Whether or not I have a valid opinion is a matter for debate, I suppose, but here goes anyway:

Dead Sea Scrolls. I think they should be taken seriously as historically significant documents. Do they replace (or even claim to replace) the NT? I don't think so. Are they worth translating and reading? Absolutely. They help give a sense of place, history and context to the New Testament world, and for that they seem valuable.

The claim that they somehow supplant or undermine the New Testament record does not seem compelling to me. They were two differenct sects with two different sets of documents. That they were concurrent in time and location doesn't mean they necessarily block out one another.

The Course of Miracles: I have not read all of it, but have read portions. I've known a couple people who go by it. The claim that it was dictated by God, of course, is a faith claim, not an absolute.

Pete,

Sorry to sound condescending. I've been on that spiritual roller coaster for about five years now and looking back, I realize what a thrill it has been to participate in the ride. Others find their faith always accessible at the church on Main Street and are satisfied to ride that carousel with reliable ease.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a part of man's past and as old as the New Testiment. Replacing the NT is not their purpose, but they do need to be considered when pursuing answers about Christianity, since they provide another piece of the puzzle. In essence, parts of the scrolls support the concept that mere brick and mortar cannot build our churches. Rather, we should look inside ourselves for the God connection. It has been suggested that the Catholic Religion and possibly others have supressed some of these revelations because they dispell many concepts that support their establishment.

'A Course In Miracles' is exactly what it suggests. The ego is deflated and the spirit is nutured unto it's true path: seeking union with the Almighty. It has changed my life in ways I couldn't even begin to describe here.

Sorry about continuing with this non-Bradbury topic, but it's hard to find this level of intellegent posting on other message boards. I was attracted to this site by my admiration for Ray Bradbury, but I keep coming back for the stimulating posts.

Celestial

Hi, Celestial,

No apology necessary. And thanks for the post on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Course on Miracles. Wish I had time to follow up.

And I agree with you about this site. I haven't had much experience with these kinds of things but I, like you, was attracted to this site because of the interest in Bradbury but have stayed because of the fascinating topics. A great group. Glad you're a part of it.

Pete

Clarification. I didn't mean to suggest that the only value of the Dead Sea Scrolls was in their comparison and counter-balance to early Christianity -- although that is a subliminally important use of them.

They add tremendous historical understanding to that era -- for both students of early Christianity and just students of the period in general. Philosophy, as well as religion, were both burgeoning then. It's interesting in Acts, that Paul appears on Mar's Hill before the philosophers to answer questions and hear a new thing. A powerful mixture of philosophy and religion with a very well educated guy. How I would have loved to have been there to witness the entire exchange between Paul and the philosophers.

My dad took me to a museum in Los Angeles in the late 60's or early 70's when portions of the scrolls (or imitations, I honestly don't remember) were on display for the western hemisphere. My dad was fascinated by them, and passed that fascination on to me (as well as a love of Emerson, Thoreau and Philosophy in general).

There is still intense debate over what they represent, but most of what I read infers that the scrolls at Qumran represent a broad collection from various Jewish groups that were gathered to protect a representation of Jewish records immediately prior to the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem. They were a rushed effort to gather, hide and save as much of their culture and beliefs as they could.

Mr. Dark,

Once again, I'm awed by your worldly insights.

Celestial

Hey Nard,

Centri--ooh--ah and centri-ooh-eeh.. never heard of em mate, sound too scientific for me. Maybe you could speak in plain English, instead of throwing about words that are obviously part of 'your' lexicon of nomencleture (eh, there's some big words there, I learned them at school)

As to Christ and your opinions on him, well, hey, live and let live. You believe all that gumf about Christ being your saviour, go ahead, just don't try and convince me it is the truth. I don't believe he is or was a saviour of anyone, what I do believe (and I have a very kind old Catholic lady to thank for this) is that Christ was a Socialist, and a pretty good one too. He was like those anti-capitalists, and when I imagine him, I see him throwing a garbage can through a McDonald's window. I don't believe he died on the cross, and as for original sin, I don't have any.

I was brought up as a Catholic, and I'd had enough by the age of 13 being told I was a sinner when I'd done nothing wrong (how the hell can masturbation be a sin?) Asking for some celibate man in a frock to give me redemption in the name of Christ? Sorry, I don't need redeeming. I haven't hurt anyone, nor have I raised my fist in anger (okay, maybe once, but I was young).


peace
Frankanger

Hey Pete,

Nah, man, not specifically trying to wind anyone up. Just like to hear people defend their faiths, it's interesting, and seeing as I disagree with most of what is said, you know, I have to say something. Even if I don't 'say anything worthwhile'.

peace
Frankanger

Frankanger,

Protesting too much signals the obvious. Perhaps a re-examination of your earlier dissenchantment with Christianity might trigger a revelation you are missing. I don't have any idea what your age bracket is, but I'm hoping it's not too old for your life experiences to soften your stance.

I was also brought up as a Catholic and was taught by nuns and priests for the most part. My break from catholicism began when I realized how much they were omitting about faith. Fear of God was the resounding theme hinged on a lifetime of pre-ordained and sometimes mindless devotion. I knew there was much more, but had to seek the answers on my own.

My spiritual quest has allowed me to respect and honor God and opened the lines of communication with Him. God doesn't want us to fear Him, only to seek and embrace His Glory.

I have serious concerns with the state of the Catholic religion that begin with the Vatican in Rome. But then, which religion is faultless at this point in time?

Celestial

I don't think anything is gained by mocking and denigrating the faith of others. Can we try to maintain a certain respect and civility on this page?

Each of us has different backgrounds, experiences, and beliefs. We don't need to belittle everyone else's.

Each church -- no matter what their claims to authority (tradition, college, ordination, personal "call", etc.) -- consists of persons with individual strengths and weaknesses. Let's try to maintain kindness and civility, and discuss our beliefs (especially, of course, as they relate to Bradbury's work) with objectivity and respect.

Mean-spirited Ranting is unbecoming to this site. Bradbury is above it, and we should be, also. (Not that he's a saint, but he honors others' views.)

I'm not calling for censorship, just common courtesy.

P.S. I'm not Catholic, but have Catholic friends who are great examples of Christ's teachings and life. There are a lot of ex-catholics out there . . . some with bitter hearts, some who are at peace with their new beliefs. Let's try to recognize that the Catholic church (like every other organization) houses both the good and the bad.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 02-04-2003).]

Mr. Dark,

Religion and Politics: The two taboo subjects to avoid with old friends or when seeking the company of new ones.

I don't approach the topic of the Catholic Religion without walking on eggshells. My parents are devout Catholics and I avoid discussing the topic with them at all costs. However, Frankanger distaste of anything Christian prodes me into pursuing the topic. I try very hard to only broach the subjects I have some knowledge of or first-hand experience with. If the thread was about Judism or Buddism, my fingers would be silently withdrawn from the keyboard. Twenty plus years of intense Catholicism in my life grants me a measure of clout when the subject is approached.

Sorry if my opinion offends anyone.

Celestial

Hey all,

I can't see where my opinions degraded or mocked anybody's faith? When did that happen? I said believing in Christ as a saviour was gumf, and it is, to me at least. If you read back I think you'll find I actually quite like Christ, at least the rebellious version I have in my head, much as I admire Che Guevera and Fidel Castro. My main point was that I do not see Christ as a saviour, where's the mockery in that? That's an opinion, I can't prove it, but it is what I believe.

peace
Frankanger

Hey Celestial,

I'm trying to figure out what is obvious? What is it that's so obvious I'm missing it? And as far as my disenchamentent goes, it's with all organised religion branching out from the narrow-mindendness of my own catholic church and onto the whole christian organisation afterwards(gays can't get married, abortion is a sin etc). God? Well, seeing as I don't have any fixed idea of what God is, or could become, I don't put much faith in him/her/it/whatever.

I'm a pick-and-mix spiritualist, as you may see in other posts. Whatever fits the day really and mostly tongue--in--cheek. I think most of my annoyance comes with those followers of a particular God and their belief systems. But again this is all very personal(hear that, personal! Not having a go at anybody's individual beliefs here).

peace
Frankanger

What can I say? I believe there is a decorum in speaking about faith that recognizes the fact that faith is a matter of passion and real feeling for some.

When you're aware for example, that Nard (And I know he doesn't need me to speak for him) believes in a very traditional view of Christ and takes that faith very seriously, and you flippantly say, "I don't and never did believe he is anyone's saviour" (paraphrase), why put it in those terms? You know it will grate on his nerves.

By the same token, overstating one's case, as though anyone who disagrees is either stupid, duped or evil, also denigrates each others' views.

Even in a case that ended up as controversial as Roe v Wade, Blackman begins the ruling in this way:

"We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human experience, one's religious training, one's attitudes towards life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion." (Roe v Wade)

I think all I'm saying is to have that sense that religion is very important to (at least some) people, and lay out your ideas with some sensitivity to how they may impact others.

Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive, but I do think we can state our views with an eye toward understanding that everyone here has opinions. Some ideas we can bandy around without concern, but others go to the heart of how people define who they are.

Being courteous in speech and writing does not automatically endorse opinions with which we disagree. It just creates a forum where we are speaking about ideas with the attempt to understand and/or share rather than attacking, mocking or defending ourselves or others.

Mr. Anger,

Tsk, Tsk. I'm beginning to think you don't want to get along at all.

Here's where someone might think you're degrading or mocking their faith: ". . .believing in Christ as a saviour was gumf. . ." Okay? Pretty straightforward, I think. (And, yeah, I know, I left off the rest of your quote: ". . . and it is, to me at least." Doesn't let you off the hook, I'm afraid.)

It's fun to passionately debate a from a cherished point of view but to provoke for the sake of provocation seems a little, well, like listening to my two daugthers pick at each other but then they're 11 and 6 and don't know any better. From your posts, I know you do.

Anyway, thanks for coming back.

Pete

Sorry. Yet another post where I failed to mention Bradbury.

Frankanger:

Never one to back down from these types of questions, I'll try to answer what I know.

Originally posted by frankanger:

"I'm trying to figure out what is obvious? What is it that's so obvious I'm missing it?"

Nothing about spirituality is obvious at first. But after a time, when you quiet your mind, and clear the pain and deflate the monster ego, you will wind up with some type of insight. What you're looking for will only become obvious when nothing else makes sense.


"I'm a pick-and-mix spiritualist, as you may see in other posts. Whatever fits the day really."

Try the truth on for a while. It usually fits like a custom-made suit.

Celestial



[This message has been edited by Celestial (edited 02-04-2003).]