Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god

[Ethos]

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Officials at Nepal's state-run airline have sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the carrier said Tuesday.

Nepal Airlines, which has two Boeing aircraft, has had to suspend some services in recent weeks due the problem.

The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions, an official said.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-09-04T194107Z_01_EIC470860_RTRUKOC_0_US-NEPAL-AIRLINE-odd.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true

[Atticus]

Some sacrifice goats, others light candles. As long as they don't do it as a SUBSTITUTE for more vigilante maintenance, this is unremarkable.

[steveksux]

This is true, its no different than bowing heads and praying for a safe flight, just that the rituals are unfamiliar to us and seem strange.

Its just too bad the goats had to be the .... scapegoats in this scenario.

Should tie job performance and feedback into the mechanics evaluation/reward system.

For instance, I've always thought that Microsoft's quality control would improve drastically if they would execute fewer programs and more programmers. :lol:

Randy

[Ethos]

The act may be unremarkable, however I do find it a fascinating contrast - the arguably unsophisticated practice of animal sacrifice relating to a technologically advanced machine of air travel.

Ethos

[AgentM]

Meh, whatever floats your boat. Or flies your plane in this case. I'm not keen on the sacrificing animals bit, but in itself there's nothing wrong with this.

[Groucho]

Almost all religious practices and rituals look unusual if you're not used to them.

[Riddley]

The act may be unremarkable, however I do find it a fascinating contrast - the arguably unsophisticated practice of animal sacrifice relating to a technologically advanced machine of air travel.

Ethos

Yeah the supernatural element that is supposed to affect the decidely mechanistic workings of the plane is the interesting bit.
Just asking because I don't know: What do the gods get out of an animal sacrifice? Is it food or a demonstration of piety?

[Groucho]

Yeah the supernatural element that is supposed to affect the decidely mechanistic workings of the plane is the interesting bit.
Just asking because I don't know: What do the gods get out of an animal sacrifice? Is it food or a demonstration of piety?


You're not supposed to use the word "supernatural" on these boards.

[steveksux]

Its unfair to single out those who sacrifice goats.

I remember a local expose on the news back in the 90's. Church buses are exempt from standards required of the yellow school buses, even though they also transport kids to school (parochial schools, but schools nonetheless). Basically when the yellow buses no longer passed inspections and were too expensive to fix, they'd paint them blue and sell them to churches at a discount. The odd thing was the churches knew about the conditions, that wasn't the scandal they exposed. The scandal was the churches were using them without fixing the safety violations.

One bus had the steering gears almost stripped completely, they were slipping sometimes. Essentially if the bus was standing still, you could turn the steering wheel without turning the front wheels... :eek: Too much resistance against the ground from the tires. If you were rolling however, there was less resistance, and the steering wheel DID turn the front wheels. :eek: When questioned about it, the church spokesman said literally "Jesus wouldn't let anything happen to the children". :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm of the opinion that Jesus prefers you keep your vehicles in running order, so He doesn't have to intervene in normal day to day traffic to keep your bus from going out of control. I assume He feels the same about airplanes.

If my plan requires divine intervention to prevent someone from getting hurt, I need a better plan.

Call me old fashioned...

Randy

[Riddley]

You're not supposed to use the word "supernatural" on these boards.

Yeah, well so much of WS is supranatural at the moment that I thought no one would notice.

[Atticus]

You're not supposed to use the word "supernatural" on these boards.No one has objected to the word "supernatural."

[Atticus]

Its unfair to single out those who sacrifice goats.

I remember a local expose on the news back in the 90's. Church buses are exempt from standards required of the yellow school buses, even though they also transport kids to school (parochial schools, but schools nonetheless). Basically when the yellow buses no longer passed inspections and were too expensive to fix, they'd paint them blue and sell them to churches at a discount. The odd thing was the churches knew about the conditions, that wasn't the scandal they exposed. The scandal was the churches were using them without fixing the safety violations.

One bus had the steering gears almost stripped completely, they were slipping sometimes. Essentially if the bus was standing still, you could turn the steering wheel without turning the front wheels... :eek: Too much resistance against the ground from the tires. If you were rolling however, there was less resistance, and the steering wheel DID turn the front wheels. :eek: When questioned about it, the church spokesman said literally "Jesus wouldn't let anything happen to the children". :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm of the opinion that Jesus prefers you keep your vehicles in running order, so He doesn't have to intervene in normal day to day traffic to keep your bus from going out of control. I assume He feels the same about airplanes.

If my plan requires divine intervention to prevent someone from getting hurt, I need a better plan.

Call me old fashioned...

RandyDo you have a link for this? I mean, did you actually read it, or was it just a rumor?

[steveksux]

Do you have a link for this? I mean, did you actually read it, or was it just a rumor?
Doubt I can find a link, saw it on the local news more than a decade ago. Heck, decades ago. But I saw the report first hand, with my own eyes. The line about Jesus not letting the bus break down was so incredible to me that it literally seared the story into my brain. Perfect example of when faith and denial of science and natural laws is taken waaaay too far. I think it was in the Reagan era, the juxtaposition of that with the rise of the Moral Majority had me thinking at the time that the injection of religion in public life was going way too far, in very inappropriate ways at times like this, and had a potential to be horribly misused. For sure, religion often has a very beneficial effect, not disputing that at all, even if I disagree with religion on a factual basis. But when taken to extremes, in inappropriate ways, it can be harmful as well. And religious fanatics, even Christian ones, are a very scary bunch.

It was a basic shift, scary to me. Instead of taking care of business and then praying, putting chance into Gods hands, this magical thinking stuff was way beyond that. Requiring Gods intervention to circumvent the laws of physics to avoid catastrophe. Its the traditional religion taken to a whole other order of magnitude. And that was what I objected to, and God forbid this sort of thinking infect our policy makers. (See Iraq war II.... the occupation plan, paragraph 3 subsection "F" requires Jesus to perform a miracle to avoid civil war breaking out.... ;) )


Randy

[Atticus]

Yeah the supernatural element that is supposed to affect the decidely mechanistic workings of the plane is the interesting bit.
Just asking because I don't know: What do the gods get out of an animal sacrifice? Is it food or a demonstration of piety?Here is a decent link:sacrifice: Yajna.

1) Making offerings to a Deity as an expression of homage and devotion.

2) Giving up something, often one's own possession, advantage or preference, to serve a higher purpose.

The literal meaning of sacrifice is "to make sacred," implying an act of worship. It is the most common translation of the term yajna, from the verb yuj, "to worship." In Hinduism, all of life is a sacrifice - called jivayajna, a giving of oneself - through which comes true spiritual fulfillment. Tyaga, the power of detachment, is an essential quality of true sacrifice.

See: tyaga, yajna.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sacrifice/id/61903

So it's not about a deity's need for food (as supernaural beings, they are beyond such things). Rather, it's an expression of devotion, a recognition of a god's power and influence. That's a bit different from "piety," which we usually associate with right behavior.

[Groucho]

No one has objected to the word "supernatural."

Only when applied to Christian beliefs, then?

Sorry, I am just trying to figure out what I can say and not violate any rules again.

[Atticus]

Only when applied to Christian beliefs, then?

Sorry, I am just trying to figure out what I can say and not violate any rules again.No, and there's no confusion or vacillation about the rules. No one has objected to the word "supernatural" in relation to any religion. If you can find a thread where that happened, please point it out.

[steveksux]

No, and there's no confusion or vacillation about the rules. No one has objected to the word "supernatural" in relation to any religion. If you can find a thread where that happened, please point it out.
Correct, if I remember right, Groucho, the word you're thinking of is "superstitious"...

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

One man's goat is another man's candle. The plane is now working.....! Does Boeing know?

[Riddley]

So it's not about a deity's need for food (as supernaural beings, they are beyond such things)... Thanks for that. I could never see how it could be food.
Rather, it's an expression of devotion, a recognition of a god's power and influence.
The point being to say "You're so powerful we killed something so that you would be nice to us" ?

[Groucho]

Correct, if I remember right, Groucho, the word you're thinking of is "superstitious"...

Randy

Ah, you're right. Sorry for the confusion. :sorry:

[MikeD4o7]

Some sacrifice goats, others light candles. As long as they don't do it as a SUBSTITUTE for more vigilante maintenance, this is unremarkable.

and what about a comparable situation where it IS used as a substitute?

[Atticus]

and what about a comparable situation where it IS used as a substitute?I wouldn't want to fly on an airline that used prayer of any sort as its sole method of maintenance. Plus, international flying rules would not grant landing rights to such an airline.

[USViking]

Some sacrifice goats, others light candles. As long as they don't do it as a SUBSTITUTE for more vigilante maintenance, this is unremarkable.
What airlines light candles?

The Vatican doesn't have an airline, does it?

[Atticus]

What airlines light candles?

The Vatican doesn't have an airline, does it?But I'll bet there are some Catholic maintenance personnel, pilots, flight attendants and certainly passengers who light candles in hopes of a safe flight.

[USViking]

But I'll bet there are some Catholic maintenance personnel, pilots, flight attendants and certainly passengers who light candles in hopes of a safe flight.
At church or home maybe. To do so would on
terminal grounds would probably be a safety violation.

[steveksux]

But I'll bet there are some Catholic maintenance personnel, pilots, flight attendants and certainly passengers who light candles in hopes of a safe flight.I've also heard of others who light their shoes... ;)

Randy

[Atticus]

At church or home maybe. To do so would on
terminal grounds would probably be a safety violation.Does the location matter? I mean, what's your (original) point?

[steveksux]

Does the location matter? I mean, what's your (original) point?
I would think the terminal would be ok... not sure you can light something on a plane though.

Butane lighters were banned for a while, but I thought that was the butane, not to prevent open flames. I'd be more worried about the other passengers. If I see someone lighting a candle, it better not be a big enough candle that could be like a stick of dynamite disguised as a candle. I'm liable to jump them.

But I don't think there's any FAA regs about lighting candles in terminals... never heard of any anyway.

Randy

[USViking]

Does the location matter? I mean, what's your (original) point?
My point is that one is being conducted under
the auspices airline management while the other
is not being conducted under the auspices of
airline management.

[dittohead not!]

If "superstition" is verbotton, why not just add it to the curse filter?

Sacrificing goats to keep airliners safe is an anachronism. So is lighting candles. It they're going to sacrifice anything, maybe it should be any worn out parts that need to be replaced.

And, perhaps, igniting the engines to test them might be more effective than lighting candles.

But, then, if my computer gets a bug in it, sacrificing an insect could be quite effective.

[Cedars]

I'm of the opinion that Jesus prefers you keep your vehicles in running order, so He doesn't have to intervene in normal day to day traffic to keep your bus from going out of control. I assume He feels the same about airplanes.
I'm of the same opinion. :)

[Atticus]

If "superstition" is verbotton, why not just add it to the curse filter? To my knowledge, we cannot add or subtract words from the curse filter. It's not forbidden, but using it to describe someone else's ideas is inappropriate in the R & P forum (and in that forum only).

[dittohead not!]

To my knowledge, we cannot add or subtract words from the curse filter. It's not forbidden, but using it to describe someone else's ideas is inappropriate in the R & P forum (and in that forum only).

That's reasonable. No one wants to hear their cherished beliefs described as "superstition."

[Atticus]

My point is that one is being conducted under
the auspices airline management while the other
is not being conducted under the auspices of
airline management.Here's the thing--this was a state-run airline, owned by the government of Nepal. Nepal is not a secular democracy like India; it's an officially Hindu nation--it's government is Hindu in the way that Saudi Arabia's government is Islamic. For example, just as it is illegal to proselytize for a religion other than Islam in SA, it's illegal to preach a religion other than Hinduism in Nepal.

As such, the use of Hindu rituals in official practice by the state's official airline seems appropriate.

[Atticus]

Sacrificing goats to keep airliners safe is an anachronism.Since it happened this year, it appears "anachronism" is an inaccurate term. It seems odd to you, but then, you don't live in Asia. It seems, perhaps that space rather than time is the displacement you're looking for.

[dittohead not!]

Since it happened this year, it appears "anachronism" is an inaccurate term. It seems odd to you, but then, you don't live in Asia. It seems, perhaps that space rather than time is the displacement you're looking for.

Perhaps, but most people think of animal sacrifices as a practice dating to Old Testament times, long before any humans even thought about flying.

[Cedars]

If "superstition" is verbotton, why not just add it to the curse filter?

Sacrificing goats to keep airliners safe is an anachronism. So is lighting candles. It they're going to sacrifice anything, maybe it should be any worn out parts that need to be replaced.

And, perhaps, igniting the engines to test them might be more effective than lighting candles.

But, then, if my computer gets a bug in it, sacrificing an insect could be quite effective.
Candles are not a superstition. Catholics do not expect circumstances to change by magic or chance simply because a candle is lit. A candle is a symbol of the light of God. Light signifies joy, optimism, goodness, purity, beauty, festiveness, dignity and life. It is opposed to darkness, which signifies sadness, gloom, desolation, death, ignorance, error, and evil in general. Christians also find in light the symbol of truth, faith, wisdom, virtue, grace, divine life, charity, ardor of prayer, sacred presence and the beatific vision. Christ had declared, "I am the light of the world" (John 9:5), and the candle’s light came to be the symbol for his presence.

Candles are no more a superstition than the tribute of a 21-gun salute. The widespread use of light in worship reflects a truly human appreciation for the appropriateness of the symbol.

[Atticus]

Perhaps, but most people think of animal sacrifices as a practice dating to Old Testament times, long before any humans even thought about flying.Most Westerners, you mean. Even referencing the Old Testament for comparison is an ethnocentric move. Christians (or their secular descendants) don't get to define the whole world.

[dittohead not!]

Candles are not a superstition. Catholics do not expect circumstances to change by magic or chance simply because a candle is lit. A candle is a symbol of the light of God. Light signifies joy, optimism, goodness, purity, beauty, festiveness, dignity and life. It is opposed to darkness, which signifies sadness, gloom, desolation, death, ignorance, error, and evil in general. Christians also find in light the symbol of truth, faith, wisdom, virtue, grace, divine life, charity, ardor of prayer, sacred presence and the beatific vision. Christ had declared, "I am the light of the world" (John 9:5), and the candle’s light came to be the symbol for his presence.

Candles are no more a superstition than the tribute of a 21-gun salute. The widespread use of light in worship reflects a truly human appreciation for the appropriateness of the symbol.

I didn't mean to imply that lighting candles was superstition.:sorry:

I wonder what symbolism is attached to sacrificing goats? It seems barbaric and backward to us, but maybe Atticus has a point: It is no different to the Hindus than lighting candles is to the Catholics, just a symbolic act.

[Cedars]

I didn't mean to imply that lighting candles was superstition.:sorry:

I wonder what symbolism is attached to sacrificing goats? It seems barbaric and backward to us, but maybe Atticus has a point: It is no different to the Hindus than lighting candles is to the Catholics, just a symbolic act.
Thanks, but I was not offended. I did think that clarification of a candle as a symbol and not a superstition was in order, though.

[Atticus]

I wonder what symbolism is attached to sacrificing goats?Goats are an ancient and venerable sign of wealth (as are lambs). Voluntarily giving up ("sacrificing") part of one's wealth as a gift to a god demonstrates a veneration of that god. Hindus place offerings of food on temple altars all the time. A goat is a particularly large and significant offering, suitable to an entity of considerable means.

In ancient Greece, a king (like Odysseus) was obliged to make a hectatomb (offering of one hundred animals--in a 10 x 10 square) when seriously seeking the favor of the Gods. Agamemnon didn't--and you know what happened to him..... :eek:

[dittohead not!]

Goats are an ancient and venerable sign of wealth (as are lambs). Voluntarily giving up ("sacrificing") part of one's wealth as a gift to a god demonstrates a veneration of that god. Hindus place offerings of food on temple altars all the time. A goat is a particularly large and significant offering, suitable to an entity of considerable means.

In ancient Greece, a king (like Odysseus) was obliged to make a hectatomb (offering of one hundred animals--in a 10 x 10 square) when seriously seeking the favor of the Gods. Agamemnon didn't--and you know what happened to him..... :eek:

Isn't that where the symbolism described by Cedars differs from the animal sacrifices you're describing? Do the Catholics actually think that God will get them somehow if they don't light candles, or is it merely a symbol of "joy, optimism, goodness, purity, beauty, festiveness, dignity and life"?

[Cedars]

Isn't that where the symbolism described by Cedars differs from the animal sacrifices you're describing? Do the Catholics actually think that God will get them somehow if they don't light candles, or is it merely a symbol of "joy, optimism, goodness, purity, beauty, festiveness, dignity and life"?
No, Catholics do not think that God will get us if we do not light candles. I suspect, though, that your question to Atticus is really asking if the Hindu sacrifice of a goat is a symbol, like the candle in Catholic services is. (I personally do not know and cannot speak for the Hindu practices).

[Atticus]

No, Catholics do not think that God will get us if we do not light candles. I suspect, though, that your question to Atticus is really asking if the Hindu sacrifice of a goat is a symbol, like the candle in Catholic services is. (I personally do not know and cannot speak for the Hindu practices).Right. And my point is that it is a symbol, but it has its roots in the idea of giving freely some part of your worldly goods. The point isn't that "God's going to get you for that, Walter." But worship without sacrifice is often meaningless--think Lent, fasting, tithing, Zakat (alms in Islam), or the "widow's mite."

[Dangerrmouse]

If he's not going to get you, why the need for appeasement?

[Cedars]

If he's not going to get you, why the need for appeasement?

For the same reason you would appease your spouse or child or mother or father, because you love them.

[Dangerrmouse]

For the same reason you would appease your spouse or child or mother or father, because you love them.

I can't remember having to appease any of the above, but then my family never put me in a position where I was forced to accede to their belligerent demands.

[dittohead not!]

Is the act of lighting candles or sacrificing goats really for god, or is it done for the lighter or the sacrificer? Who really needs religious rituals?

Why does god care?

[Atticus]

Is the act of lighting candles or sacrificing goats really for god, or is it done for the lighter or the sacrificer? Who really needs religious rituals?

Why does god care?Now there is the million dollar question. Of course, as soon as a believer starts thinking the ritual is all about him/her it ceases to have meaning and the whole thing implodes.

C. S. Lewis said, "I don't pray because it changes God. I pray because it changes me."

[dittohead not!]

Now there is the million dollar question. Of course, as soon as a believer starts thinking the ritual is all about him/her it ceases to have meaning and the whole thing implodes.

C. S. Lewis said, "I don't pray because it changes God. I pray because it changes me."

Ironic, isn't it? And, then, what does it matter (in this life at least) whether or not there is a god, so long as we think that there is one.

[Atticus]

Ironic, isn't it? And, then, what does it matter (in this life at least) whether or not there is a god, so long as we think that there is one.Well, it probably matters to God. And considering the way humans are built, I have to agree with Hobbs that we need looking after--at least in our consciences.

[dittohead not!]

Well, it probably matters to God. And considering the way humans are built, I have to agree with Hobbs that we need looking after--at least in our consciences.

Interesting question. No doubt it matters to god whether or not he exists, but does it matter to god whether or not we believe in him, or light candles, or sacrifice goats?

Yes, we need looking after. Is god looking after us, or is our belief in god keeping us on the straight and narrow?

[Atticus]

Interesting question. No doubt it matters to god whether or not he exists, but does it matter to god whether or not we believe in him, or light candles, or sacrifice goats? Well, Christian believe that God created us, essentially, because He wanted company. I doubt he takes kindly to being ignored after going to the trouble, but he wanted someone in His image, so we can choose to ignore him.
Yes, we need looking after. Is god looking after us, or is our belief in god keeping us on the straight and narrow?Good question. Since we are free to choose our own paths, its our belief that alters the course. Of course, that doesn't invalidate God.

[lord tammerlain]

Well, Christian believe that God created us, essentially, because He wanted company. I doubt he takes kindly to being ignored after going to the trouble, but he wanted someone in His image, so we can choose to ignore him.
Good question. Since we are free to choose our own paths, its our belief that alters the course. Of course, that doesn't invalidate God.

I believe God had company in the form of angels before he created man. Angels are also depicted as man like in appearance.

[dittohead not!]

I believe God had company in the form of angels before he created man. Angels are also depicted as man like in appearance.

And, if the angels live with god, then they don't have to decide whether to believe in him or not. They know.

[Atticus]

I believe God had company in the form of angels before he created man. Angels are also depicted as man like in appearance.Not quite the same. Humans were made in the image of God. Angels were not. The angels are not on a par with humans.

[Cedars]

I can't remember having to appease any of the above, but then my family never put me in a position where I was forced to accede to their belligerent demands.
God does not make belligerent demands in which He forces us to accede. Your question was that if God is not going "to get you," then why the need for appeasement. My point was that in the same way family members are not out to get us, we do things for them because we love them (even if it means sacrificing what we want in order to give them what they want). It is nearly the same with God. If we are allowed to exercise our free will, then choosing to love God with our free will is a much greater thing than if we had no choice. The difference between God and our earthly families, however, is that God does not want for anything; but we do. We were made to love God -- our love for God is not greater for God, but greater for us (because in loving God, we love God's commands -- and the greatest commands from Jesus were to love God and love others).

[Dangerrmouse]

Appeasement. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

If you don't want to incur wrath....suck up!

[Cedars]

Is the act of lighting candles or sacrificing goats really for god, or is it done for the lighter or the sacrificer? Who really needs religious rituals?

Why does god care?
The act of lighting candles is symbolic, not required. It is the same as asking if a 21-gun salute is necessary, or why the "need" for fancy icing on a birthday cake. It is merely human appreciation for the appropriateness of the symbol.

[Cedars]

Appeasement. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

If you don't want to incur wrath....suck up!
Hmm, good point; but appeasement was your word, not mine. According to that definition, I would not say, then, that appeasement applies to what God seeks from us. God is ultimately wanting us to love -- love God, love each other.

[Cedars]

C. S. Lewis said, "I don't pray because it changes God. I pray because it changes me."
And in the same light, I would take it one step further. I don't love God because it changes God. I love God because it changes me.

[Atticus]

And in the same light, I would take it one step further. I don't love God because it changes God. I love God because it changes me.Amen..

[Cedars]

Ironic, isn't it? And, then, what does it matter (in this life at least) whether or not there is a god, so long as we think that there is one.

It matters because truth is vital; and God is truth. God matters because Truth matters (and vice versa).

"Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews and saith to them: I find no cause in him."
(John 18:37-38)

[Groucho]

Hmm, good point; but appeasement was your word, not mine. According to that definition, I would not say, then, that appeasement applies to what God seeks from us. God is ultimately wanting us to love -- love God, love each other.


Yes, but certainly you have heard religious people say that God will be angry with us if we do not pray to him, and worship him, and go to his church, and burn goats to him, or whatever else a particular religion believes. We're told if we do not do so, we will be punished by this angry God.

You have to admit it makes God sound a lot like an irrational dictator. Some of us would rather refuse than bow before a dictator.

(Yeah, I'm using an extreme example and I know religion isn't all about this sort of thing.)

[Cedars]

I believe God had company in the form of angels before he created man. Angels are also depicted as man like in appearance.

I don't know WHY God created man. Catholics also believe that angels were created before man.

[Cedars]

And, if the angels live with god, then they don't have to decide whether to believe in him or not. They know.
Yes, they know God exists. But they did, like man, have free will to choose God. Satan was an angel who fell from Grace because he did not choose God. The angels who followed Satan also fell from Grace; they are usually referred to as demons.

[Atticus]

Yes, but certainly you have heard religious people say that God will be angry with us if we do not pray to him, and worship him, and go to his church, and burn goats to him, or whatever else a particular religion believes. We're told if we do not do so, we will be punished by this angry God.

You have to admit it makes God sound a lot like an irrational dictator. Some of us would rather refuse than bow before a dictator.

(Yeah, I'm using an extreme example and I know religion isn't all about this sort of thing.)I've heard all kinds of people say all kinds of things. There are Americans on this very board who seem to have no knowledge or appreciation of the Constitution or the intellectual traditions that gave birth to the American idea, for example. Just because "religion people" aren't very thoughtful doesn't invalidate their religion, anymore than someone's knee-jerk authoritarian misunderstanding invalidates the law.

[Dangerrmouse]

Hmm, good point; but appeasement was your word, not mine. According to that definition, I would not say, then, that appeasement applies to what God seeks from us. God is ultimately wanting us to love -- love God, love each other.

Appeasement is not my word, it is in the thread title and is a quote from those performing the appeasing.

[Cedars]

Not quite the same. Humans were made in the image of God. Angels were not. The angels are not on a par with humans.

The angels are spirit, which is in the image of God. The angels were created as higher beings, but humans have the capacity to be "like angels."



"But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.

"For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
(Hebrews 2:6-10)

[Cedars]

Yes, but certainly you have heard religious people say that God will be angry with us if we do not pray to him, and worship him, and go to his church, and burn goats to him, or whatever else a particular religion believes. We're told if we do not do so, we will be punished by this angry God.

You have to admit it makes God sound a lot like an irrational dictator. Some of us would rather refuse than bow before a dictator.

(Yeah, I'm using an extreme example and I know religion isn't all about this sort of thing.)
Like Atticus, I hear religious people say a lot of things -- and many of them differ, even contradict, which begs the question what should one believe. The Catholic perspective is that ultimately we must seek God to be at peace because that is what we were created for, to be in peace with God (and others). If we forsake God, then really the result will be that God will forsake us (because that is what WE wanted).

[Cedars]

Appeasement is not my word, it is in the thread title and is a quote from those performing the appeasing.

I stand corrected. But again, I would say by the definition you used for appeasement, I would not say that God requires appeasement then.

[dittohead not!]

I don't know WHY God created man. Catholics also believe that angels were created before man.

I thought angels were spirits that either had not yet been born into a body, or who had already lived their lives and left their earthly bodies behind. In that sense, angels are people, people are angels who are still in their earthly bodies.

[Cedars]

I thought angels were spirits that either had not yet been born into a body, or who had already lived their lives and left their earthly bodies behind. In that sense, angels are people, people are angels who are still in their earthly bodies.
I think that there are some Protestants who hold the view that people can become angels. But Catholics believe that angels and mankind are two entirely different creatures, but both equal in dignity and both created in the image of God. Angels are pure spirit with no body (their natural state is disembodied), where men are partially spiritual with a body (our natural state is to be embodied). Our souls are closely united to our bodies, which is why we look for the resurrection of the dead.

[lord tammerlain]

Not quite the same. Humans were made in the image of God. Angels were not. The angels are not on a par with humans.

Are they not higher then humans, living with and working directly for god

[Atticus]

Are they not higher then humans, living with and working directly for godPaul thought so, I suppose. But the exact nature of angels, their creation, etc., is not explained. They are not said to be made in the image of God. They are depicted has having wings and bodies, but there is no explanation of their (non-) corporeal form so far as I know.

[Cedars]

Paul thought so, I suppose. But the exact nature of angels, their creation, etc., is not explained. They are not said to be made in the image of God. They are depicted has having wings and bodies, but there is no explanation of their (non-) corporeal form so far as I know.
Scripture reveals that man is a "little lower than the angels" (see, for example, Hebrews 2:6-10). This means that angels are a higher creature than man. If man is made in the image of God, it stands to reason that angels also possess the image of God because they could not be "higher" beings without that image of God.

[dittohead not!]

Scripture reveals that man is a "little lower than the angels" (see, for example, Hebrews 2:6-10). This means that angels are a higher creature than man. If man is made in the image of God, it stands to reason that angels also possess the image of God because they could not be "higher" beings without that image of God.

What if god is made in the image of man?

[Dangerrmouse]

That would be the best compliment man could give their creation.

[Cedars]

What if god is made in the image of man?
:lol:
"A god" or "gods" HAVE been made in the image of man (by man). But man is made in the image of God (by God).