Religion
Related: About this forumAtheist-turned-believer Sara Miles’ radical Ash Wednesday practice
Atheist-turned-believer Sara Miles rubs ashes on the forehead of a man sitting on a San Francisco street.
Jonathan Merritt | Mar 5, 2014
Sara Miles is a former-atheist-turned-believer and author of the critically-acclaimed Take This Bread and her newest book, City of God: Faith in the Streets. She is Director of Ministry at St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco. Sara has what some might consider a radical Ash Wednesday practice. Here, we talk about how she spends this holy holiday and why Ash Wednesday matters.
RNS: On Ash Wednesdays, you do something radical. Tell us about that.
SM: Beginning in 2010, Ive spent a good part of each Ash Wednesday on the streets of my neighborhoodat bus stops, in back alleys, fast-food joints and taqueriasoffering ashes to anyone who wants them.
RNS: Have any surprise transformations taken place?
http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/03/05/former-atheist-priest-sara-miles-radical-ash-wednesday-practice/
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FINDING-MY-RELIGION-How-San-Francisco-writer-2646175.php
Jim__
(14,076 posts)What does she say when she's doing that?
rug
(82,333 posts)The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer has these words (page 265):
Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/sites/default/files/downloads/book_of_common_prayer.pdf
Jim__
(14,076 posts)Spanish makes sense.
okasha
(11,573 posts)but I did make out "recuerde" and "polvo," "remember"and "dust," so it seems to be the admonition from the BOCP.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)This seems to be one of the more realistic/secular elements of the Bible. Since in itself, it does not promise resurrection, or heaven. It was often quoted by the more realistic/scientific denominations.
It was often spoken at the funerals of nonbelievers. Since in itself, it does not indicate a resurrection.
As such, it serves as an interesting intermediary or common ground between atheism, and believers.
Similar ideas can be found in the biblical book of Ecclesiastes. Which many have commented does not seem to believe in heaven or an afterlife, beyond a shadow world of "sheol."
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Reminds me of the story you gave us about a month ago. About an atheist who breaks down and sings "My Sweet Lord."
Traditionally, believers like this kind of story.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They are interezting stories all around.
rug
(82,333 posts)Seems I run into a lot more nonbelievers who were once believers.
Since you like videos, here you go.
Tell me in a month what you think of it.
In other news, woman abandons logic and reason, replaces them with delusional belief system. This is why we can't have nice things.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Maybe that's why you can't have nice things.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Sometimes the truth is ugly. Most times, usually.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And you don't hold the truth.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)God says, EAT ME!:
Really, Horribly Tasteless Things in Christianity, like Communion
(Mat. 26.26; Mark 14.8; Luke 22.19; 1 Corin. 11.24, etc.) by Brettongarcia
Modern Christians love to proudly think of themselves, as being very sensitive; sharing and caring and loving others, and loving God. And they think of their rituals as beautiful, even awesome. But let's think this through for a moment; try to see just how really, truly DISTASTEFUL they and their ancient rituals, seem to genuinely sensitive people.
Here one recent story intends to inspire; with a tale of a convert, putting ash marks on the foreheads of street people. From an external objective point of view? This girl especially, is pretty creepy: walking around in dark robes, putting black marks on the foreheads of homeless people in San Francisco. And what happens when we look at this more closely; what does that symobolize, objectively speaking? Of course we have the Christian explanation. But more broadly? Marking people, is generally not good. Marking people as unclean, with black, is not really a positive thing at all; in the old days, they were often marked for extermination. While the Christian meaning in fact allows that this mark in part, IS a condemnation; sinners wear black ashes on them.
But let's look deeper into this Christian lady. Listen to how she got to this: she took communion, she ate the bread of communion one day - and had an epiphany. More exactly, she said, I have god in my mouth.
Can any Christians really hear themselves? Here anyone with any sensitivity to art, literature, symbols, will hear overwhelming symbols of massive, crushing Vanity, among other things. And then? Worse things still. Can we think about the poetic resonances of THIS, of communion for a second? Only a really, truly, GROSSLY insensitive person would participate in such a thing, as communion or the Eucharist; where God allegedly tells us to eat him.
God gives us a piece of bread, and tells us that it is his body. And then tells us to eat it!?? Any intelligent person who knows literature, symbolism, instantly should hear references to 1) cannibalism; 2) oral eroticism. Maybe even 3) eating and thereby destroying God? Then there is 4) the vanity of presuming that your own mouth IS god. With undertones of 5) Necrophilia; coprophagy; coprolalia.
Good lord. Modern liberal, spiritual Christians pride themselves on having gone well beyond ancient, primitive beliefs, and fundamentalist Christianity. In particular, they pride themselves on their own alleged sensitivity, and love for others; and their beautiful rituals. But do modern Christians realize just how truly, utterly, shockingly primitive, selfdeluded, backward, and tasteless they really are. They presume to travel around in black robes, putting black marks on the foreheads of others; marking them as sinners. Then telling them to eat God; or consume what comes out of their mouths, like ...vomit or spittle. Or regurgitated necrophiliac remains. Eat me, cries their idea of God. (A good god for San Francisco, to be sure?).
These people refer to the beauty of the mass, of the Eurcharist. But those people obviously are artless, and have no sense or sensitivity at all. To sensitive people , to those who know a little about literature, language, and symbolism the mass, the Eucharist, is literally, an utter, complete, tasteless horror story. It is an exercise in the very, very darkest foolishness and evil. Worse, it is a story told loud and proud. By incredibly deaf, insensitive, destructive people.
The fact is that we all, every one of us, needs to move on past traditional Christianity; and modern liberal spiritual Christianity too. With its continuing symbolic consumption of cannibalism, and worse things yet. And foretunately, there is a way, a day when this is supposed to happen: the Bible told us that one day, God would give us judgement; and suddenly we would see that the very priests and prophets we had thought were absolutely holy and good and noble, were really fools. And deceived persons, following false prophets and unclean things.
And today would be a good day for that awareness, to begin to dawn on many of us. They and their false God. Who says, basically, even literally: Eat me!
If only our very refined Christians could hear themselves. But clearly, they have not; clearly, they have all been utterly deaf to language, to poetry, to truth. Still, we are told that one heaven-shattering day or another, the deaf will begin to hear. And maybe some of you are beginning to hear, even now?
Let every Christian learn to see and hear; what was wrong in what you were told was holy. Let's all of us move on to something better; to a second and better view of God and good. One well past conservative fundamentalists, and sensitive and loving modern liberal Christians as well.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)You are really going to be in the stew now.
okasha
(11,573 posts)How did an alleged Cultural Studies PhD get away without learning something about archetypes? Not to mention punctuation.
Or perhaps your curious little habit of substituting a question for a comma is an unconscious little giveaway that just about everything you say is questionable at best.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Where a man was on the verge of suddenly seeing his existential responsibilities. But then falls, and lapses into ... Christianity?
About two years ago?
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)
do you lack because this woman has a ministry to those who undoubtedly have far less than you?
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)So she's using her religious delusion to minister to the poor. Others use their delusion to justify banning abortions, honor kill women and gays and deny science.
I think it's dangerous to humor delusions, regardless of whether or not we think they're helpful for some. The same culture that gives her plaudits for this behavior helps to normalize things for abortion doctor shooters.
Yeah, call me a jerk all you want. My disbeliefs aren't hurting anyone. I'm not carrying water for the same people who cause harm.
I know it's a minority opinion and won't win me many fans. Nevertheless, there it is. Growing up religious leaves life-long scars.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You may not agree with them, but they are not delusions. And to equate them to the disable symptoms that people with significant psychiatric illnesses have is wrong on many levels.
She's not delusional. Those that want to ban abortions, honor kill women and gays and deny science are using their religion to harm others or restrict their civil liberties. But that doesn't make them delusional.
I think it's harmful for people to wave their prejudices against others around like a flag, whether that prejudice be towards women, GLBT people or the religious.
It's not your disbelief that harms others, it's your beliefs.
Many people who have grown up religious are free of scars. Many who have grown up without religion have scars.
You appear to have yours, whether you got them through religion or not.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is your problem. Not ours.
Religion is everyone's problem. Tell the women who can't get an abortion in Texas that their problem ain't religious in nature.
okasha
(11,573 posts)nor the Episcopal Church is preventing women from having abortions.
And you still haven't backed up your claim that her ministry prevents you from having "nice things."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that seeks to harm or restrict the rights of others should be challenged.
But there is also no doubt that religion provides solutions for others and actively works to assist others and fight for their rights.
The inability to distinguish those two things is the problem.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)From the Journal of Psychiatric Practice, by an author that works at UCLA medical school. The takeaway line should be this: "Psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional."
"Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice. " From the Journal of Psychiatric Practice.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)It's sort of like determining the difference between a valid cultural belief or tradition and some silly thing other people do: yours are valid, theirs are silly. That's how Christians can laugh at the silly things Muslims believe and then engage in ritual cannibalism of the flesh of their god without a smidgen of self-awareness. Deophagy is normal and perfectly fine. You people are the weird ones with your bowing and praying five times a day. Our god is so good, we only have to pray once!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)you and others from having?
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Miles' ministry seems quite close to the service you perform at your parish. I'm halfway through it, and find that her perceptions of the physicality of religion, of religion as something done rather than just believed, resonate across the divisions between faiths.
I'd also recommend this to anyone who works out of a perspective of liberation and/or process theology.
Sorry. I forgot to specify that it's Take this Bread.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)I just ordered one of her books.
We don't share the same religion, but she's extraordinary.
rug
(82,333 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)"I think the power of the ritual is that its an opportunity to finally tell the truth in public. Its a relief to admit that, like everyone else, youre not in charge. Despite the cultures insistence that more things or bling, money or advertising will keep us alive, the plain truth is that were all just mortal
and were connected to one another."
Thanks for posting!
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)which certainly can include ignorance of the concept. Everyone is either a theist or atheist, by definition. Babies aren't theists.
rug
(82,333 posts)You need to know what is you don't believe.
You need to know what theos is before you identify as a-theos.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)which is why you don't need to know it. You might need to know it to identify as atheist, but not to be one.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's like saying Saxon serfs were acapitalists.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Because a lack of belief doesn't require knowledge of it. So serfs could be acapitalists. The reason it sounds so silly is because we never define people by a lack of a certain belief in most anything else in life. That's the power and privilege of theism.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You don't remember being in the womb. That doesn't mean you weren't there.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)requires a person to hold a premise as true. If a person isn't even aware of the premise, or can't comprehend/understand it, they can't be believers. So, no theists are coming out of the womb, or even residing within them, by definition of words.
And by definition of words, everyone is either a theist or an atheist.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Ignorance is neither belief nor disbelief.
There is no data to support the premise that anyone is born with either.
Not everyone is a theist or atheist. Some people don't know and others just don't care.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Whether you don't know or don't care are other questions. Everyone is either a gnostic or agnostic as well, on the question of knowledge. Everyone either cares or they don't.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In fact, some will tell you that they never remember not believing.
The same argument you make was made for years about GLBT people. No progressive/liberal person believes that anymore because there is no data to support it.
It's a silly argument anyway. Who care what someone is born? What matters is what they are now and how they exercise their beliefs or lack of beliefs.
If they use them as a weapon to attack those who are different than they are, does it matter where it came from? Would being born a non-believer make it ok to attack believers?
Really?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'm sure some conservatives will tell you they were voting for Reagan on conception, it's still wrong. A belief is not comparable to sexual orientation. You can change your beliefs all the time. Not so with sexual orientation, though gay conversion therapy does try. You don't think gay conversion therapy works I'm guessing.
I think there is plenty of evidence that says everyone are born atheists. We know babies can't comprehend such ideas, much less two-celled organisms that we start out as.
Why care? Because the way religion is still viewed by most of the world is that it is an inherited trait. It's not, and it's nice to point that out. In fact, it then gets people to think about how people become believers, and that goes down a road few religious people want to go.
Imagine if political beliefs were viewed as an inherited trait.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I doubt it. And I think there are lots of believers who couldn't choose to be otherwise. There is a strong case to be made that religiosity or spirituality may be a part of who someone is and not a choice.
And there is no evidence to the contrary, despite your claim. Please feel free to share any you are aware of.
Political beliefs are much more complex, nuanced and optional,, IMO.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It may be that under how a person understands the world and their preferences that their beliefs aren't likely to change anytime soon, but those are choices as well.
I've seen no strong arguments that religion is inherited. It's a belief system that makes very specific claims, not an inherent trait.
I think that the evidence strongly points to religion being no different from other beliefs in that it's not an inherent trait.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think you could.
So why would you not understand that some people can't choose to be a non-believer?
Everyone is wired differently. Religion and spirituality run very, very deep for some people. Who are you to say that it is not an inherent trait that they were born with?
I've seen no strong arguments that religious belief is not innate. That does not necessarily mean it's inherited, though that be a factor to some degree.
But repeating the same meme that "everyone is born atheist" without a scintilla of evidence to support it is very unscientific. One might even suggest that is is a belief without evidence, much like a religious belief. I believe you yourself have suggested that that is irrational.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't think even Duns Scotus would juggle words like that.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)So no, but your other two examples are more in line.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 8, 2014, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Miles was actually involved in/covered the Latin American conflicts out of which modern liberation theology arose. (As opposed to ancient liberation theology, that is.) An Episcopal priest I know and very much respect says in regard to the Magnificat that "Our Lady St. Mary was the first liberation theologian."
rug
(82,333 posts)Which one did you get, Take This Bread or City of God: Faith in the Streets?
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'll be getting "City of God" also.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll get it.