VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1[2] ]
Subject: Bible Teaching and Religious Practice...All Hail God, Our Father In Heaven, Hallowed Be Thy Name (spitting)


Author:
WN
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11:28:18 12/29/01 Sat

Bible Teaching and
Religious Practice

Religion had its share in the changes of civilization and national character, of course. What share? The lion's. In the history of the human race this has always been the case, will always be the case, to the end of time, no doubt; or at least until man by the slow processes of evolution shall develop into something really fine and high -- some billions of years hence, say.

The Christian Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes. For eighteen hundred years these changes were slight -- scarcely noticeable. The practice was allopathic -- allopathic in its rudest and crudest form. The dull and ignorant physician day and night, and all the days and all the nights, drenched his patient with vast and hideous doses of the most repulsive drugs to be found in the store's stock; he bled him, cupped him, purged him, puked him, salivated him, never gave his system a chance to rally, nor nature a chance to help. He kept him religion sick for eighteen centuries, and allowed him not a well day during all that time. The stock in the store was made up of about equal portions of baleful and debilitating poisons, and healing and comforting medicines; but the practice of the time confined the physician to the use of the former; by consequence, he could only damage his patient, and that is what he did.

Not until far within our century was any considerable change in the practice introduced; and then mainly, or in effect only, in Great Britain and the United States. In the other countries to-day, the patient either still takes the ancient treatment or does not call the physician at all. In the English-speaking countries the changes observable in our century were forced by that very thing just referred to -- the revolt of the patient against the system; they were not projected by the physician. The patient fell to doctoring himself, and the physician's practice began to fall off. He modified his method to get back his trade. He did it gradually, reluctantly; and never yielded more at a time than the pressure compelled. At first he relinquished the daily dose of hell and damnation, and administered it every other day only; next he allowed another day to pass; then another and presently another; when he had restricted it at last to Sundays, and imagined that now there would surely be a truce, the homeopath arrived on the field and made him abandon hell and damnation altogether, and administered Christ's love, and comfort, and charity and compassion in its stead. These had been in the drug store all the time, gold labeled and conspicuous among the long shelfloads of repulsive purges and vomits and poisons, and so the practice was to blame that they had remained unused, not the pharmacy. To the ecclesiastical physician of fifty years ago, his predecessor for eighteen centuries was a quack; to the ecclesiastical physician of to-day, his predecessor of fifty years ago was a quack. To the every-man-his-own-ecclesiastical-doctor of -- when? -- what will the ecclesiastical physician of to-day be? Unless evolution, which has been a truth ever since the globes, suns, and planets of the solar system were but wandering films of meteor dust, shall reach a limit and become a lie, there is but one fate in store for him.

The methods of the priest and the parson have been very curious, their history is very entertaining. In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers. If any could know, to absolute certainty, that all this was right, and according to God's will and desire, surely it was she, since she was God's specially appointed representative in the earth and sole authorized and infallible expounder of his Bible. There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; she was right, she was doing in this thing what the Bible had mapped out for her to do. So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery. Yet now at last, in our immediate day, we hear a Pope saying slave trading is wrong, and we see him sending an expedition to Africa to stop it. The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession -- and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.

Christian England supported slavery and encouraged it for two hundred and fifty years, and her church's consecrated ministers looked on, sometimes taking an active hand, the rest of the time indifferent. England's interest in the business may be called a Christian interest, a Christian industry. She had her full share in its revival after a long period of inactivity, and his revival was a Christian monopoly; that is to say, it was in the hands of Christian countries exclusively. English parliaments aided the slave traffic and protected it; two English kings held stock in slave-catching companies. The first regular English slave hunter -- John Hawkins, of still revered memory -- made such successful havoc, on his second voyage, in the matter of surprising and burning villages, and maiming, slaughtering, capturing, and selling their unoffending inhabitants, that his delighted queen conferred the chivalric honor of knighthood on him -- a rank which had acquired its chief esteem and distinction in other and earlier fields of Christian effort. The new knight, with characteristic English frankness and brusque simplicity, chose as his device the figure of a negro slave, kneeling and in chains. Sir John's work was the invention of Christians, was to remain a bloody and awful monopoly in the hands of Christians for a quarter of a millennium, was to destroy homes, separate families, enslave friendless men and women, and break a myriad of human hearts, to the end that Christian nations might be prosperous and comfortable, Christian churches be built, and the gospel of the meek and merciful Redeemer be spread abroad in the earth; and so in the name of his ship, unsuspected but eloquent and clear, lay hidden prophecy. She was called The Jesus.

But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go -- and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed.

Then -- the usual thing happened; the visiting English critic among us began straightway to hold up his pious hands in horror at our slavery. His distress was unappeasable, his words full of bitterness and contempt. It is true we had not so many as fifteen hundred thousand slaves for him to worry about, while his England still owned twelve millions, in her foreign possessions; but that fact did not modify his wail any, or stay his tears, or soften his censure. The fact that every time we had tried to get rid of our slavery in previous generations, but had always been obstructed, balked, and defeated by England, was a matter of no consequence to him; it was ancient history, and not worth the telling.

Our own conversion came at last. We began to stir against slavery. Hearts grew soft, here, there, and yonder. There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one -- the pulpit. It yielded at last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession -- at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery text remained; the practice changed, that was all.

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> Subject: Religion is bad?


Author:
Rational Man
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:07:15 12/29/01 Sat

Sorry, while much of what you say is true, I don't buy into your implied conclusion.

It's not logical to take the awful results of any religion that has been misapplied/misinterpreted and proclaim that religion, or a group of religions, are absurd.

To adapt that position one has to ignore the fact that religion is good more often than not. Always has been ... even when the society it existed in perverted it. Proof of that is that religions moderated themselves, they didn't disappear entirely. They matured as the society they existed in did. The expression "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind.

Let's look at Islam, as an example.

Does Islam provide more fodder for fanatics than some religions? Perhaps in some ways it does. But it's not Islam itself that causes this ... it's the percentage of nutcases that are living within it.

People that are trying to "fit" their religion into the modern world aren't nutcases usually, even if they reject some aspects of the society they live in. It's the people that want the world to change to accommodate THEIR religion that represent the problem.

Religion is the symptom. People are the problem.
[> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
S
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:33:01 12/29/01 Sat

Once, when I was about nine, I had to sit in the back of a church while a bunch of good Christian men argued about whether to kick my uncle out of the church for getting a divorce. My father was among them. It was very confusing to me. I was nine. I liked that uncle. I thought the woman who'd run off with another man sort of deserved a divorce.

My brother was twenty at the time. He took me by the hand, led me outside and said, "Religion makes the world go round, but sometimes it takes us on a drunken spin."
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
Rational Man
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:49:39 12/29/01 Sat

You proved my point. It was the people, not the religion. At least your brother had the good sense to remove you from a place where a child did not belong.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
S
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:17:37 12/29/01 Sat

>You proved my point. It was the people, not the
>religion. At least your brother had the good sense to
>remove you from a place where a child did not belong.

Yes, it was the people, not the religion. I've seen an awful lot of emotional, even physical abuse done in the name of God in my time, so I don't have the best view of organized religion. But then again, it is the organized part I have a problem with, not the religion itself.

Faith on a personal level is good. It gives people hope. It helps them through troubled times. It's when religion and political power get mixed together that all hell breaks loose.

All of the major religions have at one point or another been used to con the masses into supporting a corrupt political regime.

On the other hand, I've been reading creation stories from ancient cultures tonight, and I'm reminded that all religions started out with the same basic ingredients.

Give people a sense of purpose. Give people a sense of belonging. And give people some rules to obey and some consequences if those rules are not obeyed. This was absolutely necessary to develop civilizations and even to assure the survival of the species.

The warnings that show up at the earliest point in every culture on the planet are the ones about sex, drunkeness and violence. So is this what human nature boils down to--the lowest common denominator--get laid, get drunk, beat the shit of of someone?

The Navajo, for example, have an astounding number of stories warning men not to boink someone else's wife.

Imagine a world where we never had those rules. I think I'll just leave it at that.
[> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
WN
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:07:19 12/29/01 Sat

Consider this: Would you feel comfortable with any "thing" that frightened a small child? And I forgot about the above words in the initial message quoting the writer. Mark Twain.

God never died. He never was. And if he was, I reject any maker who would increase the burdens of this dimension.
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
Rational Man
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:15:59 12/29/01 Sat

You need a good shrink. See if you can get a group rate and take S with ya.

Bye bye board. It's an embarrassment to be associated with half of the recent posts.

<-- not angry. Just not:

1. Trash
2. Ignorant
3. or a Victim
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
S
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 20:53:08 12/29/01 Sat

Because I agreed with the original point that religion is not necessarily bad, I forgot to add that I do believe the church I grew up in is bad. Though a few people like my parents are sincere in their practice of that particular brand of Christianity, for the most part the church itself is rotten to the core.

It has done more harm than good. I know more people who became drug addicts because of the way they were treated in that church than I know people who've benefited from it.

My brothers and sisters and I came out of it okay because we had each other. We hung tight. We loved each other. And we rose above the insiduous destruction of that religion.

And say what you might about our attitudes, we're not just survivors, we're success stories. We all have responsible positions in society, and we all take those roles seriously. All three of my brothers own their own businesses and do very well for themselves. I joke about my sister living the Southern Belle life a lot, but she actually works very hard. She is involved in just about every charity in town. And she's raised her children to do the same.

My sister's daughter went to a high school where they had two proms--one for white kids and one for black kids. She passed around a petition and organized a group of students to complain. They got it changed. The people who fought the hardest against it were the most 'religious' of the bunch.

If that's what it takes to be considered trash around here, sign me up, please.

I don't think faith is bad, but I do think blind faith is down right dangerous. I don't care what name the god of blind faith goes by, he/she/it is deadly, and we should all be angry that he/she/it still has such power in our world.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
WN
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07:18:50 12/30/01 Sun

>You need a good shrink. See if you can get a group
>rate and take S with ya.
>
>Bye bye board. It's an embarrassment to be associated
>with half of the recent posts.
>
><-- not angry. Just not:
>
>1. Trash
>2. Ignorant
>3. or a Victim

If you're not 1, 2 or 3, my man, what are ya? Complete without a problem or a care? I get along as well with "trash" as I do with upper crust. I prefer "trash" to stiff upper lips, however.
Ah, ignorant. I love ignorance, especially in the presence of those who feel illuminated to all things knowledge.
A victim...who isn't? What demons do we hide from ourselves?
I apologize to you if you are embarassed to be associated with some of these posts. I've noticed throughout life that those things that embarass people the most are those things that they associate themselves closely to.
A big mistake people make is thinking the State appointed psychiatrist is your friend.
I know I'll miss you.
Peace, bro.
[> [> Subject: Re: Religion is bad?


Author:
WN
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07:44:38 12/30/01 Sun

>Religion is the symptom. People are the problem.

Religion IS the problem. The people are her pawns.


[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.