Every religion holds some form of belief system that explains what is pure and impure, clean and unclean.

Christianity enumerates the unclean quite explicitly in Leviticus. Subsequent sects have added onto this ideology through their own respective dogma and teachings. For example, until recently, the Catholic religion had a prohibition on eating meat on Fridays (this has been "levied" in the past twenty or so years). The Mormon religion requires its members to abstain from coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, and too much meat (except in the winter).

The Orthodox Jewish religion considers it vastly impure for one of its members to eat anything from a pig (again, reference to Leviticus as to physical reasons why).

Hinduism holds cows to be of sacred, or divine nature, therefore eating a cow would be considered the most grievous sin.

It could be said, in religions' behalf, that not eating or eating certain things sets the members apart from others. That these people that consume fruits and vegetables in the name of their religion are doing this to be edified within their belief system. Yet, it could also be said that this is another way for people to feel that they are somehow superior to others. Or that they are clean, while others that do not adhere to the same ideology are unclean. So what?

This has a personal significance. About a little over fifteen years ago, I moved to a different state (not Utah). There I met and became friends with several people (naturally) as did my brothers and whatnot. We attended high school together, hung out nearly every day, then we went our separate ways for a couple years. We'll say three years passed where we did not see these friends, then we (my brother and I) moved up to Utah. Some of our friends eventually did so as well. Five more years passed, we hung out constantly and did many things together. We attended the same events, etc. At any rate, I gradually became disillusioned with the religious aspect of my life, thus I stopped attending those events. Yet, my brother and my friends continued to attend. They were never nearly as religious as I was (and that could be one significant factor as to my disillusionment and their steadfastness). At any rate, eventually I told them of my resolve to remove myself from church life. Though understandably difficult for my brother to accept, he ultimately did. I waited to tell one friend because I knew that, during a lot of the times I was with him (and had these feelings of disillusionment), he would put down people that did not believe like 'us'. I knew the outcome, but hesitated to have it realized. He was a very good friend of mine as well, but I felt necessary to come out with this information in case he found out otherwise and considered it deceptive of me to withhold the information. Suffice to say, I told him and his outcome was as predicted. Gradually, over the past six months he has grown exponentially more cold and apathetic to our friendship. At first, I thought it was perhaps I was somehow a threat to his beliefs (and I haven't ruled this out), but then I realize also now that I'm somehow unclean or impure to him. So, rather than risk being tainted by my manner of life, he chooses to abstain from me completely.

Can we really blame him? Or, more importantly, why is this distinction between pure and impure, clean and unclean necessary in religious beliefs? Every time a religious person abstains from certain foods or drinks that their religion prohibits, this person has reinforced their personal belief system with regards to that religion. The abstention from the foods and drinks acts as wayside markers that point to continued adherence to the religious teachings. Choosing not to associate with 'unclean' others is another way that these people set themselves apart from others. Though religious people may say, "Whatever you believe is cool with me" most cannot stop there. They must also add, "But it's wrong. My way is the best."

The religious person that finds it difficult to accept those based on their personal belief system is the weak individual. That person that cannot accept difference feels threatened by the anomalous non-believer. Clean and unclean. According to the Mosaic Law, anything with a blemish was looked down upon. Animals with blemishes could not be sacrificed unto the Lord because these particular animals were not an acceptable gift to the Lord. Also, people with blemishes could not officiate as priests before the Lord. Conformity of the highest magnitude was enforced. Distinctions were made. Divisions were assigned. Pure and impure. Menstruating women were considered unclean, as were those that touched them (be they husband or relatives). Any kind of physical deformity was similarly not accepted. I can't help but wonder if the word 'ostracize' has Christian origins. This O.T. God is not one that is '<i>no respecter of persons</i>', he clearly sets out who is clean and who is unclean.

But times change. Or do they? When Christianity lost its main dominance over others' lives, they had to format their religion to fit those under whom they were ruled. Christianity gave up most of its traditions with abstaining from food, since they were introduced to many different lands and cultures where such food was accepted and expected to consume. Thus, Christianity, instead, turned to other things which could be classified as clean and unclean. An individual's personality and tendencies was the natural direction. Don't separate according to what they eat or don't eat necessarily, but according to how they believe or don't believe.

Think about women? Impure. Think about God? Pure. Think about alcohol? Unclean. Think about the blood of Christ which was shed for you? Clean.

Those that believe are pure, while those that don't are pollution.

As Christianity begins to be phased out in the future, those with the tenacious grasp on their beliefs will hold <b>very</b> close to their hearts the idea that they are still <b>pure</b>, while those bloody infidels are <b>impure</b>. God, ever the divider of households and families, will surely not let these pure people down, will he? That would be polluting the word of God.

I'm really having trouble finding anything to say. Aside from the personal differences in perception, which are inconsequential, imho, to the issues at hand ... I can't find anything to add.

But I wanted to comment on the formal purity with a slight but relevant digression.

* http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=2553

I posted here an old Sufi tale entitled Why the Clay Birds Flew Away. The tale deals with the reasons for doing things, including the note, "The reason for doing no work on [the Sabbath] had been forgotten."

I think dietary purity law might actually have a pseudoscientific background. Pig remains are exceptionally subject to various diseases which humans can contract, including cholera, and improperly cooked pork can foster nasty bacterial infections. Yet we see that the Hebrew tribes had not the microscopes or photographic plates to distribute information about bacteria and illness. The unexplained connection 'twixt pork and ill health could then result in the superstition that God does not want you to eat pork.

This, we might admit, is a perfectly acceptable argument; whether it is the right scenario or not is presently beyond me. But we see here the outdating--perhaps--of religious ideas as human culture solidified over time, and the dangers of pork were reduced.

Yet the reason for not eating pork had been forgotten. That is, with the luxury of comparison and the human competitive aspect, we see adherence to cult and creed becoming a demonstrative externalized desire instead of a concrete inner spirituality. Thus, as the traditions are corrupted (for no data transfer in the human network is entirely secure) and compressed (by the time a parent teaches a child everything that parent knows, both will be in the grave) until superstition runs amok, and people blame each others failures to demonstrate publicly their devotion to God. Here we even see a degree of presumption: if we look at Christ, did he not criticize the hypocrite who stands on the corner proclaiming his faith loudly for all to hear and know? As people turned on one another, seeking devils among their own congregations, they looked for demonstrations of faith. (In the beginning, formal ritual adherence was enough to acquit a noble accused of witchcraft during the Inquisitions.) Yet the presumption here is that we're all supposed to be hypocrites, proclaiming our faith ... this is why prohibitions against pork or other foods seem so strange. Archaic prohibitions, they only justify themselves by superstition. Purity is assumed as a comparative because latter generations do not understand what purity standards are for. Thus, instead of protecting yourself, and consequently the tribe, from cholera or a number of other diseases, the prohibitions against foods has become a ritual comparison by which people accuse each other in a devilish manner. There were prohibitions against eating rabbit; what's funny there is that an early Christian apologist (To Diognetus, I believe, but must check my source) compares eating rabbits to sodomizing a child because the rabbit will grow several anuses during its life, or some such which I have never cared enough about rabbits to learn. What kills me most is that the purity isn't the issue, it's the sodomy, and rabbits. I really must find that epistle; it's amazing and almost Nietzchean.

And this idea transcends dietary laws: The faithful have, by and large, forgotten the reasons for faith. Consider that simple idea, for after all, when did Christianity start being about deliberately earning salvation, and shite to the rest of the world?

But it's a digression. I swear it is.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by tiassa:</i>
I think dietary purity law might actually have a pseudoscientific background.
<hr>
</blockquote>

I remember in another thread (can't recall specifically which one, but it was rather recent) in which you said something to the effect that religions seemed to be a sort of pre-science. What you said in the above quote seems to ring true as well. Since religion, specifically Christianity, seems to be concerned with generalizations (as in the statement, "I believe in God, therefore God must exist"), it would make sense that certain animals would be discriminated against due to their risk-potential to humans. As you mentioned, pigs are quite filthy animals and do contain diseases which are easily transmissible to humans (so do some birds, I think), so it would make sense to the early God-fearing people to generalize that <b>all</b> animals with two toes are something to be avoided. If people became consistently ill after ingesting pig, then surely that was God's way of saying, "Hey pal, lay off the pig."

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
That is, with the luxury of comparison and the human competitive aspect, we see adherence to cult and creed becoming a demonstrative externalized desire instead of a concrete inner spirituality.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Couldn't agree with you more. Though forgive me if I try. It seems ironic to me that sometimes Christians will go through their church life with hardly any kind of desire into studying their religion or practicing what they preach <b><i>until</i></b> they are confronted with a former member who used to do that. Like the kid that hates his parents but challenges anyone to a fight when someone says that this kid's parents suck. Probably an extreme example. But, the religious start feeling really religious only when they are "confronted" by someone who was formerly religious. (I'm trying desperately to tie this into what you wrote, hang on!). Right. Instead of people focusing on their internal aspect of spirituality, people are instead focusing on external manifestations of just how religious they are. By turning a blind eye to themselves, they feel justified in denouncing others. "Well, even if I'm being rude to this guy, at least I know I'm still on the path of God, thus I'm sure I'm excused." People in religion have a difficult time developing inner spirituality because they don't know if that's okay to do. With so many rules to adhere to, some Christians neglect the self in favor of obeying a Mosaic Law in the hope that they will be saved. Inner spirituality is such an undiscovered country to them, they fear to send scouts into the area because those same scouts should be walking the beaten path of rules and obligations and duties. I think that's why most Christians seem so ingenuine--they're not used to empathy. And those that are used to empathy are few and far between (Mother Teresa comes to mind).

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>The faithful have, by and large, forgotten the reasons for faith</i>.
<hr>
</blockquote>

I remember reading that one of the original reasons for upholding the Sabbath (which you alluded to) was to mourn the days that the Israelities spent in captivity in Egypt. That and the fact that a vengeful and tyrannical God saw that it was just to murder every Egyptian first-born child because the Pharaoh refused Moses' commands. But that seems to be forgotten. Or, rather, it is purposely forgotten, because who wants to commemorate the total slaughter of infants (and others) by the God they worship? Christians are always wanting put aside historical events. "Hey, those things happened in the past, we're here now, can't we just move on." Of course, their idea of moving on is one of two things: pretending it didn't happen or convincing others that it was a "different time, thus different measures" ideology. "Yeah, we know we said God doesn't change, but apparently he does." So, rather than learn about their own history (especially the origins behind some of their religious practices and doctrines), Christians opt for a consigned existence. "I do this because others before me did it. It is not a question of right and wrong, I just don't want to check."

A professor asked our predominantly Christian class if anyone had performed a baptism in the past. He then asked a guy, who volunteered, to describe what he was doing. He asked him why he put his hands in those exact locations. Why did he say those words and then do that act? Why was he wearing those clothes? Why white instead of green? The guy did pretty good in describing what he was doing, but as far as the technicalities of the act, he was at a loss and resorted to what so many Christians can only respond with, "Because that's how they showed me." Or, the ubiquitous rejoinder, "I don't know, and I don't have to know." Inept attempt at absolving responsibility.

Well, not entirely sure if this added to anything. But I liked the way you took the thread.

thanks,

prag

Prag ....

I remember in another thread (can't recall specifically which one, but it was rather recent) in which you said something to the effect that religions seemed to be a sort of pre-science. The other part I'll throw in to support pre-science/pseudoscience is that if you look through the OT, you'll find a number of laws which may seem odd in the modern day, but which have reasonable principles of prevention which might be involved.

* Dietary law
* No tattoos
* Do not whip or scourge yourself in mourning
* Anyone who touches a corpse is unclean for a given period
* Anyone who handles human waste is unclean for a given period
* Biological processes, including defecation and menstruation, create a period of uncleanliness
* No anal sex (this has another practical purpose, associated as well with the "wasted" seed of masturbation: future generations; the tribe was, after all, reduced and lost in the desert)

The Bible makes a good deal of sense if taken anything short of literally. Varying degrees of interpretation, subjectivity, mythos, and allegory layer in the confusion, we admit, but it seems that many people who are outside the faith bear a better practical understanding of the Bible than their Christian counterparts. The result of this is that a lot of people won't convert, and many for the same reason I do: what they perceive in the Bible is wholly removed from what they perceive in its religion.

Think about the above list of prohibitions: if I applied these to my life the way one might apply vegetarianism for health, and not presumed moral reasons, we have several points to a healthy prescription for life. However, as long as people ignore the variations of human psychology from individual to individual, and press such "laws" as moral tools, the effect will be wasted. People, given the chance, often exhaust themselves of the things which trouble them, and settle in with those things that aid them. To wit: no amount of living disaster which I've caused under the influence of alcohol has compelled me to stop drinking. Hangovers, a bit of social embarrassment, and a recent change in my ability to be charming while loaded have compelled me to reduce the amount of alcohol I consume. However, nobody worried about me being an "alcoholic" will have a chance to "save" me. Why? Because I grew up in the interventionist 80's, and my psychology regarding substance has come up along a moral/political line, whereby I recall a period--as noted before, somewhere--that a man would be afraid to stop for a drink after work for fear that his family would commit him to a rehab clinic. I don't respect the moral causes against alcohol, as I'm sick of them from sheer excess. The practical considerations of what I do to my body mean more to me than any threat from God or his agents. The practical considerations of what I do to my body mean more to God than my response to his threats through agents. Why? Because then I'm coming to knowledge of my own volition, and grasping after the wisdom of that knowledge; if I bow to God, I am merely playing for his favor. Then again, as far as I can tell, name recognition seems to be quite important to that God, as is blind, uninspired obedience.It seems ironic to me that sometimes Christians will go through their church life with hardly any kind of desire into studying their religion or practicing what they preach until they are confronted with a former member who used to do that. So, yes, if I apply such prohibitions as a result of my own wisdom, then yes, Christianity has provided me with a reasonable template for living; if I apply such prohibitions as a result of my inner fear of an invisible being I don't really know is there, then I probably need antipsychotic medication.Ironic, sad, pathetic. The dumbest thing of all is that when I see a Christian refusing to step outside the prescribed faith template, it usually has to do with a fear of questioning God's authority. This equates, definitely loosely, and probably on a tighter comparison, to a battered woman staying by the side of her assailant.

What I recall most moving from church to church as a youth is that everywhere I went, study and exploration of the Bible amounted merely to recitation of doctrine and affirmation of what you are told you must believe. At no point has my experience among Christians been characterized by a proactive empowerment of the individual to choose faith. This is quite obviously because few would choose to do so once empowered.I think that's why most Christians seem so ingenuine--they're not used to empathy. And I simply don't understand this when I see it. I mean, they have the Gospel of reconciliation and compassion, yet we find these two elements of the human adventure relegated to the museum of faith, locked in little glass cases because they're too dangerous to entrust to people. I've noticed that Christians have great sympathy toward one another; certes one understands another's temptation, and fear of punishment, for seeing accidentally up a woman's skirt on a city bus. But ask one with that sympathy to empathize to another perspective--that there is nothing about this accident to feel guilty or fearful for, and suddenly it's a matter of God's obedience, and that those who never really look around at the state of their fellow human beings suddenly know all there is to know about what you, the individual think. It wouldn't be so disturbing if A) they didn't always miss, and B) those misses didn't turn into collateral casualties. The empowerment of God somehow reduces one's obligations to fellow human beings, and I don't get it. But the Bible's a potent tool: as I understand it, it can scare teenagers out of getting laid. Too bad it has massive, detrimental side effects, or it would be an excellent prescription. But no salvation is worth that kind of damage and indignity.

I love meaningless abstracts, though. Ask a Christian about Heaven. If they're smart, they'll back off the heavenly reward and try not to describe it. If not, they'll most often give you one of the dumbest responses you'll ever hear. A quick sampling of the spectrum: a Korean Baptist congregation (Tacoma, Washington) whose youth group believed that heaven would be a body-and-soul experience, where all the proper desires of life would be granted, to the point that "all you have to do is think about pizza, and it's like you can taste it." (Huh? Seemed pretty thin at the time, too.) I also recall the idea (taught at my Catholic high school) that heaven was a place where the admitted host gathers together around the throne and eternally sings, "Holy, Holy, Holy" with overflowing joy. We now see why angels have no sex organs: pocket pool is prohibited by the Holy Most High.

Because, after all, if the people who told me these silly things bothered to learn about their God, their religion, and their faith, such issues as heaven and hell would be academic and irrelevant. Everyone would realize the questions to be puerile.

The haze does not seem to be coming from any pipe; I think it's smoke drifitng from my ears. You have me thinking ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Hey Prag and Tiassa, I would like to add a few comments of my own to this discussion.

Prag, I think if you asked your friends which sins they have not committed, I am sure they could not even mention one. It seems to me by what you have written that they might be self rightous. They should realize that their rightousness does not come from their own good deeds which to God are like filthy rags (our attempts at becoming self rightous), instead they should realize that their rightousness comes from faith alone so that noone may boast (ref. Ephesians ch.2).

To provide a bit of background on myself. I don't have that many Christians who are close friends. However, I don't think I have any friends who are atheist. Even though one third of the population of Australia are (theoretically I should now have two friends :) )

Prag, if I may ask, what was your reason for attending these events and also if you can answer what is your friends reason? I am just wondering if the reason is Christ centered or just because it makes you and/or your friends fell good, or just for some spiritual experience.

This reminds me of one of my friends who got converted last year to Christianity. He started studying intently, his whole look on life changed, he became a very different person, in a very short time.

Anyway, me and my big brother are friends with him and one night we were talking and then he said that he doesn't think he could be friends with anohter friend that we are friends with. I was shocked, and told him something like, I can't remember this exactly but I said something like "is it because you think your better than him". Then he said, something on the lines of "he's just different".

The friend he doesn't want to be friends with is an extremely nice person with good moral values. He comes from a Hindu background, but doesn't really believe in it, just as the one who was converted came from an Islamic background but didn't really believe in it either.

Anyway, we are all still friends now. But I couldn't believe what he had said. Its just pride I think. I'm not sure. The feeling that one is better than another. However, Christians are taught to put themselves below others. We should be a light for unbelievers, not a shadow. As Christ came to us so we should come to man. We are commisioned by God to do this, this is none other higher commission than that given by God.

I know that there are people who have never been to church in their lives and still act in a more decent manner than Christians. Some people go to church all of their lives and if you knew them you wouldn't even see it in their lives by how they live.

Christianity should make a difference in peoples lives. However, it shouldn't act as an excuse to hate everyone who isn't Christian. Some Christians, even hate those of another sect, just because of something like believing the Holy Spirit was given by the Father and the Son, instead of just from the Father (ie Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, just three words seperate them, this for some is a reason to hate :( )

I hope you find this scripture helpful.

1 Corinthians 13
1
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3
If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9
For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10
but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I must apologize for this extremely late response, Deadwood. Sorry :)

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
<i>Originally posted by Deadwood:</i>
Prag, I think if you asked your friends which sins they have not committed, I am sure they could not even mention one. It seems to me by what you have written that they might be self rightous.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Yeah, just recently I had a chat with my brother about this very subject and he agreed that my friend was putting on airs of self-righteousness. Found out that he's bitter about the fact that I'm bitter about my former beliefs. I <i>guess</i> that's understandable. But me being bitter about the beliefs shouldn't translate as me being bitter about my friend(s), you know. But he can't separate the two just yet.

<blockquote>
<font size="1">quote:</font>
<hr>
Prag, if I may ask, what was your reason for attending these events and also if you can answer what is your friends reason? I am just wondering if the reason is Christ centered or just because it makes you and/or your friends fell good, or just for some spiritual experience.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Hmm. By "events", do you mean religious events? My reason for attending church in the past was because I truly believed in it. I realize that life is a personal experience for most and it was so for me as well. I was not some fringe-member, nor was I a fanatic either. I was completely and totally <i><b>in</b></i> with my religious belief system. Though I've always managed to be fairly skeptical of certain things, I was not so with religion. <i>Until</i> things started going in different directions than what I felt / thought / expected. Does this negate God? Not to others, I'm sure. But that's all right. Because I'm living my life, not others'. So, I went because it was Christ-centered, and it was spiritual, and it did feel good. But I gradually discovered that other things were very spiritual, felt great, and did not have to be Christ-centered in order for them to occur. That and I started asking questions that people did not want to answer.

I'm sure most people read my threads and think I'm bitter at church and God and religions. They're right. I'd rather not be bitter, but injustice strikes me very deeply and I canNOT sit by and say nothing and allow injustice to breed unchallenged. Yeah, that prag is quite the weird one--seems so interested in spouting evils about goods and goods about evils. Even if it changes no one else's thinking, as long as at least someone says, "Yeah, I know how that feels," then I feel good about what I write. Some of it is rather venomous, though. Might have to tone that down eventually.

Hey, Deadwood, I understood your example about your big brother and you. That experience seems all too common, unfortunately. To be honest, I once behaved in that light (which is another reason I despise how I used to believe). I had a really good friend that came out to me (gay) and I reacted quite dishonourably at the time. However, I ended up apologizing profusely and feeling quite badly about the whole situation. I believe people can change and I believe I did. We're still friends (thankfully) and he's forbidden me from apologizing any more.

I think it just took me a bit to realize that friends don't exactly come easy, so it's best to at least try to maintain some sort of friendship, however tenuous.

So, call it Karma for me or whatever. But it's not really fun, though. Maybe he'll come to his senses in the future, but I kind of highly doubt that. In this city, being diverse and still being good is a hard concept to digest and incorporate into one's thinking. Not impossible, mind you, just hard I suppose.

But, hey, I'm rambling here! Thanks again for your response Deadwood.

prag