’s moral nature is my main focus as all else is speculative nonsense with no end game.
With moral discussions, there is always an end game.
That is why the religious run from such discussions. They are Moral Cowards.
No, to assert it as a fact would, in my view, be more like this:
Beyond any and all doubt, religions were invented to insist that only those who think like they do can differentiate right from wrong behavior on this side of the grave in order attain immortality and salvation on the other side. And if you don’t agree with this you are necessarily wrong.
Instead, I’m merely noting that given my own assessment of religion down through the ages, it seems reasonable to me to suggest this. I’m asking others why it might not seem reasonable to them.
Then back to this again:
Note to others:
Make of this what you will.
Note to others:
Same here. If you think he is making a really, really important point about my argument above, so be it.
Then, as far as you’re concerned, he wins and I lose. Right?
And, again, what becomes particularly surreal here is how this exchange itself might be construed as an attempt to hijack the thread.
First, of course, I want to apologize for hijacking the thread. I actually didn’t think that I was doing that given my interest in things like genocide on this side of the grave and how that factors into immortality and salvation on the other side of it. But I have since been informed by KT that I have hijacked it. And, sure, maybe on a subconscious or unconscious level, I have.
These things get tricky .
Okay, then given how you construe God and religion, how do you factor things like the Holocaust into human interactions on both sides of the grave. Is your God not omnipotent, not omniscient? Do you explain thinks like Nazis as a manifestation of your God’s “mysterious ways”?
How might the Second World War itself be explained given your own understanding of “the mystical writings put into Jesus’ mouth.” What are your “natural beliefs” about things like natural disasters or global pandemics or “extinction events” that visit our planet periodically?
On the other hand, sure, if this is not something you wish to pursue here, fine, no problem.
I can only note that, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, for me these are the things that would seem to be the most pressing things to discuss. The existential relationship between morality and immortality. And discussions that revolve around theodicy. Or contemplating God in regards to things like free will, the meaning of existence itself, or which came first, God creating the laws of matter or the laws of matter creating God.
As for those who share the views of folks like Alan Watts and Joseph Campbell, the same thing. Given my own interest in and “take” on God and religion, how might they react to the views I express in my post here in in my signature threads.
I construe the holocausts as normal outcome for those who are fascist thinkers.
Without Christianity and the Vatican Bank, Hitler may not have been able to do what he did, nor would his top brass not escaped without the Vatican’s help.
