Help Constructing Fictional Cross-Religious Movement
tomhcmi
point-of-departure is U.S.America's religios and legal reaction to 11
Sept 2001.
I want them to (fictionally) begin to restrict the rights of
non-citizens to preach (not practice) their religions.
I want all the "big" events to stay the same up until after January 20
2001 if possible. Obviously *THE* "big event" of Sept 11 2001 also has
to stay the same.
What I want is a movement, within several of *their* (*those*
Americans') religions, that thinks that not only is there no Heaven,
but that "preaching Heaven" is sinful.
(Here, "Heaven" is meant in the sense of "a reward after death",
especially "an eternal reward").
I hope someone with some knowledge of the actual history of religion
can help me.
I am looking, for example, for thinkers and movements in the years
33AD-1775AD. So far all I have come up with are Rastafarians (it's OK
that they are post-1775) and Sadduccees (it's OK that they are pre-1AD,
but it's not OK that I don't know how to spell it.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I want all of my "religious" main characters to be quite concerned
about morality and about the moral climate of the world; but, I would
like some of them to have some different ideas about GOD.
These "different ideas about GOD" should be consistent with, but need
not be because of, their religious teachings. (Although it's OK if
they are.)
Here is a list of four "ideas" I've come up with (that is, I came up
with the list; none of the ideas are original with me.) I don't need
all of them represented by my characters. Does anyone know of any
historical groups that had ideas like these?
1) GOD, the Creator of the Universe, was "just practicing" when HE made
this Universe. It contains several design flaws, which we just have to
put up with. HE has since moved on to other projects, and no longer
Sustains nor Rules this Universe.
2) GOD, the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the Universe, was a newbie
when HE created it. It contains several design flaws, which HE and we
struggle to get around or overcome every day.
3) GOD, the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the Universe, was young
and vital when HE created it, and did a great job. However he has
since gotten senile, and no longer does such a good job of Sustaining
and Ruling it.
4) GOD, the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the Universe, did just
fine and is doing just fine for HIS purposes, whatever they are.
However, HE is not a Moral Being. He cares no more what we do to each
other than we care how cockroaches treat each other. Morality is a
totally Human category, and GOD doesn't give a flip about it. It's up
to us to be just to each other; if we want and/or need Justice from
GOD, we are going to have to enforce it, somehow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
It's OK if some, even most, of them believe in God.
It's OK if some, even most, of them believe a soul can survive death.
For instance, they could believe in re-incarnation, provided:
1) the next incarnation cannot be a reward for this one;
2) just as a program on a disk being transported by "sneakernet"
between computers cannot process data, so a soul between incarnations
cannot experience reward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I want one or a few of my main characters to belong to a group
thinking that it is "sinful" to "waste" any effort, resources, time, or
maybe even thought, on any "other world" or "afterlife" or the wishes
of any immaterial or invisible or intangible Being.
-----
Kazimír Doležal
> 1) the next incarnation cannot be a reward for this one;
I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but the condition
quoted above brought the Calvinists to mind.
They believed that whether or not one would go to Heaven was
predetermined, so some people were doomed from birth and others were
destined for Heaven.
However, they also believed that being pious and hard-working in life
INDICATED that you were one of those who would go to Heaven---the result
being that their sense of morality was little different from those of
other Protestant sects.
(Unless I completely misunderstand their belief system, which, I admit,
is likely---even among the LEAST insane Christian sects.)
--KD
Chris
the god who created it differ, with the creator being a superior,
benevolent being who was somehow cut off from us by a evil, petty
deity. I think they started sometime before Christianity, and didn't
disappear until after the ascent of the Catholic church. Both the
Matrix and the works of Philip K Dick were influenced by Gnosticism,
and perhaps you could somehow use the popularity of these two works to
explain the new popularity of Gnosticism. They seem to fit number 4 on
your list, and you could always have some charismatic preacher modify
their beliefs.
tomhcmi
What is the purpose of religion?
My alt.T.L. is based on the idea that a significant or influential
minority thinks
the answer is:
"The purpose of religion is to reconcile believers with death;
primarily in these important ways:
1) To make the believer willing to kill "evil people";
2) To make the believer comfortable with the collateral deaths of
"innocent people";
3) To make the believer willing to die if necessary to "kill evil
people".
Then there will be a conflict between those who believe the above and,
consequently, that all religion is evil; vs. those who believe the
above and, consequently, that their own pro-death religion is
pre-destined to triumph.
But I want a "third party" to the argument, who see the purpose of
religion differently.
So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
-------------------------
Forgetting for a moment what you believe, and what makes sense:
What would be the ideal religion to make everyone want to improve the
quality of human life and human society, beginning in an environment
much like today's?
For instance, a religion that thought everyone would be reincarnated,
unpredictably, might encourage everyone to try to give every baby an
equal chance at the best available life:-- balancing "best" and "equal"
as well as they could.
-----
Tom H.C. in MI
Bill Swears
particularly well. After all, it makes you wonder if you'll earn a spot
in the mystic lottery.
What it does for me is prepares me to meet life well. I expect that I'm
here to learn, rather than here to die. I believe that right conduct
will have some value beyond this mortal coil.
And, religion gives me a reason to live. That is to say, anybody smart
enough to wonder why, will also at some time wonder why bother.
Religion can help you find a moral underpinning, a personal philosophy,
that will stop you from taking the big black pill because you stubbed
your toe. After all, if you don't think you're doing something
worthwhile beyond what you see, then the only thing keeping you alive is
fear. I don't want to live in fear, I would rather live in hope.
--
Bill Swears
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin, 1755 "Historical Review of Pennsylvania"
To think that was once a right wing comment. In the land of Homeland
Security it seems.. Suspiciously left-wing.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But I want a "third party" to the argument, who see the purpose of
> religion differently.
> So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
What perspective do you want on that?
I mean, I might well say, "To make it more readily possible for people
to make sense of numinous experiences". However, I presume that you're
aware of that one already and have discarded it as not useful, perhaps
because it is too obvious or undercuts the "religion is a tool to
manipulate people" focus.
Similarly obvious would be "Developing codes that make it possible for
people to a) live together b) become better people c) become more
balanced people d) please the gods" (though d) is really just my first
one reiterated). The tools and basic philosophies for doing this vary
widely; many have some similarities at various levels, but differ in
axioms or implementations.
There's tribal marker: we can tell who is Us and who is Them by the way
they do religion. Of course the tribe over there doesn't share our
gods, they're a different tribe.
There's the "making sense of the universe and one's place within it"
thing, always popular; whether this is religion as science or religion
as social allegory depends a great deal on who's interpreting the
notion.
Probably some others, but that's what I've got at two in the morning.
> What would be the ideal religion to make everyone want to improve the
> quality of human life and human society, beginning in an environment
> much like today's?
No such thing exists. The basic motivators and supports that different
people need to produce a particular result are _different_; anything
consistent and coherent enough to be a single religion will be lacking
in some of the tools that some people will need, will actively sabotage
the progress of some people who would be better off following other
paths, will be flatly incomprehensible to some people, will be obviously
incompatible with the way the universe works for others, and will just
be meaningless noise to still others.
Should one manage to come up with something sufficiently generic as to
be universally (or even nigh-universally) acceptable, it will have no
substance left to actually provide motivation or improve odds of
success.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that any religion or branch thereof that
spends much time concerned over who gets cookies when they're dead is
defective; this has the effect of perplexing proselytisers who are
convinced that I should worry about their religion's hell, but otherwise
makes no difference to the functioning of the universe.
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Zeborah
> Forgetting for a moment what you believe, and what makes sense:
>
> What would be the ideal religion to make everyone want to improve the
> quality of human life and human society, beginning in an environment
> much like today's?
That's like asking what the ideal motivator is in the workforce. For
some it's money, for some recognition, for some power, for some new
challenges, for some...
What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Bill Swears
> tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Forgetting for a moment what you believe, and what makes sense:
>>
>>What would be the ideal religion to make everyone want to improve the
>>quality of human life and human society, beginning in an environment
>>much like today's?
>
>
> That's like asking what the ideal motivator is in the workforce. For
> some it's money, for some recognition, for some power, for some new
> challenges, for some...
>
> What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
>
> Zeborah
Isn't that dependant on what you had for dinner? (City Slickers)
Irina Rempt
> What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
Caramel! No, melon. Mint. Raspberry :-)
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 23-Jul-2005
Gerry Quinn
tomhch...@yahoo.com says...
> (BTW Thanks to Kazimir & Chris for their contributions.)
> What is the purpose of religion?
>
> My alt.T.L. is based on the idea that a significant or influential
> minority thinks
> the answer is:
> "The purpose of religion is to reconcile believers with death;
> primarily in these important ways:
> 1) To make the believer willing to kill "evil people";
> 2) To make the believer comfortable with the collateral deaths of
> "innocent people";
> 3) To make the believer willing to die if necessary to "kill evil
> people".
>
> Then there will be a conflict between those who believe the above and,
> consequently, that all religion is evil; vs. those who believe the
> above and, consequently, that their own pro-death religion is
> pre-destined to triumph.
Are the first lot pacifists? If not, they clearly have some religion
substitute that is nearly as good!
> But I want a "third party" to the argument, who see the purpose of
> religion differently.
> So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
In part the same as science, i.e. to make sense of the world.
In part to help people internalise the attitudes and behaviours that
are necessary for a functioning society.
- Gerry Quinn
Brian M. Scott
<tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1122340090.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if:
> (BTW Thanks to Kazimir & Chris for their contributions.)
> What is the purpose of religion?
> My alt.T.L. is based on the idea that a significant or influential
> minority thinks
> the answer is:
> "The purpose of religion is to reconcile believers with death;
> primarily in these important ways:
> 1) To make the believer willing to kill "evil people";
> 2) To make the believer comfortable with the collateral deaths of
> "innocent people";
> 3) To make the believer willing to die if necessary to "kill evil
> people".
I don't think that (1), (2), and (3) really go with the
purpose 'to reconcile believers [to] death'; they look more
like corollaries of 'The purpose of religion is to eradicate
evil'.
(By the way, you mean 'reconcile believers *to* death',
unless you're thinking of death as a character with whom
believers can be on the outs.)
[...]
> So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
Unanswerable, since it varies from person to person. But
judging by the rest of your post, you're actually asking to
what purposes religion has been put, and perhaps also what
human needs (as experienced by some human beings, at least)
it satisfies.
[...]
Brian
tomhcmi
comment.
Zeborah's and Darkhawk's criticisms are in a sense opposite each other.
I need to modify my question to avoid problems each pointed out.
To some degree I could do that by asking for _an_ "ideal" religion,
rather than _the_ "ideal" religion.
(To discipline speculation, perhaps I should reiterate that I would
like this movement to be "based" on, or similar to, actual
movements that existed OTL in a certain time; my first suggested time
was 37CE-1773CE, or something like that.)
Zeborah points out "what's the ideal religion to motivate its believers
to improve the world?" runs into
some of the same foundational problems as "what's the ideal motivator
for your employees?" does for an employer.
But every real religion that had a significant influence over a
significant population and a significant area for a significant time,
provided some of every kind of motivator Zeborah brings up.
I would want my fictional movement to do the same.
Darkhawk points out that if you just take the common points of a
sufficiently diverse set of religions,
what you are left with is not enough to be a religion.
I want one, though, that will produce consistently motivated behaviour
in some significant set of people.
Since a person's doubts vary over time and in different situations, the
religion should have a set of several different paths by which a
believer can come to the same conclusion about how to act.
Bill Swears's first comment mentioned such things as "religion gives
you a reason to live".
I think any religion in which re-incarnation is a given is going to
have trouble with this.
If I seem to be "screwed" this time around, why not "fold" early, and
go straight to the next "deal"?
Bill Swears and Darkhawk both reminded me of an attitude I hope to
represent in my ATL,
if it turns out to fit into the general storyline.
That is,
"Is not the _present_ value of any reward or punishment,
which is postponed to after death or to the end of the world,
essentially zero?
Why, then, should I concern myself with such a thing?
Or with the commandments of any God Whose only 'carrot' or 'stick'
consists of such things?"
That was one of the reasons I want a group who believe God can provide
rewards or punishments in _this_ life.
-----
In addition to the above comments,
I would like to once again ask for anyone who can point me to
resources about actual OTL religious movements that have had similar
ideas.
A Hasidic man (Moshe Chomsky), a character in a short story I just read
said something like (sorry I left the book (Common Grounds) at home and
can't really quote)
"Our duty is to do what each of us can to make this Earth more like
Heaven".
That is the kind of attitude I want some of my characters to have.
Unfortunately for my present purpose, he followed it up by saying
something like:
"You know, Moses was a great man. But when I stand before God, He will
not ask me 'Why were you not Moses?'
He might ask me, 'Why were you not Moshe?"
The reason I can't use that is, the idea that a person will be Judged
at the end of his or her life.
----------
Each believer's purpose for believing in his or her religion is
personal, and probably quasi-unique.
What has been the purpose of religion from the point of view of the
historian, not the POV of the believer?
Here are some candidate-answers that have been proposed by various
persons:
(All of these candidate-answers are rather cynical; the same is not
necessarily true of their proposers.)
1) It provides an income and a living for priests and other religious.
2) It makes people likelier to obey the law in general.
3) It especially makes it easier to collect huge amounts of
tithe/tax/donations.
4) It especially makes it easier to draft people into armies of
obedient soldiers, willing to risk death and to kill.
5) It makes people likelier to accept the lot they have, and to work to
improve it gradualistically and by non-revolutionary means.
-------
Suppose one wished to design a religion whose effect was to make people
unwilling to kill and/or cause suffering to others?
Suppose one wished to design a religion whose effect was to make people
want to improve the world?
I have said I want a group in my ATL who think "The belief in
life-after-death is and EVIL belief",
and a group who think "Collecting money or work to support/glorify an
invisible or intangible or eschatological or other-worldly goal is an
EVIL WASTE."
These people would want all effort to be secular (in the sense of "this
age", not eschatological in the sense of "not the End Times") and
materialist or realist (in the sense of "if you can't see it or touch
it, or it has nothing to do with 'things' and 'matter', then it
'DOESN't matter' and is a frivolous waste of time") and humanist (in
the sense of "God can't tell us what's right and wrong; if He ever
wants to know, we'll tell Him.")
However I want at least one more group, with goals and ideals not
entirely incompatible with the above,
who do not reject all of these religious tenets.
I thought the easiest would be "survival of the soul" (after death,
that is).
If a soul survives only in the sense that it will be re-incarnated;
and this re-incarnation is never a reward nor a punishment;
then a believer would be motivated to make the world as just as
possible,
and to give every newborn as good, and as equal, a chance at a good
life, as possible.
Such a religion might promote socialism or communism, for instance.
Bill Swears pointed out one possible problem; folding your hand and
tossing in your cards early.
I think that suicide would be discouraged by
"But you didn't use _this_ incarnation to improve everybody's
(including your own) chances before your _next_ incarnation."
Another tenet some such group might have is a God who is one or more of
the following;
1) the source of morality, ethics, justice, etc...
2) the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the universe.
3) other ideas I or one of you might think of later
Among other tenets such a group might believe could be;
1) God designed and created the Universe;
2) the Creator (whether a committee, a computer, God, or whatever) had
a Purpose in creating the Universe
(This is the tenet of "the Purpose-Built Universe").
3) The existence of Life is the main purpose, or the main part of the
main purpose, of the universe.
4) The existence of Intelligence is the main purpose, or the main part
of the main purpose, of the universe.
5) Terrestrial Life (Life on Earth) is the main ... etc. ... purpose of
the universe.
6) Humanity (Intellligent Terrestrial Life) is the main purpose of the
universe.
7) God cares a lot about Human Morality, Human Ethics, Human Justice,
Human Good, etc.
8) God's ideas about Morality, Ethics, Justice, Good, Right, etc. are
parallel with, compatible with, and the ideal form of, Human ideas
about the same thing.
I think the main group in my ATL would question most of the above. I
would like to have a group which believes one or more (maybe all) of
the above, yet still supports the basic goal of Improving Life On Earth
as the most important project any believer can undertake --- higher
priority than renewing the gold-leaf on the altar, for example.
If I can "create" (fictionally) such a group, and have its roots in an
actual OTL group, that would be an ideal accomplishment of one of my
sub-goals. But I don't know enough about "real religions" to do it
yet. I hoped some of you knew of good resources on the effects of
religion on history, and, better, resources about OTL religions or OTL
religious movements that might inspire my fictional ATL ones.
------------
I asked for "Cross-Religious Movements" in part because
I understand some people think such things have happened in the past.
For instance; Gnosticism appears to have been a cross-religious
movement.
There were Gnostic and non-Gnostic Christians; but there were also
Christian and non-Christan Gnostics.
For another instance, Tantra appears to have been a cross-religious
movement.
There were Tantric and non-Tantric Buddhists, and there were also
Buddhist and non-Buddhist Tantrists.
For another instance, Mysticism appears to have been a cross-religious
movement.
There were Christian Mystics; Sufis are among Islamic Mystics;
Henry(?) James appears to have been a non-religiously-aligned Mystic;
and there are Mystics among Eastern religions.
("the experience of the numinous" answer for "the purpose of religion"
kind of qualifies the answerer as a proto-Mystic.)
For my final example (not that there might not be more and better ones
out there),
Fundamentalism (in the wide sense) appears to be a cross-religious
movement.
----------
I was very surprised to get six answers / five answerers after six days
of only two other contributors.
I am pleased to see there are more people who are at least reading my
questions and attempts-to-answer.
I hope people who were interested in only part of what I wrote in this
very long post,
were able to find and read all the parts they were interested in,
amongst the parts they were not interested in.
-----
Any and all pertinent contributions will be welcome.
If you think your contribution might be pertinent, take a chance and
contribute it.
Thanks.
Bill Swears
> "Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote
>
>
> None of us seem to be able to account for the difference -- for why one
> person would need an answer to the 'Why?' question you postulate in order
> keep on living, while others don't.
>
> Pat
This may seem odd from a confessed Christian, but I'd rather have the
search for truth than the "truth" spelled out. I don't think humans are
capable of getting it right, except on accident. What we can do is
strive to better understand. Any religious zealot who claims to know
the Will of God, frightens me.
In my truth, there are as many human answers to what lies beyond, and
why we are here, as there are human beings. God knows, you and I, my
pastor, and the pope, have opinions.
I do think that every person on earth faces the question of whether to
execute his or her own mortality. The 'why stick around' answer is very
personal, and varies widely. Any discussion we hold concerning our
personal why is rationalizing the decision, rather than explaining it.
A person who claims he doesn't need a reason to keep living has found
one that meets his needs, but knows it at a level that makes defining it
either impossible to encode for transmission, or self destructive.
The group that thinks they need an answer, and that group that doesn't,
seem about equally likely to end up killing themselves. Both groups
prove themselves right, and wrong, all the time.
Marilee J. Layman
(H. Nicoll)) wrote:
>[crossposts trimmed]
>
>tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But I want a "third party" to the argument, who see the purpose of
>> religion differently.
>> So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
>
>What perspective do you want on that?
>
>I mean, I might well say, "To make it more readily possible for people
>to make sense of numinous experiences". However, I presume that you're
>aware of that one already and have discarded it as not useful, perhaps
>because it is too obvious or undercuts the "religion is a tool to
>manipulate people" focus.
How about to explain why we have strange things happen in our heads?
--
Marilee J. Layman
Pat Bowne
"Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote
>
> And, religion gives me a reason to live. That is to say, anybody smart
> enough to wonder why, will also at some time wonder why bother. Religion
> can help you find a moral underpinning, a personal philosophy, that will
> stop you from taking the big black pill because you stubbed your toe.
> After all, if you don't think you're doing something worthwhile beyond
> what you see, then the only thing keeping you alive is fear. I don't want
> to live in fear, I would rather live in hope.
This is akin to an issue that keeps coming up in my Philosophy of Science
group -- the division between people who need the hope of a unifying theory,
be it religious or scientific, versus those of us who don't need any such
thing.
Pat Bowne
"Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote
>Any discussion we hold concerning our personal why is rationalizing the
>decision, rather than explaining it.
You lost me here. Are you saying it is intrinsically impossible to express
such things?
> A person who claims he doesn't need a reason to keep living has found one
> that meets his needs, but knows it at a level that makes defining it
> either impossible to encode for transmission, or self destructive.
>
> The group that thinks they need an answer, and that group that doesn't,
> seem about equally likely to end up killing themselves. Both groups prove
> themselves right, and wrong, all the time.
How do you get data about those groups? I haven't even seen them as clearly
identified groups. Where should I be looking?
Pat
tomhcmi
You bring up at least two (depending on how I count them) good (to my
way of thinking) points;
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2005 18:08:10 -0700, tomhcmi
> <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <news:1122340090.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if:
> > [snip]
> > What is the purpose of religion?
> > My alt.T.L. is based on the idea that a significant or influential
> > minority thinks
> > the answer is:
> > "The purpose of religion is to reconcile believers with death;
> > [snip]
> I don't think that (1), (2), and (3) really go with the
> purpose 'to reconcile believers [to] death'; they look more
> like corollaries of 'The purpose of religion is to eradicate
> evil'.
Worth thinking about. You may be right.
I think many believers derive much of the benefit they perceive
their faith giving them, from its ability to help them deal with death.
But most of such whom I know personally,
don't believe the points (1) (2) and (3) that I snipped out above.
> (By the way, you mean 'reconcile believers *to* death',
OK, thanks for correcting my usage.
> unless you're thinking of death as a character
Not in /this/ story!
But I think in some other story, Death might appear, not as the
beautiful Gothette of Neil Gaiman's Sandman, nor as the well-meaning
but confused grandfather of Terry Pratchett's Discworld, but as
(and I don't know who I'm ripping off here, sorry)
"a confused teenager who hasn't even made up his mind yet whether or
not he's really going to use the Uzi he just brought into the fast-food
restaurant."
> with whom believers can be on the outs.)
> [snip]
> > So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
> [snip] ...
> judging by the rest of your post, you're actually asking
> to what purposes religion has been put,
Yes, that is one of the main questions I meant to ask in my third post.
> and perhaps also
> what human needs [...snip...] it satisfies.
Yes, that is also one of the main questions I meant to ask in my third
post.
Thank you for noticing and pointing out that they are separate.
Naturally I don't want answers to one of those questions to exclude
answers to the other. I want to know both. I suppose I should have
had some firm theories of my own before posting here--- but since I
didn't, I asked for "Help".
Thanks.
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <1122340090.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> tomhch...@yahoo.com says...
> > (BTW Thanks to Kazimir & Chris for their contributions.)
> > What is the purpose of religion?
> >
> > My alt.T.L. is based on the idea that a significant or influential
> > minority thinks
> > the answer is:
> > "The purpose of religion is to reconcile believers with death;
> > primarily in these important ways:
> > 1) To make the believer willing to kill "evil people";
> > 2) To make the believer comfortable with the collateral deaths of
> > "innocent people";
> > 3) To make the believer willing to die if necessary to "kill evil
> > people".
> >
> > Then there will be a conflict between those who believe the above and,
> > consequently, that all religion is evil; vs. those who believe the
> > above and, consequently, that their own pro-death religion is
> > pre-destined to triumph.
>
> Are the first lot pacifists? If not, they clearly have some religion
> substitute that is nearly as good!
That looks like it would be a good question, if I understood it.
Please explain.
(I expect most will not be 100% through-and-through "pacifists";
but I think a majority may be "mostly pacifistic";---
ideas such as "no first strike" and "only 'hit hard enough' to defend
yourself", and generally rejecting lex talionis "eye for eye -- tooth
for tooth".)
>
> > But I want a "third party" to the argument, who see the purpose of
> > religion differently.
> > So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
>
> In part the same as science, i.e. to make sense of the world.
>
> In part to help people internalise the attitudes and behaviours that
> are necessary for a functioning society.
This last answer is also interesting to me; can you elaborate this one
as well?
tomhcmi
Bill Swears wrote:
> [snip]
> After all, if you don't think you're doing something
> worthwhile beyond what you see, then the only thing keeping you alive is
> fear.
> [snip]
I don't think my characters, nor all real people,
believe that "what you can see" can be valuable enough to be worth
living.
In fact I want some of them to think that what you /can't/ see or
touch,
is so /un/important, that it is sinful to waste time on it.
Obviously a lot of real people, and people in my ATL, will agree with
you.
I just think it is logically and emotionally possible to disagree, and
to
found a philosophy of life on other principles.
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:27:04 -0400, dark...@mindspring.com (Darkhawk
> (H. Nicoll)) wrote:
>
> >[crossposts trimmed]
> >
> >tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> But I want a "third party" to the argument, who see the purpose of
> >> religion differently.
> >> So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
> >
> >What perspective do you want on that?
> >
> >I mean, I might well say, "To make it more readily possible for people
> >to make sense of numinous experiences".
This applies only, or primarily, to mystics, right?
They are the main group for whom that would be the /primary/ purpose of
religion.
> > However, I presume that you're
> >aware of that one already and have discarded it as not useful, perhaps
> >because it is too obvious or undercuts the "religion is a tool to
> >manipulate people" focus.
>
> How about to explain why we have strange things happen in our heads?
Well, for my own personal use, if it worked, that would be a great use
of religion for me.
Bill Swears
> "Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote
>
>
>>Any discussion we hold concerning our personal why is rationalizing the
>>decision, rather than explaining it.
>
>
> You lost me here. Are you saying it is intrinsically impossible to express
> such things?
Hmm, I'm thinking it's intrisically impossible for the mind to know
itself. There are a bevy of conflicting impulses and triggers that
might lead to suicidal behavior, and fully understanding or expressing
that flux is, yes, impossible. So, we come up with rationalities that
bracket our understanding, and make all knowing statements, like I did
above, but in the end, don't really understand.
>
>
>>A person who claims he doesn't need a reason to keep living has found one
>>that meets his needs, but knows it at a level that makes defining it
>>either impossible to encode for transmission, or self destructive.
>>
>>The group that thinks they need an answer, and that group that doesn't,
>>seem about equally likely to end up killing themselves. Both groups prove
>>themselves right, and wrong, all the time.
>
>
> How do you get data about those groups? I haven't even seen them as clearly
> identified groups. Where should I be looking?
Hmm, I started in a course of study (several psych classes for what
that institution called a depth cluster) in abnormal psychology 20 years
ago. Then two people I knew moderately well suicided in that local
community of about 5000 people.
In trying to make sense of that I started studying the demographics of
suicide, and came up with several of the commonly taught datapoints.
But it seems to come down to; the causes of actual suicide aren't very
philosophically based. They're more likely to be related to depression
and recovery (physiological or situational doesn't seem be significant.)
Chronic and irremediable illness causes an upswing. People often
suicide in loose groups, not through pacts, but apparently by example.
So, any organization large enough to have a suicide statistic can
reliably predict that suicide is contagious. This pisses off the
medical community and the religious community who seem to want to deal
with it as an individual anomaly, but the the relationship is real. You
can't prove one suicide causes another, but you can easily demonstrate
that when one happens in a organization, whether it's family or
professional, there will probably be a surge in the statistic.
Relational, but not provably causative. In the US Coast Guard that kind
of surge pops up in District or larger elements, several thousand
people, and in the army it seems to be most visible at battalion level
and higher.
But, here is a link that might actually help, since it isn't just the
result of my admittedly biased research. It's medical, and tries fairly
successfully to avoid PC notions in defining and evaluating self murder
trends.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3004.htm
The site has weaknesses. One is, most people who suicide due to
clinical depression do so after they start recovery. The article I'm
pointing you at doesn't deal with that. Another is it discusses
organizational suicides as steady state, rather than situational. It
only discusses with I call contagious suicide in terms of family, when
there is a wealth of statisics that support the same effect in any
social group with internal news transmission.
It doesn't look at what you wanted, in that it talks about suicide
rates in a couple religious groups, but makes no attempt to validate the
rate in the non-religious population. I'm willing to bet such studies
are available, either by one of the larger secular studies groups, or by
one of their enemies. But I don't think it will vary much from standard
demographics, just based on the backgrounds of the various individuals
I've known of who did take the black pill.
Bill (this guy really lets on.)
--
Bill Swears
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin, 1755 "Historical Review of Pennsylvania"
To think that was once a right wing comment. In the land of Homeland
Security it seems.. Suspiciously left wing.
Bill Swears
> Obviously a lot of real people, and people in my ATL, will agree with
> you.
> I just think it is logically and emotionally possible to disagree, and
> to
> found a philosophy of life on other principles.
>
> Tom H.C. in MI
>
Obviously it is, consider the communist relationship to religion for
sixty years or more. An awful lot of people in the USSR were
indoctrinated from birth on the concept that religion is a waste of
resources. And a lot of them grew up healthy. Eventually though, they
overthrew their own state and allowed religious freedom back in. So, it
must not have been an ideal situation.
Not really significant, so far every form of government has eventually
failed, and so far, religious affiliation hasn't stopped that.
But, watch out for my father's dialectic. One time we were talking
about our differing beliefs he considers himself an atheist, although he
doesn't acknowledge the term... But he liked my choice of career, and
when he tried to explain *that*, he came up with.... "There is no such
thing as a god that created us, but I think we were put on earth to help
other people."
He wasn't joking. I just didn't know how to reply.
Bill
Catja Pafort
> Zeborah wrote:
>
> > What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
>
> Caramel! No, melon. Mint. Raspberry :-)
Which leads to a different realisation:
The ideal place to live is one where you can indulge in either at will.
Catja (who'd like a few Italian icecream makers to immigrate, please, I
don't like 'vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, or vanilla')
Gerry Quinn
tomhch...@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > In article <1122340090.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > tomhch...@yahoo.com says...
> > > (BTW Thanks to Kazimir & Chris for their contributions.)
> > > What is the purpose of religion?
> > >
> > > My alt.T.L. is based on the idea that a significant or influential
> > > minority thinks
> > > the answer is:
> > > "The purpose of religion is to reconcile believers with death;
> > > primarily in these important ways:
> > > 1) To make the believer willing to kill "evil people";
> > > 2) To make the believer comfortable with the collateral deaths of
> > > "innocent people";
> > > 3) To make the believer willing to die if necessary to "kill evil
> > > people".
> > >
> > > Then there will be a conflict between those who believe the above and,
> > > consequently, that all religion is evil; vs. those who believe the
> > > above and, consequently, that their own pro-death religion is
> > > pre-destined to triumph.
> >
> > Are the first lot pacifists? If not, they clearly have some religion
> > substitute that is nearly as good!
> That looks like it would be a good question, if I understood it.
> Please explain.
It depends on how they conduct their 'conflict'. If both groups are at
war, their views will appear somewhat symmetrical to an unprejudiced
eye - i.e. each group will consider the other evil and wish to
eradicate them.
> (I expect most will not be 100% through-and-through "pacifists";
> but I think a majority may be "mostly pacifistic";---
> ideas such as "no first strike" and "only 'hit hard enough' to defend
> yourself", and generally rejecting lex talionis "eye for eye -- tooth
> for tooth".)
> > > But I want a "third party" to the argument, who see the purpose of
> > > religion differently.
> > > So, what, historically, /has/ been the purpose of religion?
> >
> > In part the same as science, i.e. to make sense of the world.
> >
> > In part to help people internalise the attitudes and behaviours that
> > are necessary for a functioning society.
>
> This last answer is also interesting to me; can you elaborate this one
> as well?
Religions typically foster trust in the way that the social world is
organised; they encourage people to work together for a higher purpose;
they reassure the believer that his efforts for the common good are
noticed and will in some way be rewarded.
- Gerry Quinn
joy beeson
(Zeborah) wrote:
> What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
Sweet cream -- the essence of ice cream.
I've only seen one ice-cream parlor that dared to make it,
and that was in a save-the-landmark mall that ran out of
start-up money before I could come back for another serving.
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~dbeeson594/ROUGHSEW/ROUGH.HTM
http://home.earthlink.net/~beeson_n3f/ -- Writers' Exchange
joy beeson at earthlink dot net
Bill Swears
>
> Sweet cream -- the essence of ice cream.
>
> I've only seen one ice-cream parlor that dared to make it,
> and that was in a save-the-landmark mall that ran out of
> start-up money before I could come back for another serving.
>
> Joy Beeson
Coldstone Creamery sells it. At least, they were last week in Eagle
River Alaska. but I seem to remember it in other coldstones.
Brian M. Scott
<use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid> wrote in
<news:1h0chap.13ry5wbj49omsN%use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>> Zeborah wrote:
>>> What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
>> Caramel! No, melon. Mint. Raspberry :-)
Don't forget pumpkin pie. Oh, and cinnamon.
> Which leads to a different realisation:
> The ideal place to live is one where you can indulge in
> either at will.
> Catja (who'd like a few Italian icecream makers to
> immigrate, please, I don't like 'vanilla, strawberry,
> chocolate, or vanilla')
I've never been much impressed by Italian ice cream, though
I grant that I've never had it in Italy. (I actually much
prefer sherbets and sorbets to ice cream anyway.) But I do
remember with great pleasure the soft (i.e., dispensed from
a machine, not dug out of a solid brick) lemon ice cream
cones that someone was selling from a cart not far from
Heidelberg castle on a very warm day in July of 1976; it was
just what the doctor ordered. Sadly, I've not encountered
lemon ice cream anywhere else.
Brian
tomhcmi
Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
> [snip]
> Personally, I'm of the opinion that any religion or branch thereof that
> spends much time concerned over who gets cookies when they're dead is
> defective; this has the effect of perplexing proselytisers who are
> convinced that I should worry about their religion's hell, but otherwise
> makes no difference to the functioning of the universe.
> [snip]
That (or at least part of that) is (part of) the attitude I want some
of my
protagonists to have.
How did you come by this opinion?
Is a part of a religious heritage, school, or movement, that you can
tell
me the name of, or point me toward sources about?
tomhcmi
For those who would like to keep up with such things,
here are the *OTL* *here* religious movements that
have been suggested as possible sources for my
ATL's attitudes;
(apologies for ignoring who suggested what)
Rastafarian
Sadduccee
Calvinist
Gnostic
------
(I am trying to think up a character who is a
Rastafarian Sadduccee Calvinist Gnostic.
I am not succeeding. ;-) )
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <1122425504....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> tomhch...@yahoo.com says...
> > Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > > In article <1122340090.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > tomhch...@yahoo.com says...
> > > > What is the purpose of religion?
> > > > My alt.T.L. is based on [... snip ...] minority thinks the answer is:
> > > > "[...snip...] to reconcile believers [to] death;
> > > > primarily in these important ways:
> > > > 1) To make the believer willing to kill "evil people";
> > > > 2) To make the believer comfortable with the collateral deaths of
> > > > "innocent people";
> > > > 3) To make the believer willing to die if necessary to "kill evil
> > > > people".
> > > > Then there will be a conflict between those who believe the above and,
> > > > consequently, that all religion is evil; vs. those who believe the
> > > > above and, consequently, that their own pro-death religion is
> > > > pre-destined to triumph.
> > > Are the first lot pacifists? If not, they clearly have some religion
> > > substitute that is nearly as good!
> > [...snip...] Please explain.
> It depends on how they conduct their 'conflict'. If both groups are at
> war, their views will appear somewhat symmetrical to an unprejudiced
> eye - i.e. each group will consider the other evil and wish to
> eradicate them.
I don't think most of the characters I put in "the first lot",
will think they are at war. (Some may.)
But what if the people in "the second lot"
think they are at war with "the first lot"?
In some cases it may only take one to tango.
> [snipped out other interesting and helpful replies from Gerry]
Thank you.
Tom H.C. in MI
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>After all, if you don't think you're doing something
>worthwhile beyond what you see, then the only thing keeping you alive is
>fear. I don't want to live in fear, I would rather live in hope.
What's wrong with doing worthwhile things I see?
--
Marilee J. Layman
Catja Pafort
> I've never been much impressed by Italian ice cream, though
> I grant that I've never had it in Italy. (I actually much
> prefer sherbets and sorbets to ice cream anyway.)
I've had it in Italy, but Germany has a very large population of
Italians specialising in ice cream (which, for me, involves everything
that's frozen and in a cone - I don't make the sherbet/sorbet/ice cream
distinction)
Watermelon. Mango. Papaya. Maracuya. Err, anyone spot a trend?
Catja
Pat Bowne
"Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote
>
> It doesn't look at what you wanted, in that it talks about suicide rates
> in a couple religious groups, but makes no attempt to validate the rate in
> the non-religious population.
Thanks anyway! I'll save the link and all the other interesting material on
suicide. But I'm not interested in a religious/nonreligious dichotomy --
because it seems pretty clear from the other discussions I've been involved
in that the security of a universal system can be found in religion, or
communism, or theoretical physics, or the selfish gene, or objectivism, or
... etc. etc. What interests me is the difference between people who feel
better if they think there is a universal system, and people who don't have
that need.
Pat
Pat Bowne
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>
> I've never been much impressed by Italian ice cream, though
> I grant that I've never had it in Italy. (I actually much
> prefer sherbets and sorbets to ice cream anyway.) But I do
> remember with great pleasure the soft (i.e., dispensed from
> a machine, not dug out of a solid brick) lemon ice cream
> cones that someone was selling from a cart not far from
> Heidelberg castle on a very warm day in July of 1976; it was
> just what the doctor ordered. Sadly, I've not encountered
> lemon ice cream anywhere else.
>
Our local renfaire serves lemon ice in a half lemon shell. Very nice, and
then you can rub the frozen lemon shell all over yourself afterwards to cool
down.
Pat
Dorothy J Heydt
The one I used to go to served not only lemons but oranges and
coconuts. You couldn't exactly rub the coconut shell over
yourself, but the coconut ice was excellent.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Bill Swears
I said you, I meant me. I was speaking in context of my take on
religion. I believe in doing worthwhile things I see, but I also
acknowledge that it's my belief in values beyond what I see that makes
me keep doing right things in the face of adversity, or more
perniciously, convenience.
moral structures, no matter how good or bad, require a belief that their
values go beyond what you see.
Even legal ethics imply effects beyond that which you see when you make
the evaluation. See, I said you again when I meant me, or the
conditional ethical lawyer.
David Friedman
"tomhcmi" <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's because Calvinists are so hard to sadduce.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Brian M. Scott
<use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid> wrote in
<news:1h0dpa6.gok7oc19vbessN%use...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> I've never been much impressed by Italian ice cream, though
>> I grant that I've never had it in Italy. (I actually much
>> prefer sherbets and sorbets to ice cream anyway.)
> I've had it in Italy, but Germany has a very large population of
> Italians specialising in ice cream (which, for me, involves everything
> that's frozen and in a cone - I don't make the sherbet/sorbet/ice cream
> distinction)
It's a very important one for me: not only do I prefer the
generally sharper flavor of sherbet and especially sorbet, I
also greatly prefer the much lower fat content.
> Watermelon. Mango. Papaya. Maracuya. Err, anyone spot a trend?
I regularly keep Edy's Whole Fruit Sorbet in the house (at
$3.69 the pint <wince>); their mango is excellent, but I'm
also partial to their strawberry (which for a wonder is not
too sweet), boysenberry, and lemon. For a while they had
both pink grapefruit, which was outstanding, and apple with
cinnamon, which I also miss.
Brian
sharkey
>
> What interests me is the difference between people who feel
> better if they think there is a universal system, and people
> who don't have that need.
Ah, well, I think that's probably one of the defining
characteristics of the Engineer: I don't care whether
the theory is elegant, or proveable, just so long as it's
applicable.
-----sharks
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:27:04 -0400, dark...@mindspring.com (Darkhawk
> > (H. Nicoll)) wrote:
> >
> > >I mean, I might well say, "To make it more readily possible for people
> > >to make sense of numinous experiences".
>
> This applies only, or primarily, to mystics, right?
> They are the main group for whom that would be the /primary/ purpose of
> religion.
Well, that depends on the surrounding culture, doesn't it?
In the culture in which I live, most claims of numinous experience in
general discussion are treated as delusional at worst, at best the sort
of thing that one does not talk about. People who are therefore willing
to discuss them in general discussion are thus often people who are
either highly transgressive of social norms or insane; both of these are
not common groups.
In other times and other cultures, one can encounter many people
speaking of their numinous experiences at various levels, in ordinary
terms. We have disciplines and techniques that can induce them in
others, consistently -- at least one of the Mysteries celebrated in
Canaan initiated entire towns. (While Mystery cultures are
connotationally fairly exclusive, this is not a universal.) When the
expectation is that spirits, ancestors, and occasionally gods are
kicking around all the time, many people report their experiences with
them, often quite matter-of-factly.
I've been reading, on and off, a book on Vodou, and I'm reminded of the
description of a transition ceremony for the dead, in which an
unexpected spirit turned up: he was from a village on the far side of
the island, but had not been given a proper ceremony, and was going from
funeral to funeral in the hopes of finding a vessel. The priest argued
with him in the full hearing of the village; all the vessels there were
taken by that village's dead. The villagers, meanwhile, were commenting
that it was all quite sad, and shameful that the dead man had not been
treated properly, but their responsibility was first to their own
relatives . . .
(I think my favorite such matter-of-fact thing is the ancient Egyptian
letter to, if I'm remembering correctly, a deceased father, asking him
if he could please stop his servant (also dead) from looking at the
letter-writer funny.)
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
Mostly it's a form of aggravation at the aforementioned proselytisers.
I am not a follower of either their religion or any of the religions
related to it, so arguments that presume that I subscribe to it tend to
irritate me in that way peculiar to members of minority groups who hate
having their faces rubbed in their functional nonexistence.
The thing with the hell-pushers is they're coming up against someone who
has extensive vows and commitments wound up in their religion at
multiple levels, and who has selected it in part because it is what is
demonstrated empirically to make for becoming and maintaining status as
the best human being I can be, best able to meet my commitments to other
humans and the surrounding world, most spiritually stable and clean, and
a variety of other things. This means that their "convert or suffer in
the afterlife" is equivalent to an expectation that oathbreaking,
becoming all-around a worse human being who is less happy and less able
to support family and community, and generally ceasing to pursue virtue
is what their god wants, and if I do these unfortunate things, I will,
in unverifiable theory not even held universally by their
co-religionists, get a cookie when I'm dead.
Even if true, I consider this an impressive height of selfishness, and
if their god is as they claim it and making judgements on the posited
basis, I have no interest in following the little bastard. My gods are
perverse, frequently whimsical, and often alarming, but They are
interested in healthy humans with functional relationships in a stable
universe. I don't think my refusal to settle for anything less is
necessarily tied to any particular religious tradition, though; I know
people in many religions who have the same basic approach (including
quite a few who follow an entity by the same name as the one the
hell-obsessives claim).
Neil Barnes
and produced:
If I can use it, good; if it's usable and elegant, much better!
I think all engineers are Moties, deep down inside...
Neil
--
If you saw him, you'd think he was some kind of goose,
But the wise men all know he's a barnacle.
Neil Barnes
on slate and produced:
> In article <1122482914.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "tomhcmi" <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> (I am trying to think up a character who is a Rastafarian Sadduccee
>> Calvinist Gnostic. I am not succeeding. ;-) )
>
> It's because Calvinists are so hard to sadduce.
But that's so sad, you see...
Julian Flood
"Neil Barnes" wrote
> > It's because Calvinists are so hard to sadduce.
>
> But that's so sad, you see...
That's it! A pun too far. I see this sort of thing too often on this
group. <deep breath, calms down> Hmmm... Fair enough, a joke's a joke,
I suppose.
JF
(I've been reading Puck.)
David Friedman
dark...@mindspring.com (Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)) wrote:
> (I think my favorite such matter-of-fact thing is the ancient Egyptian
> letter to, if I'm remembering correctly, a deceased father, asking him
> if he could please stop his servant (also dead) from looking at the
> letter-writer funny.)
>
In one of the sagas, there are legal proceedings against a troublesome
ghost.
Khiem Tran
Saw a goalie try to do that once, but he went the wrong way an' he missed.
Khiem.
David Goldfarb
joy beeson <xbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:18:05 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com
>(Zeborah) wrote:
>
>> What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
>
>Sweet cream -- the essence of ice cream.
>
>I've only seen one ice-cream parlor that dared to make it,
>and that was in a save-the-landmark mall that ran out of
>start-up money before I could come back for another serving.
There's a wonderful gelateria in Berkeley that sells it; they call
it "fior di latte". They seems to have a lot of unusual flavors,
varying every few days, such as cinnamon, champagne, and rose petal.
Plus fruit sorbets made with real fruit. I have to keep myself
out of there most of the time or I'll be much fatter than I am now.
--
David Goldfarb |"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | uncertainty!"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's
| Guide to the Galaxy_
Gerry Quinn
says...
> "Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote
> >
> > And, religion gives me a reason to live. That is to say, anybody smart
> > enough to wonder why, will also at some time wonder why bother. Religion
> > can help you find a moral underpinning, a personal philosophy, that will
> > stop you from taking the big black pill because you stubbed your toe.
> > what you see, then the only thing keeping you alive is fear. I don't want
> > to live in fear, I would rather live in hope.
>
> group -- the division between people who need the hope of a unifying theory,
> be it religious or scientific, versus those of us who don't need any such
> thing.
>
> None of us seem to be able to account for the difference -- for why one
> person would need an answer to the 'Why?' question you postulate in order
> keep on living, while others don't.
I don't need a unifying theory to keep living. But I think only a
unifying theory makes logical sense. How can any two elements of the
universe be completely unconnected? Even to know of them means they
connect to some common sensory pathway, and thus have something in
common.
So, everything is connected, and any complete theory must be a unifying
one.
- Gerry Quinn
Anna Mazzoldi
> In article <te8fe119kp190g301...@4ax.com>,
> joy beeson <xbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:18:05 +1200, zeb...@gmail.com
> > (Zeborah) wrote:
> >
> >> What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
> >
> > Sweet cream -- the essence of ice cream.
> >
> > I've only seen one ice-cream parlor that dared to make it,
> > and that was in a save-the-landmark mall that ran out of
> > start-up money before I could come back for another serving.
>
> There's a wonderful gelateria in Berkeley that sells it; they call
> it "fior di latte". They seems to have a lot of unusual flavors,
> varying every few days, such as cinnamon, champagne, and rose petal.
> Plus fruit sorbets made with real fruit. I have to keep myself
> out of there most of the time or I'll be much fatter than I am now.
Fiordilatte is the "basic" ice-cream flavour in Italy -- like vanilla
over here. And yes, I also tend to call everything ice-cream (or
gelato) unless I'm being very careful, but in fact I prefer sorbets
most of the time. When I pine for Italian ice-cream (which is totally
absent in Dublin, despite a couple of places claiming to sell it), what
I'm mostly pining for is in fact sorbet.
When I was a child, however, what I was most likely to ask for in a
gelateria was "un cono di panna montata" -- a cone filled with whipped
cream, with a sprinling of cinnamom or cocoa powder on top. I have
never seen this outside Italy, but in Italy it's a standard offering in
any gelateria (possibly more in Milan than elsewhere, I'm told it's a
Milanese invention, but I never had any trouble finding it in other
Italian towns. In Milan it's also called latimel or lattemiele, "milk
and honey", though it actually contains neither :-))
--
Anna Mazzoldi <http://aynathie.livejournal.com/>
You can only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.
Marilee J. Layman
I was hooked on the lemon one summer, I had to buy a new pint every
week.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:52:34 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>After all, if you don't think you're doing something
>>>worthwhile beyond what you see, then the only thing keeping you alive is
>>>fear. I don't want to live in fear, I would rather live in hope.
>>
>>
>> What's wrong with doing worthwhile things I see?
>>
>I said you, I meant me. I was speaking in context of my take on
>religion. I believe in doing worthwhile things I see, but I also
>acknowledge that it's my belief in values beyond what I see that makes
>me keep doing right things in the face of adversity, or more
>perniciously, convenience.
>
>moral structures, no matter how good or bad, require a belief that their
>values go beyond what you see.
I disagree. When I make things for the community charity, I don't
need to know who buys them, I just need to know that I made them and
gave them.
>Even legal ethics imply effects beyond that which you see when you make
>the evaluation. See, I said you again when I meant me, or the
>conditional ethical lawyer.
>
>Bill
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bill Swears
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:15:28 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
> I disagree. When I make things for the community charity, I don't
> need to know who buys them, I just need to know that I made them and
> gave them.
>
Whatever works for you. But, what set of forces in your life caused you
to feel that making something for the community charity was 'good'? And
why do you want to do good for an unknown?
Joann Zimmerman
says...
> Fiordilatte is the "basic" ice-cream flavour in Italy -- like vanilla
> over here. And yes, I also tend to call everything ice-cream (or
> gelato) unless I'm being very careful, but in fact I prefer sorbets
> most of the time. When I pine for Italian ice-cream (which is totally
> absent in Dublin, despite a couple of places claiming to sell it), what
> I'm mostly pining for is in fact sorbet.
I'm a nocciola (hazelnut to the English-only crowd) fan myself. Never
could quite get into Nutella, though--my subconscious, an occasionally
ascetic organ, must have decided it's too rich for human consumption.
There's an Italian-style gelateria/bar here; I love combining sorbet and
gelato in one cup. Favorite combos are vanilla and either orange or
lemon sorbetto, whichever they've got that evening.
>
> When I was a child, however, what I was most likely to ask for in a
> gelateria was "un cono di panna montata" -- a cone filled with whipped
> cream, with a sprinling of cinnamom or cocoa powder on top. I have
> never seen this outside Italy, but in Italy it's a standard offering in
> any gelateria (possibly more in Milan than elsewhere, I'm told it's a
> Milanese invention, but I never had any trouble finding it in other
> Italian towns. In Milan it's also called latimel or lattemiele, "milk
> and honey", though it actually contains neither :-))
I sure wish I'd known about this years ago. My nomination for greatest
sweet object I actually encountered over there was cream-filled
meringues. Mmm.
I recall with great affection the gelateria/bar on the Piazza della
Signoria in Firenze; you get a gelato misto with loads of whipped cream
on top.
--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
Gene Wirchenko
>tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Forgetting for a moment what you believe, and what makes sense:
>>
>> What would be the ideal religion to make everyone want to improve the
>> quality of human life and human society, beginning in an environment
>> much like today's?
>
>That's like asking what the ideal motivator is in the workforce. For
>some it's money, for some recognition, for some power, for some new
>challenges, for some...
And only some of time for many.
>What is the ideal flavour of icecream?
I will have to research that further. The ice cream
store^Wresearch institute[1] a block away is moving even closer in
September. There are many flavours^Wresearch issues.
I recently had raspberry mint. I think there was too much mint,
but it did have an interesting aftertaste.
[1] A block away in another direction is the Tequila Research
Institute. I would rather research ice cream.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
David Goldfarb
Joann Zimmerman <jz...@bellereti.com> wrote:
>There's an Italian-style gelateria/bar here; I love combining sorbet and
>gelato in one cup. Favorite combos are vanilla and either orange or
>lemon sorbetto, whichever they've got that evening.
I like to do that too. Last time I was in Gelateria Naia I got their
dark chocolate ice cream and plum sorbet. Mmm.
--
David Goldfarb |"Everyone generalizes from insufficient data.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | I know I do."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Steven Brust
Anna Mazzoldi
> I'm a nocciola (hazelnut to the English-only crowd) fan myself. Never
> could quite get into Nutella, though--my subconscious, an
> occasionally ascetic organ, must have decided it's too rich for human
> consumption.
Nocciola is the only flavour of ice-cream I could never stand. It's my
mother's favourite. I'm ok with nutella, but I was never addicted to it
-- I don't have much of a taste for sweet stuff, but then neither did
my brother, and *he* was definitely hooked, even though Nutella was the
only sweet stuff he was likely to eat.
> There's an Italian-style gelateria/bar here; I love combining sorbet
> and gelato in one cup. Favorite combos are vanilla and either orange
> or lemon sorbetto, whichever they've got that evening.
I combine them sometimes, especially if there is coconut icecream, but
generally I end up getting sorbetto only. I don't go much for vanilla
(fiordilatte is a different story, but I still don't like to mix it
with fruit much).
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> I sure wish I'd known about this years ago. My nomination for greatest
> sweet object I actually encountered over there was cream-filled
> meringues. Mmm.
Hmmmm. My grandfather used to come home with a huge tray of them
whenever I was visiting them. Sigh.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@spamcop.net - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/annafdd/
tomhcmi
You brought up something I'd like to hear more about.
Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:15:28 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
> wrote:
> >Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:52:34 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>After all, if you don't think you're doing something
> >>>worthwhile beyond what you see, then the only thing keeping you alive is
> >>>fear. [snip]
> >> What's wrong with doing worthwhile things I see?
> >[snip] I was speaking in context of my take on
> >religion. I believe in doing worthwhile things I see, but I also
> >acknowledge that it's my belief in values beyond what I see that makes
> >me keep doing right things in the face of adversity, or more
> >perniciously, convenience.
> >moral structures, no matter how good or bad, require a belief that their
> >values go beyond what you see.
> I disagree. When I make things for the community charity, I don't
> need to know who buys them, I just need to know that I made them and
> gave them.
Marilee, how did you come by your beliefs/attitudes/feelings (whichever
they
are) that
1) it is NOT _your_ "belief in values beyond what" _you_ "see that
makes"
_you_ "keep doing right things ... "?
2) when _you_ "make things for the community charity", _you_ "don't
need to
know who" [benefits from] them, _you_ "just need to know that" _you_
"made
them and gave them"?
In particular, are they a religious heritage? or part of some school or
movement of religious thought/belief?
And if so, which one(s)?
I hope you can answer.
Anyone else who recognizes the notions Marilee expressed, and thinks
they can
tie them to a particular heritage or school or movement, please tell
us.
Thank everybody for writing.
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
> tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > spends much time concerned over who gets cookies when they're dead is
> > > [snip]
> >
> > That [snip] is ... the attitude I want some of
> > my protagonists to have.
> > How did you come by this opinion?
> > Is a part of a religious heritage, school, or movement, that you can
> > tell me the name of, or point me toward sources about?
>
> Mostly it's a form of aggravation at the aforementioned proselytisers.
So, its not part of a religious heritage, school, or movement.
> I am not a follower of either their religion or any of the religions
> related to it, so arguments that presume that I subscribe to it tend to
> irritate me in that way peculiar to members of minority groups who hate
> having their faces rubbed in their functional nonexistence.
So, its not part of a religious heritage, school, or movement.
> The thing with the hell-pushers is they're coming up against someone who
> has extensive vows and commitments wound up in their religion at
> multiple levels,
Would you be willing to tell me something about:
1) what kind of "vows and commitments" you're speaking of?
2a) how they are "wound up in [your] religion";
2b) specifically, what does your religion have to do with keeping your
vows?
> and who has selected it in part because it is what is
> demonstrated empirically to make for becoming and maintaining status as
> the best human being I can be, best able to meet my commitments to other
> humans and the surrounding world, most spiritually stable and clean, and
> a variety of other things.
Would you be willing to tell me what religion this is?
And is there a source where I can find out why you think it [does those
things for you] better than [other religions you know about]?
> This means that their "convert or suffer in
> the afterlife" is equivalent to an expectation that oathbreaking,
It is an interesting fact that anyone who asks a believer in any
religion to
convert to another, is urging a sin (from the point of view of the old
religion); the sin of apostasy, perhaps.
> becoming all-around a worse human being who is less happy and less able
> to support family and community, and generally ceasing to pursue virtue
> is what their god wants,
> [snip]
> ... My gods are
> perverse, frequently whimsical, and often alarming, but They are
> interested in healthy humans with functional relationships in a stable
> universe.
Would you be willing to tell us who some of those gods are?
> I don't think my refusal to settle for anything less is
> necessarily tied to any particular religious tradition, though; I know
> people in many religions who have the same basic approach ...
> [snip]
That sounds like a cross-religious movement.
Do you know if it has or had a name?
Do you know who some of the founders, or seminal
writers/thinkers/preachers,
of that kind of thinking were/are?
Is it any relation to Sikhism?
I hope you can answer.
Anyone else who can answer questions about belief-systems they've
encountered that seem similar to Darkhawk's, please also chime in.
Thank everybody for writing.
And, especially, once again, I thank Darkhawk for writing.
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
Khiem Tran wrote:
> Julian Flood wrote:
> > [snip]
> > JF
> > (I've been reading Puck.)
>
> Saw a goalie try to do that once, but he went the wrong way an' he missed.
Trying to read a puck while it's in play sounds very dangerous!
It seems a good way to get a face-full of either
high-velocity puck, or hockey-stick, or skate, or ice!
:-) Sorry, Julian, to add to your pun-overload.
Tom H.C. in MI
(where they take hockey seriously -- as they didn't in TX)
tomhcmi
Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
> tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:27:04 -0400, dark...@mindspring.com (Darkhawk
> > > (H. Nicoll)) wrote:
> > >
> > > >I mean, I might well say, "To make it more readily possible for people
> > > >to make sense of numinous experiences".
> >
> > This applies only, or primarily, to mystics, right?
> > They are the main group for whom that would be the /primary/ purpose of
> > religion.
>
> Well, that depends on the surrounding culture, doesn't it?
>
I think it depends more on the definition of "mystic",
which should be constant regardless of surrounding culture,
and regardless of the ambient religion
in which the "mysticism" is believed/practiced.
The definition I was using was the one in
William James's "The Varieties of Religious Experience".
See http://sandra.stahlman.com/james.html
But read James's original article if you want to understand what I'm
saying below; don't rely totally on Stahlman's summary of it.
One way to summarize it is that the "mystic experience" gives the
experiencer
(whom we might call "the mystic") personal _knowledge_ (James's "noetic
content") of [--> the numinous <--(my words here)]; knowledge which
cannot be communicated, nor even expressed (James's "ineffability").
In case the mystic in question happens to believe in God, the "mystic
experience" he/she seeks is usually personal and intimate acquaintance
with God; followed up by love of God.
Such goals are the common property of Jewish mysticism, Christian
mysticism (whether Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant), and Islamic
mysticism (e.g. Sufism).
In religions in which the "main numinous thing" doesn't happen to be
God,
there are still mystics by James's definitions.
> In the culture in which I live, most claims of numinous experience in
> general discussion are treated as delusional at worst, at best the sort
> of thing that one does not talk about.
I just can't imagine what culture that is.
You can't live in the Soviet Union anymore.
Do you live in some other Marxist country?
BTW James's other article discusses negative mystic experiences;
he does think those are mental illnesses (even if they are short-lived
and self-limiting, and people get over them without treatment). He
does not think the positive mystic experiences are pathological; he had
them, and sought them, himself.
> People who are therefore willing
> to discuss them in general discussion are thus often people who are
> either highly transgressive of social norms or insane; both of these are
> not common groups.
This is surely not anywhere in modern U.S.America; nor in the
non-Marxist non-Western world, either.
Where do you live? I cannot guess; unless we (you and I) are
communicating through a time-warp, and you live before 1989CE.
> In other times and other cultures, one can encounter many people
> speaking of their numinous experiences at various levels, in ordinary
> terms. We have disciplines and techniques that can induce them in
> others, consistently -- at least one of the
> Mysteries
> celebrated in
> Canaan initiated entire towns. (While
> Mystery
"Mysticism" and "Mystery religion" share only a first syllable, not a
definition.
A "Mystery" was etymologically originally a "trade secret".
A "Mystery religion" was one in which the adherent sought/gained
salvation by attaining secret knowledge exclusive to the "mystery
religion".
(Sometimes this "secret" knowledge was an "open secret"; they might be
willing to tell anyone, but only the adherents actually believed --
often only the adherents actually even listened.)
The saving knowledge was the religion's "mystery".
Christianity has one:
"Behold, I tell you a mystery:
Christ has died; Christ has risen; Christ will come again."
The "knowledge" part of mysticism is not the same as the "knowledge"
part of mystery religions.
"Mystic knowledge" cannot be expressed, and can be attained only by
personal experience, and is more like the French "connaitre" than like
the French "savoir" -- that is, it consists of personal acquaintance
with [the numinous] rather than facts about [the numinous].
The "mystery" or "mysteries" of a Mystery Religion, OTOH, can indeed be
communicated and expressed -- the adherent's personal problem is just
that of attaining and sustaining faith in these facts (these
mysteries).
> cultures are
> connotationally fairly exclusive, this is not a universal.) When the
> expectation is that spirits, ancestors, and occasionally gods are
> kicking around all the time, many people report their experiences with
> them, often quite matter-of-factly.
>
> I've been reading, on and off, a book on Vodou, and I'm reminded of the
> description of a transition ceremony for the dead, in which an
> unexpected spirit turned up: he was from a village on the far side of
> the island, but had not been given a proper ceremony, and was going from
> funeral to funeral in the hopes of finding a vessel. The priest argued
> with him in the full hearing of the village; all the vessels there were
> taken by that village's dead. The villagers, meanwhile, were commenting
> that it was all quite sad, and shameful that the dead man had not been
> treated properly, but their responsibility was first to their own
> relatives . . .
>
> (I think my favorite such matter-of-fact thing is the ancient Egyptian
> letter to, if I'm remembering correctly, a deceased father, asking him
> if he could please stop his servant (also dead) from looking at the
> letter-writer funny.)
Great examples. Thank you.
Is either Vodun or the ancient Egyptian religion the basis of your own
belief?
I mentioned in a private e-mail to you that your emphasis on
oath-keeping reminds me of Mithraism, and makes me think you'd reject
Odin (though you might approve of Tyr and/or Thor).
Thank you.
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
I just heard a talk show on NPR.
A Muslim caller mentioned that "suicide bombing"
was/is not new, and not original with Islamic extremists.
He mentioned the Japanese Sarin nerve-gas attacks in Matsumoto and the
Tokyo subway system in 1994 and 1995.
According to sources on the Web, that cult was partly Buddhist, partly
Christian, partly roll-your-own.
The self-immolating Buddhist monks in the Vietnamese-War Era, such as
the one in Saigon on October 5th 1963, might also be considered an
example; although these men did not kill others during their
autos-da-fe.
The various tokkotai who defended the Japanese homeland from Allied
invasion during World War II are another example. (Tokkotai naval
aviators were called kamikaze by the Allies.)
Earlier on the news portion of the NPR broadcast, a Muslim man in
Pakistan was interviewed about his protest against Pervez Musharraf's
crackdown on madrasas that teach people how to, or encourage people to,
make bombs or commit terrorist acts.
This man said the following interesting things, most (all but the last)
of which I paraphrase.
1) I don't like what my government is doing.
2) That my government is doing something I don't like, is the fault of
infidel foreign governments.
3) Suicide attacks in those governments' territories are the natural
and logical response to actions of my government which I don't like.
4) The deaths, in suicide attacks, of the subjects or citizens of those
governments, is the fault of those governments.
5) "We are the people who love to die. You are the people who love to
live. How can you fight us?"
(It seems reasonable and likely to me that it would seem reasonable to
several people to respond, "You are the people who love to die? Then
this is how we will fight you; we will grant the wish (to die) of all
those people who love to die, as quickly and thoroughly as possible."
People who do respond so, would be one militant group in my proposed
ATL; but I don't intend them to be a majority voice.)
There is a significant parallel between the kamikazes and al-Qaeda.
The kamikazes did not start until gaijin soldiers, marines, sailors,
and airmen began setting foot on what the Japanese regarded as their
integral and sacred home territory.
Osama bin-Laden was mortally offended by the presence of infidels on
the holy soil of Saudi Arabia.
Both groups decided "their blood [should] wash out their foul
footsteps' pollution", as the Star-Spangled Banner says.
This suggests that suicide-attacks have as a common motive the
intolerable presence of "unacceptably other" people in territory "we"
regard as anciently and integrally "our homeland".
But there is another commonality;
Both groups believe(d) the "martyr" would surely go to [Heaven or
equivalent].
We can't do anything about the motive except stay home. We may be able
to minimize it by never carrying arms or wearing uniforms when we leave
home. But in WWII that was not acceptable to us; and in the Gulf War
we were invited by the Saudi government: So, even alt.we are probably
not going to pursue either of these policies, even in a fictional ATL.
My characters want to do something about the second commonality -- the
belief that the suicide/mass-murderer will receive an infinite
after-life reward.
-----
Tom H.C. in MI
Brian M. Scott
wrote in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
[...]
>> In the culture in which I live, most claims of numinous experience in
>> general discussion are treated as delusional at worst, at best the sort
>> of thing that one does not talk about.
> I just can't imagine what culture that is.
Darkhawk lives in the U.S. and is accurately describing the most
common American response to claims of numinous experience.
[...]
> A "Mystery" was etymologically originally a "trade secret".
No, the word is from Latin <mysterium> 'secret', in the plural
'secret rites', later 'mystical or religious truth'; the Latin is
from Greek <mysté:rion> 'mystery, secret', in the plural 'secret
rites; the instruments used in such rites', in Hellenistic times
also 'secret revealed by God, mystical truth, Christian rite,
sacrament'. The 'trade secret' sense is late; the earliest OED
citation is from the 16th century, though the sense 'craft, art;
trade, profession, calling' is medieval.
[...]
Brian
Bill Swears
> I just can't imagine what culture that is.
> You can't live in the Soviet Union anymore.
> Do you live in some other Marxist country?
My wife attended University of Maryland college park's Graduate
Geography program in the early 90s. Any discussion of religion or
numinous experience in that company would earn looks as though somebody
had just had an unfortunate gastric experience in the lunchroom.
A lot of very educated faculty in various institutions around the
country seem pretty comfortable treating any religious thought except
rabid, but pseudo intellectual, atheism as dangerously nutty.
I've always enjoyed paying attention the the worlds we each inhabit.
One of the things I like about this newsgroup is the apparent
intersection of very different worlds.
Bill
--
Bill Swears
> We can't do anything about the motive except stay home. We may be able
> to minimize it by never carrying arms or wearing uniforms when we leave
> home. But in WWII that was not acceptable to us; and in the Gulf War
> we were invited by the Saudi government: So, even alt.we are probably
> not going to pursue either of these policies, even in a fictional ATL.
>
stop to terrorism. Right now a major factor in islamic extremism is a
sense of disenfranchisement. If we evil westerners just leave the
middle east to its own devices, we'll be hated because
a. we messed things up and left,
b. because we withold our incredible wealth from the deserving
extremist's faction, and
c. because a lot of islam considers it a militant religion, and in lieu
of something local to militate against, they'll have to go elsewhere to
enforce their extreme views, uh, fight for the greater glory of Allah.
It's damn difficult to hold a holy war without a temporal enemy.
Bill
--
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:15:28 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree. When I make things for the community charity, I don't
>> need to know who buys them, I just need to know that I made them and
>> gave them.
>>
>
>Whatever works for you. But, what set of forces in your life caused you
>to feel that making something for the community charity was 'good'? And
>why do you want to do good for an unknown?
I had charity trained into me as a kid, and when I re-evaluated as an
adult, I decided it was still a good idea. People need help, and
these days, this is how I can help. I used to be able to actually
volunteer and give money, but now I make things.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Thank you for writing, Marilee.
>You brought up something I'd like to hear more about.
>
>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:15:28 -0800, Bill Swears <wsw...@gci.net>
>> >[snip] I was speaking in context of my take on
>> >religion. I believe in doing worthwhile things I see, but I also
>> >acknowledge that it's my belief in values beyond what I see that makes
>> >me keep doing right things in the face of adversity, or more
>> >perniciously, convenience.
>> >moral structures, no matter how good or bad, require a belief that their
>> >values go beyond what you see.
>
>> I disagree. When I make things for the community charity, I don't
>> need to know who buys them, I just need to know that I made them and
>> gave them.
>
>Marilee, how did you come by your beliefs/attitudes/feelings (whichever
>they
>are) that
>
>1) it is NOT _your_ "belief in values beyond what" _you_ "see that
>makes"
>_you_ "keep doing right things ... "?
Well, for one thing, broadly speaking, I don't believe in things I
can't see. (Yes, I can't see atoms and I do believe they're there.)
If the only reason you do things is to gain reward from some
non-existant supernatural being, that's pretty sad.
I think we're the top of the food chain, until we find another planet
with intelligent life, and then we'll have to measure. The two
primary reasons to do things is 1) to make yourself feel good, and b)
to help other people. I think helping people is a good thing. (I'm
left of any of the major Democrats in this country.)
>2) when _you_ "make things for the community charity", _you_ "don't
>need to
>know who" [benefits from] them, _you_ "just need to know that" _you_
>"made
>them and gave them"?
I enjoy making them and knowing that the charity will put them in
their thrift shop, where some people can get items free and others
pay. I enjoy seeing a hat or sweater of mine every now & then on
someone I don't know. But I don't need to know who that person is, or
even if anybody gets it. I gave, that's enough to know.
(James Donald, who I have killfiled, will probably say that he doesn't
believe me because people who give to charity don't talk about it.)
>In particular, are they a religious heritage? or part of some school or
>
>movement of religious thought/belief?
>And if so, which one(s)?
This is a humanism belief, although I usually call myself a godless
heathen.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
>
>Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
>> In the culture in which I live, most claims of numinous experience in
>> general discussion are treated as delusional at worst, at best the sort
>> of thing that one does not talk about.
There's a lot of proof that numinous experiences are your brain
reacting to its environment. For example, during the second renal
failure, I had an NDE (Near Death Experience). Most people think of
these as the light ahead and going toward it and people they know.
This has been demonstrated to be oxygen deprivation.
>I just can't imagine what culture that is.
>You can't live in the Soviet Union anymore.
>Do you live in some other Marxist country?
Oh, the US isn't *quite* that regimented yet.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>This suggests that suicide-attacks have as a common motive the
>intolerable presence of "unacceptably other" people in territory "we"
>regard as anciently and integrally "our homeland".
>
>But there is another commonality;
>Both groups believe(d) the "martyr" would surely go to [Heaven or
>equivalent].
Yes. If people didn't believe in life after death, you wouldn't have
many suicide attacks.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
> > People who are therefore willing
> > to discuss them in general discussion are thus often people who are
> > either highly transgressive of social norms or insane; both of these are
> > not common groups.
>
> This is surely not anywhere in modern U.S.America; nor in the
> non-Marxist non-Western world, either.
> Where do you live? I cannot guess; unless we (you and I) are
> communicating through a time-warp, and you live before 1989CE.
You must live in a different United States than I do.
In the one in which I live, anyone who makes a public statement
explicitly claiming contact from a god is treated as a kook at best.
Here's a test: go out and claim that a god likes it if you dye your
hair. Or that a god has asked you to write a book. See how many people
back away slowly. (Neither of these is uncommon, in my experience of
discussing the matter with people who have direct interactions with
their gods. If the matter is mainstream-acceptable, then these common
requests gods make of specific followers will not be particularly
strange.)
Or for the less mainstream: go look at a theism/atheism argument. See
how many times one of the ancient gods is brought up as something it is
_obvious_ does not exist. Try pointing out the existence of Hellenismos
(if the example is Zeus), Asatru (if the example is Thor), or Kemeticism
(if the example is Ra). See if anyone cares to acknowledge the point.
Or, for my current personal complaint, note that the quality of the bell
peppers in the grocery store today was such that you would be ashamed to
use them for offerings at the weekend's festival celebration.
> A "Mystery religion" was one in which the adherent sought/gained
> salvation by attaining secret knowledge exclusive to the "mystery
> religion".
"Salvation" is a questionable concept when applied to religion in
general; I certainly don't subscribe to any that think it's any bloody
use whatsoever.
> "Mystic knowledge" cannot be expressed, and can be attained only by
> personal experience, and is more like the French "connaitre" than like
> the French "savoir" -- that is, it consists of personal acquaintance
> with [the numinous] rather than facts about [the numinous].
> The "mystery" or "mysteries" of a Mystery Religion, OTOH, can indeed be
> communicated and expressed -- the adherent's personal problem is just
> that of attaining and sustaining faith in these facts (these
> mysteries).
The Greeks recognised two sorts of Mysteries: the greater and the
lesser. The lesser were the ones in which the process of apprehension
of the Mystery could be spoilered.
All modern Mystery religions I know of are experiential; all I know of
ancient ones is that they had similar practices (initiation, concern
about spoilers in the case of lesser Mysteries, and so on). The
communication of the Mystery is specifically encoded in a set of actions
that are believed to convey it consistently; it cannot be told or
verified outside confirming that someone has been through the process.
I am currently in a large discussion about this on a religious community
elsewhere, by the way; while I am willing to repeat the arguments here,
I am liable to be short-tempered on the subject.
> Is either Vodun or the ancient Egyptian religion the basis of your own
> belief?
Me? I'm an Egyptian recon (though a somewhat heretical one), a student
Feri witch, and a Discordian. Egyptian reconstruction is heavily
influenced by the African Diaspora religions, in some cases beyond what
I think is reasonable for proper reconstructionism; nonetheless I study
the Diaspora religions somewhat (and in fact am currently wearing a
strand of prayer beads dedicated to a pair of orixa).
Since you seem big on yes or no answers to questions to which a more
informative answer is given, that would be a "yes".
> I mentioned in a private e-mail to you that your emphasis on
> oath-keeping reminds me of Mithraism, and makes me think you'd reject
> Odin (though you might approve of Tyr and/or Thor).
The meaning and interpretation of Odin's and Loki's vows to each other
is, from my observation as an outsider, one of the more hotly contested
arguments in Asatru. It is not one which I would care to venture an
opinion on; I know a number of Lokeans (who would, I think, be more
likely to hold the position you advanced) and a number of mainstream
Asatru, and would prefer not to get between them.
I know of nobody who thinks a close relationship with Odin is an
untrammeled good idea, and that includes His men.
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
> > The thing with the hell-pushers is they're coming up against someone who
> > has extensive vows and commitments wound up in their religion at
> > multiple levels,
>
> Would you be willing to tell me something about:
> 1) what kind of "vows and commitments" you're speaking of?
> 2a) how they are "wound up in [your] religion";
> 2b) specifically, what does your religion have to do with keeping your
> vows?
I have commitments to my gods. A fair number of them. Their contents
are private, but I think their existence is sufficient to answer these
questions.
> > and who has selected it in part because it is what is
> > demonstrated empirically to make for becoming and maintaining status as
> > the best human being I can be, best able to meet my commitments to other
> > humans and the surrounding world, most spiritually stable and clean, and
> > a variety of other things.
>
> Would you be willing to tell me what religion this is?
The one I was referring to at that point was Egyptian recon.
> And is there a source where I can find out why you think it [does those
> things for you] better than [other religions you know about]?
No. This is personal stuff; it involves some fifteen years of looking
for things that work for me and failing to find them. All the reference
material is in my skull.
I found something that was consistent with my worldview and which
*worked*. Both of these are subjective matters, really.
Same as any seeker's, really.
> > ... My gods are
> > perverse, frequently whimsical, and often alarming, but They are
> > interested in healthy humans with functional relationships in a stable
> > universe.
>
> Would you be willing to tell us who some of those gods are?
The ones I spend the most time with are Set, Hwt-Hrw (Who is better
known in English by Her Greek name, Hathor), Khnum, and Wepwawet; also
Nimue of the Feri gods. I have some personal knowledge of others, and
an ongoing devotional to Wesir (with whom I have a purely petitionary
relationship).
> > I don't think my refusal to settle for anything less is
> > necessarily tied to any particular religious tradition, though; I know
> > people in many religions who have the same basic approach ...
> > [snip]
>
> That sounds like a cross-religious movement.
> Do you know if it has or had a name?
"Not being a bloody idiot"?
"Not obsessed with eschatology to the detriment of functional day-to-day
living"?
Not terribly catchy.
Pat Bowne
"Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" <ada...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1h0gnvw.2t49rv1rpbs1sN%ada...@spamcop.net...
> Joann Zimmerman <jz...@bellereti.com> wrote:
>
>> I sure wish I'd known about this years ago. My nomination for greatest
>> sweet object I actually encountered over there was cream-filled
>> meringues. Mmm.
>
> Hmmmm. My grandfather used to come home with a huge tray of them
> whenever I was visiting them. Sigh.
We have State Fair coming up, and everyone in Milwaukee will stand in a
mile-long line for cream puffs.
Pat
Pat Bowne
"Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:11ekr8i...@corp.supernews.com...
> tomhcmi wrote:
>> I just can't imagine what culture that is.
>> You can't live in the Soviet Union anymore.
>> Do you live in some other Marxist country?
>
> My wife attended University of Maryland college park's Graduate Geography
> program in the early 90s. Any discussion of religion or numinous
> experience in that company would earn looks as though somebody had just
> had an unfortunate gastric experience in the lunchroom.
>
> A lot of very educated faculty in various institutions around the country
> seem pretty comfortable treating any religious thought except rabid, but
> pseudo intellectual, atheism as dangerously nutty.
>
> I've always enjoyed paying attention the the worlds we each inhabit. One
> of the things I like about this newsgroup is the apparent intersection of
> very different worlds.
What's really weird is that I've spent my life from the age of 3 in and
around academic institutions, and at every one I've found many people who
were willing to talk about and accept talk of numinous experiences. Even
those who didn't like God-talk had ghost stories to tell which they appeared
to firmly believe in.
One has to lead off in such conversations, though. People are afraid to
start them.
Pat
Pat Bowne
"tomhcmi" <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122656879.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I hope everybody interested gets to read this.
> I just heard a talk show on NPR.
> A Muslim caller mentioned that "suicide bombing"
> was/is not new, and not original with Islamic extremists.
This week's New Yorker has an article claiming that it originated with the
Tamil Tigers, in case you want to look up their motivations. The article
didn't spell them out.
Pat
Brian M. Scott
<pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in
<news:11elerm...@corp.supernews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> What's really weird is that I've spent my life from the
> age of 3 in and around academic institutions, and at
> every one I've found many people who were willing to
> talk about and accept talk of numinous experiences. Even
> those who didn't like God-talk had ghost stories to tell
> which they appeared to firmly believe in.
I find that anthropologically interesting but otherwise
rather depressing.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<dark...@mindspring.comDarkhawk> wrote in
<news:1h0gwb0.16452la2qlbawN%dark...@mindspring.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> The Greeks recognised two sorts of Mysteries: the greater
> and the lesser. The lesser were the ones in which the
> process of apprehension of the Mystery could be
> spoilered.
Oh, I like that! Elegant capsule.
[...]
Brian
Julian Flood
"Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" wrote
> Here's a test: go out and claim that a god likes it if you dye your
> hair.
What a lovely thought, God as fashion advisor: Our Mother, which art
in Heaven, does my bum look big in this?
>writing a book
That's certainly more common -- some might say too much so.
JF
Julian Flood
"Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" wrote
> Here's a test: go out and claim that a god likes it if you dye your
> hair.
What a lovely thought, God as fashion advisor: Our Mother, which art
Julian Flood
"Pat Bowne" wrote
> What's really weird is that I've spent my life from the age of 3 in
and
> around academic institutions, and at every one I've found many
people who
> were willing to talk about and accept talk of numinous experiences.
Even
> those who didn't like God-talk had ghost stories to tell which they
appeared
> to firmly believe in.
There was a recent study (I have no details) about direct religious
experience. The percentage of people claiming it (which I forget) was
surprisingly high.
Hmmm. Not a very informative post, this.
JF
Who once heard the voice of God at a funeral.
Irina Rempt
> JF
> Who once heard the voice of God at a funeral.
What did it say?
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 28-Jul-2005
Joann Zimmerman
mjla...@erols.com says...
> (James Donald, who I have killfiled, will probably say that he doesn't
> believe me because people who give to charity don't talk about it.)
Except that they do; the largest givers to charity normally expect that
it will be talked about for the next hundred years, or whatever the life
of a university [lecture hall | law school foyer | library collection |
nanotechnology lab | stadium addition | football practice field | art
museum | entire business college] might be.[*]
[*] These examples chosen from things that have been donated and given
names over the last 10-15 years at my local Very Large University. (I
will admit that there was one donor of an entire building who declined
to have his name anywhere on the thing, except to be immortalized by a
nickname in the cafeteria.)
--
"I never understood people who don't have bookshelves."
--George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@bellereti.com
Gerry Quinn
dark...@mindspring.com says...
> tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
>
> > > People who are therefore willing
> > > to discuss them in general discussion are thus often people who are
> > > either highly transgressive of social norms or insane; both of these are
> > > not common groups.
> >
> > This is surely not anywhere in modern U.S.America; nor in the
> > non-Marxist non-Western world, either.
> > Where do you live? I cannot guess; unless we (you and I) are
> > communicating through a time-warp, and you live before 1989CE.
>
> You must live in a different United States than I do.
>
> In the one in which I live, anyone who makes a public statement
> explicitly claiming contact from a god is treated as a kook at best.
>
> Here's a test: go out and claim that a god likes it if you dye your
> hair. Or that a god has asked you to write a book. See how many people
> back away slowly. (Neither of these is uncommon, in my experience of
> discussing the matter with people who have direct interactions with
> their gods. If the matter is mainstream-acceptable, then these common
> requests gods make of specific followers will not be particularly
> strange.)
I would say it might depend on the god. Mainstream gods often set out
general principles regarding hairstyle, but refrain from advising
individuals. An exhortation to write a book is not unknown. Again, if
it as religious book I don't think an author will be victimised for
saying "God told me to write it", whereas if it is a thriller he might
be considered strange, unless the purpose is to raise money for an
orphanage or such.
So the issue might not be contact with god/gods in general, but with
gods whose reported behaviour seems incongruous compared to that of the
more usual ones.
- Gerry Quinn
tomhcmi
> >But there is another commonality;
> >Both groups believe(d) the "martyr" would surely go to [Heaven or
> >equivalent].
> Yes. If people didn't believe in life after death, you wouldn't have
> many suicide attacks.
Thank you, Marilee.
That is exactly the point I want my termporarily-politically-victorious
alt.timeline characters to make.
"Teaching 'life after death' encourages terrorism."
A British politician in RL said, in effect, that after 7/7/05 it was no
longer possible for Europeans to regard the problem of radicalization
amongst Islamic youth as a private matter among Muslims; the rest of
the surrounding society must insist that the mainstream Muslims
intervene, and if they would not, then the society-as-a-whole must.
I expect an Alt.USA person to say roughly the same thing, with 9/11/01
instead of 7/7/05.
A sentiment heard in a local drugstore *here* was that "you should have
the right to your religious beliefs as long as you don't get in my face
about it." I'm going to have some of my characters thinking "It is no
longer safe to regard dangerous ideas as not being 'in-my-face' just
because they are taught out of my sight and hearing. A sufficiently
'terrorist' idea (such as life-after-death) is 'in my face' no matter
where or when it is taught, even if it is a religious idea. This is
one instance where freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-religion do not
justify allowing these treasonous doctrines to be expressed."
A long thanks for a short "I get it".
I appreciate your writing.
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
> Well, for one thing, broadly speaking, I don't believe in things I
> can't see. (Yes, I can't see atoms and I do believe they're there.)
> If the only reason you do things is to gain reward from some
> non-existant supernatural being, that's pretty sad.
Secularism (emphasis on 'this age') and humanism, and even
'materialism' (technical meaning -- if it's not matter, it doesn't
matter -- not 'greedy' meaning), are streams of thought I want some of
my characters to espouse.
> [snip]
> >In particular, are they a religious heritage? or part of some school or
> >movement of religious thought/belief?
> >And if so, which one(s)?
> This is a humanism belief, although I usually call myself a godless
> heathen.
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html
Thanks for the name and the URL.
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
Bill Swears wrote:
> tomhcmi wrote:
> > [snip]
> I have no datapoint to make me think staying home would be an effective
Nevertheless,
I am going to try to make a group in my ATL try for isolationism.
> [snipped stuff that is quite relevant from a History pov, but]
> [is probably perilously close to the B.o.P.]
> [Could you tell me more off-list?]
Tom H.C. in MI
tomhcmi
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2005 09:29:53 -0700, tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> > Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
> [...]
> >> In the culture in which I live, most claims of numinous experience in
> >> general discussion are treated as delusional at worst, at best the sort
> >> of thing that one does not talk about.
> > I just can't imagine what culture that is.
> Darkhawk lives in the U.S. and is accurately describing the most
> common American response to claims of numinous experience.
Darkhawk is surely describing the response most common /to her
experience/;
(and, apparently, the response most common to /your/ experience as
well.)
But how can you know it is "/the/ most common American response"?
My own experience would lead me to think it is a minority response even
in the most religiously-liberal parts of America, although a
sufficiently large and well-distributed minority that one is unlikely
to run into it even in the "Bible Belt".
Since Darkhawk's (and I suppose your) experience differs from mine, I
can't rely on my experience as a guide to what's "most common" in
America.
But OTOH, I can't rely on yours either.
So, how do you /know/ that's "the most common American response to
claims of numinous experience"?
> [...]
> > A "Mystery" was etymologically originally a "trade secret".
> No, the word is from Latin <mysterium> 'secret', in the plural
> 'secret rites', later 'mystical or religious truth'; the Latin is
> from Greek <mysté:rion> 'mystery, secret', in the plural 'secret
> rites; the instruments used in such rites', in Hellenistic times
> also 'secret revealed by God, mystical truth, Christian rite,
> sacrament'. The 'trade secret' sense is late; the earliest OED
> citation is from the 16th century, though the sense 'craft, art;
> trade, profession, calling' is medieval.
OK, I got that wrong. That's an advantage of having a list like
R.A.SF.C or S.H.W-I to write to; people can straightn me out when I get
it wrong.
Darkhawk (or someone on this list; if it wasn't Darkhawk, then I've
already forgotten who, sorry) has pointed out to me the difference
between Greater Mysteries and Lesser Mysteries, which Darkhawk says the
Ancient Greco-Romans distinguished. Based on that, the Greater
Mysteries would be 'mystical' by William James's definition.
Ob S.H.W-I :-- What would it have taken for a sufficiently large
fraction of Americans to slightly-harden one doubt into one disbelief
in re each major religion? (Not necessarily the same hardening for
each doubter, nor for each religion -- I suppose there could be a
separate "hardening" for each (doubter,religion) pair.)
Also, how small could "a sufficiently large fraction" be? 4%? 16%? 50%?
Ob R.A.SF.C :-- Clearly in OTL RL America, some people who have doubts
feel made uncomfortable to express those doubts in what seems to them
most times and places, while some people who have beliefs feel made
uncomfortable to express those beliefs in most times and places. Is
this kind of experience a "good thing" to put into a story? Has it
been handled well by "real" authors? I can think of Orson Scott Card's
Mormons in his non-SF murder mysteries; has it been done differently,
to almost-as-good or even-better effect?
Not Ob Anyting :-- What would a "mystery writer" be doing in the
context of a majority "mystery religion"? Would Agatha Christie have
been writing inspirational literature if the Orphic Mysteries had
become the dominant religion of Great Britain?
Thanks.
Tom H.C. in MI
Marilee J. Layman
<jz...@bellereti.com> wrote:
>In article <q35le19dhtn4hhf42...@4ax.com>,
>mjla...@erols.com says...
>
>> (James Donald, who I have killfiled, will probably say that he doesn't
>> believe me because people who give to charity don't talk about it.)
>
>Except that they do; the largest givers to charity normally expect that
>it will be talked about for the next hundred years, or whatever the life
>of a university [lecture hall | law school foyer | library collection |
>nanotechnology lab | stadium addition | football practice field | art
>museum | entire business college] might be.[*]
>
>
>[*] These examples chosen from things that have been donated and given
>names over the last 10-15 years at my local Very Large University. (I
>will admit that there was one donor of an entire building who declined
>to have his name anywhere on the thing, except to be immortalized by a
>nickname in the cafeteria.)
Well, the last time I talked about making things for the charity, he
posted that he didn't believe me, so I was anticipating, it turns out,
incorrectly.
There are good things in the bible, like there are in most religious
books, and one of those is "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left
hand know what thy right hand doeth" - Matthew 6:3.
I usually stick to that, but I was asked to answer a question where my
charity endeavours are the best response.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
You've extrapolated a bit further than I would (and that's fine, it's
your book), but I wouldn't say that the belief of life after death is
treasonous, just wrong.
There are also terrorists who do *not* kill themselves, even though
most of those in the US have been Christians and believe in an
afterlife. There's still plenty of them in Iraq who appear to be
Muslim.
And on the "martyr" bit, one of the side effects of my opposition to
the death penalty is that really bad people don't die and become
martyrs, they languish in obscurity for the rest of their lives.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Brian M. Scott
<tomhch...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1122740575....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition,soc.history.what-if:
> Thank you, Brian.
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2005 09:29:53 -0700, tomhcmi <tomhch...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>> Darkhawk H. Nicoll wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> In the culture in which I live, most claims of numinous experience in
>>>> general discussion are treated as delusional at worst, at best the sort
>>>> of thing that one does not talk about.
>>> I just can't imagine what culture that is.
>> Darkhawk lives in the U.S. and is accurately describing the most
>> common American response to claims of numinous experience.
> Darkhawk is surely describing the response most common /to
> her experience/; (and, apparently, the response most
> common to /your/ experience as well.)
> But how can you know it is "/the/ most common American
> response"?
Strictly speaking, of course, I can't. But at age 57, and
having lived on both coasts and various parts of the
Midwest, I feel fairly comfortable generalizing from my
experience. I would expect to find more acceptance in parts
of the South and among certain groups whose members are on
average not particularly well-educated, but only acceptance
of certain kinds of reported experience; indeed, the groups
that I have in mind are, I think, likely to react rather
negatively to reported experiences that don't fit their own
religious beliefs.
> My own experience would lead me to think it is a minority
> response even in the most religiously-liberal parts of
> America, although a sufficiently large and
> well-distributed minority that one is unlikely to run
> into it even in the "Bible Belt".
Did you mean 'likely' (or perhaps the litotes 'not
unlikely')?
[...]
Brian
Pat Bowne
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:9l2f610mp5w9$.jyuscsqqlw3f$.dlg@40tude.net...
Could that be why you don't find people willing to discuss such things? In
my experience, most people can switch pretty easily from telling their
numinous experiences, and believing in them enough to enjoy the
conversation, to taking an entirely materialistic approach to them. They
choose whichever tack seems to match the company they're in.
Pat
Pat Bowne
>
> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2005 10:07:59 -0700, "tomhcmi" <tomhch...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >But there is another commonality;
>> >Both groups believe(d) the "martyr" would surely go to [Heaven or
>> >equivalent].
>> Yes. If people didn't believe in life after death, you wouldn't have
>> many suicide attacks.
>
> Thank you, Marilee.
> That is exactly the point I want my termporarily-politically-victorious
> alt.timeline characters to make.
> "Teaching 'life after death' encourages terrorism."
I could see life after death encouraging suicide bombers, but I could also
see it discouraging other types of terrorism - on the grounds that the
injustices endured in this life are insignificant compared to the reward to
come.
Pat
David Friedman
Joann Zimmerman <jz...@bellereti.com> wrote:
> In article <q35le19dhtn4hhf42...@4ax.com>,
> mjla...@erols.com says...
>
> > (James Donald, who I have killfiled, will probably say that he doesn't
> > believe me because people who give to charity don't talk about it.)
>
> Except that they do; the largest givers to charity normally expect that
> it will be talked about for the next hundred years, or whatever the life
> of a university [lecture hall | law school foyer | library collection |
> nanotechnology lab | stadium addition | football practice field | art
> museum | entire business college] might be.[*]
There is a striking piece of evidence in Eric Posner's book on norms.
Operas and the like often report donors on the program, grouping them as
$100-$500, $500-$2000, ... . It turns out that a very large fraction of
the donations are at the bottom of one of the intervals--people buying
the credit of having given that much at the lowest possible price.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
David Friedman
"Julian Flood" <j...@floodsoopsclimbers.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I assume that most people who describe themselves as "born again
Christians" are implying at least one numinous experience.
Brian M. Scott
<pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in
<news:11enu20...@corp.supernews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:9l2f610mp5w9$.jyuscsqqlw3f$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:27:51 -0500, Pat Bowne
>> <pbo...@execpc.com> wrote in
>> <news:11elerm...@corp.supernews.com> in
>> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>> What's really weird is that I've spent my life from the
>>> age of 3 in and around academic institutions, and at
>>> every one I've found many people who were willing to
>>> talk about and accept talk of numinous experiences. Even
>>> those who didn't like God-talk had ghost stories to tell
>>> which they appeared to firmly believe in.
>> I find that anthropologically interesting but otherwise
>> rather depressing.
> Could that be why you don't find people willing to discuss
> such things?
Good grief, it wouldn't occur to me to look, at least in
that setting! Ghost stories in which they believed? That's
almost as bad as the former colleague -- originally in the
mathematics department, later in the computer science
department -- who wrote 'learned' papers supporting the
geocentric model of the solar system. (Search on <James
Hanson geocentric>, if you're curious.)
[...]
Brian
David Friedman
occurs to me that it depends very much on one's relation to the
claimant. If a stranger makes the claim, the likely response is that
he's a nut or a faker. If a friend makes it, the response is more likely
to be "I wonder if that could be true"--because you already know the
friend isn't a nut or a faker.
Brian M. Scott
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote in
<news:ddfr-CCD715.2...@news.isp.giganews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Thinking about how people respond to claims of numinous
> experience, it occurs to me that it depends very much on
> one's relation to the claimant. If a stranger makes the
> claim, the likely response is that he's a nut or a
> faker. If a friend makes it, the response is more likely
> to be "I wonder if that could be true"--because you
> already know the friend isn't a nut or a faker.
In either case I'd assume that the claim was honest but
mistaken, unless I had reason to suspect fakery; the
difference is that I'd probably require less basis for
suspicion of fakery in the case of a stranger. In no case
would I suspect that the claim was true in any objective
sense.)
Brian
Julian Flood
"Irina Rempt" wrote
> > Who once heard the voice of God at a funeral.
>
> What did it say?
Uncle Gordon was a bit simple. It was nothing genetic, just one of
those things which used to happen to poor families, a difficult birth,
an accident, oxygen starvation. I remember he smelled of cigarettes,
had a deep chuckle and was kind and gentle. When he died I was in my
thirties, overworked, with a lot of worries. I sat at his funeral,
read the lesson (and was seized by the line 'and knowledge itself must
pass away', a terrible thought), listened with half an ear to others.
The service droned on and I thought of this problem, this insult, this
slight, this overlooking. Then I felt guilty about dwelling on my own
problems at Uncle Gordon's farewell, and thought the sentence 'Sorry,
God, it's the way I'm made'.
'It's not the way _I_ made you.'
Nothing else. No punishments, no threats, no cajoling, no pleading. A
still, small voice, perfectly clear but slightly distant.
It's a well-known side effect of stress, hearing voices.
JF
Zeborah
> The service droned on and I thought of this problem, this insult, this
> slight, this overlooking. Then I felt guilty about dwelling on my own
> problems at Uncle Gordon's farewell, and thought the sentence 'Sorry,
> God, it's the way I'm made'.
>
> 'It's not the way _I_ made you.'
>
> Nothing else. No punishments, no threats, no cajoling, no pleading. A
> still, small voice, perfectly clear but slightly distant.
He contradicted me in exactly the same way, once, when I was lying in
bed thinking to him. It was an eyes-wide-open revelation, and
wonderfully freeing. I hope I internalised the lesson, because I can't
remember what we were talking about now.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Pat Bowne
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-CCD715.2...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> Thinking about how people respond to claims of numinous experience, it
> occurs to me that it depends very much on one's relation to the
> claimant. If a stranger makes the claim, the likely response is that
> he's a nut or a faker. If a friend makes it, the response is more likely
> to be "I wonder if that could be true"--because you already know the
> friend isn't a nut or a faker.
That's close to an issue I'm always interested in -- that of establishing
one's credibility. Not a problem for a friend, but more of an issue for an
author -- who must establish both the hero's credibility and the author's,
without the benefit of multiple types of interaction with the reader.
In fact, for me the *six* deadly words that make me toss a book are 'I don't
trust this author's judgment.'
What should an author do/avoid to establish that kind of credibility?
Pat