What is it about the phrase “Why look ye into heaven?” that ties together a Bible Truth Camp, an opera, a telescope, the progress of science, and humanity’s place in the universe?
Click here to read the rest of this article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is "the third group rule"? The Ex-CD Facebook group asks this question when granting membership. I don't know what they are talking about....despite being a CD for decades. Are they referring to the rejection of the Trinity?
ReplyDeleteI'm not an admin for that group, but if I were to guess I'd guess the third group rule is "The 3rd rule for the Ex-CD Facebook group".
DeleteIs it "No Hate Speech or Bullying"?
DeleteYou are both geniuses. The answer was commonsensical. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI`ve always known that I was a genius -- but you are the first person who has recognised it.
DeleteI’ve discovered a philosophy that I find more grounded and insightful than traditional religion or spirituality. It’s an ancient school of thought that was once marginalized and even persecuted by early Christianity. This philosophy is called **Epicureanism**, founded by the Greek philosopher **Epicurus**.
ReplyDeleteEpicurus was a **materialist** who based his understanding of the world on observation, reason, and natural science. He delved deeply into the **science of happiness**, exploring how humans could attain lasting peace and freedom from fear. He taught that true happiness comes from simple pleasures, meaningful friendships, and living a life free from unnecessary desires and superstitions.
One of the most revolutionary aspects of Epicurus’ thought was his **rejection of metaphysical and religious doctrines**, especially those rooted in **Platonism**. He denied the notion of an **immortal soul**, arguing instead that what people called the "soul" was a collection of **atoms** dispersed throughout the body. For Epicurus, the soul did not survive death; when the body dies, its atoms disperse, and consciousness ceases.
This perspective removed the fear of death and divine punishment, which Epicurus believed were among the greatest obstacles to human happiness. His philosophy offered a rational, ethical, and naturalistic way of life, grounded in **empirical knowledge and personal well-being**.
Though often misunderstood and misrepresented—especially by religious authorities—Epicureanism was never about hedonistic excess. Instead, it advocated for a life of moderation, wisdom, and inner tranquility.
---
The Folly of Gazing Upward
ReplyDeleteTo the Epicurean, the heavens are not the dwelling place of divine overseers but the domain of natural phenomena—stars, planets, and atmospheric patterns. To look to the sky for divine intervention or to await the return of a savior is to mistake poetry for reality. It is to surrender the mind to fear and fantasy.
The Epicurean way is not to gaze upward, longing for a metaphysical answer, but to look clearly at the world as it is, to understand nature, and to seek peace in this life—not the next. Religion, especially when fused with political power, has often manipulated humanity with the promise of heaven and the terror of hell. Epicurus exposed this manipulation for what it was: a tool of control that exploits ignorance and fear.
My philosophy, exactly. It has inherent wisdom. Wisdom brings peace. This is all we have; Heaven and Hell are both here. Choose whichever one you like.
ReplyDeleteAnon, the Christadelphians deny both the existence of hell, and the existence of heaven. They chose instead to invent "the kingdom", as a place that they will inhabit, after death, ruling over the rest of us, or whatever still exists of the rest of us (and after living on their index linked pensions, enjoying luxury cruises, Disneyland holidays, luxury cars, etc, etc,). Busying themselves with hymn singing, animal sacrifices, smoke, etc (as Mancott once described it, I think, as an "eternal fraternal").
DeletePretty much any philosophy is an acceptable alternative.
Yes, I did, when thinking with horror of eternal life in the Kingdom, think of it as an eternal fraternal. There was a time when I enjoyed "Frats", it was a time to meet friends from different areas of the English midlands, though the content of the unconnected content in rambling addresses often left me wondering what on earth the brother was going on about. Even living eternally unconnected with any religious aspect (though "eternal" is something I find impossible to understand - like looking at the sky and wondering what is beyond the beyond), would not be, for me, something to look forward to. I do wonder how many Christadelphians have really contemplated eternal life. I think it`s attraction is more to do with the unpleasant thought of dying.
DeleteThey don't deny the existence of Heaven. They believe you don't go there when you die.
ReplyDeleteThat seems like splitting hairs to me. They deny the common / conventional / orthodox interpretation (call it what you will) of both heaven and hell viz. heaven as a place of eternal reward, and hell as a place of eternal punishment.
DeleteI never really thought about it as a believer, but given at the end of the Revelation the Holy City comes out of heaven to Earth and God is said to dwell among them, maybe Heaven is shut up and left empty? It's certainly no longer the dwelling of God as it has been in the rest of the Bible, right?
The Polytheistic Origins of Yahweh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9q_b9UvfBY&list=TLPQMjQwNjIwMjW6TZ3L9n-XZQ&index=4&ab_channel=Stephan%27sHistoryoftheWorld
ReplyDeleteIt would appear from the researches of various Israeli Archaeologist`s (and others) that the ancient Israelites did not enter the "Promised" land by taking it by force, but entered Canaan and settled peacefully, no doubt with some integration over time, even if they mainly kept their separate identity as a group. It would appear also that this is where they were influenced by the proximity of those who worshipped the various Canaanite deities, such as El, Baal and others, though Yahweh would seem to have originated from Edom and the Midianites.
DeleteCertainly, the Israelites throughout most of their history up until the time after their (Judah and the Benjamite remnant) return from Babylonian captivity, were polytheistic worshippers, including Yahweh, with shrines erected throughout the land in the names of various deities.
It is clear from the many warnings given by Priests throughout ancient Israel`s history, to shun "idol" worship on pain of "God`s" punishment, that polytheistic worship was rife all the time.
You mention three areas of Christian thought/sentiment evolving over time:
ReplyDeleteThe importance of special creation by a divine creator, preferably with a young Earth.
The sinfulness of LGBT relationships.
The dangers of women speaking or having leadership roles.
I am curious, since I started out as a Methodist, and in my childhood they all held traditional positions on these issues, which most of them would now regard as regressive positions in current times. They now find some notions of evolution and an "old" earth compatible with Methodism. They have decriminalized LGBT relationships (two-thirds of their churches have done so; another third broke away to hold fast to traditional bigotry). And women now fill every role in that same two-thirds segment of Methodism.
Will CDism in time do likewise? In some alcoves and crannies, it is gradually happening. The progress, however, is painfully slow. Will it all eventually make headway? I wouldn't count on it.
But, again, what I would like to ask is: Do we expect the thaw to continue substantively? (I'm personally not holding my breath.) And what other areas of thought and practice and worldview do we think may also hopefully experience modification and revision, in CDism, but also in Christianity as a whole?
Your thoughts, author? (By the way, this is a brilliant piece of writing.)
I'm not very closely connected with Christadelphia any more. I hear some from family members, who would I think be in the mainstream in Christadelphia, and I've heard some from other ex-Christadelphians who quit after me, but I really don't know a lot about the more liberal strands of Christadelphia and how far they stretch.
DeleteHaving said that, my take is that Christadelphia is both reactionary enough and small enough that I don't think societal pressure will make them change. (Actually, society disapproving of their teaching can just confirm they're on the right track). Those pushing for reconsidering some or all of the points I mentioned strike me as a fringe group within a fringe group. They may show a lot of commitment to it, but it's hard work, they get vilified for it, and I'm not sure how much it achieves. Some in time end up leaving for a more liberal denomination or leaving Christianity altogether. And that is my guess - the liberal part of the denomination remains small because many of those who might want to reform it after a while leave it.
Happy to be proven wrong, though.
George, I wonder what form this Methodist LGBT bigotry took? Like Jon, I am no longer involved with the Christadelphians, and all I directly hear about them is through my adult children, who also are not involved with them, but do happen to be related to some. In my time in the Christadelphians, and since, I have never heard of a single instance of them stoning a sodomite to death, perhaps it was different in the Methodists. I do know that in the Anglican Church, a lot of older ministers, and lay people, were not keen on openly approving of the lifestyle, but nonetheless tolerated it. In more recent years, the obligation placed upon ministers to bless such same sex unions, has lost the church a good few ministers, and lay members.
Delete