patrick.net

Because it results in more prayers?

"The whole parish is praying for the family. No one has experienced anything like this. ... We're just praying up a storm for them," said the Rev. Piers Lahey, pastor at St. Andrew Catholic Church, where the incident happened just before 9 a.m. Saturday. "The kids, especially. A lot of kids saw this and we are very concerned for them."

Of course the church employees are concerned for the kids: if ever those kids get the idea that life is not controlled by the unseen deity that the church claims to represent, then those kids might not tithe.

Morality results primarily from natural law, not religion. Wolves protect pups. Cardinal Ratzinger got elected Pope after micromanaging an office that concealed priests abusing children. Religions and cults are self-replicating memeplexes; over time they can attach themselves to a moral code and thus perpetuate themselves longer, but they are passengers on a much older train that they did not build.

"The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion."

Historically this moral principle has wavered from one side to the other. At around 800 BC the inhabitants of Canaan and Persia mostly worshiped gods that demanded child sacrifice in return for blessings. Parents were strongly encouraged to make the sacrifice of one child in the temple to ensure fertility of land and people. This was considered a moral choice.

Along came Abraham who had been hearing voices in his head for years but didn't really believe everything he was being told. Time and again he showed that he mistrusted this god who was apparently speaking to him and directing his life. All the while he's been wanting to see his wife get "in a family sorta way" but having no luck with that. A miracle later, Sarah conceives at like 80 years old and they have a son. Some years later this god in Abraham's head tells him to sacrifice the child.

This must have confirmed all of the patriarchs' worst fears, that this new god would be just like the old ones he'd left behind in Persia.
So, he decided to test this god.

He went and built the altar, got the boy on it, raised the knife and was about to strike . . . When God said, "Only kidding, who do you take me for? Oy! There's a sheep, kill it instead! What a shmuck!"

From then on, the morality switched to the deity's blessing of the protection of children, rather than their sacrifice. It was a slow change, and all those cultures of people God was telling Israel to wipe out were child sacrificers. A good example was the city of Jericho, which was full of this cult. The Jews wiped it out, but spared a whore and her family. Fascinating stuff. Read "Pearl in the Sand" by Tessa Afshar for an in depth.

Quigley says

So, he decided to test this god.

Interesting take on it -- that Abraham was testing God and not the other way around. Had not considered that one.

Quigley says

Parents were strongly encouraged to make the sacrifice of one child in the temple to ensure fertility of land and people. This was considered a moral choice.

Exactly. Parents sacrificed their children in the name of religion, which they would never have done otherwise. The basic reason is the hijacking of morality by religion. As Chris Matthews recently observed, a great irony of life is that sacrifice builds loyalty: we feel more loyalty towards those for whom we have made sacrifices than towards those who have sacrificed for us, just as people feel more loyal to their children than to their own parents. This is a function of natural law, essential to the continuation of a successful species. If preachers can fool parents into sacrificing children, then the parents' loyalty transfers to the preachers; the cognitive dissonance of doubting the religion would be too extreme for the parents' brains to tolerate.

Abrahamic faiths did not eliminate child sacrifice, they merely changed it. Muslims kill their daughters ("honor killings") because Islam tells them to. Some Orthodox Jewish families sit shiva for children who leave or defy the religion, literally mourning them as if they were dead, and thereafter have nothing to do with them. Romney's cult does the same. This is child sacrifice, literally in the case of Muslims and metaphorically in the other examples, and it entrenches the religious organization for the same reasons that it did in Canaan 3,000 years ago, because humans remain the same species and have evolved only slightly since then.

Imagine a Muslim father who murdered his own daughter in the name of Islam. Then imagine he is confronted with an infidel, who mocks that sacrifice with a cartoon and says it was all for nothing. Then watch the videos of Muslims rioting against cartoons. Somehow those people are all human, and some process misled them to that extent. Some of them literally tell their children to become suicide bombers. As Machiavelli wrote, technology can advance quickly, but human nature does not.

Islam is a violent religion with few redeeming qualities. Picking on that one is easy as the "truths" so esconced in the Koran are neither true nor timeless, hut rather the mad rumblings of a murdering pedophile. It's a religion for bullies, by bullies, and perpetuated by threats and forced conversion. I'm the last one to defend that abortion of a cult.

Quigley says

Islam is a violent religion with few redeeming qualities. Picking on that one is easy as the "truths" so esconced in the Koran are neither true nor timeless, hut rather the mad rumblings of a murdering pedophile.

There is a lot of evidence to support that view, which may be another reason why so many Muslims react so violently to it. On the other hand I've always thought one of the saddest tragedies of Islam was the voluntary conversion of Cat Stevens, which caused him to quit music for 25 years. (Various religions, including the Catholic church, have banned music at various times. http://www.freemuse.org/sw25826.asp) Islam may be the most conspicuous current example of religious violence, but violence is only one of the reasons why Islam spreads; it also plays on the same strings that other religions played on previously. Members of Romney's cult often admit they had real doubts about the doctrine, until they sacrificed more than a year of their lives on a "mission" to recruit others into it; most admit they persuaded almost no one other than themselves.

curious2 says

Various religions, including the Catholic church, have banned music at various times.

I heard a great explanation for this on (liberal, government funded) NPR once:

"All religions seek monopolies on pleasure."

To keep your attention and your loyalty, they try to shut off any avenue of pleasure that is not part of the religion or at least strictly controlled by it. Thus we have the prohibition on music in Islam. Other intense pleasures that have been banned by religion because they are just too much fun, at least for some people:

sex
gay sex (hey, I said some people)
alcohol (Islam)
caffeine (Mormons)
drugs
friendship with non-members (explicitly forbidden in Islam)
uncensored intellectual inquiry (Catholics don't have a great record there either)
ornamentation, paintings, statues (Protestants)
shellfish (Jews)
meat (during lent for Catholics, all the time for Buddhists and some Hindus)
pork (OMG bacon!)
NPR! (tea-partyism is definitely a religion)

I'm kind of surprised that no religion bans donuts yet (mmm...)

"All religions seek monopolies on pleasure."

...and, they claim credit for the existence of those things, attributing all good to their preferred omnipotent creator god, while shifting the blame for all bad onto somebody else.

"All religions seek monopolies on pleasure."

You would think controlling "pleasure" would lead to defections.

Raw says

You would think controlling "pleasure" would lead to defections.

Just the opposite! When the religion alone becomes associated with all pleasure, its grip is firmer.

Religions actually are pleasurable, unlikely as it seems.

Raw says

You would think controlling "pleasure" would lead to defections.

Just the opposite! When the religion alone becomes associated with all pleasure, its grip is firmer.

Religions actually are pleasurable, unlikely as it seems.

Maybe presenting the religious with an alternative pleasure not found in religion ought to accelerate defections.
How about "Freedom" Freedom is pleasurable.

curious2 says

Religions and cults are self-replicating memeplexes; over time they can attach themselves to a moral code and thus perpetuate themselves longer, but they are passengers on a much older train that they did not build.

No argument at all.

Regards
DL

Quigley says

"The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion."
Historically this moral principle has wavered from one side to the other. At around 800 BC the inhabitants of Canaan and Persia mostly worshiped gods that demanded child sacrifice in return for blessings. Parents were strongly encouraged to make the sacrifice of one child in the temple to ensure fertility of land and people. This was considered a moral choice.

Well put.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ne1wIEGnPWo

If you try to put yourself in the shoes of the King/God of the city this scholar sees, it is easy to see that in an area of finite resources, the population would have to be controlled fairly stringently and that if a baby was born out of sync with the finite resources, it or an older member of the city would have to die. It was a tough life in that day and place and many city states would have been in the same position. Perhaps that is why sacrifice happened all over the world.

Regards
DL

curious2 says

but violence is only one of the reasons why Islam spreads; it also plays on the same strings that other religions played on previously.

Bingo.

That is exactly how the West became Christian with their God of war.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WD0eSqFJ7J4

http://www.youtube.com/embed/xA_SSpQDpl4&feature=related

It was all about political power and not a moral God at all.

The God with the biggest dick for cruelty and inducing fear was what the West chose.

Regards
DL

Raw says

How about "Freedom" Freedom is pleasurable.

I am working on something that speaks to this notion.
I will have to split it to get it in.

Please opine as to whether it is worth putting up.

Only I can judge God. I, is you, if you choose to be.

Using the term --- I am here means you. I do not mean me unless I am referring to myself and all I say applies to all of us. You are ( I ) to you as I am I to me. Only you then can judge the God construct that you see as you evaluate what you know of God.

Jesus said that at the end of days he would return. He meant in spirit only. Not a physical manifestation. He also said that the time of the end was at hand and that the temple of God was within each of us. The tern spirit represents, the spirit of the law, what is written in the hearts, ---- God in other words, ---- is defined as laws and rules and such as they are the only thing you can follow at all times, ---- and these are set by you and you are in effect ruling yourself in terms of following the God construct you have developed.

Jesus is telling you that you and your heart are the only things of importance in terms of leadership as it is the rules you have accepted as worthy of following. Jesus warned that at end times there would be a number of Jesus’ to choose from and morality is what you will have to choose from.

That is why I think it important to evaluate what Jesus said and determine if it is worthy and moral or not.

Jesus Christ. Madman or something worse.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Below, Bishop Spong speaks of basically redefining Christianity. Going from a church or religious thinking, to a more spiritual or heart felt thinking. I also urge Christianity to change because it is now too immoral to ignore with today’s mentality. It’s overall policies are immoral in my view. The God of war must die and Jesus declared the full and only God that is required and that the noble lie of politics should be revoked to let all know that the God you likely know was always a myth. This may be a good time for you to contemplate such a move as many Christians haves rejected the O.T. God and only focus on Jesus and loving policies.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/6AfFcAmx-Ro&feature=relmfu

Apotheosis means just recognizing that you are on a journey of being your own God. Some few will have help from God on this through a real apotheosis but only the very few it seems. You cannot get away from that fact so you may as well forget about fantasy, miracles and magic. They were never real and you are the strongest force you will ever know. After all, who but you can make you want to do anything voluntarily? There is no other force that can do this and therefore you are God in the real sense of being master of yourself. If that does not compute with you then remember that A & E became as Gods, God’s own words, and yours is the same birth rite. Throw it away if you wish. You cannot reject the knowledge of good and evil so I cannot fathom why you would throw away the fact that you as well can become as Gods.

The moral of Jesus and his sacrifice is that we should accept being God, and ruling ourselves even against a government if needs be. Become archetypal Moses and face government and declare that it faces one as great as itself. That is what being a free man is all about.

The time of the end is when Jesus becomes your God on earth, ---- again this is you, --- who takes the place of the mythical heavenly God of war. Jesus/you, as the way, the man’s way of judging first, not some absentee God’s unknown standard. Your covenant with yourself is to be the new covenant. Man answering to man and himself. Not to some unknown God.

This clip from J. Haidt shows that we instinctively share God’s morals. In this we are truly Gods and children of God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

I am God because I am the only one who is capable of judging the God I know.

You are a God in your own rite as you are the only one who is capable of judging the God you know.

The noble lie is firmly in place and manipulating your thinking. Discard it. In this day and age we do not need it the way we may have in the past.

The Noble Lie.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/kDNHM84lBA0

As a Gnostic Christian, this theology/philosophy is quite natural to me and can be for all people.

Try thinking as the God that you are. Stop being a sheep and rise to your true inheritance as a shepherd. That is the message Jesus wants you to recognize.

Regards
DL

P.S.
Listen to Jesus and hear for the first time in your life.
Ps 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Hosea 1:10 Ye are the sons of the living God.
Do you think that sons of God are destined to be sheep or shepherds?
Jesus was here to empower us. Not enslave us. Do not waste what he gave.

Quigley says

Sarah conceives at like 80 years old

Genesis says she was 90, and that Noah was 600 years old when he built the Ark.

Quigley says

So, [Abraham] decided to test this god.

Interesting take on it -- that Abraham was testing God and not the other way around. Had not considered that one.

Maybe the reason people don't consider that is because Genesis says precisely the opposite:

"Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son."

Genesis does not say Abraham took the knife to test God. Moreover, it wouldn't be possible to fool an omnipotent deity. Such reinterpretations illustrate how people who want to believe the story re-write selectively the parts they dislike in order to rationalize believing what they like.

Pictures or it didn't happen.

curious2 says

Genesis does not say Abraham took the knife to test God. Moreover, it wouldn't be possible to fool an omnipotent deity. Such reinterpretations illustrate how people who want to believe the story re-write selectively the parts they dislike in order to rationalize believing what they like.

Yep. And to understand these books, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who wrote them, not with a 21st Century mindset.

The purpose of the Abraham story is probably just Priests under King Josiah trying to communicate that obedience to God (whose Captains on Earth are the Priests and King) is paramount. But the Good King/Priesthood, while demanding obedience, is doing it all for your benefit.

Just hand over those 3 unclean drachmas and we'll give you one holy, purified schekel at the temple, you know what I mean?

You're right, it's a reinterpretation of events, based on a deeper look into psychology. Abraham must have entertained the fear that this new god would be like the old ones, and god was both testing him and providing a resolution to his doubt about God's nature. Abraham must have been heartbroken in many ways when he received the message to do this thing. But in some way he also must have expected it. To have devoted his life to such a cruel god that would require human sacrifice would be devastating to him.

This is all speculation of course, but the book isn't exactly overflowing with details, so to fully understand, you need to overlay culture and humanity on top of what is actually written.