In the early 80's, when I was a translator in the French Bethel, I remember I was shocked that the "Holy spirit" was substituted by the "organization" in the two questions for baptism. I could see the inner "logic" only too well (the Spirit is given to the Anointed who are represented by the Governing Body which leads the Organization), but it meant a kind of closure very similar to what was criticized in the Roman Catholic church. The Word of God enclosed into the Bible, the Spirit of God enclosed into the Org. Blondie's trinity seems formally different since the Spirit and organization are distinct -- so I don't think it is a conscious construction. However, when the Org. is included in any way into the "functional Godhead" the result is the same...
Narkissos
JoinedPosts by Narkissos
-
17
The new trinity - Jehovah, His Word and His Organization
by truthseeker inthe new trinity - jehovah, his word, and his organization.
how many of you have heard this phrase used before?.
more often than not, you will hear some co use this, as he describes the 'spiritual paradise.'.
-
-
-
17
The new trinity - Jehovah, His Word and His Organization
by truthseeker inthe new trinity - jehovah, his word, and his organization.
how many of you have heard this phrase used before?.
more often than not, you will hear some co use this, as he describes the 'spiritual paradise.'.
-
-
-
12
Naming the divine
by Euphemism ini have a question for the great mass of people on this site who are neither atheists nor religious.. .
i don't believe in god.
i don't think that there's some supernatural being who performs miracles, or inspires holy writings, or listens to prayers, or judges the dead, or anything like that.
-
-
Narkissos
Euphemism: sorry my references are mostly French! That's the interest and limitation of an international board. I'm pretty sure that Levinas is translated into English, I have more doubts about Lacan since his work is closely linked with the possibilities of the French language: but there may be good adaptations too. Another French writer I read much too late is Jacques Derrida, but I think English-speaking readers know him better than we usually do...
Blues Brother: I tend to think that because we invented language, logic and design, we are prone to read the same "human" and "personal" features into reality. But even when I was a believer I was somewhat conscious that my aesthetic appreciation of the universe was particularly directed to things which imply a measure of chance, or random. Such as the configuration of stars, the form of mountains, clouds or waves on the ocean. To misquote Einstein, seems like we are especially fond of God when he does play dice. The universe as we know it is certainly the result of a number of wills, or desires -- the "natural" propension of things and living beings to BE with and against each other. Personally I don't see the need of an additional, overhanging Will above. Yes, the question remains: why something rather than nothing? But it is OUR question, the question of beings already involved in the "something" and who (by chance?) became able to figure out the "nothing" -- as a mere possibility of language, implying "yes" and "no". But it is another thread...
-
22
Atheists and prayer
by Narkissos ini have read some years ago that, according to the results of a survey in a western country (i think it was germany), the number of people who admitted praying occasionally was far superior to the number of believers in any kind of god.. when i read ancient prayers to the gods or goddesses in a polytheistic context, i notice they are not very different, in form and in content, from the prayers to the monotheistic "god".
many of the bible prayers (e.g.
psalms) have probably originated in a polytheistic context, even though we now read them as prayers to the one and only god.
-
-
Narkissos
LT: Please read my introducing post again and consider where the aggression and intolerance came from. My question was especially addressed to "fellow unbelievers", although constructive contributions such as DoubleEdge's or yours were welcome of course.
Personnally I feel free to post (respectfully enough, I hope) on believers' threads, since I'm still interested in theology. If there is an unwritten rule of separation between believers and unbelievers on this board, I think we will all miss something very important. I certainly do not hold believers to be silly, and I think it would be great for believers not to consider "spirituality" their exclusive realm.
-
12
Naming the divine
by Euphemism ini have a question for the great mass of people on this site who are neither atheists nor religious.. .
i don't believe in god.
i don't think that there's some supernatural being who performs miracles, or inspires holy writings, or listens to prayers, or judges the dead, or anything like that.
-
-
Narkissos
I would definitely avoid the word "God" (except, perhaps, in "prayer", and I would rather think it as "my god" in lower case).
After giving a personal try to the modern theological game of "redefining God" (in which game Tillich is a central figure), I came to realize we would always lose at such a game. For "God" (capital) is not a mathematical unknown "x" which could be redefined. It's a word of our language with a very definite meaning (immortal, almighty, creator...). Every new "definition", such as Paul's "weakness and folly of God", or "John"'s "God is love", will be at best understood as a "communication strategy". In the beginning and in the end God has to be God, weakness turned into power, folly into wisdom, and love triumphant and all-embracing. First and last there is no such thing as "revelation", because the basic definition of God absorbs and annihilates every revelation.
So I keep on seeking, although not a "God beyond god". Within myself, perhaps, but also without myself. Spirituality involves ek-stasis as well as introspection. It may be more "intersubjective" than "subjective" (cf. Emmanuel Levinas' critique of interiority, or even Jaspers' formula "truth begins with two"). It is also related to language, and implies my personal connection of "real", "symbolic" and "imaginary" in a Lacanian mood. Thinking of Lacan, I wonder if the "Other" figure which is no "other one" wouldn't be a good candidate for the "beyond God" (provided, of course, it is not imagined as a god or godhead!).
-
22
Atheists and prayer
by Narkissos ini have read some years ago that, according to the results of a survey in a western country (i think it was germany), the number of people who admitted praying occasionally was far superior to the number of believers in any kind of god.. when i read ancient prayers to the gods or goddesses in a polytheistic context, i notice they are not very different, in form and in content, from the prayers to the monotheistic "god".
many of the bible prayers (e.g.
psalms) have probably originated in a polytheistic context, even though we now read them as prayers to the one and only god.
-
-
Narkissos
I have read some years ago that, according to the results of a survey in a Western country (I think it was Germany), the number of people who admitted praying occasionally was far superior to the number of believers in any kind of god.
When I read ancient prayers to the gods or goddesses in a polytheistic context, I notice they are not very different, in form and in content, from the prayers to the monotheistic "God". Many of the Bible prayers (e.g. Psalms) have probably originated in a polytheistic context, even though we now read them as prayers to the one and only God. In other words, prayer is older than God, and perhaps than the gods. And the "death of God" doesn't necessarily mean the end of this particular form of expression we call prayer.
Although I do not believe in God anymore, I still "pray" from time to time. An excess of anxiety, or joy, can lead me to "prayer", although I do not imagine anyone "listening to me". It's pretty irrational OK, but I guess prayer always is. When a consistent Calvinist prays, for instance, while believing that God has foreordained everything before the foundation of the world, he does something pretty irrational too. He may believe that God also foreordained his prayer, but this is hardly a motivation for his action.
So my question (especially adressed to fellow unbelievers) is the following: do you still feel like praying from time to time? Do you indulge in such irrational "prayer", or repress the "urge to pray" because you deem it inconsistent with your world view? How do you rationalize this experience -- if you do?
-
37
How important is the Devil to God?
by Narkissos ina few days ago, on the thread about ?a new view of the trinity?, rubadub voiced his disappointment as to the lack of any really new view, such as a fourth member who could turn it into a quadrinity or replace any of the members of the trinity in case of emergency.
at the moment i just laughed, but later on i thought the devil could be a very good candidate.
just think: under the influence of persian dualism, shortly after yhwh, the god of ancient israel, became god in the absolute sense (say in the 6th century bc, with second isaiah), satan (from a common hebrew noun meaning ?opposer?
-
-
Narkissos
Bienvenue ColdRedRain!
Obviously French-speaking people feel at home on the Devil's thread!
-
10
HAVE I MISSED ANYONE?
by Dansk ina merry christmas and a happy new year 2004!
i will try to wish you in as many languages of the world as possible.
christmas greetings from around the world!
-
-
Narkissos
Joyeux Noël, everybody!
-
7
Library of Babel
by IronGland inthe universe (which others call the library) is composed of an indefinite and perhaps infinite number of hexagonal galleries, with vast air shafts between, surrounded by very low railings.
from any of the hexagons one can see, interminably, the upper and lower floors.
the distribution of the galleries is invariable.
-
-
Narkissos
I was about to make the absolute Borgesian comment on the text (copy and paste it, and sign it Narkissos, or IronGland, or Brian Smith -- see El libro de arena, or the Book of Sand) when I saw your last post.
IMO the library is not the "real" Universe or even its potentialities but its linguistical (or symbolical) double doubling itself in an infinity of reflections. For any "truth" to happen, a kind of closure of this infinite multi-infinity would be required that would allow such thing as a repetition (cf. Kierkegaard, or Nietzsche's Eternal recurrence). Breathtaking, isn't it?
-
16
What is the difference between Christianity and Paganism?
by CruithneLaLuna inrecently i had the opportunity to read the first three or four chapters of a very interesting book: the jesus mysteries : was the "original jesus" a pagan god?
i regret that circumstances prevented me from completing my reading.
i may choose to purchase a copy of this book for my personal library, and so that i can finish reading it.
-
-
Narkissos
Words story.
"Paganism" is a Jewish and Christian negative word/concept. "Pagan" is everything which doesn't belong to the "history of revelation" as made up by Judaism or Christianity (a "history" which is everything but historical). I wonder to what extent those who term themselves "pagans" in the Western world are conscious of this: without Judaism and Christianity, there would be no "pagans" at all. Only religions and philosophies which wouldn't be connected to each other without the Jewish/Christian embracing concept of "Paganism".
Leolaia: IMO what we usually call Jewish Christianity should be most accurately called Nazorene Judaism. The teaching and practice of Jesus (?) and James (which were perhaps more different than Eisenman, for instance, would have us believe) are practically unrelated to what we term Christianity. One cannot, at the same time, say "Christianity begins with Paul" and "James' teaching is true/original Christianity".
Two somewhat connected questions concern the "Q" logia. The fact that these are used by the Epistle of James (which I hold to be pseudepigraphical) makes me wonder if they are really 1) Palestinian (the overall connections of EpJames rather points to a diaspora Hellenistic background, in my view) and 2) "Jesuanic" at all (the fact that EpJames uses them without referring them to Jesus is telling to me).
My provisional conclusion at this point is that "Christianity" really begins in the fringes of Hellenistic Judaism, with only a tangential contact with palestinian "Nazorene Judaism". In this Hellenistic milieu many "pagan" ideas rejected by Palestinian Judaism (including Nazorenes) found their way into Christianity itself through Mystery cults, Gnosticism, Philonism and the like -- which led in time to a slightly different definition of "Paganism", nonetheless reinforcing the general negative notion.