Letters to the Editor
-
Judas
I agree with those who say their churches taught -- either directly or indirectly -- that Judas was simply playing the role he was destined to play in the story of Christ. I don't remember, really, what we were "taught," but I definitely came away from my First Presbyterian upbringing with a concept of Judas not as the disciple who "betrayed" Jesus, but the disciple who played the most important role in his crucifixion ... And in fact, I think this story probably in the big picture taught me that people who might do bad things can still bring good to the world.
I think Jesus lesson about forgiveness is important here: Betray God's son and still be forgiven.
-
To PDXSTUDENT
You can see by the replies that the philosophical discussion is only known to a few. It's a political site--the editors are journalists, not religious scholars or philosophy students.
That makes Lacan, Foucault, Freud, Jung, Campbell (Joe) and any academic you name "experts" to be quoted, but not taken seriously the way you do.
Meanwhile, we are living in a world where the lowest possible denominator usually wins. I agree, it is distressing, but it never changes. The thinkers need their interlocutors. It is a thankless task, but if it is your karma, embrace it, because it looks like you know your stuff.
(If half the people out there only took the time to read James' VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE they'd see half of their deepest thoughts were old by the turn of the century--the last century!)
-
To The Decider:
We, who Believe in a Greater God than you, will continue to decide on what rights you will and will not have.
If elected religious leaders such as George Bush are so good at deciding things for people, why don't they decide to win the war in Iraq? Here we are in the fourth year of the war, and we are setting records not only of U.S. Troops killed, but Iraqi people killed. Why doesn't Bush decide that the U.S auto industry shouldn't operate on the fringe of bankruptcy? The only thing the Bush has successfully decided is that the Justice department won't pursue criminal charges against priests who rape children. By tying God to political power as you and the Republicans have done, the only thing you achieve is raising a generation that will seek to destroy the country at any cost. By eliminating “liberal loose cannons” from not only the political system, but the judicial system, you have turned the priesthood into a kiddie rapefest.
-
Fear of Science
This fear of using science and rationality to understand religion is definitely the wrong way to go. Several comments in this article make it sound like the interviewer and Ms. Pagels are holding out for some "transcendent" reality that is separate from and somehow BEYOND what we think of as the physical universe. This only sustains the same old spirit/matter dichotomy and keeps religion regressive and limits science to only the most obvious, physical phenomena. It's like you keep wishing and hoping for this immaterial, fantastic spiritual realm, this wonderland that will FINALLY free you from your ties to physical reality. And I get the sense that you're simply being prejudiced and small-minded when you say "I don't think science will ever understand spiritual reality," or whatever (sorry, but I'm not going back to the article for an exact quote). To me, it's all about discovering the roots of so-called religion and spirituality WITHIN physical reality. Nothing in religion sounds any stranger than what you hear about in Quantum Physics, so why would you think science can't deal with subtle, seemingly non-physical realities? That's just crazy. I admit, I'm an atheist, but I've had enough experiences that clearly qualify as "spiritual" to prove, to me anyway, that not only is the "spiritual" an aspect of human nature that we cannot get rid of (though it may be transformed, and hopefully away from superntaural, other-worldly wishful thinking such as expressed in this interview) but that it exists whether you believe it or not. There are plenty of subtle, seemingly fantastic human experiences that not everyone shares as deeply as the next (for example, a sense of awe at the natural world that inspired many to get involved with science is lacking in many people, and often gets forced back into "God language" by those attached to religion, this isn't a threat to either camp and doesn't mean there is no connection). In the end, it's all about finally ceasing this divisive, illogical separation of the roots of spirituality from the roots of physical reality. This may also require science to change its perspective, but for the time being it seems that religion, even the more enlightened believers such as Pagels, have a much greater need of mind explansion.
-
@Alex O' -- that "ah ha" feeling.
Alex wrote:
don't particularly need to worship, but for me God is a word for a feeling I get. It's akin to the "a-ha" epiphany—a sharp joy and a sense of both comprehending and being comprehended. I had this feeling as an atheist as well, and somewhat unreflectively classed it as a sense of oneness with the universe, or simple "a-ha" moments.
********
Dude. Two words: "brain chemicals."
Brain chemicals developed over countless millenia through evolution. We all have 'em. No supernatural cause involved. Sorry.
-
Provenance?
provenance provenance provenance
is this another classic fake?
Hitler's diaries et al?
Hugh W
-
supernatural...
Great article, and one thing sticks out for me. Why is everything that can't be explained passed off to the "supernatural"?
This to me is the most ridiculous idea we have ever bought into with the full force of human understanding.
Pagels says she doesn't dismiss "supernatural miracles" because there are healings that can't be immediately explained. What? Where is the connection between unexplained and outside of nature?
"The mysterious" somehow causes us to leap to creating a "supernatural", something outside of nature, when we know damn well that we don't have the slightest clue about the boundaries of nature.
In the Torah, the word for "miracle" is the word meaning "a sign", not the suspension of the laws of nature. The entire miracle idea is a subverted textual flight of fancy. A way to explain the scary universe, a way to scare people into walking the line, a way to subvert reverence for the mysterious natural world.
Why can't there be unexplained, mysterious and natural events? We could list, and it would be a very long list, the things we can now explain that we never could...and they drop off the supernatural list pretty quick.
We are capable of being full of wonder without the idea of a supernatural, and in fact the degree of wonder is much higher without the idea.
It makes no logical, spiritual or intuitive sense, and seems more the legacy of our beginnings. It's might be time to find the same reverence right here. Nature is plenty mysterious.