What is paradosis? | bloghome | paradosis website | contact

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

[The Creation of the Chicken]

An unworthy Deacon, named for the brother of God: James, striving to "work out his salvation with fear and trembling" within the Tradition (paradosis) of the Eastern Orthodox Faith. It is a strange and marvelous journey, and I am accompanied by the fourfold fruit of my fecundity. My wife, the Matushka or Diaconissa Sophia, is my beloved partner in the pursuit of Theosis, and she ranks me in every way.
[Consider Supporting]
[Our Farm]
[The Past]
05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002
06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002
07/01/2002 - 08/01/2002
08/01/2002 - 09/01/2002
09/01/2002 - 10/01/2002
10/01/2002 - 11/01/2002
11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002
12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003
01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003
02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003
03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003
04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003
05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003
07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003
09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008
11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009
01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009
02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009
03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009
04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009
05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009
06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009
07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009
08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009
09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009
10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009
11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009
12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010
01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010
02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010
03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010
04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010
05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010
08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010
09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010
10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010
03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011
04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011
05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011
06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011
10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011
11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011
12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012
02/01/2012 - 03/01/2012
03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012
04/01/2012 - 05/01/2012
05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012
06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012
08/01/2012 - 09/01/2012
02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013
04/01/2013 - 05/01/2013
07/01/2013 - 08/01/2013
11/01/2013 - 12/01/2013
02/01/2014 - 03/01/2014
03/01/2014 - 04/01/2014
07/01/2014 - 08/01/2014
[Orthodox America]
Antiochian Archdiocese
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Orthodox Church in America
Serbian Orthodox Church in America
Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church in America
Holy Myrrhbearers
Saint John
Saint Theodore
New Skete
Saint Herman
Saint Anthony, AZ
Balamand Monastery
Zoe for Life
In Communion
[orthodox bloggers]
Notes from a Hillside Farm
Bishop Seraphim
This is Life
Fly in the Holy Oil
The Violent Munkee
The Blue Canopy
Sophia Says
Notes from a common place book
Pithless Thoughts
[I am a Rusyn]
[Where in the World?]
Locations of visitors to this page

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Primary Needs

It inevitably happens. Atheists will look at the current crisis in the Middle East and see in it an apologetic for their atheism...another, in a long list, of reasons why religion is bad. In THIS editorial, the author begins with the assumption that "religion is not a primary need."

Naturally, I am going to spout off...as a former atheist who would have jumped onto this same bandwagon, I am obliged (sorta) to explain why the author is full of fecal material.

The author is proceeding from a very narrow darwinistic worldview, as such he ought to no better than to "worry" about humans killing each other. His worldview should expect as such, as surely as a chimpanzee might kill another chimpanzee for ____________ (fill in the motive, make sure to include "food" as an option.)

Killing one aother over religious issues has not - as of yet - inhibited mankind's ongoing survival. Rather it seems we've done just fine in being "fruitfull and multiplying" despite what the author feels is our need to kill one another over religion. I see no reason to expect further religious fighting to bring us to extinction, but even if it does...hey, that's darwinism in action, get used to it.

Also, I'm not entirely sure that "recreation" qualifies as a "primary need" along with air, food, and water....but I digress.

One day, when I have more time than I do now, I will sit down and do the math. As this author tries to imply with this line: "But we kill each other over religion. By the millions we kill each other." But how about some real stats? Do we really know how many people have been killed over religion? How many people have been killed for Atheism? Didn't Stalin and his state of official atheism kill some 30 million people? Hmmm...I gonna go out on a limb and guess that religion doesn't have a corner on killing millions.

"We plot nuclear war and plan the use of other weapons of mass destruction to assert such 'truths.'" Hmmm...I've never seen a nuke used as a sort of bathroom tract, but maybe the author has experienced something different than me? I know, personally, of no Christians plotting a nuclear war to assert the truths of Jesus Christ.

A couple of more specific points: What is happening now in the Middle East is about far more that religion, if the author thinks otherwise then the author is a dunderhead. A second point, while all people may be created equally, the same cannot and MUST NOT be said of religions. Furthermore, if religion were to vanish tomorrow, does the author really believe that humans would see a radical decline in the number of wars and murders? Has the author ever considered times when religion has actually stayed the hand of war? Given pause to the mind of a potential murderer? What in atheism would lead me to concern myself with killing, anymore than a chimpanzee would be concerned with eating a rival clans baby chimpanzees? As far as I know, the animal world can be a very violent and brutal place with not a lick of religion to be found.

...offered by Dn. James Ferrenberg, a sinner at 8:43 AM [+]


The claims that more people have died because of religion in the past century always rely on numbers that include the Jews killed by Hitler and the Christians killed by Stalin. I guess the logic goes like, "If they weren't Jews, Hitler wouldn't have killed them. Therefore, religion is responsible for their deaths."

"Look what you made me do!" is the reasoning of wife-beaters, and has no place in an honest debate. But, here it is.

By Blogger Paige, at 11:15 AM  


'The First Scientific Proof of God' (my new book) says that secularism and atheism will degenerate The scientific proof of God also shows that Science and Religion have always been one but never detected. Beyond the book on these points, see http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/.

You argue that religion and atheism have caused more unnatural deaths than other factors. You make sense because man's evil behaviors originate in the human mind. This evilness originates from the mind of man through the many different symbolic languages that nations have developed as highly irrational national languages.

When I retired from crime research with the US Department of justice, I speculated that the cause of man's evilness has a root cause. It just took me a few years to find this fundamental cause. This causality is also found in my new book.

By Blogger George Shollenberger, at 2:23 PM  


Religion has only lately been the driving factor behind violence in the Middle East: nationalism, fascism, tribalism, and other rather mundane -isms were the driving forces. There was a time when Palestinians venerated Marx far more than Mohammed; Che over Ali.

And out of all the violence in the twentieth century, very little of it can be tied to explicitly or even mostly religious motivations (unless we want to make things like Maoism and Marxism fall under the religious category). The rise of religiously motivated violence has developed out of nationalist-driven violence- granted, often salted with some religious sentiments and often deriving from religious divisions- ie the Pakistani/Indian conflict before jihadist groups developed and began blowing up people, and eventually usurping the more nationalistic terrorists. Another case in point would be the conflict in Northern Ireland, in which religion was a major factor (more so than many other places) yet was subsumed in a much more ethnic/nationalist conflict.

Even today much radicalism, whether it be Islamic or Hindu or whatever, even while much more religious in nature than through much of the last century, is still tied to nationalism or ethnic identities.

But attacking religion as the root of all evil is terribly convenient, for both leftists and (some) rightists: it distracts from the reality in which quite godless (often proudly so!) ideologies of both left (mostly) and right cheerily slaughtered untold millions in the last century, with little or no religious contamination.

By Blogger Jonathan, at 5:33 PM  


This unfortunate columnist is living proof that no one should be allowed to pass the 7th grade without a demonstrated command of basic logic. And I do mean basic: just Aristotelian Square-of-Opposition stuff, what makes a syllogism valid or invalid --- you know, kid stuff, or what used to be, before education was redefined as social conditioning. If this twit were a student of mine, I'd rap him up-side the head and make him write 1000 times on the chalkboard, "I will not take money for committing every informal fallacy in the book, and camouflage it as intellectual discourse."

At bottom, any atheist who actually bothers to show some kind of warrant for his position already falsifies that position. This is because, wittingly or unwittingly, a thoroughgoing atheist is committed to some form of materialistic monism or, what is very similar, philosophic naturalism. That is, the physical is the Whole Show. Fine: If you believe that, then you should just shut up about it, because every defense or attempted rational demonstration of your conviction is trans-natural, presupposing all kinds of things such as meaning, coherent symbolic systems, and beings who can connect with each other's MINDS, as distinguished from that squishy thing inside our skulls --- you know: Personhood. In short, atheists should only be seen. If they are heard "giving reasons," then someone should ask them why that random collocation of atoms known as speech or writing has any more authority than anything else.

But let's assume, just for laughs, that this hack thinks that logic is important. In that manifestly unlikely event, he should define his terms before using them for predication. What is survival, and why is it important? If it's just about eating, sleeping, defecating, and reproducing in a non-personal, dead-end reality, then one could argue that nationalism, religionism, and all other -isms, when put into practice, are just evolved ways of marking one's territory (like peeing on your own lawn) so that the aforementioned biological functions have sufficient space in which to occur. "Isms," then, are necessary for survival, so what's the problem? Why would he make value judgements about what is mere necessity? Obviously, Evolution, in its infinite wisdom, has decided not to weed out this obstinate tendency toward worship, sacrifice, loyalty, duty, martyrdom, etc. Who is he to question Infinite Wisdom?

And oh yes, James, including recreation on the list of Necessities is just plain comical. Can everyone say faux pas?

But then, so far from seeing the actual state of affairs (religion, nationalism, and so on, as virtually universal realities) as the latest and greatest manifestation of Evolution, he now wants us to understand that these are impediments to Evolution. Again referring back to bloody obvious logic, two questions should immediately occur: 1. How did such manifestly non-physical features evolve in the first place, on materialist or philosophical naturalist presuppositions? 2. After he's answered Question 1. (yeah, that'll happen), I'd like to hear him explain why the Infinite Wisdom of Impersonal Matter chose to allow the evolution of its own obstacle.

Must just be Mystery.

By Blogger Patrick, at 2:05 PM  


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?