Religion Today

Hello there. I am Ored. Introductions between anonymous internet users beyond that is pointless, I think.

As a child I wanted to study theology. In my childish innocence, I thought that meant a study of all heretofore Gods and religions.

If we take that childish conception of theology as true, then it is a very underdevelopped field.

Not the practice of religion, you will understand (I understand at least one user here is a fervent practitioner of hinduism), but the study of it.

This is the issue. Where to start upon embarking in the developpment of such a philosophical, or at least intellectual study seems less clear. I will hazard to leave this introduction as a statement of the issue, then, and to invite the members of this board to interject as they see fit, with no further directive than my faint hope that they will seek a way to start on an address to it.

theology wasn't theology when it first became a 'field' of study. it was instead a side effect of metaphysics, which was a side effect of the material sciences. when philosophers began seeking the 'ground' or 'cause' of the things they observed in nature, they got themselves involved in facing and coming to terms with the conflict between empirical observation/experience and the principles of reason.

one such example would be the cosmological argument. when aristotle came to realize that it was counter intuitive to believe things could be set in motion by themselves, logic led him to conclude that there must be a motionless motion-maker, so to speak, a prime mover, that was the cuase of all the motion in the universe.

because this idea is purely rational- not something observable or given through experience- it belongs to metaphysics (that which is before and/or beyond physics). now it is nearly impossible to avoid slipping into anthropomorphic reasoning at this point, hence the inception of theology. then there comes the counter movement, deism, which keeps the metaphysical theory of such but eliminates the anthropomorphic element in it.

just an example of how theology surreptituously arrives on the philosophical scene.

and you have sketchy arguments like the ontological argument, as well. perfection can be conceived, therefore perfection is possible, and since what is perfect must be real as well as a concept, there must be a perfect thing that exists as a real thing and a concept. that perfect thing would have to be 'god'. so on and so forth.

intelligent design is another one. hume's essay... forget what it's called, involves a dialogue between two philosophers who discuss the peculiar nature of complexity, and how it doesn't seem like such a world could come into existence without being designed.

spinoza's ethics took a shot at this question of 'god' too. through a series of very compelling, axiomatic definitions and assertions, he attempts to prove there must be an eternal and infinite single 'foundation' for all that exists.

descartes and liebniz played this game as well, but not nearly as well as spinz did.

i don't count augustine because he was a neo-platonist/plotinus. the preface of platonic plotinustic platitudes usually placates the pandering of much portensious pontification, and i'm not privy to such preambles. i have no predilection for it.

This is how my childish self arrived at its idea of what theology must be: I knew theo meant god and logy roughly the study of. Geology. Biology. So forth.

But the greatest innocence radicated in this: that I thought a university would necessarily study then all existing gods ever worshipped. Like geology seeks to study all rocks. And their accompanying religions.

It is the lack of a body of work with this conception of theology as the subject that I put forward as an issue to address.

Perhaps this would be made clearer had I been able to title the thread simply "Religion," but the minimum amount of characters required forced me to compromise.

If there was a 'god', there would be no possibility of a 'body of work' about this god. God would have it that way just to spite you. To fight back, you must become a master at playing the game , until you are finally able to beat him.

Perhaps you take my search as a spiritual one. As I wrote above, it is rather an intellectual one. Perhaps you take intellectual to mean scholastic. But bear in mind, the idea for this undertaking originated in a child's mind. It had a more innocent, freer conception of study than provided by such a rigid tradition of thought.

Perhaps you take my search as a spiritual one.

i wouldn't be able to if there were no such thing as 'spirit' as it is typically defined in philosophy. but we could still use the word 'spiritual' to mean a kind of thinking that addresses the deeper, existential curiosities about life that the natural sciences can't afford to answer.

when someone says 'i am spiritual', this statement can mean any number of things, but one thing it will always mean is that the person is deeply concerned and curious about his being, his purpose, his fate, and his place in the world. science cannot address these things.

Perhaps you take intellectual to mean scholastic.

i would say that the beginning of a philosophically organized study of these metaphysical questions, belongs to scholasticism, yes. really all this means is that philosophers took the subject matter and formalized it... developing rigid systems of thought, arguments and 'proofs'. and today, the philosophy of religion still rests firmly on those foundations, so they are very important and, indeed, quite timeless.

But bear in mind, the idea for this undertaking originated in a child's mind.

i would have to disagree. while a child is certainly capable of 'wondering' about the world, the more complex lines of reasoning which lead a person to conceiving of such metaphysical questions are not possible without a greater capacity for language. children aren't yet able to 'frame' their sense of wonder into linguistically structural concepts like adults. they don't yet recognize what a legitimate question would be, about such... for example, the cosmological problem of causes. the child can grasp only abstract instances of causality; x makes y happen, etc. it hasn't crossed his mind yet that there is a sum total of things called a universe, which is itself an event, and should therefore have a cause. stuff like that.

and death, especially. the child would have no suspicion that death wasn't the end of it until someone put into his head the idea of the soul or spirit.

What is a 'religion' after all?
A cult that becomes popular.
All it needs is the 'right' circumstances to go from, a cult nobody pays attention to, to a religion that can take over the world.
Christianity, for example, could only have flourished in a world of shrinking spaces and increases populations - the circumstances when viruses, diseases, spread.
Abrahamism was a cult that could only have fermented in a people that suffered and were constantly being extricated, and ostracized, having adopted parasitical methods to survive among superior tribes - they turned their victimhood, into authoritarian oppressor, through an idea(l)...a god extricated, like them, and rejected, like them....a god of retribution, representing their life-hatred and vengefulness, hiding in double-standard altruism, using linguistic ambiguity and a salesman chicanery.  

What is a cult, after all?
Any spirituality that teaches about alternate realities, and phenomena the 'believer' cannot experience, first hand, but can only accept on faith.
It sets up an elite priestly class, that pretends to be the bearer of great wisdom, and of power that can only be accessed by kissing his hand...or arse....or....?
I don't want to think about it.
What is a cult but wisdom for the mediocre -m a narrative dumbed-down, for the average imbecile to remember, recite, and be humbled by - it's complexity reduced, using supernatural stories, to a level the average mind can understand, literally, rather than in the metaphorical spirit it was intended to convey the accumulated wisdom of a tribe across the ages; an insidious way of disciplining morons and simpletons, the group's mediocrity, to the group's interests.  

Shall we talk 'bout 'logos'?
It is what differentiates Christianity from the other two Abrahamics, in the incestuous, in-breeding, threesome.
It took this from her father, Hellenism, but twisted it to accord with her mother's psychosis.

Logos = logic, reason, word...
From connector of mind to world, noumenon with phenomenon.....Christianity makes it an end in itself.
'First came the ....logos'...logos is its own reason.
From mediator, gods...to first cause....God.
Where are we now?
The age of words.
What I declare is just as true as what you declare. How pleasing and seductive and impressive we make our declarations, decides which ones are 'good'.  
In the cunt's case....iamgiguuos, you would call her.... if nobody convinces her there are no races, then her denial is enough to make races non-existent.
She stands in the way of brutal natural order and humanity's welfare....because natural order is also logos.
She not being free from Christianity, nor Marxism.  
Her negation is as cosmic as the imbecile who calls himself a god, and declares his nonsense a world he has created to those who have fallen for the same mind-trick and will forever do so.
Preaching to the choir....that has lost its church, and is now desperate for a new sheltering hall to huddle within and to sing....words of praise and glory.....words of worship.  

We have two sides of the same pile of genetic shit...for what is a coin, money, but feces - resources presented as shiny golden or silvery mulch.
Pure and positive Nihilism....all using words as creation and destruction.
"My words have power, because I say them with wilful passion....and I will whatever they signify into existence....." - positive Nihilism.
"I am the Creator of worlds; hear me speak them into existence"....says one imbecile....his 'logos of positive power'.
He's usually hyper-masculine....because it takes masculine insecurity to produce this level of macho compensation.

The other takes the opposite in their bipolar insanity perpectivist paradigm....she's the feminine in the duality.
"I am the negator of all. Your words have no power over me, nor anything...as long as I find a slight flaw, or cast doubt..." - pure Nihilist. Women judging quality - memetic filters.
"I am the destroyer of the world, as there is no shared objective world, but only equal versions of many private worlds. My conviction stands in the way of your reality."

This degenerate is convinced that if she refuses to believe the world as it is described, the world that frightens her will never be.
Her doubt stands in the way of its realization.
She will not spread her legs for the insemination of that world....and she will not carry it to term - she will abort it.....ergo she's obsessed with the morality of abortion.
Her refusal is what stands in the way of natural order, and all concepts that threaten subjectivity, and the delusion that reality is a social construct.
She does it for the 'kids' - motherly concern over children and their fantasy games.
She's convinced that her word, or her denial to give her word, is what makes objective reality impossible.
She does not give consent....so you have to rape her....or seduce her.
She thinks.
Attention is how she gauges her effectiveness...typical chick.

"the difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate involved" - FZ

Ored wrote:Hello there. I am Ored. Introductions between anonymous internet users beyond that is pointless, I think.

As a child I wanted to study theology. In my childish innocence, I thought that meant a study of all heretofore Gods and religions.

If we take that childish conception of theology as true, then it is a very underdevelopped field.

Not the practice of religion, you will understand (I understand at least one user here is a fervent practitioner of hinduism), but the study of it.

This is the issue. Where to start upon embarking in the developpment of such a philosophical, or at least intellectual study seems less clear. I will hazard to leave this introduction as a statement of the issue, then, and to invite the members of this board to interject as they see fit, with no further directive than my faint hope that they will seek a way to start on an address to it.

Who's the fervent practitioner of Hinduism?

Interesting inputs. On the one hand, an appraisal that a simple delve into the study of Gods and religions that have existed and exist is decidedly less interesting than a scholastic study of metaphysics. On the other a universal though not scholastic approach to the process of the origin of all (and you will forgive the redundancy of the word all) religions.

In any event, I will restate my faint hope: that the issue of the lack of a body of work in the field of theology, if we take theology to be what my childish self considered to be a study of all Gods and religions in existence, will be addressed.

As per the fervent practitioner of hinduism, it was only meant to illustrate that my interest is not in the professing of any religion, but the intellectual study of any and all of them. If you will permit.

By way of showing what direction I vaguely imagine such a study taking, I tend to think that science is a good modern word for logos. Obviously I would take science to be what the word implies outside of Baconic tradition, the scientific method and so forth.

Ored wrote:As per the fervent practitioner of hinduism, it was only meant to illustrate that my interest is not in the professing of any religion, but the intellectual study of any and all of them. If you will permit.

Same here. What's your interest in it, though?

My interest is hard to describe. Again, born in a child. I should clarify, I may have been older than 7, but not older than 10. One could say it is the furthurance of the goals that imply themselves in the idea of universities. I could do little better than refer to the child I wrote about in my first post. Motivations are notoriously hard to explain for children. Possibilities are more their field.

Where it comes to an academic study of religions, I believe that the best course is to study History and/or Art, and then specialize in History of Religion or Religious Art. When you study Theology, unfortunately that is taken to mean you are studying to become a priest or pastor of one of many varieties of christian churches.

A comprehensive look at all religions is one of the most important missing pieces of education in western curriculum. It should be given to everyone from an early age. To learn that there are many religious today and there have been many religions in the past, and many many gods, all with their own claims and stories, and which died along with their people, would provide children an illuminating perspective on the subject as they grow up, and help them understand that the instinct and the urge and the will to a religious experience has always been a part of the human experience, but that the claim of any one religion to be the one and only truth is extremely narrow-minded.

Unfortunately, it is true for the dominating religions of our time, that the last thing they want is to illuminate, clarify, and educate, as that causes them to lose their revenue.

Ored wrote:My interest is hard to describe. Again, born in a child. I should clarify, I may have been older than 7, but not older than 10. One could say it is the furthurance of the goals that imply themselves in the idea of universities. I could do little better than refer to the child I wrote about in my first post. Motivations are notoriously hard to explain for children. Possibilities are more their field.

I have two links for you:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=1883872#p1883872 (At least read the Huxley quote, on "rocks".)

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2272137#p2272137 (At least follow the Blogspot link, on the "child".)

Witchdoctor, you have placed the issue in far better terms than I can. Yes, that is a much more clear exposition of what I am bringing to discussion.

I think my aim could be formulated thus: is it possible to take the task or the prerogative from universities' hands?

How could such a task begin to be undertaken?

In full honesty, my hopes are slim. I'm not delusional. But I do not think it is impossible.

Barl the Bald, my interest isn't so much on rocks or children, central as they are to my presentation of the issue.

Regarding rocks, at least, and this judging from the meme you posted, it seems you are suggesting that the outward appearance of Gods and religions, as with rocks, is less important than certain elements that determine these appearences. This makes a number of assumptions on the result of the studies before they are even undertaken! It seems also in some way I am less able to clearly formulate to run the risk of earning the earliest criticism Nietzsche made of science: it hides something behind a bush and then acts very surprised to find it there!

In other words, much like Zoot Allures's earlier interjection, it seems to impose metaphysics (the study of unseen phenomena) on a study that has no obvious need for it. Classic theology, perhaps, where unifying principles are given priority over obvious subjects of study.

Ored wrote:Barl the Bald, my interest isn't so much on rocks or children, central as they are to my presentation of the issue.

Regarding rocks, at least, and this judging from the meme you posted, it seems you are suggesting that the outward appearance of Gods and religions, as with rocks, is less important than certain elements that determine these appearences.

Actually, I just meant to suggest gods (and religions) are, like gemstones, fascinating things. Also, I'm much more interested in the gemstones seen with the inner eye of the visionary than in actual, external gemstones; likewise, much more in the child archetype than in actual, concrete children. And the former have a lot to do with gods/religions.

Ah. That's very interesting.

Barl, would you ever eat your own children?

Barl, would you ever eat your own children?

dude. he said he was interested in child archetypes, not child artichokes.

Actually, it's Zoot who's like that rather than I: he isn't AKA Kronos1975 for nothing!

But yeah, when I wrote that bit it did sound harsh to me: I immediately had to think of my niece and nephews and the child of a friend I saw in a videobomb a while ago. I still decided to put it like that, though, at least for the sake of consistency with my earlier work to which I linked. Yet I do think the actualisation of the child archetype in oneself entails caring about actual, concrete children. I connect this with self-valuing: it only exists in valuing actual other valuings.

if my child and i were stranded on a desert island, and there was the possibility of being rescued because freight ships pass by the island every week or so, and my child was smart enough to understand the directions i gave him/her for preparing and eating me, i would kill myself and let my child eat me to stay alive.

but if my child was not smart enough to understand the directions for preparing and eating me, i would eat him/her to stay alive.

and saully, kronos is a mythological figure. he didn't really exist. but now that you mention it, let's look into the matter. i propose that the story line (kronos eating his kids) was not some arbitrary plot that was randomly conceived. i think rather that it reflects specifically a part of the ethos of the ancient greeks... particularly their obsession with nobility and power. in this concept of the ruler eating his kids, we find a sublimating expression of an attempt to instantiate two diametrically opposed extremes and show the priority of one over the other; the love of power rules over even the love of one's children. whatever it takes to stay in power. that's what the greeks unconsciously wanted, and this desire finds its way out of the psyche in this particular part of the mythos.

now you're probably going to cite seven passages out of three books by four different authors... well, actually three authors, because four authors wouldn't write three books... unless one of them was a coauthor. anyway, i know you're about to post a wall of text and links which will show how this idea was already thought of by other thinkers, thinkers who explained the idea far better than i.

but i want you to remember something, saully. i figured this shit out on my own, bro. and that makes me as good as them. might even make me better, because i'm not as well read as those dudes.

Religion is a way of dealing with chaos.
It incorporates randomness within an ordered narrative, by converting it into metaphor.
Text is an ordered representation that integrates chaos in the form of parables, ambiguities and sometimes contradictions, justifying them with the term 'mysterious', or 'mystical', or 'occult, to seduce the ego with its implies participation in a select category/group.

Religion is a way of simplifying the accumulated knowledge/experiences, and their concentration into a few principles of wisdom, and a patterns within the data - understanding.
This passed on to the average mind the shared ideals of the group, in a form that offered a promise and a threat to discipline it to the group's interests.
Narratives were used to make the memorization of these principles easier, in a written tradition, and before the printing press.
They also presented the group's interests in an allegorical form, to circumvent the ego's reaction.

Religion is a way of comforting, and flattering the average and the mediocre.
It also fabricates irrational hope, calling it faith helping weaker spirit to cope with devastating, unforeseen, circumstances.
Religion raises the weak, and implies a lowering of the strong, to create the illusion of parity which is in direct conflict with the experienced world.
A way around this contradiction is to imply an underlying or overlaying more 'real' reality, offering the less creative mind a justification for what it desires.

Religion today is dominated by nihilistic spirituality because it has to integrate heterogeneous genetic/memetic populations into cohesive, stable, wholes, and manage them in a world of shrinking spaces and controlled resources.
Because of information overload, and accessibility to knowledge, and second-hand understanding, Abrahamism has to become occult, superstitious, or become irrelevant to the average mediocre mind.
It needs a rebooting...an upgrade to reinterpret ancient methods of human husbandry into more modern methods - changing the symbols, the names, the language, to seem more rational, more scientific.
The absence left from the decline of Abrahamism, and the failure of its secular forms, like Marxism, has to be filled for the mediocre masses to remain sane and disciplined to communal moral standards and socioeconomic rules.
Superstition has to be given a face-lift, a make-over; it has to be updated and made more fashionable.  
Marxism is also being updated.....it is now called post-modernity.
The methods change, the symbols/words are replaced with new, more sexier ones, but the basic lie remains the same....a proven method cannot be abandoned, but refurbished like a worn out but durable antique.

Absence of frontiers, and this current Behavioural Sink situation, necessitates these compromises to the lowest-common-denominator.
Herds cannot be escaped but have to be controlled, harvested, made productive, docile, tame.
Nothing like a flattering, comforting, lie, making grand promises, to exploit the basic human need for safety and pleasure.
Exploiting retards is easy....convincing yourself of the lie makes the process more graceful, more efficient.
Deceit through self-deceit - a liar's creed knows this ancient wisdom...it's part of their metier....just as a good thief and/or salesman knows the ephemeral essence of property, and of moral codes developed to protect them.

Funny thing about 'eating your children' is that it is part of Abrahamic narratives....metaphors based on real events.
The Romans siege on Jerusalem produced these events - mothers eating their babies, among a tribe that placed survival above all else - the chosen ones.
This was converted to the Christian rite of consuming the Messiah's  'flesh' and drinking of his 'blood' - cannibalism masked by symbolism.
Cannibalism is part of Christian narratives...and like the origin of Christ, as a mix of a Jewish female and a Roman male, is hidden in metaphorical language that can be affirmed or denied...can be interpreted literally or figuratively.

In the book Caesar's Messiah Atwill claims that cannibalism did occur, and he mentions a particular story of a mothers who had agreed to consume  their infant children in order to survive a roman siege.
Everything in the Old and New Testament describes real historical events using allegories.
It is why the bible can still be reinterpreted in ways that adjusts the narration to current scientific insights.

The use of insinuation, metaphor to speak without saying anything precisely, is a tried and tested method of creating durable mystification.
Vagueness permits the speaker to adjust his lie/truth analogies, depending on the circumstances and the quality of the one they are trying to convince.
This literal/figurative integration potential is what is used to imply depth of insight.
It's a way of impressing the gullible and the naive....the desperate and the lost.

Language is used not to clarify, bring to light, un-forget, but to conceal, to obfuscate, to lead the mind towards forgetfulness....because there it feels relieved, comforted....released from its unyielding, determining past.