Two freedoms
Ain't post'n much lately but enjoying the comments. As a cheap way to get a post up I'm highjacking byronious's El Torino thread. # Max wrote, …the good vs evil fixation is a hard one for people to shake. I kind of think there’s the well adjusted and the seriously disturbed. The well adjusted aren’t particularly noticed while the seriously disturbed get all the juicy press. Me- I idle back and forth from not too well adjusted to slightly disturbed- kind of like an old truck with a significant need for a tuneup. Useful when conditions are right, but always close to the brink of disaster. # Perezoso wrote, Yeah I am fairly disturbed as well. But for a few years in 90s I attempted to like adjust: went to Church, etc. I am now quite convinced religion (specifically monotheistic), though, yes, it may result in some good, is really a nearly Reichian type of mass delusion. As when the tsunami struck in 12/04: Xtians all were saying it was God; some muslims said it was Allah etc. If that is the case (and most moronic fundies and catholics seem to believe that), then “God” is no different than a malevolent, evil force (one could maybe try to see tidal waves or earthquakes via pantheism or hindu metaphors, but still same issue). I think there was an old Star Trek episode (or more) sort of like this. Of course there may be pragmatic reasons to support the more intelligent types of denominations, but Billy Bob baptists are really, as f-n insane as radical muslims are.
——-
Max writes: From this point forward I'll only consider Dostoevsky's take on Christianity. I figure if anyone could draw some validity from it it would be ol' Fyodor. He was focused most of his career on the dialectic between the two types of freedom; freedom to choose to do the right thing vs the wrong, and the eventual "freedom in Christ". Most professed Christians and proselytizers fail the first test badly; i.e., they don't really believe in this choice. Without honestly passing the first test, though, you're excluded from any chance at the second. That's why it's often necessary to hit bottom to find God, and why a rich man has the chance of getting to heaven that a camel has to get through the eye of a needle. I assume this basic idea is fundamental to all paths of spiritual development (Huxley's perrenial philosophy) and Dostoevsky just expressed it in the terms that were most understood within his millieu. So what about me- how am I doing on the first test? Lousy to be honest- and the why is interesting. I don't truly make this choice because I fear "evil." Maybe because it's been drilled into me that evil exists and is waiting to draw in the unwary and overly bold like a Florida alligator waiting in the canal getting curious what jogger tastes like. If I was destitute, homeless and hungry and had no family and friends it wouldn't be so hard to look the first freedom in the eye. Seems that even I, with my meager paycheck to paycheck subsistence, have grown way to fat for that needle.
I would agree somewhat with your analysis of Fyodor’s take on freedom and Xtianity, but modify it slightly by saying FD was often quite willing to contemplate agnostic, skeptical, and indeed atheistic modes of “being”: Ivan in the Bros. Karamazov and Raskalnikov in C & P being two fairly obvious examples. It’s been years since I struggled with BK, so I would refer to C & P, which I actually prefer to BK.
Raskalnikov (R) does appear to make a decision: to kill and rob his landlady. Yet there is more to it: FD was somewhat aware of determinism and political issues. R is poor and brilliant; landlady is rich and slimy. So his decision to commit the crime, while rather severe and horrible, has a certain logic to it. The whole issue of the Law (and Law in biblical sense) is being raised, yes: but I do think there is still in FD the old radical, who does think social reality (ie the Czars, feudalism, even capitalism and the Law) is fundamentally injust and absurd: FD is hardly a marxist (tho he did flirt with socialism and was sentenced to die at one point), but there are many scenes of poverty and injustice in the novel, and the “freedom” to choose always takes place in the political/economic context.
Doe FD then sort of sympathize with R? I do not think that is an impossible reading, however ironic or troubling. It’s similar to the old 60s debates, however trite they are now, on whether crime was ever justifiable (should we rob the bank in the name of liberation, man?: or sell, like, cubensis?). Perhaps ultimately (as when R, about to be busted–Zossima the detective a great character—confesses) R does repent, as he is hauled off to Siberia, but I don’t think FD really says his decision was wrong: indeed the ending is quite weird (and powerful): is R. the murderer sort of forgiven? If forgiven then FD seems to be saying like a “pluck out your eye if it offends ye” sort of thing, which is in some sense a protestant type of view. But again I think FD is more ironic and puzzling, and indeed there is a nearly Kafkaesque quality to C & P.
Comment on August 16, 2006 @ 9:42 am
I’m more the Poor People type of fellow. I remember quite clearly feeling the bottom of my life in the back of ‘Zosos White Steel Dodge Tradesman 100, and undergoing transformation in the company of a dog, a blanket and seventeen degrees below zero. Washing up at the Weiner Schnitzel bathroom, guiltily filling the air with my stench, the shame of being unable to beg for food (upper middle class, y’know, where the shame outweighs the hunger — for how long?), and finally a dream in which ‘Zoso handed me a pencil-sized nuclear weapon to commit suicide with, which misfired TWICE, so I gave up, woke up, and decided to survive. Which I have done.
Zoso and I have had many talks about the nature of food and shelter as contrapunct to dark philosophy — too little, and the beast emerges; too much, and the beast emerges.
Zoso and I once survived several months on a diet of potatoes, Scotch-Buy Margarine blocks, and Gallo White Wine. We were fine until the care packages arrived from my mother — then the revels truly began. A little extra money meant a bottle of Everclear and spray-painting the kitchen with demonic landscapes. See? Subsistence brings out the moral fiber — but less or more can be ethically catastrophic.
I’m being a Sophist. Sorry.
My point was that all my notions about intrinsic fabric-enmeshed morality have been scrubbed away by life. Every man for himself when required; every man together when possible, because survival is often easier that way. There is no God but what we make, and we are strangely-shaped creatures scrambling around the outside of a ball of mud. Drinking Gallo White Wine and talking about Django Reinhardt.
I give money to homeless people a lot. Because I was unable to beg.
Comment on August 16, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Zoso and I once survived several months on a diet of potatoes, Scotch-Buy Margarine blocks, and Gallo White Wine
You got that right, man. But that’s been my diet (well, add some fromage, kielbasa, and popov instead of Gallo) for the last 20 years, excepting a few nice spreads after a decent Fed scam.
My point was that all my notions about intrinsic fabric-enmeshed morality have been scrubbed away by life
Well-stated, and I think Fyodor would agree.
Raskalnikov is a survivor, however egotistical. I mean, did you watch some scenes from Katrina last year? That could be reality, a sort of Malthusian reality, were things slightly different. There’s no ethics in a flood.
I was working in Valley (editing) with a laid-off engineer: he did differential equations in his sleep, quantum physics for phun. He’s now I think sleeping in parks in LA, trying to avoid the rats and/or crips. And near my shack in the Valley rich porno babes lived in a mansion, driving benzes.
The Dostoyevski Xhrist is no joke, but I think FD, great gambler (and failed engineer), was hardly a moralist or do-gooder Xtian. IN FD’s somewhat absurd world, one does what one can–even murder–but still sort of holds on to faith–not that I agree with that view.
Comment on August 16, 2006 @ 11:49 am
You’ve got the wrong Russians. Try Velikovsky. Immanuel Velikovsky.
Sheesh!
Comment on August 16, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
C’mon Senrab- I was hoping you’d step in with some good insight here. My take on Dostoevsky’s focus on the 2 freedoms of Christianity comes from a highly respected biography of F.D. by Nicholas Berdyaev. I’d known that Doestoevsky professed a strong belief in Christianity but I’d had difficulty reconciling it with what a powerfully independent thinker he was. When I got to Berdyaev’s chapter on Freedom I thought I thought he framed the Christian view so of the two kinds of freedom so clearly that I had a real ‘a ha!’ moment. So that’s what Christianity is all about- suddenly it made sense. It also explains very neatly why so many spiritualists go astray and become monstrous control freaks in the name of their passion for Christ.
Of course, like many neat, simple explanations, it could be totally naive and off base. I was hoping you might offer a reasonable argument why that may be the case here.
While you’re at it- how’d you like the Kate Bush tracks?
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 6:44 am
“He was focused most of his career on the dialectic between the two types of freedom; freedom to choose to do the right thing vs the wrong, and the eventual “freedom in Christ”
That sounds like a Hegelian type of thing. But doesn’t it beg the question to some degree? I do think humans can make decisions to do the right thing or not (the first “freedom”)–though given genetics, biological/economic determinism, it’s certainly debatable (BF Skinner anyone?). The second freedom appears more specifically religious, and thus, alas, somewhat dubious.
And of course the issue for Dostoyevsky (as with Raskalnikov, and the Bros K.) is often about atonement for making the “wrong” or sinful decisions : can a murderer (whoremonger, gambler, thief, Napoleon, Stalin, etc) repent and be forgiven? FD seems to think so–Raskalnikov is forgiven at the end, gets the girl, meets some great Xtian prisoners in a Siberian gulag. etc.
So, while not belittling Berdyaev (tho I think he was quite conservative) , there are other issues: first, is there some penalty (spiritual) for making wrong decisions? Ivan in Bros K doesn’t thingk so, indeed Ivan (who I think we can imagine has read some Voltaire, Shelley, and other English or french skeptics and scientists) claims, if such a “God” existed, he allows wars, Napoleons, plagues, all sorts of injustices anyways: so He kills the innocent, while commanding us not to do it. Ivan thus rejects “God” (Nietzsche also enjoyed reading some FD) , but I don’t think he is saying everything is permissable, merely that theological concepts of justice are absurd. (Of course some nut like Kierkegaard chooses to believe anyways, as do most fundies and catholics: tsunami wipes 300,000 people off the earth and yet the fundies goes to Church and says it was a sign of Gott)…………..
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 8:29 am
That may seem like a bunch of philosophical or literary hooey, if not BS, but there is a sound logical argument to Ivan’s skepticism, indeed quite more logical than any put forth by his strange mystical brother Aloysha, or other religious people: there are no real clear signs of God’s “love”, and indeed if He exists, he creates Evil; and if he creates evil (and humanity), knowing what his creation will do (He must know what his creations will do by definition) then he is no different than Evil itself. Bertrand Russell (not to say Voltaire) often pointed this out, but few people bother to read it. It’s also a pretty decent refutation of the Intelligent Design Argument (God designs great white sharks, AIDS, not to say Hitlers? Ich weiss nicht).
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 8:54 am
You missed your calling ‘zos. Answer Berdyaev in full and get the damn thing published. I’ll read every word.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 9:10 am
Geez, thanks. I’m just trying to find the right people to bribe to get into like Stanford: I have done a few Cal State grad. courses recently. But in a sense Russell already answered most of these “religious” questions, as did say SJ Gould (Kant himself rejected all arguments for a Deity). Or read the biologist Orr’s scathing criticisms of Design Theory and the fundamentalists, or Dennett. THere’s really nothing to philosophy (or theology) except a few issues pertaining to logic and language, and maybe determinism/freedom (but the cognitivists are working on that).
That said, there may be pragmatic reasons to attend a church, perhaps. I think some of the Lutherans and even catholics do some good things, even if their credo is mostly bogus (St. Matthew is not entirely bogus either, tho I am reminded of Life of Brian when reading it).
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 9:44 am
Perezoso wrote,
…(St. Matthew is not entirely bogus either, tho I am reminded of Life of Brian when reading it).
LOL! I have L.O.B. flashbacks for ANYTHING involving Christianity (or God for that matter). BTW- I’ve already corrupted Jeremy with it. His first R-rated movie (no wait, that’d be Holy Grail). I’m so proud of myself.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Max,
Its dicouraging to read that you’ve taught your sone to think of Christianity as a joke. I wou have thought you would have taken a more balanced and respectful approach to diversety of opinion and spiritual orientation.
And no, really, really, how about that Velikovsky guy? There is a clear and causaul link to this thread, but I gotta run, maybe later.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Under the weight of many arguments, I came to the conclusion–about which I no longer have any doubt–that it was the planet Venus, at the time still a comet, that caused the catastrophe of the days of Exodus (181).
When Venus sprang out of Jupiter as a comet and flew very close to the earth, it became entangled in the embrace of the earth. The internal heat developed by the earth and the scorching gases of the comet were in themselves sufficient to make the vermin of the earth propagate at a very feverish rate. Some of the plagues [mentioned in Exodus] like the plague of the frogs…or of the locusts, must be ascribed to such causes (192).
The question arises here whether or not the comet Venus infested the earth with vermin which it may have carried in its trailing atmosphere in the form of larvae together with stones and gases. It is significant that all around the world people have associated the planet Venus with flies (193).
The ability of many small insects and their larvae to endure great cold and heat and to live in an atmosphere devoid of oxygen renders not entirely improbable the hypothesis that Venus (and also Jupiter, from which Venus sprang) may be populated by vermin (195).
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
If, occasionally, historical evidence does not square with formulated laws, it should be remembered that a law is but a deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore laws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws (11).
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
Senrab wrote,
…Its dicouraging to read that you’ve taught your sone to think of Christianity as a joke. I wou have thought you would have taken a more balanced and respectful approach to diversety of opinion and spiritual orientation.
Max responds,
You mean like introducing him to myths and legends from all over the world and introducing as little bias as possible in favor of any in particular. I think I can claim to have done this. Can you make this claim?
No, I didn’t teach him that Christianity is a joke, but I haven’t deprived him of the chance to find humor in what he sees around him. In this household that includes generous doses of Monty Python. Having a sense of humor about spiritual matters is core to a lot of traditions, such as with the Sufis and the Bhuddists. On second thought, maybe I have deprived him of the more dour approaches. Come to think of it- that is intentional. I’m a fascist for fun I guess.
“Always look at the bright side of life…”
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Anyway- what does any of that have to do with the two freedoms? Maybe it’s a great example. Christianity demands, as Dostoevsky takes it, that one be free to see God in whatever way one wishes. This is a pre-requisite to freedom in Christ, whatever that means. I assume it is identical to nirvana, eternity, perfect truth and love, and all that wonderful m-bo j-bo we all seek before the worms get us. F.D.s point is you cannot have true bliss until you pass the first test. I think in practice this means jettisoning your ideas of good and evil (like it’s bad to think of Christianity as a joke). In his works it was these down and dirty, seriously disturbed in fact, characters like Raskolnikov who get a real chance at true freedom by risking lack of same in the horrible traps they dive into. They shake the common constraints- think outside of the box- exposing themselves to dangerous temptations. Those who constrain themselves to a safer life don’t get a real chance. It’s just mundane normal life until the worms. Again, this is F.D. I’m channeling, or trying to. I’m sure ‘zoso will straighten me out.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Even though one objects to fundamentalists or zealots of any type, and to religious metaphysics, one can conceivably still live an ethical life, can’t one? Though I m not catholic, I do think there is something to the Cat. notion of works rather than faith. My own view is that Calvin (insisting on faith instead of works/reason) was a rather pernicious individual, if not actually fascist: Luther was not quite as bad, but there are some rather tyrannical aspects to Luther’s writing as well. Of course the Catholic church too has an incredibly brutal history: Madmen especially should never forget Bruno, not to say Gallileo and many other skeptics and scientists persecuted by the Church, both Catholic and protestant. And many of the leading nazis were raised catholic, and Pope XI or whatever gave his blessing to Mussolini: you want to see what the teachings of the Catholic church has resulted in visit some Latin American countries, or read some things about Ciudad de Mexico: some 10 million people and 1/3 poor, unhealthy, living in shacks. A view from Chula Vista at the 1000s of shacks on the hills of TJ will give you a glimpse–and I do think the Catholic church (and the anti-birth control policies, anti-abortion, etc.) is to blame for a lot of that.
Anyways, being “Christian” has nothing to do with being ethical, or vice versa: I imagine General William Westmoreland went to church every weekend after he came back from ‘Nam (having been greatly responsible for the deaths of at least 2.5 million NV vietnamese civilians; there are higher estimates.) Reagan was a born-again Xtian, and what an incompetent nut he was.
Personally I would rather have somewhat ethical (and skeptical) people–even say, lesbians and queers, as long as they have some dignity– around me than religiously intoxicated true believers.
Most Baptists I’ve met are one step from the nazis. And some conservative catholics are not so far either. I mean, if that is your dream, cool: cop to it. Put a swazi or iron cross on your hide (and I do respect some of the mellower ‘skins or “ayrans,” I’ve met). And believe me, in the Central Valley (from Fresno to B-Field) there are 1000′s of baptists, skins, hysterical protestants and superstitious catholics, and muslims now too, along with all the gangstas and paisas.
Really, parents should probably take their kids to church and so forth, but I say that only because the churches have so much power and influence.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
I’ve definitely established a Christian foundation for my son. There is nothing inherently dour in this; certainly no more inherent in Christianity, than, say, existentialism or nihilism.
I hope to raise him within a context that is consistent with and values the accomplishments of western civilization, which is irreducibly shaped by its Christian tradition. Equipped with this world view, I hope he will best be able to bridge the gap between the physical and numinous worlds, and establish a deeper appreciation for both secular and spiritual perspectives. I imagine him enlightened rather than encumbered by an intellectual, philosophical, and spiritual framework that is substantial enough to protect from zealots and cults, relevant enough to allow pragmatic action in the real world, grounded in tradition, flexible enough to evolve, a world view that allows for the possibility of higher power, resistance to temptation and evil, and some hope for salvation.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
Another thing: tho’ I am a bit ambivalent about the Iraqi war (yeah, we should probably have gone in, but BushCo, the GOP, and the cowboy generals f-ed up), when one starts looking at some of the US firepower–say a Nimitz-class super-carrier, like the Abraham Lincoln, which by itself has probably at least 10x the power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki–one starts getting an idea about the power of the US military, which supposedly represents our “Christian nation”. (and it is like 80% Xtian still).
The Xtian officers and Brass ought to be like decent Gott-fearing men and women and have the grunts and sailors paint “JEEEE-SUSSS Loves You” on the billion-dollar jets, the cruise missiles, the ICBMS, the Abrams tanks, ‘copters, weapons, etc. Even get real pious and re-name some of the aircraft carriers: instead of that old phag Lincoln, the SS JEE-SUS! Pah-raise be! Uh, can ah ah get a witness? Ah-men.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
That’s very nicely put, Senrab, and I have a lot of respect for your efforts to raise your son as well as you humanly can. I think our intentions are very similar and my hopes for my boy are almost exactly in accord with all you’ve said- except that I really don’t know what salvation is. I don’t feel that he carries any guilt for mankind’s fall from grace or anything. He’s only 9- it wasn’t his fault!
I haven’t established any particular spiritual foundation for Jeremy because I feel that my mission as a parent at this stage is just to expose him to the world, while keeping him as safe and secure as I can. When he’s a little older I have no doubt that he will begin to build his own foundation. When I was his age, I was placed into a Christian foundation; i.e., I was made to attend Sunday school and sit through weekly sermons. I remember believing in God as a child and it provided some essence to my life that’s hard to quantify or describe. Around age 15, probably due to the ideas in the sci-fi I was reading, it suddenly seemed completely bogus. I pretty much made up my mind that there was no God and this Jesus business was all a scam. I refused to go to church anymore.
The interesting thing is that my parents pretty much agreed with me. They stopped attending as well and we stopped being a Christian household. The beatings began immediately. Sorry- don’t know where that came from. No, life went on as before for 6 days a week except Sunday became useful and fun again. Eventually I rejected athaeism as just another belief system and became the eternal agnostic, daoist believer in No Thing.
I guess my point in all of this is that my parents’ spiritual foundation was not ultimately very useful to me. I had to find out what made sense on my own. Maybe they lacked real faith. It it had been stronger so would have been mine and my doubts might not have erupted until many years later- maybe never. Would this have been a good thing? I’m not so sure.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
I remember our surprise as youngsters to learn that at the end of his life, Jack Kerouac returned to the church, and lived out his last days in his mother’s home. So un-beat!
In the light of time, it makes better sense to me now. So little solace in all that bohemian freedom.
Having attended a Lutheran church for the last seven years, I have developed a deeper appreciation for the reverence Catholics feel for Mary; where a personal relationship with Christ feels in every particular out of reach, his earthly mother can be approached. When his challenge is too great to meet, his mother can be trusted to hear and give solace.
I somehow see Jack, kneeling in a dark church, counting the Rosary, speaking the words, at once mysterious and familiar:
Holy Mary mother of god,.
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou amongst women,
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
And if this doesn’t have you down on your knees, crying and begging for forgiveness right here on the spot, then how about the haunted and (surprise!) crypto-Catholic Elvis Presley? http://www.anelvisfan2001.com/miracleoftherosary.html
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
Oh yes, and quite often Maria makes a surprise appearance to us Sinners: sometimes it is south of the Border, where the paisas pray for her Manifestation as the Virgin of Guadalupe, or near Lourdes, or most recently, as some wet stains in an underpass in Chicago. Or She causes some statues to bleed, er, that is until some Padres verify that it was really Her: in some cases the Padres have determined it was not really a statue of Maria bleeding, merely “that time of the month.” (as those preservers of Jeffersonian freedom who produce South Park noted).
Ti Jean had a good Heart, maybe, but his Head was another matter.
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
I attended a few Lutheran services in the 90s and was somewhat impressed with some of the stoical Lutherans and the ministers, though they are not the warmest of peeps. And then I started to read a bit about Luther. He was an interesting figure, but there can be no doubt he was anti-semitic, a theocrat, and a pal of the German princes and aristocrats (of course the catholics of the time were pretty corrupt as well: Europe in the 16th century was all about wars and riots).
“”In his 60,000-word pamphlet[118] On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543 as Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, Luther spoke of the need to set synagogues on fire, destroy Jewish prayerbooks, forbid rabbis from preaching, seize Jews’ property and money, smash and destroy their homes, and ensure that these “poisonous envenomed worms” be forced into labor or expelled “for all time.”[119] Four centuries later, a first edition of the pamphlet was given to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, by the city of Nuremberg in honor of his birthday in 1937. The newspaper later described the pamphlet as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, [120] a view that is shared by contemporary scholars.[121] The German philosopher Karl Jaspers said of it: “There you already have the whole Nazi program.”"
Quoted from
http://lutheransurrealism.blogspot.com/
Comment on August 17, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
I guess we have a real blog now as we have our first invocation of Godwin’s law (the surest way to kill a thread is to invoke Hitler and/or the Nazis in undermining/attacking your opponents position).
I’ve enjoyed Senrab’s heartfelt comments about matters deeply personal to him and hope he doesn’t take too much offense.
I know one of the most notorious anti-semites in history was also one of the greatest musicians. I don’t know what it is about the Jews that inspires such hatred among such brilliant minds. If Luther’s teachings are as rich and beautiful as a Wagnerian opera then I’ve been missing out on something special on Sundays.
Comment on August 18, 2006 @ 6:53 am
Well, sir, it’s rather pertinent. Indeed, if you feel things are “true” (i.e. religious concepts, Scripture) though there is no real evidence (nor necessary argument) for their existence, there is not much point in argument is there. There is plenty of evidence however showing the ties of both Lutherans and Catholics to the nazis (tho I would say the Catholics were far more tied to the nazi leaders).
The historical material, however, is less important than the Problem of “Evil,” which again, was raised by Voltaire (if not earlier), and various other thinkers, including Bertrand Russell, and which Ivan sort of refers to in Bros. K.
IN fact, I suggest most xtians really don’t care whether there are any rational grounds for their belief system (and most would say there are not–including that great skeptic Lyell, who demonstrates the fallibility of Scripture); it’s more a matter of politics and opportunity: the Lutherans (baptists, mormons, catholics, muslims, what have you) have power in a certain community, so one joins them. Sort of like the mafia-lite.
Comment on August 18, 2006 @ 7:07 am
Actually, I find–if you don’t mind someone posting who does refer to historical facts on occasion–the move to aesthetics sort of interesting. I listen to Wagner on occasion (however I generally hear like Elmer Fudd singing “Kill Da Wabbit” to the Ride of the Valkyries, or am reminded of the scene in Apocalypse Now); Tannhauser from Parsifal is fairly dread cool, at least the more chromatic or minor key sections, but Wagner was hardly a Lutheran nor much of a Christian at all, from what I have read: more like a pagan and German nationalist with a few xtian hints. And neither scientist nor philosopher; and yes a rabid anti-semite. But I can listen to his music without feeling guilty, even if as some people agree he (like his one time pal Nietzsche) definitely had some influence on the nazis: He was Der Fuhrer’s favorite composer. I read things by the anti-semite Pound too, tho Pound sided with Mussolini (Pound did refer to Hitler as a psychotic at one point).
Bach was a lutheran as were many german musicians/composers. But is their beauty tied to the religion? And do their belief have something to do with their Ahht? I think not. Chopin wrote beautiful music and was neither xtian or German. So did say Mussorgsky or Charles Ives; or yes, Debussy. Or even Charlie Parker.
Moreover, the questions regarding religious and theological justification should not be reduced to aesthetics. Standing in the Der Koeln Dom, a massive gothic cathedral on the Rhine, I felt awestruck–but also akin to being at the temple complex at Thebes or something.
However much grandeur the euro. cathedrals possess, that has nothing to do with the justification of religious belief they are dedicated to: the great pyramid of Giza is magnificent, as is the Parthenon, as are, really, mayan strtuctures. so why not worship Ra, or Plato and greek myths or mayan deities for that matter? Neither symphonies, or fugues or architecture or palaces prove anything, except perhaps military and/or economic strength.
Comment on August 18, 2006 @ 10:09 am
So you’re saying I don’t have to go back to Sunday School after all? Whew that was close!
Comment on August 18, 2006 @ 10:25 am
No. There are pragmatic reasons to go: not only cool fugues or chants and groovy architecture, but getting a decent helping of moral fiber, along with some sweet wine and a sacred cracker (I go to Episcopalians, Inc. sometimes), and there be nice gals, occasionally, though at the valley EpisCo, one sometimes finds oneself sitting behind two pleasant sapphically-oriented femmes.
But if you do attend, just ask Vater for a proof–scientific, or at least logical– of Gott’s existence, without reference to Screepture or dogma. Is that so unreasonable? I do it: drives ‘em up the wall: they generally start demanding that you like repent and memorize the 23rd Psalm. Hey, let’s ask Bruder Senrab for such scientific proof while we are at it.
Comment on August 18, 2006 @ 10:35 am
I am thoroughly intrigued by all this chatting about religion. I am also surprised by the continuing use of overgeneralizations. I personally think that grouping all those who subscribe to a “Christian” belief into one label such as Christians is dangerous much like grouping all Iraqi’s into one group as well as all Lutherans. I must admit I am surprised by these statements.
I really enjoy reading all postings/thoughts on religion/god/God/Mary/etc. How old that question must be “Is there a God/god?” and so many people have and are currently pondering that question.
I do remember my surprise at reading about Jack’s return to his mom’s house and a return to Christianity. However, my current thinking about religion (any structured religion) is that it is/can be a very powerful structure for: helping some people make sense of the world/their lives and a powerful structure that helps some people cope with their current lives or situation.
I am also struck by the close ties religion has with politics and control. I think the earlier days of Christianity and the Catholic Church closely mirror today’s situation with the religious/political climate. However, I think the rules for acting in society were much clearer, more consistent, more rigid, and more homogeneous in earlier Christianity. I think that the term Christianity today denotes and connotes a muddier, inconsistent, less rigid, and more heterogeneous concept. I am not saying one time is necessarily better. I think that the context of today is much more multicultural than earlier times.
As I reread the comments by Senrab and Max – the sort of sparring back and forth – again I am struck by the need to defend one’s religious view point and the role religion plays or doesn’t play in one’s life. There are good points as well as negative points to all religions, peoples, and cultures. As parents we try our best ( and this is not a generalization – I really believe that all parents do this – even parents who have drug, abuse, etc issues – some parents’ mental illness gets in the way – but that is another story– parents try their best – and each other’s best is different and looks different from the children’s point of view) Anyways – parents try their best – kids will take what they need and life goes on to the next generation.
I am grateful for my exposure to lots of formal religions and religious and spiritual people. I try to take bits and pieces of several sacred texts to guide my spiritual view. I am grateful for the resources and luxury of time to think and practice my spiritual views. I recognize that not all people have those resources. I surround myself with people who have an open mind, read, have fun, and engage in a practice of gratefulness.
I can’t wait to read what’s next.
Comment on August 23, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
[...] Byronius started this innocuous little poetry thread that eventually swelled to a record (I think) 54 comments- so far. Most were poetry, though one diversion into theological speculation got highjacked into the famous/infamous Two Freedoms thread, which may end up being nominated in a different category. Keep in mind that posts should be judged along with the comment threads they spawn. [...]
Pingback on December 23, 2006 @ 11:04 pm