OT Re: RELIGION: intuition

[Guest guest]

:

.......................................................................

> Hi ,

> I don't mean to speak for but I think what he meant is that

people get into these discussions without an adequate background, and

draw conclusions based on that inadequate background, and with no

seeming desire to shore up that background, and so, given that, it

*is* useless to debate these points with them. They don't understand

the arguments, they import often unstated and biased presuppositions

into their arguments, and then pontificate as if their argument should

have some weight or force or be taken seriously.

> Of course they are free to believe what they want to believe, but

such

an approach is hardly a sound basis for drawing conclusions.

> And I think his bigger point is when he suggests that one group

believes the Church is divine, another thinks it is only human. Given

those conflicting presuppositions debate is probably useless UNLESS

one is debating the conflicting assumptions/presuppositions. And for

someone whose basic assumption is that the Church is a humanistic

institution, and therefore essentially a hoax, it shouldn't much

matter who gets ordained or not.

> Anyway, imagine someone coming on this list telling us how wrong or

misguided Weston Price is without having done the actual spadework of

finding out what it is Weston Price teaches and why. We would dismiss

them immediately, and rightly so. It is no different when it comes to

various hot button issues regarding the Church.

> When I rejected Romanism as a youngster, I did so fully aware of why

they believed what they believed. I rejected their positions on its

own merit, not passing impressions or under the guise of imported

alien presuppositions and certainly not based on the superficial

secular rhetoric of the day, which hasn't changed much over the years.

> You said with (what seemed to me) great conviction that you would

labor/work to change the Roman Catholic view on the priesthood if you

were a Roman Catholic. Now you are suggesting in this response that

you are not fully familiar with the parameters of why that is so but

just from your laymen's impression you don't think its a divine

injunctive.

> If that is the case why would you labor against something that you

really don't know much about? It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I

am missing something?

> For what its worth, the ancient church didn't draw such clear

distinctions when it came to theology between laymen and

" professionals. " That is a legacy of the late medieval west. The

Orthodox Church has produced lots of highly revered and some not so

well known lay theologians over the centuries. You can read one in the

link below.

http://snipurl.com/gfvz

take care,

......................................................................

I don't know what to make of your post straightaway.

Do you mean to say, as it were between the lines, that I would be

better to hush up myself? OK, I'll do that, but please let me die

first.

No, I was kidding. I really see your point, but I may not agree with

it entirely. I think Todd Slater has raised a very interesting point

not long ago. He was talking about his difficulty with authority. I,

too, have a problem with authority, or maybe it's rather with

hierarchies.

Do you know what _feijoada_ is? It's the most typical Brazilian dish.

It includes a lot of ingredients: cured and fresh meats, rice, beans,

cabbage, manioc flour, spices, oranges, etc... It's delicious, but

reputedly very heavy. And not a very simple preparation anyway. It

may take a lot of hours and work to get it ready. Very few people

indeed are capable of making it, and even fewer will accept the

challenge to. But we have a saying here: " I don't need to know how to

make feijoada to tell if it tastes good or not. "

Pretty much the same may apply to Religion. I don't need to know all

the facts (and who knows them all, by the way?) to judge its value at

least for me. I may be ignorant, but wasn't born yesterday, was I?

There's another saying which I think is particularly true in the

context: " Outsiders can often see better what is really going on. " If

you play chess, you know what I'm talking about.

But here's possibly one more obstacle for me to join any established

Religion, which is aggravated by my aging condition. You know what I

mean? I don't want to offend anyone, but it's about shame. Picture

yourself: a man over 50, whom life has made me into this hardy and

proud (but not self-conceited, mind you) skeleton, now having to

listen to and learn everything again (from scratch?) from certainly

the younger and possibly more learned? Can such a man abdicate from

his earned position, at his own peril, pretend to be _tabula rasa_

and not feel like a fool? Isn't it too late for him? Wouldn't he have

all the reason on earth to feel ashamed? Well, maybe that would be

the mysterious force of faith and determination. Do I lack it myself?

I don't know if anyone can empathize with me or not.

, even if that wasn't your objective, I was made to feel like

a fool after reading your post.

Yet, I know that I can learn a lot from the much younger, especially

from children. Do you have children yourself? Or do you often find

yourself among them? They ask a lot of embarrassing questions, you

know, which often show how much you still have to learn. If the Pope

himself or any other great religious leader would lecture to the

children, I suppose they'd give up. Children lead you into trouble

with their questions and assertions.

You know, I'm on this list pretty much like a _honoris causa_ member,

if you see what I mean: I've never read Weston Price's books (but

Sally Fallon´s), but much of what I know and picked up during my

lifetime coincides with his main teachings. I can't say that I agree

with everything, but again I don't own the truth. I try to adapt

myself to the circumstances. When I don't agree with something being

said, I may communicate with someone else offline or simply bite the

bullet. Otherwise, if something is too strong for me, I may choose to

speak up with a bumper so to say or again bite my tongue (in the

sense of refraining myself again), for I know it'll soon pass. So I

don't think (but I may be wrong) that your knowledge of nutrition

does have to come all the way from Weston Price exclusively in order

to enable you to be here. Every other school has something to say,

even maybe veganism; all they may need is to follow the rules of

politeness and respect. I may have failed in logic and reasoning or

in bringing the relevant information to the forum, but I'm aware that

I've never crossed the line of propriety. By answering Deanna, I was

sure I wasn't unduly touching any sacred cow.

Likewise with Religion. I know of many people who studied Theology

for many years only to repel everything afterwards. Ultimately, their

studies brought them away from what they were trying to approach. How

ironic, is't it? What if I read all the Scriptures (and I've read

much of them, as a layman) only to disagree? Why do I have to agree?

Much like Superior Physics, Chemistry and other technical subjects,

I'll concede Religion has its own jargon and closed chambers, into

which only the initiate may go or glance for a while. All the others

are the sheep, literally speaking, they don't need to bother to know,

they just have to follow the shepherd. So I'm maybe *the black

sheep*.

But differently from Physics and Chemistry, Religion is concerned

with man and his relationship to God and his peers. It should be made

accessible to everyone. I suppose that if they'd been asked to

explain the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to

schoolchildren, even Einstein and Bohr would know how to choose their

words and similes to make it assimilable. Why can't you, who are in

the know, do the same now? Could you please, in very simple terms,

tell me why the Church, your Church, doesn't accept women as priests,

among other things? Do I have to equal you before I can be told the

truth? And can you honestly say that noone in your Church battles for

giving the ministry to women as well?

And here again, though I don't want to offend any believer, is a

contradiction I see myself in Religion, especially in Christianism

and Judaism for that matter, which are so to say essentially based on

books rather than on experience, on authority/hierarchy rather than

community, though of course both experience and community also have

their roles in those two faiths. So I'd ask you how you do convert

the illiterate, the naive, the primitive, the imbecile, the infirm,

the foreigner. Is this real conversion, or simply sugar-coating the

facts? Because of course they - poor things - will never be able to

master Hermeneutics. They'll always have to rely on second-hand

information, which can be manipulated, you see.

In short, a *true* religion, as far as I can see, wouldn't even need

books. I'm not against books and learning, but against their

dictatorship. Such a religion would be as simple as the elements,

fire, earth, air, and water, what do I know, and would include a lot

of bodily movements and bodily knowledge. Otherwise, _in my opinion_,

it isn't a true *re-ligio* (a relink), but then it's perhaps only in

your head, it's perhaps only intellectualization, it's obscure, it's

arcane, and as such prone to schism, misinterpretations and

discriminations.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to go on with this discussion right now,

simply because I'm leaving the group - for my winter vacations. I'll

be away from computers for two weeks from next Tuesday on. If you're

interested in resuming it when I come back, it's all right for me,

though I presume you still may think that I'm not up to the task or

that is too long a period of time for you to wait.

Cheers,

José