Religion is a conspiracy without a mastermind. What a good way to define religion. It came about through the evolution of culture and morals.
Dan also mentioned that there are many pastors who are atheists. In my estimation, atheists would make great pastors. They’re not dogmatic about dogma, they take actions without assuming the intervention of God. Such action tend to be planned better. I would guess that most mega-church pastors are actually atheists. I challenge Christians to ask their ministers point-black,”Are you can theist?” You might be surprised by the answer.
Really, theology is nothing but obfuscation and tautology. It’s to help people believe in the concept of God without really believing in God. It’s useful for persuading people who think deeply about God. The rank-and-file Christian couldn’t care less. He just assumes that God exists.
November 4, 2009 at 3:47 am
I watched the whole thing and I must say – they slant the game towards their ends as much as they blame literal and liberal ministers for doing so.
I remember one term they used from Karen Armstrong about God is not a being then reversing the sentence to A being is not God. Now that’s all well and good if this is what Karen Armstrong is trying to get across – they agree about the conclusion…but is it?
Just because God is not a Being, like we are beings does not mean she assumes God is not. What if she assumes God is a Spirit for example? Maybe Karen is trying to be honest about her study in the history of God and not label something it is not.
I also found the close knit community of the atheist was well represented in this little speech…and they thank one another in some senses – like comrades. It’s very telling of their stance and the likely perspective they would look at – something they might call ’spin’.
They are right about a lot of things except I think they are also spinning a lot of things to their ends…which I believe temaskian you also blame me for as a theist with regards to ‘interpretation’. Yet how come it is okay for this educated crowd of athiests to do and not for me?
Now temaskian because I ask questions don’t assume I am anry about any of this – I wouldn’t have watched that 56 minute speech if this were so. I enjoyed the speech to be honest. I just don’t agree with their conclusions on the findings.
November 4, 2009 at 8:26 am
Jason,
Karen Armstrong was hardly the point of the whole talk, so it seems to me like you’re making a mountain out of a molehill, just to have something negative to say about the talk.
It also seems to me that you’re still sore about the way I interpreted that verse from your bible. I backed up my interpretation by going back to the original Hebrew words and by attempting to reason with you.
I don’t think Dan has misinterpreted what Karen said; she is well-known for being neither here nor there. That is her trade, I don’t particularly blame her. At least she’s not an all-out fundie.
Karen Armstrong is irrelevant to atheism. However, the bible is integral to the Christian faith.
November 5, 2009 at 1:51 am
“Karen Armstrong was hardly the point of the whole talk” (Temaskian)
I agree – however my point about Karen’s words is really key to the whole talk. What if they are misrepresenting what Karen Armstrong is saying in her book ‘the history of God’? What if they are taking something they read and making it say what they think she is saying? Are you willing to accept that if it is true?
I mean I may be making a mountain out of what you would consider a molehill – but if there is misrepresentation on one level – what makes anyone think there isn’t more? This really is a key issue.
Now I don’t know what Karen meant by her saying ‘God is not a being’ but I am pretty sure she believes in God (thus her continual writings on the subject). Which makes me think there is some ’spin’ happening in this process.
And that is what I am pointing out – one lump in the dough can ruin the whole thing (it may not but it can). I think many of things they think about the sociology of some de-converts or Christian atheists is right on the money – but some of it’s carried too far in conclusions. I am just keeping them honest if anything.
“I backed up my interpretation by going back to the original Hebrew words and by attempting to reason with you” (Temaskian)
I am not sore about this – good on you. I backed up my interpretation by going to Jewish sources and for some reason you see them as biased…oh well…even did everything linguistically I could to show you the form of the sentence is on Monotheism – but to no avail…oh well.
I am pointing out what I will call ‘false weighting’. It’s okay for atheists to make some of the mistakes you claim I am making but not okay for me. I think that needs to be re-examined if that is the case…maybe it is – maybe it isn’t?
“I don’t think Dan has misinterpreted what Karen said” (Temaskian)
Well what you think and what actually is being said by Karen are 2 different things. So I took the liberty to at least look this stuff up – and I have to buy that book and read it to prove my point – I am more than game (something we can both do – as friends).
Some of the concepts of God (the being) Karen found in literature:
“The Rabbis: “God is the place of the world, but the world is not his place.” The Rabbis stress on the one hand the Shekinah–the presence of God in distinct places in the world–and on the other the ultimate mystery of God. To create an official doctrine of God is a sin because it limits the essential mystery of God”
“God had, as it were, adapted himself to each person ‘according to the comprehension of each.’ As one Rabbi put it, ‘God does not come to man oppressively but commensurately with a man’s power of receiving him.’…”
“Aristotle had said that God was “the unmoved mover,” Necessary Being. In Exodus, God defines himself to Moses with: “I am What I Am.” Aquinas fuses these two definitions and calls God Qui est: “He Who Is.” God is not any particular form or kind of being, but rather Being Itself: esse seipsum” (the actual passage in question)
From the site: http://www.necessaryprose.com/armstrong.htm
*You will be happy to note Karen does support your theory of various identities of God during the early writings of Judaism (from El to YHWH).
Just thought I’d note these things.
November 5, 2009 at 1:59 am
[...] ***Comment taken from Temaskians blog ‘A Conspiracy Without a Mastermind’ [...]
November 5, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Jason,
Which book of Karen Armstrong are you buying? And how do you know that that is the book that Dan quoted from? Did Dan mention it?
“*You will be happy to note Karen does support your theory of various identities of God during the early writings of Judaism (from El to YHWH).”
Yes, I’m glad somebody agrees with my theory. But bear in mind, it’s just a theory.
My disappointment at your bringing up Jewish sources stemmed from the fact that you chose to look things up instead of examining them for yourself.
My opinions were formed mainly by just going back to the Hebrew words, without reference to what anyone else thinks, not even Karen Armstrong. I have yet to read a single book written by her.
But yes, I will most probably be paying more attention to her books now as a result of our little discussion here.
November 5, 2009 at 11:53 pm
“And how do you know that that is the book that Dan quoted from? Did Dan mention it?” (Temaskian)
Dan mentions Karen’s quote comes from the book ‘history of God’ – even appears on his power point in the video presentation.
“Yes, I’m glad somebody agrees with my theory. But bear in mind, it’s just a theory” (Temaskian)
I tend to disagree with Karen’s theory on this idea – but I have to admit I have never read her stuff either (have ‘the bible’ at home by her – yet to start or finish that book). It is an interesting theory nonetheless.
“My disappointment at your bringing up Jewish sources stemmed from the fact that you chose to look things up instead of examining them for yourself” (Temaskian)
Here is the thing with that Temaskian – I can look it up (and actually did) but I don’t read, speak, or interpret Hebrew – never have. I think I could of offered you some type of interpretation but what good would that be – I’d be at best lying and at worst unsure about every detail I present…and that’s not a good way to dialogue with anyone.
So I had to reference those who have looked into such things – that study Hebrew – and the can make claims based on such studies. I felt it was the most fair way to enter that dialogue since I am quite unstudied in Hebrew and interpreting it. So I use the english translations (which are quite accurate) and defend from that standpoint with the help of those that have studied the Hebrew.
Is that a weak way to do it? I don’t think so. Just like if I ask you about a subject you have little familiarity with – like mechanics – I would expect you to get help from a mechanic that knows the field quite well. I just think that kind of thing is par for the course in conversations that are quite educated.
November 6, 2009 at 5:45 am
I see you’re becoming a lot bolder, Temaskian. It’s a good thing. Standing up for what we believe is standing up for ourselves. Many think that we are what we believe.
November 6, 2009 at 9:44 am
Lorena,
Thanks for the encouragement.
November 6, 2009 at 9:47 am
Jason,
Yes, perhaps that was our problem. Here I was thinking, assuming that you’re a fellow amateur mechanic when you’re really more of a car enthusiast.
I think we understand each other better now.
November 7, 2009 at 1:00 am
I am known to be enthusiastic (lol)