currently reading: On Religion

I thought perhaps we could use a thread to share what we're reading on the topic of religion, rather than our perfectly-formed individual opinions on all things religious. But feel free to argue about whether the books being read should be read, or whether they should even have been written!

As for myself, I'm currently wrapping up Sufism: The Formative Period, and preparing to return to Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity.

Feuerbach's splendid book brings God back down to earth while simultaneously agitating absolutists of the religious and rationalist variety.

> 2

I've read (and hugely enjoyed) a couple of other volumes by Feuerbach, but I'm only now getting around to this most-read work of his. The George Eliot (yes, that George Eliot) translation which seems to be the standard English text has been highly praised, but it's tougher reading than, say, the Ralph Manheim translation of Lectures on the Essence of Religion.

In an anthology, "The God Hypothesis", an extract from The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan.

It's not a book, but one of the Great Course's lectures on CD.

Skeptics and believers: religious debate in the western intellectual tradition by Tyler Roberts.

It seems to covers nearly every significant point of argument there has been here. I am listening to it in the car and it's good so far.

Also, I just finished More Than Matter?: Is There More to Life Than Molecules? by Keith Ward. A little heavy going in places, but I recommend it.

I'm reading Heretics: The Creation of Christianity from the Gnostics to the Modern Church by Jonathan Wright. The intellectual history isn't as detailed as I'd like in explaining the theology behind the various heresies, but it's good reading nonetheless.

The Shoes of the Fisherman by Morris West

I'm currently about half way through The Near and the Far: Containing The Root and the Flower & The Pool of Vishnu by L. H. Myers. I've read it before maybe 15 years ago.

Leo Myers attempts (through a work of fiction set in 16th Century India) to explore a profound spiritual question. While dealing with the trivialities of our day-to-day lives, how do we realise the profound. Can we keep our eyes on "The Far" while "The Near" always pushes itself into our view.

The conversations in book three between Raja Amar (a Buddhist who's answer to the above question seems to be "You Can't" and aims to retire from his life and become a monk) and Pundit Smith, an English Humanist / Agnostic (Atheist?) (who isn't aware of and doesn't accept a spiritual dimension to life exists at all) cuts through many of the usual pro and con arguments on internet forums, yet was written in the 1930's.

I'm taking some notes to write a proper review.

Spiritual Friendship by Aelred of Rievaulx

I am currently reading E. P Sander's The Historical Figure of Jesus, having recently finished his Paul, A Very Short Introduction. Sanders is unusual in that he is a Christian scholar who seems to know a great deal about Judaism as it actually existed in the Late Second Temple period.

I am also reading Avraham Burg's The Holocaust Is Over. I am having trouble reading this book, as I had with Peter Beinart's The Crisis of Zionism, as there is too much righteousness in it. I look at what the author says, I then look at the world, and it makes me very very sad.

> 9

That one's a pleasure!

>11 paradoxosalpha: Indeed!

I've just read and reviewed Thomas Merton's The Wisdom of the Desert.

Sanders was my profs at Duke. All of his books are excellent, although the Historical Figure of Jesus is more for a popular audience.

I am reading The Brothers Karamazov.

yeah, I know.

I'm picking around in The Message and the Book. I thought the Buddhist section (which was all new to me) was great until I read the section on Christianity (which I know a lot about) and found he condenses some arguments about New Testament origins to almost incomprehensibility and then "refutes" their arguments (apparently because the other ideas don't jive with his own belief system, though he's coy on that point). Anyway, that made me more skeptical about the other material.

Still one is never going to read all the sacred books in the world and all introductions have to simplify. As introductory material, I suspect I could do a lot worse.

I'm also skimming Philip Gura's American Transcendentalism: A History which has far more on the influence of German philosophy on New England's religious thought than I will ever be interested in. I did find the section on Fourier's influence on Brook Farm to be interesting.

I recently finished reading The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation, by Barbara R. Rossing. I'd seen it discussed on a blog I enjoy reading, and thought I'd give it a try.

I was slightly disappointed in the book, although that is probably not fair to the book to feel that way. It did do a good job of laying out an alternative, (Protestant) Christian viewpoint about the messages in John's Apocalypse, viewpoints that completely oppose those of the Lindsey/LaHaye, Left-Behind Rapturist crowd.

We have finished reading The Great Transformation in a Sunday School class I lead. I was disappointed in the book.

The subject though has become a real interest for me.

Artic,
That is an impressive bit of information about your background. I once had the occasion to work on a church project with someone who took Greek from Bruce Metzger.

I'm planning to read The Great Transformation soon. I have read A Short History of Myth and Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstong both I thought were very good. What disappointed you about The Great Transformation?

In Islam: A Short History, she shows how community, law and politics have always been an integral part of the religion. Something that helps to understand recent reactions to that film insulting Islam. An insult to one's community and culture rather than (merely?) one's beliefs.

You might be interested in The First Century for an historical context of the origins of Christianity.

I have downloaded both Dawkins' The God Delusion and The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake onto my Kindle Touch. I plan to listen to them side by side, a chapter at a time, and see what happens.

Just finished Revelation by Ben Witherington and now about halfway through The Meaning of the Bible by Douglas A Knight and Amy-Jill Levine. Ever since reading Alter's "The Five Books of Moses" I've realised that I can get far more out of Bible reading with a commentary as guide.
#7: I still have my old copy of his "Clowns of God" - very moving in parts.

19> The book is my least favorite of hers that I have read. I think that the organization is difficult to follow. I read some background books and her conclusions seemed forced. Basically I think she had a thesis, and fit the history to support her thesis.

I have not found any scholarly discussions of the book that critique her historical conclusions, and I have looked. I only have found the typical book reviews about how brilliant she is, and I agree with that.

I would like to find and read such a scholarly critique, because it would help to clarify my opinion of the book.

In her defense, she took on a massive subject, and tried to write something enjoyable to read and to inform for the general public.

Reading a lot of religion books lately for school. (I'm a religious studies major.) In my free time I'm working through Paul F. Knitter's Introducing Theologies of Religions, Jon Kabat-Zinn's Wherever You Go There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. Today I've been working on a paper about scripture and interreligious dialogue, reading through parts of Robert Goldenberg's The Nations That Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes toward Other Religions and the Ecclesiastes section of Robert Alter's The Wisdom Books. Whew.

I like the idea of sharing current reading. It feels more dialogical and less polarizing than a lot of the religion discussions on LT!

> 20

I remember Dawkins! I would take him with a huge grain of salt when it comes to religion. To his credit I find him a great writer on scientific topics.

24

Indeed! I've heard it said that studying Dawkins to learn about religion, is like reading The Book of British Birds to learn about science!

Not religion but philosophy of religion: Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga.

> 26

How are you finding Plantinga's arguments so far?

Complex, complicated. For me, heavy reading.

I've added this volume to my Amazon Wishlist. Albeit I have to admit that the comment about "methodological naturalism" in the reviews gives me pause. I don't usually agree with philosophers that make those distinctions.

Deniro, if you want a nice short overview that is well written and probably not so technical take a look at science and religion: A very short introduction

I am reading through the Apocrypha and some Pseudepigrapha literature.

> 29

Methodological naturalism is a perfectly sensible distinction to draw. For example, evolutionary biologist Bob might personally be a theist, but as a biologist he is a methodological naturalist. Unless maybe you just don't agree with such quibbling over details. :P

I have issues with Plantinga, as he seems to argue in circles (what's a properly basic belief?). I learned long ago that analytic philosophy of religion would not really help with my intellectual or spiritual quest, and I set it aside.

~31

I don't know how you are using these terms, but in my Popperian world there is no sharp subject matter distinction between "naturalism" and something else.
There are only logical requirements for scientific inquiry.

"Naturalism" to me implies that you already know intuitively "what is out there," whereas I understand that to be the central question. (To put that another way, we are trying to find out what is "nature," we don't know with particularity or we wouldn't have science.)

Re-reading Augustine's Confessions after several decades.

I've also just bought Introduction to African Religion by John S Mbiti and African Religion: The Moral Traditions of Abundant Life by Laurenti Magesa, which I intend to dip into.

I finished reading and reviewed the Feuerbach. I'm now casting about for my next read in religious matters, and I have my eye on The Psychology of Ritual.

Over halfway through St Therese of Lisieux's Story of a Soul, her autobiography. She's quite an interesting character and I can feel aspects of my life resonate with hers.

Reading Did God Have a Wife by William Dever. The female deity Asherah is mentioned 40 in the Jewish Bible, often in the form of a tree or post erected on a "high place." In spite of the fact that she is treated by the prophets like the worst whore ever, Dever writes:

"Yahweh, the male deity, was far off in the distant heavens - a warlike god, often angry and vengeful, and even at best not very approachable. Perhaps the men who wrote the Bible could describe Yahweh as "God the Father who will help you," who will give you "blessings of the breasts and of the womb" (Genesis 49:25). But the women who had the breasts and the wombs often found it easier to identify with the Mother. (Perhaps the deities were, after all, a pair, so that a choice wasn't always necessary.)"

William G. Dever. Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Kindle Locations 3000-3003). Kindle Edition.

~36

Ah, yes, G_d did and does have a wife, or, somewhat differently, is both male and female - at least in traditional Judaism. You might want to look up the term Shekhinah

The New Testament with notes from my study Bible, trying to read slowly and gain new understanding and a closer relationship with Jesus.

> 38

Always a great thing to read scripture!

I'm in he middle of Raymond E. Brown's The Critical Meaning of the Bible, on biblical scholarship's place in the Catholic Church. Very erudite if a bit dated.

Where have you been LBT? Off in some Buddhist monastery? :)

I got a table tor Christmas (squee!) so I went ahead and downloaded both A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans and A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin by Tony Jones, and am working my way through them now.

~38

So you, unlike certain other people we know, don't just have a chat with him frequently? Maybe you're not really saved?

Lawecon, I was hoping that you would have a different attitude for the new year, but that obviously is not going to happen. Regardless of your sarcasm, the only issue that you should really be worried about is whether or not you are saved. I pray that God will continue to reveal His truth to you, but if you choose not to accept it, that is your choice. And yes, I still need to read the Bible, because that is the way that God chose to communicate with us on a regular basis. Maybe you should try reading it for understanding instead of reading it to find things to argue about.

~43

Thank you for your good wishes - but like 2,000 years of Jews and rabbis, G_d has revealed his truth to me - through the use of the mind he graciously gave me.

And I trust in the new year you will not ONLY read your translation of the Bible, but also the voluminous source documents and scholarly interpretations that exist of it. Such broader reading might help you in the humility and critical thinking departments and make you less arrogant .

>39 JDHomrighausen: That Raymond Brown book sounds good. I haven't read it, but I enjoy his writings in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, which he also edited.

Do astronomy and evolution books count towards Reading on Religion? The study of God's creation?

43

"I still need to read the Bible, because that is the way that God chose to communicate with us on a regular basis"

"Regular" as in, not for 2,000 years??

47: I suppose you could seek the Bible as a source of comfort/guidance/whatever when you feel conflicted/confused/whatever... I feel pretty lost a lot. ;)

And that is what LibraryThing's "Let's Talk Religion" is for. Besides preaching, arguing, and such. ;)

> 48. And that is what LibraryThing's "Let's Talk Religion" is for.

Do you find comfort/guidance...etc. here?

48

There have been many many excellent spiritual writers since the Bible was written and compiled. I'd much rather look to The Prophet for sustenance, for example. It was written for the modern condition, after all, and doesn't require a set of religious beliefs in order to make its finely drawn moral points.

49: I'll say it was a weak attempt at humor.

44 If I came across as arrogant let me sincerely apologize. That was not my intention at all. I will also say that I do read from more than one version of the Bible, so I am not sure what you meant by "your translation," and I have also read many scholarly interpretations of the Bible, including many that I disagree with and many that I agree with.

Am I wrong in thinking that God used His Word (Hebrew Bible) to reveal truth to the Jewish people for more than 2,000 years? I am not sure why you think that studying Scripture and using your mind are incompatible, but I think you would find many who would disagree with you, including scholars.

Again, humble apologies for appearing to be arrogant.

>50 Tid: Do you think that the vast majority of the Bible does not apply to the modern condition?

53

In a word? Yes.

You can filter out pearls of wisdom, it's true. The Song of Solomon is beautiful. Some of the Psalms are inspirational (though most of them seem unable to resist "smite mine enemies" at regular intervals). There are some thought-provoking Proverbs. Everyone is familiar with Ecclesiastes and "There is a season..", likewise Paul's Corinthian message about love. And of course Jesus' main ministry about love is equally inspirational.

But how is most of the Old Testament relevant to the modern condition? Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially are full of Bronze Age rules that just aren't relevant any more. Much else is history and genealogy, and references to an "angry and jealous God" are the biggest turnoff to the modern mind you can think of. The books which perhaps speak most to me are e.g. Ruth, which is timeless psychology; but it's like a novel, and that's a literary form that has been with us since 19thC and has been used to express equally timeless conditions.

The New Testament needs to be read and understood in its historical context, which changes everything.

Even the "smite mine enemies" part is showing how modern Scripture is. It is showing that even someone who is called the apple of God's eye still struggles with human emotions.

While it is true there is a lot of history and geneology in the OT, there is a lot more to the OT than an "angry and jealous God." There are many examples of God's people doing great things for God and then stumbling and falling flat on their faces. This, again, shows the timeless truth found in Scripture. People are capable of doing great thing and capable of messing up big time. Yet through all of this (see Abraham as a perfect example), God stayed faithful even though the people did not. It shows that we are not capable of being what we should be on our own, but that we need a Savior.

As far as reading a story that reads like a novel, I think Esther is the best example of that, even with a good dose of irony at the end.

What about the historical context of the NT changes everything?

55

What I mean is, reading it uncritically without a knowledge of the whole context and background is ... misleading. You have :
The history of Palestine and the Jews at the start of the Roman Empire; the Essenes and their role in a changing Jewish culture; the role of the Hellenistic world and the influence of ideas from Plato and Zoroastrianism; what happened to this tiny Jewish cult after the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans; Paul and the efforts to spread Christianity to the Gentile world and ultimately to Rome; the use of Roman Imperial and pagan traditions to promote Jesus as 'Son of God'; the emerging doctrines of the Trinity and how long it took to fully crystallise; the Romanisation of Christianity after Constantine; the emergence of credal doctrines; the gulf between the different branches, e.g. early Jerusalem church, Desert Fathers, the Churches in Antioch, Syria, the Far East, Rome, Byzantium, the Celtic world, and others; going back - the audience for each of the Gospels which were chosen by the Roman Church centuries after Jesus;

To be a simple follower of Jesus, you would need to cast all of that aside and try to follow the simple Gospel message AND NOTHING BUT THAT. In other words, you would be a combination of Quaker, Leveller, Digger, Shaker.

> 50-56

This is in large part why I avoid this group like the plague. One can't even state what books they are reading without inciting controversy. :P

I actually tried reading The Prophet. Perhaps it was too late at night, but the long dialogues and prayer-poems just made me fall sleep. But I think most Christians would agree that there are a lot of literary works out there that help one understand the mystery of God more deeply. But as Christians, we affirm that the Bible is the central text that we will use to understand the mystery of God. To say that only certain parts of the Bible will help us understand God and the rest should be chucked out is in a very real sense to remake God in our own image is a kind of narcissitic 'we just take what we like' attitude. I agree with Walter Breugemann that the Bible is something to be wrestled with. We must try to make sense of the different strands of tradition and diversity of voices that are in the library which we refer to as the Bible. Otherwise, we will never be fully transformed by an encounter with God in Scripture, because we'll only find what we want to hear our what we like hearing.

That said, I do agree that the Binle has a lot of stuff that anyone can appreciate, particularly the wisdom literature and some of the more moving passages from the gospels and Pauline letters.

57

"To say that only certain parts of the Bible will help us understand God and the rest should be chucked out is in a very real sense to remake God in our own image is a kind of narcissitic 'we just take what we like' attitude"

If I were a Christian, particularly a progressive one, I would feel at complete liberty to dispense with slavery, genocide, war, rape, torture, incest - and I'm prepared to bet there's more than one double page spread in the OT where ALL of those are featured! That's not narcissism - it's the evolution of civilisation beyond Bronze Age values.

> 56 Well, I am a simple folllower of Jesus and already knew everything you mentioned, but I do not see how that changes the basic idea that we are all sinners in need of a savior and redeemer.

I have started reading WHAT IS GOD GOOD FOR? by Philip Yancey. So far it has been an excellent book!

>58 Tid: Tid, I think there is no doubt that most Christians "dispense with slavery, genocide, war, rape, torture, incest", but the fact that they are in the Old Testament does not invalidate the OT or make it useless. There has indeed been an "evolution of civilisation" and values, and also of religion. But there is still value in knowing where we evolved from and how we evolved, in understanding how our ancestors in faith understood their relationship with God, and in trying to discern the continuity as well as the breaks.

Re the topic of this thread, Very Near To You by Avraham Burg - which, incidentally shows up in a totally mangled reference under a totally wrong title in Librarything. However, you can still find it if you look under the author's name.

57> I like the way you put that lilbrattyteen "transformed by an encounter with God in Scripture". One of the perhaps intractable misunderstandings by some is that sacred scripture or myth is static. Sure, the words are the same, but the person is transformed (subconsciously if you like) so the relationship to the words changes. It is a conversation.

Thanks, marq and lilbrattyteen (>57 JDHomrighausen:, 63). I agree, and that's one of the reasons why a purely literalist approach to the bible is problematic for me.

61

I think that's exactly what I was trying to say!

59

"the basic idea that we are all sinners in need of a savior and redeemer"

And that's pure Calvinism! If you read your Gospels, you'll find that's not an inherent part of Jesus's ministry, nor is it part of Judaism, a radical version of which is what he was teaching. That formula as it is understood by modern-day evangelical Christians emerged over quite a period of time. That's part of what I meant by "changes everything", but if you're a believer, you won't agree with me, that's certain.

> 65 Then why is the first quoted preaching of Jesus, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"?

> 66. Then why is the first quoted preaching of Jesus, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"?

Many claim that "to repent" means "to change your mind." So the admonition would not necessarily be "stop doing bad and start doing good" but something more like "start thinking in a different way." The implication would be that one could achieve the kingdom of heaven by altering one's perceptions.

> 65 And that's pure Calvinism!

Well, to be fair, "the basic idea that we are all sinners in need of a savior and redeemer" goes back within Christianity to Augustine at the least.

I would say that it goes all the way back to Paul.

~69

I would say that Paul fabricated the doctrine as a rationale for his pre-existing conclusion.

~20

So, what happened?

66

That's in Mark, which was written at least one generation after Jesus, and collects together an oral group of stories told about Jesus. That particular saying is attributed to Jesus' reaction to the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and the interpretation of his Jewish followers was that he was the Jewish Messiah. "...is at hand" is claimed by his followers to refer to the time foretold by the prophets that the Messiah should appear. "...the kingdom of heaven" is repeatedly referred to by Jesus in his teachings, the most particular and conclusive of which seems to be "the kingdom of heaven is within you" (i.e., an inner state, not an earthly kingdom). "Repent..." continues the ministry of John the Baptist and all the prophets before him, who repeatedly called upon the Israelites to "turn from their wicked ways".

As for what preceded Mark's version, or what it was based upon, or to whom it was particularly addressed, or why it was compiled in a particular sequence, or what sayings of Jesus are genuine and what are simply attributed to him ... no-one now knows.

68

Yes, that's true. But Luther (mildly) and Calvin (strongly) made it a cornerstone of Protestant belief, intended to oppose the Catholic stand that (1) absolution could be granted only by a priest 'standing in' for Jesus, and (2) that your works were important too, and that if your "works" were wrong, you could "confess your sins and receive forgiveness" (Calvinism teaching that sin was your inbuilt condition from which there was no escape other than accepting Jesus as your saviour and redeemer).

> 72 "That's in Mark, which was written at least one generation after Jesus"

Do you mean that this was written by someone who was not around when Jesus was walking the earth, or that it was written many years after Jesus left the earth?

"As for what preceded Mark's version, or what it was based upon, or to whom it was particularly addressed, or why it was compiled in a particular sequence, or what sayings of Jesus are genuine and what are simply attributed to him ... no-one now knows."

There is much evidence that the early church accepted the Scriptures as having the genuine sayings of Jesus in them. And since they were much closer to the time period, and in some cases followers of Jesus' apostles, that is good enough for me.

I've just started Hildegard of Bingen: A Saint for Our Times by Matthew Fox who says that:

"Hildegard railed against popes, bishops, abbots, and priests of her day who were silent in the face of schism or were partners in the corruption of the church. What would she say to the pedophile horrors and cover-ups of our time? What would she say to the attacks on theologians and the heretical teaching that the magisterium of the church is the Vatican alone? What would she say to the five Roman Catholic supreme court judges who declared that corporations are people, and thus opened the floodgates for billionaires and corporations to dominate what was once a democracy? What would she do to arouse people out of denial and into action? As you will read below, Hildegard didn’t mince her words when justice and injustice were involved. She spoke with the authority of the Spirit at work through her. She spoke in words as vivid today as they were in her time. Prophets like Hildegard return from time to time to assist us. She is a Bodhisattva in our midst. Listen to her as she speaks your name."

Matthew Fox Friends of Creation Spirituality and Academy of the Love of Learning September, 2012

Fox, Matthew (2012-09-03). Hildegard of Bingen: A Saint for Our Times (Kindle Locations 356-365). Namaste Publishing Inc. Kindle Edition.-+

73

Written by someone who may have been alive during Jesus' time, but who probably didn't know him personally, and who compiled the oral tradition (or possibly from the missing manuscript Q) into a written record.

I'm sure many of the sayings of Jesus were powerful enough to survive many re-tellings. What we don't know, is how many were later inserted for different reasons (- to assert the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy; - to reassure the Romans that this was an OK guy who fit well within the Roman Imperial pagan tradition; - to Hellenise the teachings for spiritual digestion throughout the Mediterranean Diaspora; - to add non-Jewish flavours for the Gentile world - a particularly Pauline mission; and so on).

But if you're aware of all that, and it doesn't affect your sincere beliefs, who am I to say you're wrong?

~75

"I'm sure many of the sayings of Jesus were powerful enough to survive many re-tellings."

I am curious why you believe this. Most of what Jesus said was standard rabbinical doctrine in his day (albeit he seems to have selected from the two ends of that spectrum). The rest of what he said was apparently viewed as absurd, since no significant number of his followers have ever taken it seriously. For instance, being "like the lilies of the field" and selling all you have and giving it to the poor, and turning the other cheek or giving away one's cloak to the person who has just stolen from you. In fact, it is so historically rare that Christians live like that that the statistically insignificant number of those that do so are called Saints and prayed to in certain traditions.

So I think that you may be wrong. Not only were Jesus' saying perverted over the centuries after his death, there is no reason to believe that they were accurately transmitted in the century of his death.

As for Ambrithill, he has many times proved to be a "man of faith," even when the only basis for his faith is his faith.

>76 lawecon: no significant number of his followers have ever taken it seriously

I agree with you that few of his followers have lived up to some of his more challenging teaching. But I don't think that necessarily means that the teaching is not taken seriously. It's an inspiring ideal to which to aspire, but we recognise that we fall short. But we've had this conversation before...

As for Ambrithill, he has many times proved to be a "man of faith," even when the only basis for his faith is his faith.

A most gracious statement, which I can say is only true because of the grace and mercy of God given to me through Jesus Christ. I pray that my faith grows stonger.

> 78. I pray that my faith grows stonger.

I'm interested, do you think that participating in this LT group helps in the strengthening of your faith?

76

I'm afraid I really don't know much about the standard rabbinical doctrine of Jesus' day, other than what I pick up from writers like Geza Vermes. However, I think John has put his finger on just how difficult it is to live up to his teachings, which is probably why few Christians succeed. But as to the accurate transmission of his teaching, that is certainly up for debate, and a question that may never be answered.

> 79 When I allow myself to be led by His Spirit, yes. When I am just trying to prove a point, no. It all depends on whether I am putting myself or God first.

> 81. When I allow myself to be led by His Spirit, yes. When I am just trying to prove a point, no.

Thanks for your response. So, basically you're testing each of your posts by the quality of your motivation, is that the case?

~78

I have to say this to you, ambrithill, you are an honest person. However, I also have to say that honesty alone, without attributes like judgment, a desire to discover what is true and what is false, and the courage to act upon your conclusions is not necessarily a virtue.

~80

"'m afraid I really don't know much about the standard rabbinical doctrine of Jesus' day, other than what I pick up from writers like Geza Vermes."

Well, there are hundreds of volumes on that topic, but let me suggest to you the writings of the Christian professor, E. P. Sanders. I have read several of them now, and I am very impressed with his accuracy and unwillingness to shade matters to serve his faith.

As for Vermes, he was of course privileged to be in the inner circle of the Dead Sea Scroll society much earlier than any other Jew, but his Judaism is, ah, rather odd. Not "heretical," since there is no such thing, but odd.

> 83. However, I also have to say that honesty alone, without attributes like judgment, a desire to discover what is true and what is false, and the courage to act upon your conclusions is not necessarily a virtue.

As an attorney, what evidence do you have that ambrithill lacks judgment, desire to discover truth, and courage?

ETA -- And, anyway, why wouldn't honesty be a virtue even for a person who lacks judgment, isn't interested in "truth", and is a coward?

>82 jburlinson: "So, basically you're testing each of your posts by the quality of your motivation, is that the case?"

It should be the case, but sometimes I do not do a good job of checking that motivation.

> 83 lawecon, I appreciate the comment about me being an honest person. I wouls have to say that I do have a desire to discover what is true and what is false and for me, that truth is found in Jesus Christ and in Scripture. And believe me, it takes courage to act upon that faith many times.

> 86. sometimes I do not do a good job of checking that motivation.

You and me both, brother.

~86

Let me clarify.

When I say "what is true," I DON"T mean "what is true for me." The latter phrase is a form of radical postmodernism that denies that anything is in fact true or false. It is, apparently, what many people mean by "faith" or when they say "everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Now of course nothing is "true" with absolute certainty, but somethings are false with certainty, so long as we are communicating clearly with one another. (This is exactly the distinction that Popper draws.)

We all live our lives on certain presumptions. Some of these presumptions are harmless or cause us and others little harm. For instance, one person's determination that Lay's Potato Chips are the unqualified best potato chips is probably harmless, whether it is true or false. The presumption, however, that one can fly by jumping off a building and flapping one's arms is likely to be harmful to oneself. Similarly, the presumption that one's society is rightly the ultimate judge and executer of justice for the world is likely to be harmful for one's society.

Courage is persistently seeking truth whether you like the answers you get or not. Judgment is knowing it when you see it.

84

Thanks for that recommendation - I've added Sanders' book on Jesus to my Wishlist.

Is Vermes' Judaism odd? I didn't realise that - he always seems to me to be earnestly portraying the Judaic roots of Christianity, indeed emphasising this very strongly (as in Jesus The Jew and a book I once read about the Trial of Jesus but which I cannot now find reference to, which explained how the Sanhedrin would have had to break just about every Jewish law going, if the account of the trial in the Gospels is to be believed).

>89 lawecon: So what would you conclude are some "truths?"

~91

"So what would you conclude are some "truths?"

You may note the phrase "seeking truth." You may also note the phrase "Now of course nothing is "true" with absolute certainty, but somethings are false with certainty,..."

But your question is a good one, because it seems to well illustrates the difference between our mindsets. You are "seeking Truth," which you mostly find through the Holy Spirit or other names for intuition. In other words, in my cynical interpretation, you really "know Truth" to start with and then go looking for rationales.

I am seeking to eliminate errors from our beliefs, in the hope that will result in our getting nearer to truths. Neither of us are nihilists (the nihilists are those who believe that there is only "what is true for me" or "one opinion is as good as another"), but we differ on what can be known and how it can be known. My position is speculative, experimental and empirical, your position is Platonic (albeit Plato would never have maintained that each person has equal access to "inspiration").

There is, of course, the same difference between my epistemological position and those of our Haredim. They also study to "find truth," although it should be said in their favor that they study through systematizing argument in a yeshiva.

>92 lawecon: Okay, then let me rephrase the question. What are errors that you used to believe but have discovered that they were errors (Preferable something in the last 5 years or so)?

~93

At work right now, but as your previous question set me to thinking about that, I will be happy to respond tonight. I presume you want me to limit myself to religious topics? (And as I am currently 63 years of age and have evolved quite a bit since my teens I don't think I'll limit myself to the last 5 years.)

>94 lawecon: Okay but I figure most everybody has changed their views on things since they were teenagers, which is why I asked about the last 5 years.

~95

As we get older we change less. I wouldn't say that there has not been much fundamental change in the past five years, although my reading has become progressively more extensive and my understanding deeper and more nuanced. Is there something special in the last five years in your world outlook? Perhaps these are (yet again) the "end times'? You do understand that i am in my mid-60s and it has been a long time since I was a teenager?

> 96 yeah I know, I just thought that if you were looking for errors that you used to believe but have since discovered that they were errors that it would be interesting to see what has occurred recently. But I also think it would be interesting to see what beliefs you have changed from any part of your life, actually. I am 52, so it has been a while since I have been a teenager, that is why I know that there are lots of changes in beliefs from then to now.

> 1. Going back to the OP -- would you say that Sufism: The Formative Period would be good for a person who doesn't know much about the subject? Or what would be a better book for someone to start with?

~97

So, what material changes have there been in your beliefs in the past 5 years?

>99 lawecon: no, no lawecon. This was the question posed to you and it still awaits an answer. Answering a question with a question (and especially the same question) does not qualify as an answer.

> 98

If "the subject" is origins of Sufism, then yes. If you're looking for a more general treatment of the topic, then Schimmel's Mystical Dimensions of Islam is accessible and compendious. A quite short (but somewhat dated) overview is Nicholson's The Mystics of Islam.

There's something to be said for approaching Sufism through it's own literary output, like its poetry (not only Rumi!) and their characteristic teaching stories, so many of which have been anthologized by Idries Shah.

You can see a list of the books in my library on Sufism (many with reviews) here.

98

The one that lingers in my memory was by Idries Shah - The Way Of the Sufi. Great introduction.

~100

Let's be real clear, Ambrithill, since your perception of reality seems to be slipping once again - there forums are to discuss issues. They aren't to inquire about persons and their backgrounds. I am, in fact, happy to discuss this matter, since I think my life illustrates some positive traits (like a willingness to alter things when you find out you've been wrong), but I owe you no obligation because you posed a question. Get it?

And, ah, yes, if we are going into this chatty mode, I do expect reciprocation. Is that expectaton realistic or are you, once again, just trying to find a basis on which to evangelize?

> 103 It is true that you owe me no answer. It is also true that the original question was asked in regards to the topic being discussed. I will gladly reciprocate if there is legitimate reciprication needed. And just so you can rest easy, there was not even a hint of evangelization in my mind when the question was asked. My thinking was simply that you were trying to evade answering the question.

Having just finished Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism, my current reading "on religion" is The Book of the Breast by Robert Anton Wilson.

> 103. I think my life illustrates some positive traits (like a willingness to alter things when you find out you've been wrong),

Is this a Freudian slip, or what? Most people would alter their opinions when they find out they've been wrong.

Your desire to make a smartass comment is overwhelming your command of English. When one speaks of traits in the abstract, one may also speak of the trait as a general trait, not just a trait of oneself. That I was speaking of a trait in the abstract is indicated by the term "illustrates." Get it (probably not)?

> 107. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but it appears that the abstract trait of which you seem so proud is "a willingness to alter things when you find out you've been wrong." Isn't that the case?

In other words, when the evidence goes against me, change the evidence.

~108

As I said, your command of English is sad, or once again you haven't read the previous discussion. You apparently believe that the "things" being referenced in the quotation are the facts that show you've been wrong, when the previous discussion was about one's beliefs. Facts show you've been wrong, you change your beliefs.

You might try reading what is being discussed before you post the next time. You'd be less confused that way (although I know you enjoy being confused and finding conundrums where none exist).

~104

OK, let me try to answer (although I've done this several times before in these threads). It will then be interesting to see how sincere you are about reciprocating. I presume that you want me to address changes in my religious beliefs, not changes in my political or social views, since that seems to be your perpetual focus. So, here goes:

I came from a family in which my father's roots were Northern Baptist and my mother's roots were United (Northern) Methodist. My father was nonobservant, although he did not lecture anyone on atheism or agnosticism. He simply did not attend services and was not obsessed with religion. My father died when I was quite young and we relocated from the Midwestern US to AZ. My mother, both before and after this move, did regularly attend Church and took me along. I did not find that experience to be distasteful, although I found it largely without any content, other than a social gathering where people said nice things about how one should view the world and other people.

Things probably would have gone along that way until I established my own household, except for two things: my mother became a member of the Church governing Board, and I was required to take "confirmation" classes to learn about the details of "my religion" since Methodists are rebaptizers. Neither of these things worked out particularly well. I was allowed to attend the Board meetings that my mother attended, and thus was able to observe "our" minister engaging in a variety of "unChristian" acts - like pre-emptorially firing one of the subordinate ministers who had taken up speaking in tongues (a matter which my mother and I considered to be simply trivial). My education in the meaning of "my faith" was also leading me to have deep doubts about the coherency of what I was suppose to believe. I was confronted with doctrines that, frankly, made no sense, and was told that was what a Christian believed (as opposed to my previous impression that Christians simply believed in a benevolent G_d and in people being nice, like Jesus was quoted as being nice).

The result of the foregoing was that my mother and I first started looking for a new church, and eventually, when none of the alternatives seemed acceptable, stopped going to any church.

Subsequently, I became less and less enamored with Christianity as I observed that those Christians who were most fervid in proclaiming their beliefs and their salvation were among the worst people.

Things in fact went along that way for decades (basically the early 1960s until the mid-1980s). During this period my beliefs were deist, or agnostic, or atheist - however you want to say that I didn't think that G_d was a very great consideration in making decisions in this world, and that those who loudly proclaimed otherwise were probably con-sters. I did still have a residual believe that Jesus was probably a good man who had tried to advocate for people being nicer to each other, but I also believed that what he had done and advocated had little or no connection to what people did in churches that took on his name.

Things went further South when I read this book in the mid-80s - From the Maccabees to The Mishnah. Up until that point I had always bought into the proposition that Jesus was a radical moral reformer in a world that was filled with corruption and barbarism. This book (although now very dated) basically tears the center out of that view. Jesus was, in fact, not all that different from a long tradition of Jews, except his reported substantive positions were at the extreme ends of certain spectrums of Jewish thought, and were not particularly coherent against the background of that thought. Worse, the portrayal of Jesus by Christianity was obviously warped. Given the context, it was, for instance, highly unlikely that Jesus had ever claimed to be a deity. That claim was probably derived from post-Jesus Greek sources - where the gods regularly took on human form and pretended to be humans. From that point forward I moved from a position of relative neutrality toward Christianity (although suspicion of over conspicuous Christians) to a position that Christianity itself was a fraud and a con scheme, with little or no historical merit or legitimacy.

Again, things would have probably stabilized at that point (and did so for about 15 years). In the late 80s, however, I married, and thus had an additional influence on my religious views. My wife in the late 90s, became interested in becoming re-religiousized . My wife was raised as a Lutheran, was "born again" in college, and then, like myself, and probably more deeply than myself, had, as a result of looking too carefully into the Christian Scriptures and creed she was espousing, chucked the whole thing as incoherent and somewhat deceitful. (Her "command of the Christian scriptures" is still somewhat amazing, albeit I doubt you'd like how she uses that knowlege these days.)

Although giving up Christianity, my wife missed the social attachment, and thus started going around to various fringe groups - like the Quakers - to see if there was a religious group that was socially amiable, but that didn't endorse the crazy theology of conventional Christians. Some time in this process it was suggested to her that she look into Judaism, which she did. A few months into this investigation, I started to read the conversion materials she had received, and came to the, to me startling, realization that "religion" does not have to mean a commitment to a particular theology. We subsequently had extensive conversations with rabbis and Jewish laity, took classes, and eventually both converted. Although I am very unhappy with the way some of my fellow Jews are behaving, particularly certain of them in Israel, I am very happy, and become happier on a daily basis, with my conversion to Judaism.

>110 lawecon: I will respond more later, but just wanted to say, "Thank you" on this post.

>110 lawecon: Thanks, lawecon, for sharing your journey with us. I've read snippets of it before, but you've set it out very clearly here. Thanks again, and best wishes.

110

Yes, I echo what ambrithill and John said.

> 110. I'm happy that you're happy with your conversion. It would be a shame to convert to something that didn't make you happy.

Yes, may you some day find something that makes you happy.

>110 lawecon:--my first thought on your post was to apologize for the un-Christian acts which were done in your viewing. I truly believe that this is the number one reason that church's are dwindling in size instead of growing. It is a failure to show other's that there is anything different about being a Christian other than going to church on Sundays.

My second thought is that no child should be exposed to church board meetings. Usually boards are made up of the people who are most active, and therefore the most "family." And as with any family, sometimes family members do not act very nicely towards one another. And having a child listen to church business is much like having a child listen to their parents fussing about getting divorced, imho. I do not think either should happen.

I also wonder why you were willing to trust a book, "From the Maccabees to The Mishnah," so much more than the Bible.

By saying that Judaism does not require a commitment to a particular theology, are you saying that there is nothing doctrinal in Judaism?

>110 lawecon: My story is certainly nothing like yours. I was raised in a Christian home by two parents who were very good examples of being Christian. They believed in being at church every time the doors were open, no matter how tired they were or how hard they worked, and they believed their children should be there as well. They tried to be living examples to their children, and they did this in many ways. My father was always doing electrical work for people in the neighborhood as he was the only electrician in the neighborhood, and most of the time he did this without charging a penny. To this day, I still have never heard my father cuss, and he is 86 years old. And my mother fixed food when ever there was a death in the family, even if it meant coming home and cooking after working eight hours in the cotton mill. Neither of them drink alcoholic beverages because they believe it is wrong. As a matter of fact, they would not buy groceries from a store that sold alcohol until all of them did, even if it meant paying more for their food. We also had daily Bible reading every morning at breakfast.

All of this led to my being saved at the age of 9. Of course my understanding has changed a lot since then, but I still remember the day that it occurred, and still believe that it was legitimate.

Some of my beliefs have changed over time, but I think that is because I gained a better understanding of Scripture through study. One thing that I have changed is whether a divorced person can be a pastor. I was raised believing that Scripture said that was impossible, but through my own reading and study I realized that divorce is not the unpardonable sin.

Another change, perhaps more dramatic, was my ability to realize that every one does not have to believe exactly as I do to be a Christian. Part of the reason for this is that God convinced me that I am not the Holy Spirit and I need to quit trying to do His job.

Another big change was that I quit using the "n" word years and years ago, simply because God convicted me of it one day when I was in the car by myself. I grew up in the South in the 60's and 70's and thought nothing of using the word. I did not mean it as saying that I was superior or racist, it was just part of every day language. I had several really good black friends in high school, even though I was still using the word at the time. I did not stop using the word because it was politically incorrect (that term hadn't even been invented yet, or at least it hadn't made it to the South) but because I was convicted that it was a terrible example for a Christian to use that word.

I must admit that the core doctrines and beliefs that I have have not changed very much. I still believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, I still believe in the Trinity, I still believe in the virgin birht of Jesus, I still believe that He died on the cross to pay for our sins, I still believe that He was resurrected and is alive today, and I believe that He is coming back one day. None of that has changed.

~117

"my first thought on your post was to apologize for the un-Christian acts which were done in your viewing. I truly believe that this is the number one reason that church's are dwindling in size instead of growing. It is a failure to show other's that there is anything different about being a Christian other than going to church on Sundays."

Here is the problem, ambrithill - you seem to be, as I would expect you to be - more concerned that Christians act in ways that we all know are inappropriate in view of those who are not already committed to Christianity, than you are concerned that they act that way. If Christians can't even act among themselves, while carrying out Church business, in a "Christian manner" that says a lot about how the rest of the world should expect them to act in situations in which they have considerably less personal stake.

I must, in fairness, say that our Haredim act in exactly the same way, but then all Jews know what they are, and except for the obvious con-men in their ranks, they don't make claims as to "absolute love" or any of the other extreme virtues that Christians claim as the basis for their distinctiveness.

In any case, I think you have misunderstood that part of my story. My mother and I were not offended by what the other Church members did, except, perhaps, for their cowardice. The Methodist Church (at least the "big" Methodist Church) is run on an Episcopal rather than a Congregational governance model. The head minister thus simply announced to the Board that this subordinate minister had been dismissed. He had talked the matter over with the Bishop and they had decided that his acts were so offensive to the creed that he shouldn't be connected with our Church. My mother pleaded that the Board at least should hear from him directly, but that request was denied on the basis that it was a done matter and that the laity had no control over such matters.

"I also wonder why you were willing to trust a book, "From the Maccabees to The Mishnah," so much more than the Bible."

Ambrithill, the Bible is not a history book, particularly the NT. Most of the NT isn't even in the form of a history book. It is simply an apologetic for a particular creed. Apparently you think that actual history is offensive to that creed. It probably is, but it is rather sad, and reinforces everything I've said about you, that you want to reject history in favor of your rather idiosyncratic interpretation of "the Bible." It is like the child who puts her fingers in her ears and yells "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" until others stop trying to tell her unpleasant facts she doesn't want to hear.

"By saying that Judaism does not require a commitment to a particular theology, are you saying that there is nothing doctrinal in Judaism?"

We have been through this a dozen times. Your question illustrates mainly that you haven't really been listening any of those times. In very brief summary -

(1) Judaism has a very small core of beliefs (e.g., there is One G_d, but we really don't that much about him, except for some of his past acts). Other than that, you can believe whatever theological doctrines you want.

(2) Judaism does, however, have a number of prescribed acts - some "positive," some "negative." When you sin by failing to abide by those prescribed acts, you make amends to the sinned against and seek forgiveness. The forgiveness is freely given.

(3 Judaism has a long tradition that "it is not in Heaven" - that is, the text in which those acts are prescribed is not interpreted by the Holy Ghost or by revelation of any kind, but by men (traditionally scholars who spend a great deal of their lives arguing with each other over the meaning of that text and the accompanying traditions). Since Jews are not Greek logicians in defining "their faith," since "their faith" is a living community, not a creed, a wide variety of interpretations are acceptable to everyone in Judaism who is not Haredim. "Acceptable" doesn't mean that each Jew endorses each interpretation, but that they do not consider other interpretations as "unJewish" or "unobservant."

(4) There are, however, boundaries of belief beyond which one does not transgress. Idolatry, for instance, is a boundary.

>118 ambrithill:
Now if we can only get black people to stop calling each other "nigger." I have known Colored Christians who think nothing of of using your "n-word" among themselves. Or is that a privileged usage? I kinda like "Niger" myself.

btw, when Jesus asked Simon to pick up his cross, how did he pronounce "Niger?"

118

"My story is certainly nothing like yours. I was raised in a Christian home by two parents who were very good examples of being Christian. They believed in being at church every time the doors were open, no matter how tired they were or how hard they worked, and they believed their children should be there as well. They tried to be living examples to their children, and they did this in many ways. My father was always doing electrical work for people in the neighborhood as he was the only electrician in the neighborhood, and most of the time he did this without charging a penny. To this day, I still have never heard my father cuss, and he is 86 years old. And my mother fixed food when ever there was a death in the family, even if it meant coming home and cooking after working eight hours in the cotton mill. Neither of them drink alcoholic beverages because they believe it is wrong. As a matter of fact, they would not buy groceries from a store that sold alcohol until all of them did, even if it meant paying more for their food. We also had daily Bible reading every morning at breakfast."

What I find curious about your story, Ambrithill, is that when you relate this story what you refer to is a series of good acts of your parents - negative and positive. You don't really relate to the state of your parents' souls or their belief in Jesus Christ as the only possible savior for corrupt mankind as what impressed you growing up. To me, that is the correct emphasis. To you as a fundamentalist doctrinal Christian, it should be abhorrent. What it sounds like to me from this part of your story is that you are really just another Jew of a particular and peculiar sect, not a Christian.

120

I think black people's use of "nigga" (not "nigger") is subversively brilliant - it demonstrates to the racists that they own no monopoly of the word, and that their victims have co-opted it to their own subversive ends, in a kind of ironic way that we Brits especially applaud. It IS a kind of privileged use IMO, but that privilege has been earned after centuries of exploitation and abuse.

> 122. I think black people's use of "nigga" (not "nigger") is subversively brilliant...

How about when Quentin Tarantino does it?

>121 lawecon: You completely misunderstand. My parents did not do their good works so that they could be saved, but because they were saved. They knew that their salvation was totally dependent on Jesus and what He did for them on the cross. And that messaged was conveyed to us so that we knew the works were not about salvation.

I personally think if a word, such as the "n" word is wrong for one group of people then it should be wrong for everyone. Most blacks that I know do use the "n" word when talking about each other, but they still use it in a very disparaging way, as a denigration. So I certainly would not call its use brilliant.

~124

I think you are misunderstanding. Christianity is about required motives. Judaism is about required actions. Christianity is about "salvation from sin," and sin has a lot to do with heredity and motives. Judaism is about developing a character where there is less sin, and sin has to do only with acts contrary to the law. The only "salvation" in Judaism is sinning less and making amends when you do sin. Of course, in Judaism, no other salvation is "required".

Regardless, what I was commenting on was what you said the first time, before I drew your attention to what you were saying. What you said was entirely about a series of things that your parents did, not about their purported theological motives to do so. You said they did good things, not that they did so "for the sake of Jesus." Jesus, thus, appears to be an afterthought. And the point is, of course, that he is an afterthought. It is like a Muslim saying "If Allah wills it..... " or "So Allah has willed...." after every statement of future hopes or previous events. It has no real content, it is just what Muslims do to show that they are Muslims.

> 126 To say that Jesus was an afterthought completely misses the definition of being a Christian, i.e. a follower of Christ. That is what I said at the very beginning when talking about my parents, that they were trying to be good Christian examples. I did not realize the need to spell things out, especially for someone who apparently knows a good deal about Christianity.

125

No they don't. They use it in an ironic way, which - as I said before - is brilliant at combatting racism. You seriously think a black guy calls his brutha a "nigga" in a disparaging way? Not a chance!

> 128. The late, great Richard Pryor had an epiphany about this, after many years of exploiting "the word" in his stand up.


Richard Pryor on why he stopped using the n-word

129

That IS revealing! I'd never realised that blacks used it among themselves before the modern gangsta rap ironic way.. though I still feel the ironic use is cool.

> 128 I teach middle school students, and I promise you they use it in a denigrating way. You are correct that they use it in other ways sometimes, but I hear it the most when two students are mad at each other. I especially hear it when a light skin black is talking to a dark skin black. So I see nothing cool in its use at all.

The Romance of Grace is a great one. http://www.amazon.com/The-Romance-of-Grace-ebook/dp/B00BD9HLAY/ref=tmm_kin_title...

I'm currently reading Olcott's Old Diary Leaves, on his involvement in Spiritualism, and the origins and early development of the Theosophical Society. It's basically a "me and HPB" memoir. Also recently finished a re-read of The Cloud Upon the Sanctuary.

I just finished and reviewed the Olcott book, and now I'm reading an abridged translation of Feuerbach's The Essence of Religion.

I've just reread Peace deserves a chance: Bishop Paride Taban, a Sudanese Shepherd by Alberto Eisman and The Long Road to Peace: encounters with the people of southern Sudan by Mathew Haumann.

Just read for the first time The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace by John Paul Lederach, a reflection on peace-building by one of the leading figures in Catholic peace studies.

Also reading Just and unjust peace: an ethic of political reconciliation by Daniel Philpott.

Reading, for the fifth time, Kitab-i-Iqan ...

AMZoltai, you may wish to draw the attention of an administrator to the "Photographs and imagery" section of Bahá'u'lláh's Wikipedia page. I'm sure they unwittingly refrain from showing the expected reverence for this "Manifestation of God" by displaying his photograph on a public web site (his author page).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'u'll%C3%A1h#Photographs_and_imagery

Maybe LT could change author pages so that "Manifestation of God" pages don't display any images, but rather a notice of some sort?

I have just finished Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art and I'm starting on My Guru and His Disciple by Christopher Isherwood, a biography of the Swami Prabhavananda.

(136/7: perhaps the other image "Shrine of Baha'u'llah" should be set as the primary image for the author page on LT?)

#137 > I appreciate your sentiments on this issue, though I have no idea how to reach an "administrator" and I really don't know how to ask them...

Plus, use of the image by those who are not members of the Baha'i Faith has no "restrictions"...

Having finished and reviewed Feuerbach's Essence of Religion, I've now begun Robert Irwin's Memoirs of a Dervish.

Wrapped up and wrote my review of Memoirs of a Dervish; now I've started Superior Beings.

Just read:

The Sacrifice of Africa: A Political Theology for Africa by Emmanuel Katongole

When Blood and Bones Cry Out: Journeys through the Soundscape of Healing and Reconciliation by John Paul Lederach and Angela Jill Lederach

and reread:

The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann

Travelling with Soldiers and Bishops: Stories of Struggling People in Sudan by Mathew Haumann

Day of Devastation Day of Contentment: The History of the Sudanese Church across 2000 Years by Roland Werner, William Anderson and Andrew Wheeler.

while dipping into Peacebuilding: Catholic theology, ethics, and praxis edited by Robert J Schreiter, R Scott Appleby and Gerard F Powers.

Touchstone doesn't seem to work on that last one even though it shows up in my library and under a list of Schreiter's works.

> 142

Any reactions to the Brueggemann you'd like to share?

Touchstone:

Peacebuilding: Catholic theology, ethics, and praxis

Robert

>143 paradoxosalpha: I like Brueggemann's The Prophetic Imagination and find it very helpful and inspiring. I recall writing a paper on it 20 years ago, examining the prophetic role of the Church in Sudan in the light of his book. What I take away from it is the idea that the prophet calls attention to and critiques the status quo (reading the signs of the times, as Gaudium et Spes would put it) and imagines an alternative future. The prophet both calls and energises the community to move to a future of hope and right relationship.

>144 Mr.Durick: Thanks, Robert.

Just read Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies by John Paul Lederach and reread Training for Transformation: A Handbook for Community Workers by Anne Hope and Sally Timmel.

I recently finished both Superior Beings and Nomad Codes. I've reviewed the former, but my review of the latter is still pending.

I finished reading Julian Huxley's Religion Without Revelation yesterday, and today LT tells me it's his birthday! I've just posted my review of the book.

Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy by Donald B. Kraybill et al.

I recently read and reviewed a book by another Huxley, Aldous's Devils of Loudun.

And I've just started in on The Serpent and the Siren: Sacred and Enigmatic Images in Tuscan Rural Churches, which I picked up for six bits at the Catholic rummage sale across the street last weekend. So far, it's far better than I anticipated. The long endnote to the first chapter provides an exposition on the social philology of the term pieve (for a rural Italian church building) that was an engaging read in its own right.

According to Dr Bilal Philips, from the Bible in explaining Islamic beliefs to "Christians, the verse from Numbers 23:19 of the Old Testament which ascribes to God the clear statement "God is not a man..." clearly refutes Trinitarian Christian claims that Jesus is God, as they all agree that Jesus was a man. Furthermore, in the same verse it states "...neither a son of man...", and the Gospels all contain verses in which Jesus is reported to have called himself "the son of man" (See Matthew 8:20; 19:28, Mark 14:62; Luke 9:22; John 6:53; 8:28; 13:31). Food for open-minded ones reflection and thought. "

for us, God is the creator of everything. GOD was not born, GOD was not a father, was not a son, and especially GOD don't have a wife.

Don't most people really believe that they are god, as in being "god-like" in all important ways? Most people would never admit it but, on the face of the evidence, isn't that what is actually going on, all the verbiage/word salad spewed forth notwithstanding?

Viewing self-worship as a totally screwy operation, I would think that assuming Everything is god, i.e., universe = god, would be the lesser narcissism. (Plus, logically, it would follow since god is omnipresent, by definition.)

Currently reading Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life by Cardinal Walter Kasper.

See group read thread: http://www.librarything.com/topic/175064

I've recently finished and just reviewed Politics of Religious Freedom: Contested Genealogies.

Im half way through How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman

I'm about a third of the way through The Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright but have to say its very heavy going for me. I keep going back because I realise I've been in "glazed" mode for a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps I should stick to his Tom Wright output.

I've just finished reading a novel, The Chess Garden by Brooks Hansen, and I haven't worked up a proper review of it yet, but I wanted to share about it here particularly.

This book contains one of the best religious ("spiritual," if you must) fantasy/allegories I've read -- I'd class it with the Well-built City Trilogy of Jeffrey Ford, George MacDonald's Lilith, and the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. It takes place in the "Antipodes," an island country populated by animate game pieces (and thus evocative of Through the Looking Glass).

But that story is framed by a modern novel that recounts a philosophical/theological quest on the part of a Dutch pathologist-cum-mystic, and the community that he inspires after settling in Dayton, Ohio. It provides a compelling human story set firmly in the real world of "American metaphysical religion" detailed in Catherine Albanese's excellent A Republic of Mind and Spirit.

Okay, those last two paragraphs will probably go into my review -- but you can't do touchstones in the review field!

I've just started in on Clergy Malpractice in America, which -- despite the dry-as-dust title -- is a pretty lively journalistic account so far. It focuses on Nally v. Grace Community Church (1980) in which a family sued a church to hold the ministers responsible for a pastoral counselee who suicided.

I've just got a copy of the Rule of St Benedict on my Kindle and I found that it has been divided into daily readings, so I am currently reading a bit of it every day.

>160 John5918:

I need to re-read that one soon.

>160 John5918: >161 paradoxosalpha: I'll have to take a look. It's # 2 on the top 100 of the Church Times list, so obviously I've got a big gap there.

3/4 finished with A History of God by Karen Armstrong. This book is packed with information on the development of the three Abrahamic faiths.

>163 quicksiva: I remember liking it a lot when I first read it. I need to go back for a refresher.

I am reading Daughters of God and The Story of Redemption both by E.G. White. Along with the study groups: Adventist Home and Counsels on Diet and Foods both again byEllen G. White.

In 1945 in Upper Egypt a farmer discovered near Nag Hammadi a buried cache of thirteen codices containing some fifty texts, in fourth-century Coptic translation from Greek second- and third-century compositions. After a few decades of hijinks, high adventure, and even the intervention of Carl Jung, these splendid texts were finally translated into French, German, Italian, and English under the title of the Nag Hammadi library. The Gnostics, a religion on the fringe, but one that had extended from the east coast of China to the west coast of Portugal, came, after being concealed because of critical danger, into light. Meyer, Marvin; Barnstone, Willis (2010-12-28). Essential Gnostic Scriptures (pp. 240-243). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found on the west bank of the Dead Sea in 1947 near Wadi Qumran, a fringe sect of Essenes, opposed to Jerusalem, suddenly had abundant scripture from out of a vase. . Unfortunately the news of this discovery would be withheld from the public until 1991, when the Huntington Library “outed” the academic establishment by releasing copies. The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

King Jesus was published in 1946. This provocative historical Novel comes closer to creating a believable Jesus than any book of the Bible.

I've just finished Marilynne Robinson's Lila. Like the other Giliead books, this one is wonderful. In fact, it left me speechless when I put it down at last.

The Book of Forgiving by Desmond Tutu and Mpho Tutu.

I just wrapped up The Religious Case Against Belief and posted a review.

I finished Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief last night and started Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion.

Robert

>170 Mr.Durick:

What led you to the Guénon? I'll be interested in your opinion on it.

It had been mentioned somewhere, probably on LibraryThing, interestingly enough that I put it on my wishlist. I am religiously curious and had read mention of Madame Blavatsky over the years with a few citations but no depth. I had an order to place recently and it fit. I was probably inspired to read it now by my reading about L. Ron Hubbard who likely drew from her even as he denied it.

In the first forty or fifty pages the book seems a little antique, and Guénon is not a modern skeptic (of a scientific or historical bent, not of a neo-atheist bent), so it seems his doubt is not about possibility but about the specific instance. I am hopeful that I will read on but not sure.

Robert

>172 Mr.Durick:

Yes, that's a curious book. There are a number of worthwhile historical studies of Theosophy, but that one is very much a polemic against it, in a very specific and elaborate context. Guénon was a seminal Traditionalist, championing the "esoteric" against the "occult." In the upshot, that seems to mean the Right against the Left in mystical circles. Godwin's The Theosophical Enlightenment is an excellent study of the very real Enlightenment influences on the sort of occultism that was exhibited in the 19th-century Theosophical society.

My favorite book on Blavatsky is actually Old Diary Leaves (reprinted as Inside the Occult: The True Story of Madame H.P. Blavatsky, which is by her Theosophical collaborator Olcott. There's a complicated authorial bias, of course, but it has a fascinating intimacy and really reflects the times, as well as providing a firsthand account of the priorities and preoccupations of the early Theosophical Society.

The most intriguing historical work on the origins of Theosophy is probably The Masters Revealed, which suggests specific real-world religious and political reformers as the secret identities of the Theosophical Mahatmas.

I don't know how much I will pursue it, at least in the short run. Something has kept her name alive. I know that there is something to the right hand path even if it is psychological comfort; I don't know that there is something to the left hand path.

Robert

>174 Mr.Durick:

Ah, I didn't mean "right-hand path" and "left-hand path" as some would have it, but rather right-wing and left-wing in a much more worldly sense.

In my experience of occult/esoteric communities, the "left-hand path" is quite likely to be right-wing, and vice versa!

Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope. I know, strictly speaking it is not a religious book, but I'm learning a surprising amount about 19th century Church of England theology, praxis and politics which passed me by completely when I was force-fed this classic a few decades ago.

Oh, and I'm also reading the last of James Morrow's Corpus Dei trilogy, The Eternal Footman. These books are theological fantasy with a healthy dose of satire.

Following the touchstone I see that the first was "Towing Jehovah" which I vaguely remember reading quite a long time ago and didn't like. I've done quite a lot of reading since then on (at least semi-) religious/bible themes and wonder how I would feel about that book now. Probably still wouldn't appeal — I was going to give it another look but checking I see I got rid of my copy about 5 years ago so I'll never know.

>178 PossMan:

I think Towing Jehovah was the weakest of the three. And Morrow's Only Begotten Daughter was better than any of them. However, if I were to actively recommend a Morrow piece to folks at this time of year, it would most certainly be the short story "The Confessions of Ebenezer Scrooge," collected in his volume Bible Stories for Adults.

>179 paradoxosalpha:: Thanks Paradoxosalpha — I've had a look and think I will get it in the new year.

Apuleius was a second century Platonist/pontiff/hierophant of North African origins. I have finally located a collection of his work that doesn’t cost hundreds of dollars. The Works of Apuleius, Comprising the metamorphoses, or Golden Ass, the God of Socrates, the Florida, and His Defense, or a Discourse on Magic was published in 1878 and contained the first and most complete English translations of several important works including The God of Socrates and his Defense or A discourse on Magic.

Thanks to the Classic Reprint Series of Forgotten Books.org, these works are now available to English speaking neologians of all faiths.

>181 quicksiva:

I'm an Apuleius fan, and I've read the scarcer books in university libraries. I only own multiple translations of The Golden Ass and a splendid Heptangle Press edition of The God of Socrates. I'd really like to have a copy of his Apologia ("Defense") though. The academic editions are indeed pricey.

I'm about halfway through Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic which is, among other things, a detailed attempt to refocus "Deism" as a rejection of religion as it was commonly understood (then and now) rather than as the sort of passionless, intellectualized clock-maker version of religion we associate with it today.

>183 southernbooklady:

That sounds like a good read. It might belong on my shelf next to Albanese's Republic of Mind and Spirit, which traces the heterodox "metaphysical" elements of US religious history, presenting them as central to the formation of our religious culture.

It is a good read, though I think his enthusiasm to reclaim the radicalism of deist thinking tends to give short shrift to the complexities of other brands of theology -- he's pretty harsh about Calvinism in general, and his account of Jonathan Edwards's career is simplistic and one-sided, to say the least. But there is a great summation of Epicurean philosophy and the implications of the infinite universe, of the influence of Giordano Bruno, and the only readable explanation of Spinoza's thought I've yet encountered. Most appealing is his commitment to shine a light on what might be called the "philosophy of the times" -- the ideas that were "in the air" so to speak, and in the public consciousness. Not just Jefferson's mercurial notions, but real populist ideas of God, Free Will, the church, and the place of man in "Nature" (their term for what we now call the Universe). He spends a lot of time talking about Ethan Allen and Thomas Young, who are pretty fascinating characters in their own right.

>185 southernbooklady: Ethan Allen

You've just made a connection for me. The Amtrak train between New York and Vermont is called the "Ethan Allen Express". I've ridden it a few times and had a vague curiosity as to why it was named that, but following your reference to him I've actually looked him up and found out who he was. Thanks!

>183 southernbooklady:
======
Any book that connects the ideas of the founding fathers on interstellar aliens and the mission of Jesus is worth a read. I have been at it all day. Thanks!

>185 southernbooklady:
======

” In a passage that her great-grandson edited out of the first edition of her writings and that perhaps offers a glimpse of life in the Edwards household, Sarah Edwards makes clear that she was willing to make enslavement a way of life in the home: ‘ I . . . thought that if (my husband) should turn to be most cruel to me and should horsewhip me every day I would so rest in God that it would not touch (my heart) or diminish my happiness. I could still go on in the performance of all acts of duty to my husband.’ “

Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, pp. 244– 48; S. E. Dwight, The Life of President Edwards (New York: Carvill, 1830), pp. 171ff.

Stewart, Matthew (2014-07-01). Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic (p. 456). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

>188 quicksiva: Yeah, Stewart gives a fairly lurid description of the first "Great Awakening."

I just read and reviewed The Tree of Gnosis, and I'm going from scholarship to fiction with The Drums of Chaos.

Re-reading The Keys of the Kingdom by A. J. Cronin

A gem from today's reading:

in my isolation here my outlook has simplified, clarified with my advancing years. I've tied up, and neatly tucked away, all the complex pettifogging little quirks of doctrine...

Currently reading The Divine Dance: The Trinity and your transformation by Richard Rohr.

And seeing >191 John5918: has just struck a chord from today's meditation by Richard Rohr (not the book), quoting Harvey Cox in The Future of Faith:

“Faith is resurgent, while dogma is dying. The spiritual, communal, and justice-seeking dimensions of Christianity are now its leading edge. . . . A religion based on subscribing to mandatory beliefs is no longer viable.”

>192 John5918:

Your Cox quotation reminds of something Yann Martel said during an interview in The Guardian in 2002:

Fanatics do not have faith – they have belief. With faith you let go. You trust. Whereas with belief, you cling.