Lillies are good ... lily-beetles not so much (I'm suffering an infestation of them at the moment), but even they and their plant-munching, disgusting shit-covered lavae, do have their role in the grand scheme of things ... I suppose.

Deleted.

..

I wrote:

You just don't get it, do you, nordmann, for all your great intelligence and undoubted learning? That, for struggling humans, the "truth" of the Christian myth is sometimes - perhaps always - far more important than the "truth" of "history"?

Which goes back to the question posed in John 18:38. And remember Bacon's comment about that "jesting Pilate" who chose not to "stay for an answer"?

Not that I have any answers at all - and most of us this morning would admit the same. And whatever else I may be, I hope I have always been "honest" enough here to admit that. Have deleted the rest of my nonsense after above reply to nordmann:  I should never have posted any of this in the first place. Sorry if I have now rather made a nonsense of your later posts, MM. Hope you sort your lily-bugs out.

Temp wrote:

That, for struggling humans, the "truth" of the Christian myth is sometimes - perhaps always - far more important than the "truth" of "history"?

That's exactly what worries me. People who seek truth in myth are inclined to do some really weird and dangerous stuff. Personally, I find it more intelligent (not to mention saner and safer) to stick with history and find my "truths" there. Some day an infinite number of scholars will back me up on that (hopefully), but in the meantime I refrain from breath holding and just read the news headlines along with everyone else. If Jesus existed he'd probably be doing the same.

The mosaic is coming along fine, isn't it?

nordmann wrote:

 People who seek truth in myth are inclined to do some really weird and dangerous stuff.  

Some do; some don't. It is humans generally who are inclined "to do some really weird and dangerous stuff". I'm all for sanity and safety, as I think most of us who post here are. It's odd we argue so much about it all. We actually agree more than we differ.

Anyway, kind regards to all - and I do mean that.

Temp wrote:

It is humans generally who are inclined "to do some really weird and dangerous stuff". I'm all for sanity and safety, as I think most of us who post here are.

That's actually a contradictory statement, unless of course you're denying your humanity.

I'm more inclined to the view that the all-too-human invention called religion is used to "justify" some very inhumane stuff. I could refer you to proofs of this in case you think I'm making it up as I go along, but in fact today I don't need to. Just read the news.

If Jesus existed he'd now be either preparing a press statement or (more likely if he was a decent bloke) shutting the f**k up and hoping people conveniently forgot he was "religious".

And of course I meant that it is some humans - whatever their "religious" beliefs or none - who are responsible for the weird and dangerous stuff. But the potential for nastiness, albeit on a lesser scale than we read of in the headlines, is in most of us. The sheer hell people give other people? No wonder Jesus wept.

And "religious" is not the same as "spiritual", as I have time and time again tried to point out. But what is the point of discussing this further? Best to do what you assume Jesus as a "decent bloke" would be doing today. Good advice, for him and for me, I think.

All intelligent discussion about religion ends with people shutting the f**k up. Or else it simply goes round in circles.

I'm not a "spiritual" person, as you can see. And I have no respect for mythical people weeping at human inadequacies, even if it has on several occasions earned me points in pub quizzes for recognising it as the shortest sentence in the English bible - I would prefer that the people who invented that very effective trope had actually applied their intelligence to solving the dilemma that engendered its invention.

The point of discussing this further (since you ask) is that it is germane to Tim's rather facetious topic title. If Jesus existed he'd probably agree with me (forgive me for using Christian logic, but sometimes it makes epistemological - though not "common" - sense).

Once, in a far-off thread, I said something along the lines of I didn't know what 'spiritual' meant and rather irked P if I recall.  As I see it, the problem with being 'spiritual' or 'religious' is the same thing; the belief that there is more to life than, well, life. That 'more' may be an afterlife or a guiding deity or a flying pumpkin but all have in common the notion that there is a purpose in all existence, some underlying narrative, other than the combination of random but explicable events in physics and chemistry with the direction imposed by natural selection which has resulted in galaxies and dinosaurs and now us having these discussions in this place and that is quite miraculous enough for me. Why confuse exploring our properties and potential by attributing our achievements and our failings to the supernatural rather than that which we can understand and thus influence? By all means take the best from the philosophies of all the cults but acknowledge them as products generated by our intrinsic humanity and our attempts to find a way of explaining who - and why - we are and how to live. We don't need gods, we need more of the rationality, compassion and empathy which have tempered our equally human aggression and greed and without which we would not have survived as a species until now.

edit: I'm ranting again, sorry but I'm feeling it all a bit today. My granddaughter is booked to go to gig in Edinburgh next month and it's all too close to home.

ferval wrote:

We don't need gods, we need more of the rationality, compassion and empathy which have tempered our equally human aggression and greed and without which we would not have survived as a species until now.

Yes -"the God within our breast", as Marcus Aurelius - my favourite pagan - put it rather nicely, or "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you", as somebody else once observed. Marcus Aurelius also - wise and rational scholar that he was - believed in not being too dogmatic about anything. Keep your options open - always a wise stance, surely?


"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."


Really will "shut the f*ck up" now, as advised.

Temp wrote:

Really will "shut the f*ck up" now, as advised.

That was my advice to the fictional Jesus, not you. Are you having a messianic moment?  

No - sorry to disappoint you all, chaps.

Don't know if this is the right place or not. Anyhow, scientific analysis has pushed the date of the construction of the Holy Sepulchre back to 345AD.

Holy Sepulchre