Shocking Statements by Two Famous Writers, One an Atheist, One a Theist

Two Contrary Views of Two Famous Writers:

#1 "Union with Christ imparts an inner elevation, comfort in affliction, tranquil reliance,
and a heart which opens itself to everything noble and great not for the sake of ambition
or desire for fame, but for the sake of Christ.

Union with Christ produces a joy which the Epicurean seeks in vain in his shallow philosophy,
which the deeper thinker vainly pursues in the most hidden depths of knowledge.

It is a joy known only to the simple and childlike heart,
united with Christ and through Him with God, a joy which elevates life and makes it more beautiful."1






VERSUS







#2 "You know, I think, that I believe in no religion.

There is absolutely no proof for any of them,
and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best.

All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man's invention--Christ as much as Loki.

Primitive man found himself surrounded by all sorts of terrible things he didn't understand--thunder,
pestilence, snakes, etc:what more natural then to suppose that these were animated by evil spirits trying to torture him.

These he kept off by cringing to them, singing songs and making sacrifices etc. Gradually from being mere
nature-spirits these supposed beings were elevated into more elaborate ideas,
such as the old gods: and when man became more refined he pretended that these spirits were good as well as powerful.

Thus religion, that is to say mythology grew up. Often too, great men
were regarded as gods after their death-such as Heracles or Odin:
thus after the death of a Hebrew philosopher Yeshua
(whose name we have corrupted into Jesus)
he became regarded as a god, a cult sprang up,
which was afterwards connected with the ancient Hebrew Jahweh-worship,
and so Christianity came into being-one mythology among many.

Of course, mind you, I am not laying down as a certainty that there is nothing outside
the material world; considering the discoveries that are always being made, this would be foolish. Anything MAY exist."2
--

Oops;-) I got the two photos backwards.

See the surprising footnotes:

NOTES

1. The praise of the Christian religion was written by Karl Marx.
Pub. in "Karl Marx as a schoolboy" in the German volume
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe.
From "The Baptism of Karl Marx" by Eugene Kamenka, lecturer in philosophy, University of Malaya,
The Hibbert Journal, vol. 56, no. 3, April 1958, pp.345-46.

Versus

2. The skeptical dismissal of the Christian religion was written by C.S. Lewis
in a letter to his friend Arthur Greeves on October 12, 1916.
Pub.in They Stand Together, p.135).
--

This conundrum of opposites which reversed in their lives has intrigued me for years--
from devout theist to hard atheist: Karl Marx

versus

from skeptical atheist to devout theist: C.S. Lewis--
especially now that I have also journeyed so very far philosophically from where I was at when a youth.

Are not these two shocking quotes intriguing hooks
to get us into doing biographical and historical
and philosophical research into how Karl Marx and C.S. Lewis so drastically
changed their views in a matter of 20-25 years?

Into inquiring why some humans greatly change
in their lifestances and worldviews,
BUT
others stay put in the place,
culture, and social outlook they were born into?

Search on.

Become seekers of truth.


In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Quake Laughs and Signs of the Times

Hay, ready to husk some Pennsylvania Quaker Oats? Or corn?

The literature professor came out to his Honda Civic, but had to wait for the old Quaker
walking by with his dog.

As the old man passed, the professor asked “Why do you walk that old mangy mutt? What’s it for?

The old Quaker paused in silence, weighing his thoughts; finally he opened his eyes and said
to the young professor,
“Yes, good question; what is a ‘mutt-afor’? ;-)

Soon after dawn when the modern Quaker farmer came in from his first chores,
his wife showed him her Nexus Tablet. "Look, the stock market took another drop."

"Yeah, I saw the status, and it ain't much to quo about."
--




Why is South Korea so interested in both Quakerism and Cajun food?

South Korea’s got Seoul.


--

A Quaker got disowned from the meeting for operating a still in the late 1800's.

He wondered what business he could go into.

His Friend said, "What about selling tea? Be a teetotaler!"

"Nah," said the former beer maker, "I don't like tea."

"Well," said his Friend, "You could start selling these new sodas; they're not alcoholic."
Just then the Quaker's dog barked. "Like Ed Barq down in New Orleans, selling his new root beer soda.
And the man in Philly who Hires
lots of workers."

"YES! But where would be the best place for me to start such a business, another really good state
with many drinkers of soda?"

"Hmm..., probably Minnesota."


--



"Some of the Old Testament commands supporting slavery just make me heartsick."

"Yes, not Yahweh, but the Friendly Enlightened Way."

--

Before worship at a Quaker meeting, two visitors chatting--

Visitor #2:This is my second time visiting here."

Visitor #1: "Oh, like that famous California actor who used to say, "I'll be bach."

V #2: (Laughing) "Yeah, the one who got terminated. These Quakers
probably wouldn't say that, however another famous actor, was a Quaker who
also became governor, though he got terminated, too. Had to face the music,
so to speak. By the way,
don't expect music this hour."

V 1: "Why not?"

V 2: Well, some Conservative Quakers seldom sing, except spontaneously.
It would probably take an organ transplant to get them to change.
But I don't have the heart. Needed to get that off my chest. Besides,
they think too much modern music
is filled with saks and violins."

V 1: "I understand."

V 2: "Also, anybody can talk during their meetings, even say
disturbing things, but remember even if you strongly
disagree with something a person says, don't talk bach."

V 1: (Standing) "Hmm..., if there's no music, and you can't disagree
in a conversation, maybe I'll visit the Methodist Church instead; there,
if you want to hear some good music, all you have to do is leave notes
in the Johann Suggestion Bachs.

Johann Sebastian Bach







And Methodists never agree on anything. They love to talk and argue, though sometimes they don't make sense. Think about their signs and symbols.

--

Don’t go to church any more, couldn’t take the pew.

--

Patience is heavy wait.

--

Remember, dear Friend, the giant 3,500 year old oak was once a little nut that stood its ground.

--

A stranger came into a Friends meeting. It was quiet for about 20 minutes, so he leaned
over to the person next to him and asked,
“When does the service begin?”

“After worship, when we go out to help others in need.”

--


That old Quaker couple is like two old mutts.

Why?

He sits up and begs, but she rolls over and plays dead.

Oh, like some meetings I've been to. No spiritual life, petrified.
Though an old man snores,
until another Friend nudges him.


--

A marriage license is a learning permit. And lots of hard work to get where you are going.


--

A modern Quaker couple looked up at the night stars. As the guy worked up courage for that first kiss,
he nervously blurted out, "Do you like astronomy?"

Disappointed, the girl said, "George, Do you only have a 'one trek mind'?"

--




Speaking of romance and love and marriage, and commitment for as long as we both shall live...
also we want to be involved in mission work:

--


As a West Point graduate who earned no demerits in his 4 years there, Robert E. Lee was the most likely to secede.

"I may be from North Carolina, but why are you telling me that?"

If you don't succeed at first, try and try again.



--

Another Oregon rest area SIGN confronting travelers--25 BANNED ACTIVITIES
--as they pull their crowded vehicle in looking for open space,
walking, welcome,
relaxation, and
comfort:

and
DON’T BREATHE.

Now, I realize that many, if not all of those No-No’s, the forever “Don’t” list, are mostly common sense and common courtesy, so I’m not disagreeing with the prohibitions themselves per se.

And having had to get very legal at times with students and our own children when they tried to find technical loopholes to skirt the obvious--“She got in the way of my foot”--and other tall tales, I figure this eye-sore sign/billboard/HALT was originally only a short list that kept getting added to by traveler stupidities and passer-by self-centered myopia.

Yes, yes…
BUT who wants to pull into a ‘rest area’ looking for comfort and relaxation from a long haul, or even only a stressful travel day,
to this humongous, almost legal code, sign spitting you in the eye?

Not a friendly welcome sign, with a huge cartoonish grin, like some states have on their borders.

No instead, endless regulations STOP you,
even before you can rush your kids into the restrooms.

And the sign is ALWAYS blocking good scenery picture sites.

Big Politician doesn’t want YOU to miss it. You can’t, and though a law-abiding citizen, you have secret wishes that some local would back his tow truck into it, or for a teenager to get original with punny graffiti.

It’s the same on Oregon beaches. When we spotted a beautiful pullout along Oregon’s coastal highway, we slowed down and stopped for a walk on the beach and hopefully some great photo shots.

Instead, when I tried to take a picture of the rocks looming out in the waves like gigantic humpbacked whales, and framed by beautiful evergreens, I couldn’t avoid a very large, glaring in-your-face go-away PROHIBITED sign.

Yes, other states have signs which protect snowy plovers, “Don’t walk on the protected feathers!” And, “Danger Riptides,” and so forth.

But no place wins the award for Inhospitality like Oregon tourist signs: "Shut up! Stay out! Get your rear back on the road. Go away!"
None quite like Oregon beaches and rest areas.

--

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Part 3: Jew or Arab? History and Religion

Historic claim when it comes to ownership has much appeal and quite a bit of historic precedent. If you have owned your car since it came from the factory, but then someone steals it, then it makes not only legal sense, but common sense and I dare say philosophical sense, that the property should be returned to its original owner—you.

If your family and ancestors have lived on the same land for hundreds of years, maybe in a few cases even a thousand years, then unless you are a murderer, etc., it would also seem common sense to assume you have the right to stay there.

But this is where the case of historic claim gets tricky, and downright conundrumed! What if another family’s ancestors lived on your little spot of heaven before your family, way back many hundreds of years ago. Now they have returned and want their ancestral land back?

To use the simplistic crass example, what if the car you have owned for 29 years didn’t come to you from the factory but was passed down to you by your grandfather? What if it turns out your grandfather originally bought it from a neighbor, who bought it from a friend who it turns out stole it from the original owner? Who gets it? Who’s on first?;-) We end up with a complex semantic confusion of mumbo-jumbo absurdity very quickly, not unlike the Abbot and Costello baseball skit. 'Whadad' you say?

This is where lawyers and court justices make their living, trying to sort out all the legal complexities of complex conundrums of claim.

And, of course, the simplistic example is just that. Though complex from a legal standpoint, it’s simplistic in comparison to figuring out the historic nature of land ownership covering hundreds, even thousands of years! In real life it so convoluted. For instance, in Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life by Sari Nusseibeh, the author states his family first came to Palestine in the 7th century. Think of it! His extended family has lived in the area for 1,300 years! Then how could Jewish people moving from the United States in the 21st century possibly claim land ownership? Because they go even further back, another 600 years backward, to when the Romans decimated the Jews and their Jewish leader Bar Koba in 132-136. Before then, they claim Jews continuously owned the land for a long time, well, except when it was owned by the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Philistines, etc.

Of course, some Palestinians such as Yasir Arrafat, claim they can out trump such long-winded history, stating their own ancestors were the original Canaanites, who owned the land before the Jewish conquerors came, slaughtered them and took their land away from them.

And so if we rely on the historic claim, we end up becoming sleuths of history, mining the ancient past for evidence. The most huge difficulty of all this is, as any student of history knows, nearly everybody came from somewhere else at some time so living by historical claim not only gets questionable (based on various countering reports by historians, turning into an imponderable legal question), but nearly everyone everywhere now would have to move from their land.

Californians would have to leave their land of the last 150 years and give it back to the Mexican government who would have to leave and give it back to the Chumash, etc. who need to leave and give it back to what unknown tribe who now claims to have a previous claim. The English would have to leave England, the Scots Scotland, the French France, etc.

Also, the historic claim often leads to the next claim--the religious/worldview one. For instance, historically the Jewish people have claimed that God ordered them to take over the land in question and to slaughter every man woman and infant of the Canaanites.

Thus, we have a religious claim by the Jews that the God of the universe ordered them to take the land versus the opposite religious claim of the Arab Christians and Muslims who present alternative claims for the Trinity or Allah ordering them at some point in the past (the Crusades or the Jihad) to take over the land and kill the inhabitants. Many modern American Evangelicals/Fundamentalists argue that the Israeli government is going against God now if it gives even a few yards of Gaza or the West Bank to Arabs!HAMAS claims God is on their side. I wonder what Buddha thinks;-)

Sheesh! See why most humans, when faced with land ownership in the Middle East throw up their hands and cry, “It’s hopeless.”

But I don’t think the final answer, Visitor Status, is hopeless. Come back for the fourth installment:-)

In the Light of God—the Ultimate Reality of the Cosmos who loves every single human who has ever been created and who loves the whole cosmos, and who is wooing all toward Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Love in the final consummation.

Daniel Wilcox