Controversial book

Andrew Roussak

New member
Good evening, one and all.

I'm afraid that I have been very busy for the last few days and haven't had the time to reply at length to some of the points raised. Just briefly, then, I'll take up pnoom's comment: there is no inconsistency. Nobody can know whether there is something 'bigger' anywhere else in the universe.

The question of a "creator", however, still leaves the then bigger question of what/who created the creator, which gets ever more unlikely with, as it were, each time you find yourself having to ask that same question.

However, I think that it can very safely be said that the god of the Bible, of the Torah, of the Quran does not exist. In terms of the Bible and Christianity (with which I am personally better acquainted), there is not a shred of evidence that Jehovah exists. Not an iota, not a jot.

And, even if He did exist, he's a nasty and sadistic piece of work – leaving the question of why anyone wants to follow and worship an entity that is so thoroughly unpleasant.

Hi Sybarite -

I am actually rather happy, from my side, to end the debate on this note - existence of God is a matter of belief ( you say - even if He did exist....) . I don't need any other answer.
And the rest can be regarded as a matter of taste then, oder?



Best regards, take care
Andrew
 

Andrew Roussak

New member
Hello Mr. Roussak,

I'm glad that you found the link interesting. Might that Russian book you're reading be written by Soloviev, or Bulgakov? The wonderful thing about true knowledge is how it reaches out and interfaces on many points with human beings who are humble in their quest for knowledge. And then the miracle happens, all those interfaces provide contacts with others all over this world, helping to bridge over the isolation and distance and strengthening culture.

You are probably familiar with the name of Masaaki Suzuki. Who would have thought that the Japanese would accept and listen the Cantatas, Masses, Motets, and Oratorios of JSBach? Maestro Suzuki is busy plowing the fields and sowing the seeds of a common understanding.

Yea, he's even a bit of a missionary in Shinto Buddhist lands, introducing them, through Bach's music, to concepts so foreign to them yet it invariably will resonate with them when they see and hear the beauty and purity of the message.

The Japanese respond to natural and simple beauty through their Eastern cultural patrimony. The music of JSBACH as Western cultural patrimony, is the embodiment of natural and simple beauty without being facile, immature, or dumbed down.

Humbly and respectfully yours,

Corno Dolce

Hello noble Sir Corno Dolce,

actually I am not sure whether I have read anything of Wladymir Solovyev in original - in the Soviet times, it was rather impossible, and afterwards I have read various books on the world-view topics containing quotations from his works. His own views seem to me btw rather interesting and somehow untraditional ( a position between Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches ).

Bulgakov - yep, I guess I have read all of him - including diaries. The most cult and controversial of all his books is, for sure, Master And Margareth. It is built on the principle "roman in roman", and this attached roman is , in fact, a Gospel from devil. I will never understand how did Bulgakov manage to publish such thing in the Soviet Union in 30es.

But actually I have meant above the other books - these are the articles, interviews and the philosophycal and historiographic works of Andrei Kuraev and Alexander Men, both are modern authors belonging to the Russian Orthodox church. Not sure if any of these works are translated into English. Well, but I can witness, nevertheless, that the essential views are rather identical with that in the link you provided ( Resurrection, Genesis...) Only the details are sometimes more "orthodox" .;)

Thanks for the name of Masaaki Suzuki - have never heard before - or can not remember ( yes, I hear you saying - what a shame !!! ).
Well, but GOOGLE makes almost everything possible now, doesn't it?:)

Mit besten Grüßen aus dem Allemannischen Reich ,

Andrew von Roussak
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Hello noble Sir Andrew,

In regards to Soloviev, AFAIK he was a mystic who strove for the meaning of the True Church. Bulgakov must certainly have been in the crosshairs of the nasty and sadistic Bolsheviki for almost all that he had written. It is wonderful how much there is of his work in Western and East Asian libraries and known amongst people with a Faith system.

Andrei Kuraev and Alexander Men are unbeknownst to me - to Google I trot! With the fall of the Soviet Regime, the West is becoming evermore acquainted with the thinkers of Russia. A key idea in Berdyaev's *the Russian Idea* is that "The Russians feel that they neither belong to the East, nor to the West."

As a thesis, I find that compelling. Considering that Russia as a continent spans 12 time zones and how past history and current history affect it, one can somewhat understand the predicament Russians are in. We witness the blossoming of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia after having been an *underground church* for 73 years. For them, Faith is the anchor that keeps them from unraveling as a people. Of course, the maelstrom winds that buffet Russia in national and international politics and on the local level will cause great upheavals and bloody reprisals.

Khristos Voskres'

Corno Dolce
 

pnoom

New member
Aaaaaaaah pnoom,

Thou art a Mensch. You don't discount the idea of a Creator but you find it unlikely. We humans have limits as to what we can wrap our brains around. When through empirical reasoning or through a priori reasoning we cannot find the answer, we have yet another possibility - Faith.

I'm not here to sway your thinking one way or the other - I wouldn't even dream of it. But I would be amiss if I didn't say that you might *entertain* other methods of being an active participant as opposed to passive spectator.

Let me indulge: Math is not a spectator sport - likewise, Faith is not a spectator sport, no matter how offensive to reasoned, rational thinking you may find it. It requires active participation - Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Baha'i. You can choose not to entertain any belief system, but, since Nature abhors a vacuum, a belief system will rush in to fill the void, whether it be self-worship or following some human Illuminati.

Cheers,

Corno Dolce

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In a sense, I do have faith. I have faith that science will continue to fill the holes currently only filled by belief in God. But this is faith based on evidence, which I guess makes it not faith.

But I also think that doesn't quite answer your post. I'm not quite sure what you meant.
 

pnoom

New member
Good evening, one and all.

I'm afraid that I have been very busy for the last few days and haven't had the time to reply at length to some of the points raised. Just briefly, then, I'll take up pnoom's comment: there is no inconsistency. Nobody can know whether there is something 'bigger' anywhere else in the universe.

The question of a "creator", however, still leaves the then bigger question of what/who created the creator, which gets ever more unlikely with, as it were, each time you find yourself having to ask that same question.

However, I think that it can very safely be said that the god of the Bible, of the Torah, of the Quran does not exist. In terms of the Bible and Christianity (with which I am personally better acquainted), there is not a shred of evidence that Jehovah exists. Not an iota, not a jot.

And, even if He did exist, he's a nasty and sadistic piece of work – leaving the question of why anyone wants to follow and worship an entity that is so thoroughly unpleasant.

I disagree with nothing in this post.

And in response to Andrew, I don't have the time to do a big quote and address all your points, but I will point out that your notion that without God, everything is random is incorrect.
 

Sybarite

New member
Hi Sybarite -

I am actually rather happy, from my side, to end the debate on this note - existence of God is a matter of belief ( you say - even if He did exist....) . I don't need any other answer.
And the rest can be regarded as a matter of taste then, oder?



Best regards, take care
Andrew

Andrew, I'm not sure what you mean by "a matter of taste"?

I hope that I haven't been offensive to anyone in this thread – I don't think that I have.
 

pnoom

New member
Now, the real mystery of the universe is how the smiley in Andrew's post keeps on drinking but the glass never empties.

*wanders off to ponder
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Hi pnoom,

The wine glass which never is empty can be synonymous with the Bacchanalian wellspring that never dries up. :):D:grin::cheers::whistle::nut::smash:

Cheers,

Corno Dolce

Btw - When I used the term *Mensch*, I wanted to illustrate the fact that we as humans struggle daily to find meaning with our lives. Some will only deal with empirical and/or a priori reasoning as the foundation for their existence. Some will embrace Faith and Knowledge and incorporate it as a duality that forms the foundation to their existence. Some question that there is a Creator - that He be Triune - Father, Son, And Holy Spirit - they find it totally absurd. Yes, it is an absurdity to empirical reasoning and a priori reasoning. But still the Creator is there - No one preceeded the Creator. The Creator has always been, Is, and always will be there, defying rational and logical reasoning. We can try our hardest in ignoring the Creator, legislate laws forbidding public expression of the Creator and every other device humanly possible - the Creator will still be among us. Now, when we start legislating against public expression and take to law enforcement and military methods to quash the individuals right to freely and peacefully express a Faith system, we have then entered a dictatorship which is a nasty, tyrannical and sadistic piece of work. History is replete with those societies who repress and oppress.
 
Last edited:

Sybarite

New member
... But still the Creator is there - No one preceeded the Creator. The Creator has always been, Is, and always will be there, defying rational and logical reasoning...

And the proof is?

There is no proof. There is no evidence – not one iota. Not a jot.

And it worth reiterating that history is full of situation where the religious have decided to foist their beliefs on everyone else – and murder and torture those who don't agree. Or launch war against them etc. And that is a totalitarianism too. How many people have been killed or mutilated because of religion over the centuries?
 

pnoom

New member
I completely agree Sybarite. Of course, the first two paragraphs of your post are easily brushed off by the (nearly) unshakeable notion of faith.

(please note, I don't buy faith, but "lack of proof" arguments don't work against it).
 

Sybarite

New member
Hi pnoom,

Oh, I agree. But that's part of the problem: anything can be justified – and pretty much anything has been justified down the centuries – by faith.

Just to embroider a little on what I said in the previous post: how many gay people have been murdered and tortured on the grounds of religion over the centuries? It still goes on.

Only last year, in Jerusalem, a Jewish group stood around, in public, untouched by the police, handing out leaflets offering money to anyone who "kills a sodomite" (this despite the utter vileness of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, where a man who is prepared to let his daughters be raped is rewarded as apparently the one "good" man in the town).

Just over a year ago, two young men were executed in Iran because they were gay.

The Christian church has spent centuries persecuting gay people – only this year in the UK, the Catholic church, with support from other denominations, has been trying to say that it should be allowed to discriminate against gay people – although, of course, it wants all the legislation in place to stop anyone discriminating against it.

That's just one issue. One could also look at how religion has treabeen ted women – appalllingly, is the main answer. How many women in Europe were murdered because they were supposed to be 'witches'? How many of those were killed simply because they were good midwives, but the male medical profession didn't want opposition? Or because they were lesbians?

The cruelty that has been meted out down the centuries by the religious, in the name of their religions, in the name/s of their god/s – in the name of their faith*– is unparalleled in human history.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Lets not also conveniently forget the hundreds of millions massacred by Pol Pot, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Attila The Hun, The Romans, Assyrians and...irregardless if they were gay or straight. And these were atheistic peoples with no faith - they were most certainly sadistic and nasty.
 

pnoom

New member
But those atheists didn't murder those people because they were not atheist. They murdered them for political gain.

You could argue that religious persecution as described by Sybarite was also for political gain, but it was still done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION.

That's the key point. Take religion away from those people and it would have been much harder for them to gain a following. Dogma is dangerous.
 

pnoom

New member
"Just over a year ago, two young men were executed in Iran because they were gay"

Ummm... I thought Iran had no gays...
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Hello pnoom,

Muder is murder, whether it is religiously motivated or atheistically motivated.

Belief systems do have Dogma but then so does aetheism/agnosticism. What is sad is that people are stereotyped just because they have a Faith. It is hurtful when those who see themselves as not being bigoted, lash out at people because of their Faith. It condemns those non-bigoteds for being just that - BIGOTED!!!

Humbly,

Corno Dolce
 

pnoom

New member
I'm not saying Stalin and Co were less bad than those who killed in the name of religion, I'm just saying that the former group can't be pigeonholed in the way that the latter can.

Agnosticism doesn't have dogma by definition. It's not even really a useful term. If you're not 100% of whether God(s) exist(s), then you are agnostic. I'm agnostic, but I call myself an atheist because I am as certain as I can be without actually being certain that there is no God.

Most atheists I know don't lash out at people because of their faith.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Hi pnoom,

Right you are in that agnosticism doesn't have a defined Dogma - that Dogma probably resides with he/she that practices agnosticism ergo making it subjective.

Cheers,

Corno Dolce
 

pnoom

New member
But practicing agnosticism doesn't mean anything (for reasons I described).

The only way I can think of for practicing agnosticism is to (lazily, IMO) decide that you have no opinion whatsoever about God's existence AND that you don't care.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Hi pnoom,

The *operator word* I used was *probably*, ergo, it depends on the person electing to or not to practice their Dogma.

Cheers,

Corno Dolce
 
Top