BS: Have you changed your religious views?

Subject: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Marion
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:18 PM

For those of you who have changed your religious views in your adult life (whether adopting a religion, leaving a religion, or switching from one religion to another):

What was the most important reason, or the triggering event, that caused you to do so?

There have been some interesting discussions lately about God, religion, and atheism. But when people are arguing about the "First Cause" or "ontological argument" or "Pascal's Wager", it makes me wonder if they actually started believing because they were convinced by these arguments (or stopped believing because they were convinced the arguments were invalid).

My own answer: I used to be a practicing Christian and am now agnostic. The main thing that took me away from Christianity was what I perceived as a lack of social values: from the history of the church (Inquisition, residential schools etc.) to sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia in the Bible. And the main things that kept me in Christianity for as long as they did were aesthetics (liturgy, ceremony, holy days are very appealing to me) and the stories about Jesus in the gospels.

Happy holy week,

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM

Not really. I am not religious by nature and Catholic by upbringing but only Catholic by genetics on my father's side. I think by nature I would be a fairly good Unitarian or Druid perhaps. I hate the Catholic church's view on birth control and keep saying I would make it the 11th commandment. I hate hate hate the new "music" that has taken over since the Vatican Council. So the liturgy that used to be very nice is now to me just plain wierd and ugly and not resembling anything Catholic at all. So I am obviously a very weak Catholic and don't agree with the basics of how I was trained to believe...but the good news is I try not to eat meat on Friday still...and on GOod Friday, coming this week, if you make the Stations of the Cross you get a plenary indulgence (I do like indulgences). So I have a lot of the paranoia and many of the superstitions and liked at least the old music and traditions but I am basically attending a church that is very odd to me. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM

I was raised in the Episcopalian Church and accepted the mythology until I was about eight. By the time I was 12 I was pretty certain the world-view embodied in that mythology was pretty flawed and left out much joy, much honest seeing, and much freedom to explore and discover. Since I found these values compelling, I decided to abandon the whole insititution.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM

My religious views haven't changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:59 PM

There's an interesting paragraph in the Bible (in one of the Gospels). The crowds that had been following Jesus had all turned away. They were disappointed. I forget the exact reason why, but perhaps they had expected Jesus to be some kind of political leader and he had said something along the lines of "my kingdom is not of this world" meaning he hadn't come along to be an earthly king, leader of something as small as a political system.
Jesus turned around, a bit sad perhaps that so many had turned away, and asked the 12 apostles (Peter, James, John etc.,) "And will you leave me, too?" Peter answered (for them all) by saying "But, my lord, where shall we go?"
I think that sums up the feeling for many Christians. Once you get a hold of what Jesus is on about, a glimpse of what He's saying, it simply doesn't make sense to go anywhere else anymore. Crazy and all as following Christ may seem at times (in the sense that it often seems to fly in the face of worldly 'wisdom') it makes a lot more sense than the alternatives.

I know about the inquisition etc., and I'm sure the practice and institution would have frowned upon by Christ - after all, he never terrorised anyone into accepting His message, everyone had tgo come of their own free will or it was no good. But bear in mind: the inquisition did use torture etc., it's true, to extract (often very unreliable) confessions but then so did the Civil courts of the time - in fact it was a fairly standard practice across all branches of the judiciary and the inquisition was nothing unusual for its time. We also have new forms of inquisition in our so-called 'modern' world (though to the generations that follow us we may not appear quite so modern as we do to ourselves). The witch hunt has given way to other hunts - a hunt for communists in the 50s, a hunt for terrorists today. Always something to keep the people afraid, stirred up, pliant. And torture is as much in use today by so-called democratic governments as it was back then.

the church is an instituition, and like all institutions it suffers somewhat from the 'us and them' syndrome where it forgets its original mission statement and closes ranks to protect itself from the wider membership and public. But you see similar behaviour in police forces, schools, universities, governments and so on. I hope it's clear I absolutely don't condone the bad behaviour etc., of the church or its organisations. They have overshadowed the good work done by tireless christian charities and church-organisations, often filling the gap in social services given mere lip-service by the elected government.

Like many people, I came to Christ through hitting rock bottom first. Lots of people seem to have the idea that Christians are all saints, holier-than-thou. But Christ said "I came to heal the sick: the healthy don't need a doctor" If I had to sum up what I notice most about trying to follow Christ is that when I am doing it (and I don't always succeed) there is a lightness in my life that's hard to describe - added to an absence of fear. When you really start to life the message of Christ day-to-day (and that's the challenging part) it brings its own reward: you stop being afraid of what tomorrow will bring; you stop being afraid of the direction the world seems to be going; you stop being afraid of the drunk whom looks like trouble coming towards you; in many other ways. You feel you are anchored to something that transcends the worldly things. One thing I notice in today's world is the almost hysterical levels of fear and the violence that stems from it. Generally I know when I am getting away from Christ's message when the fear starts to creep back in!


I hope I have answered your question as best I can. Though I was never an atheist as such (I think) I did 'swing the other way' for a bit, being at best indifferent to religion and spirituality and at worst dabbling in the occult. All I can say is none of the things I hankered after (happiness, love, life, etc.,) ever came to me from either of those two sources, but did through Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 05:01 PM

I actually grew up without being raised "in" any religion. My sisters and I don't know anybody else for whom that's true, so I'd be interested if that were so for anybody here?

We had jewish relatives (but Mom was an atheist), Quaker relatives (but Dad was an atheist who called himself agnostic to be polite), and lived in a West African country (animist and Moslems who didn't veil their women, don't think they circumcized their daughters) that had been colonized by the French (Catholic). So my school did Catholic and Moslem holidays while the school personnel slaughtered goats to their various deities, occasionally visiting jewish and quaker relatives. None of us ever believed in any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 05:29 PM

If I have to apply a religious label to myself, "Taoist" comes as close as anything. That's where I've been for thirty-five years and I doubt I'll be changing my views any time soon.

I had a brief encounter with Unity Church, a nominally Christian denomination which is sort of a half-way-house for those who really want to embrace more Eastern ideas but can't kick the go-to-church-on-Sunday habit. It didn't hurt me.

My wife's a practicing Tibetan Buddhist and she has tried to get me interested in their practices. While I have a deep afinity for much Buddhist thought I don't care for religious ritual and those Tibetans have enough rituals and chants to make Catholics look like pikers.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bainbo
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 05:35 PM

I stopped attending church after a deep examination of what I truly believed. And although I think Jesus was spot on with his message, I realised that, try as I might, deep down I didn't believe that he was, literally, the Son of God, who, literally, rose from the dead - even though I went along every week and recited that I did believe it. I thought this probably disqualified me from calling myself a Christian, so I stopped. It was only later that I found out that a good proportion of folk who go along to church don't believe it either.

Thing is - I miss the fellowship and help you get in staying on the right path. But that doesn't seem a good enough reason to keep going along and saying I believe in something that I don't.

I've never understood all this business with factions and schisms. I've always interpreted Jesus's message as nothing more than: "Look, if we're going to get through this, we've all got to get on and help each other." St Paul's analogy - that we're all like the different parts of one human body- is brilliant; unless we're all working together for the same end, then our collective body - humanity itself - fails.

And maybe, just maybe, that collective consciousness, when it all comes together and works properly, is waht we sometimes like to call "God".

Or maybe I'm talking through our collective arsehole. Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 05:42 PM

Bainbo - I think you put it well about simply rattling through prayers. Belief in God and Jesus should never be about blind adherence to empty formulas. Jesus criticised the Pharisees because of their insistence on the observation of every tiny religious rule to the exclusion of having any charity in their hearts. In other words they were bogged down in the rule book and didn't live by the spirit of the religion any more. He also said the 10 commandments could be reduced to 2: "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbour (everyone) as yourself" By following thse two, we could be sure we were doing God's will. I think the first one is important because there's another phrase "be true to yourself" which in my opinion, though it sounds like good advice, is misleading. becuase even the most sincere can eventually lie to themselves, or fool themselves, but you can't fool God.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 05:59 PM

I wound up an atheist when I was about 13. I just thought a lot about the possibility of a mystical consciousness behind everything and decided it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I studied different religions - read and took courses. I saw that all these people believed in a different version of God, and so I figured they were all right, or none were right. I went with the 'none'. The differences were all things that had to be taught, the religions all had to be taught. If a person can't see a thing unless someone else shows it to them and then tells them what they're seeing, I don't think of it as real. I think the dogma is a social thing.

If a person has a religion, it's his religion because of the area in which he grew up and people around him taught it to him. Some people aren't happy and look for something else, but they frequently look for something that only differs slightly.

Anyway, others came to the 'all or nothing' point if view and probably went the other way. The main change I've gone through as I've grown older is that I'm more tolerant of the very religions and very vocal. They once used to trigger a reaction in me so I couldn't stand talking to them and I couldn't even sing songs from a believer's point of view. That was me being overly sensitive though, and not anything anyone did to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 06:15 PM

I grew up in a completely non-religious family, never went to church (except for some marriage of a relative once), didn't believe in God or any kind of religion as a boy or an adolescent. I believed in science and was an atheist. The way of being that I was taught as a child was the scientific approach, logic, rationality, normal social morality of my culture, and atheism.

In my 20s I began to gradually investigate a lot of different religious traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism, North American Indian spirituality, and a variety of other things like that. Began to see common ground in all of them, and gradually took on a number of general spiritual beliefs...not specifically confined to any one religious tradition.

I now think about spiritual matters every day of my life, have no problems reconciling my spiritual beliefs with science or materiality, and am interested in investigating any new spiritual concepts I might run across. Most of the reading I do is of spiritual books of one kind or another. I belong to no specific religion, but find much of value in many (if not all) of them. My religious and scientific views will probably keep changing and adapting right till the day I die (and hopefully after that as well). We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 06:15 PM

I was nominally a Methodist when young. We moved too often to get 'attached' to any particular church or attend regularly, but I was going occasionally into my teens. I sort of passively accepted that Christianity was 'it', but early on I had notions of questioning 'authority' in general.
I guess life changed when I found a copy of a paperback book (one of a series) on a slow day when I worked as a grocery checker. It was "The Age of Ideology" and it was my introduction to a formal way of looking at thought, religion, history and examining rather than just swallowing...and the idea fit me. I bought the book, and by the time I was a senior in HS, I knew I wanted to study Philosophy in college.

   For several years I attended a Unitarian church, as several people I respected as 'reasonable' went there. The Unitarians vary from 'almost' fully Christian to plain old 'secular humanists', and this church was near the humanist end of the scale. (I see they are STILL the targets of far-right Christians around there!)

Anyway, as I read more, saw more, went places, and learned how to think, not just how to rationalize, it gradually dawned on me that I could NOT accept religion when there were so many versions, and so many contradictions in each version.....but at the same time, I had no respect for 'militant atheists' whose hobby was making fun of religion.

   I do see why religion is attractive & compelling for some, and I have worked for...ummmm...40 years or so to find a path that defends my right to NOT believe, but also respects those who do, as long as they do not try to impose religion on those who'd rather not have it.

Living in Kansas was quite an education...in many ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:07 PM

"Have you changed your religious views?"

No, I can still see the same curches out of the same windows...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:10 PM

"I wound up an atheist when I was about 13."

Told him there was a God, did you?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:33 PM

I had an interest in Christianty when I was about 15. Even got confirmed and corresponded at length with the Vicar about the categorical imperative.

When I was 17 I perceived that organised religion was about social political and economic control.

The rituals and the priests have usually been a barrier between me and any spiritual enlightenment, and I have steadily become less inclined to accept that there is any enlightenment to be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:47 PM

Have you changed your religious views?

Yes, on an almost daily basis since I was old enough to think about it. Still do. The rest I will share in person, maybe. Mudcat has not been trustworthy as a place to share about it further.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:56 PM

No kidding. You need a thick skin to talk about stuff you really care about when you're on the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 08:05 PM

Yeah, I got tired of being spiritually open and trying to grow a thicker skin at the same time. Now, where's that sarcasm smilie icon?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 08:07 PM

"Have you changed your religious views?"

Yes, numerous times in the course of my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 08:19 PM

Jeri - what you say is interesting, because I experienced these questions too.

You write " I just thought a lot about the possibility of a mystical consciousness behind everything and decided it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me" I once had a similar idea of what God might be. At varying times I thought God might be the energy that flows through all living things, at another, i thought god might just be our collective consciousness and so on through endless combinations. But one day I realised what 'didn't make sense' about this picture: a God that is merely some form of energy or life force has no personality, anymore than any other form of energy does. You cannot have a relationship with this kind of 'God' anymore than you can with the electricity coming from the socket in your wall. Belief in God is a lot about your personal relationship with him. Once you make this 'breakthrough' God becomes as real as a family relative living in another town or country - though you can't see them, you 'know' they exist ('stop! You're scaring me now!!') Seriously, though, I find it hard to explain in any other way and science isn't able to prove any of this of course (otherwise it wouldn't be 'faith', would it?)

Another interesting point you mentioned was "I saw that all these people believed in a different version of God, and so I figured they were all right, or none were right. I went with the 'none"
That does strike me as odd though - why would you have plumped for 'none'? Perhaps one of them was right? If 7 witnessess give 7 versions of an event, just because the 7 versions are different, does it logically mean they are all wrong? One of them may be correct, but the big question of course is 'which one'? That is the part that's up to each of us to discover ourselves.
Of course it's very confusing when everyone says their 'particular version' is right. But if you then decide they are all equally right or wrong, you end up in the quagmire called 'moral relativism' where nothing is right or wrong. Sounds like a tolerant place to be until someone robs you, or murders someone, then we condemn it...but wait, if there is no right or wrong, why do we condemn it?? The fact that there is a kind of common cause amongst many religions (especially the monotheisms) is noteworthy in itself. We might ask, why is it that all these religions share these values?

Plus, there is another, logical argument against relativism. Realtivism is based on the axiom that "There is no such thing as absolute truth". But that statement is in fact an absolute statement. It is either true or it is not. Therefore, if it is correct, it denies itself: the statement itself cannot be true, being an absolute. If the statement is not true, it must be false. Therefore, it is false to say 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. Therefore, absolute truth (i.e something which cannot be denied) exists. Kinda makes my head spin, too, but there you have it.

I can understand why some parents teach their children a few facts about several religions or none at all. All the religious wars etc., are a poor advertisement for those who'd like to be religious. But people have killed and died in the name of many 'isms' - capitalism, communism you name it-ism. And if you live a materialistic life, focused on making money and so on (capitalism), this is as much a statement of what you believe worthwhile (obviously) as a person who goes to church every week.

Teaching no religious beliefs - this is a statement in itself too, it tells your kids you think no religious beliefs are worth having. We try and teach our kids the things that we consider to be important to their life and welfare. No parent that I know tells their children nothing about drugs and lets them experiment and decide for themselves. Or if their kids were marrying someone the parents thought to be a scoundrel. Once over 18 of course, parents have much less say in the matter, but they would always make their opinion known.
And if you have religious beliefs, you are most likely be trying to teach them to your kids in the first place.

Teaching all religious beliefs in bare outline - this too is a statement. It tells your kids that all religions are equally valid - and therefore equally invalid. If that's the case, why would anyone bother to follow any particular one? We only follow a religion because we believe it has something more worthwhile to offer that the others don't. If you were offered a free car, you would choose the one with the best features, right? In any case the kids will watch what their parents DO as much as (or more than) what they say. If the parents themselves follow no religion, the kids may well ask themselves "Then why should I?" If the parents follow one religion, once again they will probably teach this one in-depth to their kids and perhaps give a few facts about the others. They are also likely to explain to their kids WHY they follow this particular religion (as much as we explain to kids why we do anything in particular that we think is important - for exmple, I'm sure you've heard parents telling kids why it's wrong to steal etc.,)

BTW, I should add that when I say 'religion' I am not talking about the mere sets of rules and observances that go with each, such as not eating meat, or washing hands and feet before eating, etc., What I'm talking about is of course the core beliefs and teachings - the doctrine.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:37 PM

All of my family are devout church attenders, and they are good people, so I can't blame them for my rapid slide into agnostic atheism, which happened in my twenties, when I was busy discovering the world. I tried going to church, talking with a minister, reading the Bible to understand my thinking, and that was when I discovered how deeply sexism was rooted in Christianity and in most faiths I knew about. Around the same time, I went to school in Europe, still confused. My best friend in Canada was entering a Zen monastery, my best friend in the Netherlands was on the verge of joining a cult, I was losing my religion - my, how we argued and debated, as only twenty-somethings can!

Of course, I have 'grown in agnosticism' since then, and see very little reason to follow any faith - faith itself is incomprehensible, an unreasonable expectation, to me. If I were still a seeking Christian, I would be a follower of doubting Thomas, who needed physical proof and got it.

I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our morality, good and bad, including "Do onto others..." has evolved along with us, from our primate ancestors.

I'm unsure of what people mean when they say 'spirit', or 'spiritual' - the physical body and brain is all I'm certain of, the combined ability of these two is considerable, marvellous enough for me, without tossing an Odin or Zeus or Yahweh in the mix.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:51 PM

Raised Catholic-started question around 12 the reasons why my Church still practised segregation in the south. Little things-like the inquisition-the bad popes-the tenets like transubstantiation,(Could never get around that one) the arrogance of priests. That started my path from the Church. As I grew older-the birth control,divorce,homophobia, the whole "paid for annulment issues"-women being treated as humanitie's fringe element. A hundred other things too.

My epiphany came with Madeline Murray O'Hare-she dared to say the things I'd been thinking. That it's all a fairy tale. The bible, IMO is like Grimms Fairy Tales. People take their oath on the bible & say they believe in it totally! As we know, there are so many dreadful depictions of hate & violence-it cannot be taken literally-yet most Churchgoers do.
The baby must be thrown out with the bathwater. If you buy some of it-you must buy all of it.

I've just been reading about John23rd-he said there was no hell. The new pope has brought hell back. Limbo (was on leave also) is back too. Wish they'd get it straight. Somewhere I seem to recall that a Catholic has an obligation to follow his conscience.I know right from wrong. Works for me!

Many years ago, William F. Buckley said, "If there is a God--He is not a good God." Works for me!
Lastly, I think often of the vatican's vaults-were they opened-they could feed the hungry of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: khandu
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:00 PM

I am changing my views everyday. It is God working within me both to will and to do His good purpose. I am being molded into the image of Christ.

k

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:03 PM

I'll bring the nails . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:24 PM

I am being molded into the image of Christ.

Does that mean I can get a glow-in-the-dark plastic khandu for the dashboard of my car pretty soon?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:30 PM

now THAT would change my religious views!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:39 PM

I think it would hurt my wrists.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,Shakyamuni
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:40 PM

yes

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 11:39 PM

Religion as in any journey has new scenery and people as one passes from group to group. There are new lands and new lessons that share more than they differ.

At 18 before surgury I had to give a religion for the wrist band.
I wrote Humanist. I went on to involve myself in various groups which practiced Judaism, Christianity, Zen, Gurdief, Nichren Sho Shu, Hindu, Hindu off shoots, psychodelic shamaism, Bahai, various psycho social therapy groups, new age cultish channeling programs and other pseudo science BS.
Studying Joseph Campbell's work rounded out my experiences nicely as well. The one group that would not have me as a member or even as an onlooker were the muslims.

In my secular 13 year practice of hypnosis I rarely took on esoteric pursuits but there were a few side trips into de programming, regressions, sports psychology and unusual psycho somatic requests.

After the Gannet newspapers labeled me a maverick who believed that military politics and brainwashing go hand in hand and that new age pseudo science was gobbeldygook wrapped in a tissue of lies for a good cause... I gained the attention of various establishment beaurocracies like the FBI, CIA, DNI, High Priesthood of Jesuits the County police, hospitals and a handful of independent professionals like dentists, writers and artists.

The establisment types wanted one of two things; don't mess with our way of doing things or "would you like a job with us?"
Which in retrospect was the same one thing, don't mess with us.

One constant has been the exclusive religious groups that band together in a brotherhood of a powerfully proclaimed love while specializing in hate.

Also the thing my mom told me as a kid remains unchanged...
"NO matter what the clique, club, religion or nation you belong to, they all want their dues".

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,ex-Christian
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:15 AM

I post anonymously for reasons that will become obvious. I was involved in the church and called myself a Christian, a very politically (small 'p') active one, thinking that Christianity was a force for good in the world, helping to defend the helpless, speak up for voiceless, etc., and basically follow Jesus' example of making the world fit for 'God's children'. After a few years it dawned on me that not only does most of the western church not believe in this form of Christianity at all, but much of the church is actually *against* making the world better in the above terms, either by paying lip-service only and no more (sermons and prayers alone don't feed the hungry or release the oppressed), or by focussing exclusively on abstract theological notions about the afterlife, or by actively campaigning for repressive policies against already-repressed groups.

My push completely out of Christianity came in four ways:
1. A TV programme, a debate between atheist scientists and theist Christians. At one point they were debating the basis for moral action. A scientist asked what is added to the moral imperative by putting the word 'God' in the sentence. If something is good or right, or bad and wrong, he said, it's good or bad on its own terms, because of its effects in the world: adding 'God' to the moral imperative adds nothing of any substance to morality. That planted a seed in my mind that was to grow for a few years and finally come to fruition by combining with the other three factors.
2. I was very ill for a few years. I didn't know if I would ever recover. (I did!) At the time I was deeply involved in church work. I was shocked at the volume of church people who acted as if, and some actually stated, that my illness was in some way my own doing due to some religious or moral deficiency on my part. In other words, it was in some way God's doing. (It's worth stating that my illness was not any of those ever associated publicly with morality, such as AIDS.)
3. I worked for a year with a church minister who made my life absolute hell, who was using religion as a cover up and an excuse for his own hang-ups. He was habitually angry due to unresolved inner conflicts, but justified this in social or religious terms.
4. Another church minister, married and in a senior position to me, tried it on with me sexually. I was also married and she knew it. When I resisted her advances she made life in the church *very* difficult for me. I was a then a lot younger than I am now and scared. She spread lies about me dressed up as concern, which resulted in me having to spent more and more time with her to 'sort out my problems', which in practice meant more sexual advances from her. Because of this I told only a few people, outside the church, who helped me through it. She was found out when someone walked in on her having sex with someone else in the church - I wasn't the only one she was trying it on with. I resisted, he didn't. He was also married and his marriage ended as a result. The church did not remove her from the ministry, but just moved her to another part of the country to start again with that history out of view. At that point I knew my faith in the church was dead. Added to the other three cumulative factors, my religious faith died with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:42 AM

WYS, I gave up on the thick skin too. It's like the Zen dude said when asked, "But does the fire not burn?" and responded, "Yes, but the trick is not minding." I just try to let the negative feelings pass through me and not trap them. Thick skins for protection are fine for some, but none of this other stuff can hurt me unless I get upset about it. It's the getting upset that hurts.

Nickhere said, "One of them may be correct." Yes, I believe most people see the nearly infinite number of religions and come to that conclusion. I didn't. I'm not saying there aren't things unexplained, but I'm content to not need explanations, but just notice when those things happen and wonder that they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:55 AM

When I was 20, I let Odin into my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: kendall
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:00 AM

I'm a recovering Baptist.
What turned me off all organized religeon was the study of real history.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:33 AM

I've bounced in and out of Christianity for a good part of my life but always ended up being stifled by the rules and regulations and, quite often, the narrow mindedness of those who applied them. I've also found the holier than thou attitude, which exudes from some so called Christians, to be very off putting.

In the last few years I have thought more about my own beliefs and have come to the conclusion that, like other organisations, religions just give people a place to belong and that many people do need to have that anchor. It's just not for me.

I suppose the real turning point was the Jack In The Green festival in Hastings in 2004. I watched a group of pagans putting together their giants for the procession and it just got me thinking about why they were there and doing what they were doing. That, together with the teachings of a friend in quantum physics (what little I understood) and the realisation that the gospels were cobbled together 400 years AD all came together to make me really think about what I believed in.

I've spoken to a few people about my own belief and Kendall tells me that I'm probably somewhere close to being a Universal Unitarian. That's fine by me, so long as nobody wants me to fit into their system or conform to their rules.

For day to day living I try to lead as decent a life as I can, following a lot of the tenets that religions suggest. I know that I have a 'dark side' and try to use it constructively, rather than denying it completely. I don't believe in hell. I do KNOW that if I do something that goes against my own conscience, I will feel very uncomfortable, so I listen to my conscience and try to follow its dictats. I try to find the good in all things (don't always succeed there) and to be aware of the wonderful planet I live on.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:43 AM

The way I understand it to date, religions are social institutions, while spirituality is personal. Religion is external, spiritual internal. Religion is for believing, spirituality is for experiencing. So, the religious views of my formative years evolve and change all the time, as I explore alternate viewa/doctrines, practice different forms(s) of personal spirituality, and make them my own in ways that are meaningful and helpful to me.

I saw that all these people believed in a different version of God, and so I figured they were all right, or none were right. I went with the 'none"

Hmmm. All of them are right in certain respects while falling short in others. And they are all different because they evolved as a function of the needs/desires of very different groups of people, at very different times and places.

Religious traditions/doctines do have something unique and valuable to offer those who are interested and enjoy exploring the "different", even though "different" can be scary, uncomfortable, threatening. Because underneath all those perceived differences, there are certain common golden threads of truth (ie that the purpose of human life is to learn to Love better - ourselves and others - for just one example) Finding those common threads and reflecting upon them is a delight and a privilege, for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:29 AM

After discovering that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy weren't real, it didn't take me long to become a confimed Atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:40 AM

WEll, I've discovered through personal experience that Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy do indeed have something very special in common with God.

They're all Me.

(and all You, too)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:57 AM

I did a picture of Christ on the Easter cross wearing bunny ears and laying a decorated egg. There was no public outcry possibly since its pastel and not milk chocolate

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 12:27 PM

I have investigated different religions. They had one thing in common. They all asked you to submit to a higher power. Usually it was a person that represented that higher power.
The hierarchy of the religious institution starts that way. One person claims insight and others follow (I would submit blindly). The submission to an ultimate higher power seems to be a necessity for many people. It seems that some people require a kind of parental figure all of their lives. I felt that I had to grow up and assume my own responsibility for myself. I found that you didn't have to be religious to lead a moral and ethical life. In fact, much of what we know of morality pre-dates the Judeo-Christian religions.

Now, theological questions don't interest me that much. I don't find them useful except as an index to how people behave in history or culture. Other than that, I see no value to religion. There are many good people who are religionists and I want to get along with them so I usually don't discuss theological questions with them.

I am interested in a truthful quest for knowledge based on evidence and fact.

I find no comfort in believing in a made-up system of religious dogma. I certainly object to having it being interjected into government.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:10 PM

I have a friend who became an atheist upon realizing that his church had a secular insurance policy...


... to protect if against acts of god.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:17 PM

I've changed and continue to change.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:27 PM

That's funny, Mrrzy!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:06 PM

So many interesting posts. I very rarely express my disbelief in a higher power. There is no point to be made & some would be alienated. In listening to a few discussions over the years, I've heard more then a few express their disdain for athiests because "They have no morals." I realize it is said from total ignorance, but it still astonishes me.

A slight aside; a person wrote in to our local paper equating athiesm with Nazi fascism & Russian communism.The rebuttal from an athiest quoted Hitler's "Mein Kampf"

"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as an agent of our creator.By fighting off the Jews I am doing the Lord's work."                              

How many Germans thought they were doing the Lord's work? So the ignorance continues. Sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:10 PM

Frank...

I have investigated different societies and governments. They all had one thing in common. They all asked you to submit to a higher power (authority). It was always a person or group of people that represented that higher authority.

The hierarchy of any social institution (whether it be school, church, government, business entity, private club, criminal gang, or military forces) is arranged that way. One person claims the highest authority and others follow (I would submit blindly). The submission to an ultimate higher authority seems to be a necessity for many people. It seems that some people require a kind of parental figure all of their lives. I felt that I had to grow up and assume my own responsibility for myself. I found that you didn't have to be a conformist to society's rules and expectations to lead a moral and ethical life. In fact, much of what we know of morality pre-dates the societal structures presently in sway in the world.

Therefore, I submit that they are largely arbitrary...just like religion. My attitude toward them, in fact, is pretty much the same as your attitude toward organized religion.

My wish is to be free of ALL such authority, not just free of it when it claims to represent "God", and I will struggle until my last breath to be free of ALL such authority and to judge for myself what is good and valuable and meaningful in my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:18 PM

LH,

Looks like we're on the same page. (But not scriptural :))

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:20 PM

"They all asked you to submit to a higher power (authority)."

You have just described the education system all over the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:28 PM

Right fuckin' on, Peace. I was keenly aware from the day that I entered school that I had been forced into a part-time gulag...against my own free will...and against my own better judgement. I have not changed my opinion about that to this day.

I could have and did educate myself far better outside that stupid authority system. Matter of fact, I was already able to read before I even went to school. I simply endured school and survived until it was finally over. School, like other things, should be voluntary. It should be a choice. If it was, people would like it a whole lot better, and they'd grow up with the sense that they were in command of their own destiny rather than existing at the behest of Big Brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:35 PM

Jeez, anyone else miss Clinton Hammond?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: jaze
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:49 PM

What Mickey191 said. Almost word for word--for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:32 PM

Yeah, bobad, I miss Clinton like I would miss a really bad case of hemmorhoids...or a lengthy terminal illness.

You know, I've visited countries (like Mexico, for example) where many children were simply not able to go to school. They had to work every day to support the family. Some of these little kids or teenagers could manage to get to school a couple of days a week, in between working as servants or shoeshines or something like that. They really valued school, because they went on their own volition, and they knew that every bit of learning they got there might help them someday escape the poverty they were born into. It was a whole different world.

It wasn't like that in the North American middle class life I grew up in. There everybody was dutifully trundled off to public school to learn how to conform, be obedient, and consume, whether it suited their nature or not (Some individuals thrived there, others were psychologically crushed by it or their time was totally wasted there...which better descrives the effects it had on me. It was mostly slow hell...boring, oppressive, useless. This was not so when I had a REALLY good teacher, as happened on about 3 occasions...but my main problem was the system itself, and the other kids...the bullies, that is.)

It's better to have a choice where one goes by one's own free will and according to one's own keen desire than to be simply impressed into a mass system against your will. My view of the military is pretty much the same. Obedience is taught by the carrot and the stick...more notably, the stick. I do not admire such a system.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:50 PM

Free will, you will allow, is a most dangerous commodity, LH, and not to be allowed lightly in the ranks of half-breed chilluns. There is no tellin' why kind of chaos they will cause, inventing machines to hook up with each other and all kinds of devil's hi-jinks like thet. Just should not be allowed; younkers have no sense anyhow.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Crystal
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 05:54 AM

My religious views expand daily! Except they are not very religious as I do not believe in the idea of a "god(ess)" (Big beard/pair of breasts in the sky type thing).
The Universe now, that is somthing I DO believe in, especially after the existential dread which comes from staring up at the stars and opening your mind to the vastness of the universe.
WOOHOO that is a trip and a half, leaves you feeling like a giant, but unbelievably insignificant at the same time!

I understand why people who havn't had that kind of experience go in for organised religion though. I went to a service with a friend reciently and the sheer ENERGY of 40 odd people believing is pretty energising. Made me want to cry!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John O'L
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:33 AM

Kimya Dawson sings:

When I go for a drive I like to pull off to the side
Of the road, turn out the lights, get out and look up at the sky
And I do this to remind me that I'm really, really tiny
In the grand scheme of things and sometimes this terrifies me

But it's only really scary cause it makes me feel serene
In a way I never thought I'd be because I've never been
So grounded, and so humbled, and so one with everything
I am grounded, I am humbled, I am one with everything

...Look at the ocean and the desert and the mountains and the sky
Say I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye

...We all become important when we realize our goal
Should be to figure out our role within the context of the whole
And yeah, rock and roll is fun, but if you ever hear someone
Say you are huge, look at the moon, look at the stars, look at the sun
Look at the ocean and the desert and the mountains and the sky

Say I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
And I don't wanna make her cry
'Cause I like giants

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:49 AM

11 years ago i had a terrible motorcycle accident, i very nearly lost my left leg, it took 3 years and 27 operations, an ilizarov frame for 19 months to get back on my feet, when it first happened, i sort of went to pieces, i couldnt focus on anything and kept breaking down. one of the nurses who was looking after me advised me to see the hospital chaplain, i have never been religious and didnt want to start, she then went on to tell me that she had lost her husband the previous year in a car crash, and had found comfort in his words, i hesitantly agreed to see him, just out of respect to her, he came up the next day and we chatted for about a couple of hours.... no one has ever made more sense to me in my life than he did. I felt like i had a new begginning in front of me, i knew where i wanted to go in life.... i am still not religious, and i dont have a faith, but i do understand those that do. I am so gratefull to that man. in some ways i think he saved me from so much more pain.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:18 AM

Thanks, BLSteve, for a touching story of human compassion. Much appreciated.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:34 AM

Indeed - when I was suffering terribly in hospital once, the chaplain was very helpful. Many people who go into Service are.

Mickey 191 - I wish you didn't have to hide your atheism, we need to demonstrate that atheists can have morals, and have more good examples of that...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:34 AM

Steve - I'm so glad that, when you really needed it, you found someon to give you support.

There are a lot of good people out there who, whatever their faith, give so much to others in distress. Those good people won't try and make converts to their own faith, they lead by example and don't think the worse of one who does not want to follow. However, if just a little of their compassion rubs off and can be passed on, they have fulfilled their purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:41 AM

My last name, Hell, points to a firm Catholic background, but my paternal grandfather married a Protestant and had the idea that the mother's religion should be the children's religion in case of conflict. So I grew up in a nominally protestant family who went to church once a year, at Christmas. By the age of 16, I became a firm believer and even introduced some Christian practices in my patient family.

Between 22 and 25, I became much less religious and in many discussions with age peers developed first a denomination free belief into something like a God who was a compromise of many different ideas of a God, and, later, the idea that there may be no God afterall. With 30, I left the Protestant church because I did no longer believe into the fundamental beliefs of the church. Jesus was Jesus for me, an admirable man, but not the Christ.

With 35, I came close to rejoining the church for the simple reason that my then girlfriend would have lost her job when marrying a heathen. We broke up and I had not to rejoin church.

Now, I'm not just an atheist but a convinced naturalist. I believe there is nothing supernatural at all which includes, of course, God(s). I don't like aggressive atheism and I might not like aggressive theism if I'ds encounter it. I share roughly 90% of liberal protestant ethics. The only faith that has a tiny appeal to me is deism.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:47 AM

Deism is a belief in God as revealed by nature and reason, not scripture and faith. Deism is a free-thought philosophy, much like Agnosticism, Atheism or Pantheism in that it rejects the dogmas and superstitions of religion in favor of individual reason and empirical observation of the universe. The Deist sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates an Intelligent Creator or First Cause. ...
site.lunamyst.com/filelocker/glossary.html

I am not sure if this definition is the one you were using, Wolfgang. Some defintiions of deist emphasize the naturalist end, while others focus on the Intelligent Creator aspect.

What is your sense of the word as you used it above?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Scoville
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:50 AM

I would say "focused" rather than "changed". We've [my family] never been particularly religious. I actually learned a lot bouncing ideas off of other people online in blogs.

We still go to meeting for social reasons and because we're all teaching First Day School, but if anyone asked, we're a bunch of atheists. However, we're atheists that like kids and are willing to put a lot of time into them, even if we only see them one day a week.

I have no problem at all accepting that some things just happen and don't feel any need to ascribe them to any form of divine intervention. I don't believe in "karma" or "retribution" in a supernatural sense, although I think that if you're an asshole, people won't be inclined to help you out when you finally need it the way they might if you help them in their turn. Thus, what goes around does come around, but it's pretty logical. I think nature is amazing but I don't see why I should translate that into the idea that something bigger was in control.

* * * * *

And as far as the educational system goes, I didn't learn a damned thing until my last two years of high school, and then only a little. Everything else I learned, I learned at home. School was just to keep the authorities happy. College was better (although I still learned more from my peers than my professors, but in some ways I think that ought to be the point). Library school is an absolute crock. Nothing there I couldn't learn better with an apprenticeship. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole if I didn't have to have a stupid piece of paper to stay in the job market.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 08:20 PM

Mickey 191: "Many years ago, William F. Buckley said, "If there is a God--He is not a good God." Works for me!
Lastly, I think often of the vatican's vaults-were they opened-they could feed the hungry of the world"

I can understand many of the objections you have regarding the insitutional church - as I have mentioned further back, all institutions tend to suffer from the same faults resulting from human nature being as weak as it is. It is often much easier for people to do the wrong thing than to take a stand against injustices etc.,

But could I make two observations?

"Lastly, I think often of the vatican's vaults-were they opened-they could feed the hungry of the world"

This is similar to an argument I've often heard about selling the Pope's tiara (a bejwelled affair for his head) and giving the money to the poor. I'd agree on the one hand - I've never been a fan of clergy wearing jewellry, smacks too much of medieval feudalism, especially the kissing of the bishop's ring. These guys are a bit like the pharsiees of the Bible - all tassels and jewels and above the common folk. Jesus was fairly clear about this when He said "the first will be last and the last will be first - the rich have their reward now". But apart from that, there's a logic issue; I'm not sure the Vatican is quite as rich in cash as everyone seems to assume. If you read the accounts of your average church (accesible on request) you'll find they just about manage to pay the heating, lighting, maintenance and insurance costs to keep the building running for the year and provide a small stipend for the preists to live on. Far from rolling in riches, I doubt many people would give up their well-paid jobs to swap for the salary of a priest. What the church IS relatively rich in, is property. they own a lot of church land, buildings etc., and of course the Vatican holds priceless collections of art. Now you could argue that they should sell all this and give the money to the poor. But if they sell it, someone has to buy it, and why doesn't the buyer simply give the money to the poor instead? Maybe helping the poor is a job just for the church and not the rest of us that tell it how to behave. Strange, because in fact WE are the church - not just the priests etc., Much of the church property is already in use for a variety of purposes, many of them charitable, and I dare say a buy-out by the average corporation would just be going from the frying pan to the fire. Secondly, the Vatican does contain priceless treasures, but it IS a museum, open to the public at modest cost (and free entry every last Sunday of the month, but get there early to avoid queues) for all to enjoy. I've been there several times myself, and thoroughly enjoyed all it had to offer. If the stuff was sold off, it would disappear into private collections where one or two hoarders would get to enjoy it. You might as well argue that the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art sell off its collections and use the money to help the poor (though there's some merit in all that too, but once again, someone has to buy it if you sell it!)


""Many years ago, William F. Buckley said, "If there is a God--He is not a good God." Works for me!"

On what basis did William F. Buckley make that observation?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 08:34 PM

Jacqui - "the realisation that the gospels were cobbled together 400 years AD all came together to make me really think about what I believed in"

For what it's worth, the four gospels were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. All of these except Luke were eyewitnesses to many of the events mentioned, and Luke (whose profession was medical doctor) based his gospel on close interviews with those involved. Most of the gospels were written around 70 -80 AD, only 40 or so years after Jesus' death, and well within living memory. Moreover, a number of the events are backed up by independent histroical or archaeological evidence. By way of example, we are told Mary & Joseph returned to Nazareth for a census of the whole population that was being taken by the Roman emperor of the time (Augustus, I think). Indeed, Roman historical records confirm this.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 08:42 PM

"By way of example, we are told Mary & Joseph returned to Nazareth for a census of the whole population that was being taken by the Roman emperor of the time (Augustus, I think). Indeed, Roman historical records confirm this. "

They were IN Nazareth (Lk 1:26-27) and they returned for the census to Bethleham which was Joseph's hometown (1 Sam 16:1-13).

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:04 PM

Oops! Pardon me..

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:52 PM

Jeeze,..even the IRS drops old tax stories after eight years or something.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:14 PM

You can say what you want about it, Amos. I was a smart kid, and I knew perfectly well that my time was being wasted when I got sent to school, and my freedom being interfered with in an unconscionable manner that has left anger in me to this day. I had a simply tremendous desire to learn, as a child. I wanted to learn everything I possibly could about history, nature, science, culture, you name it. I learned to read before I was even in school, and I read everything I could get hold of. School was a dictatorial machine-system mind-controlling travesty forced upon me by the society around me, and I would be have been a far happier and better adjusted child and adult if I had never gone there.

This is not to criticize my better teachers. They were fine people. I suspect their talents might also have been put to better use in a more enlightened system than the one they were put to labor in.

My sympathies are deeply with teachers and students everywhere in the giant social machine that is modern mass education.

As for deism...it sounds like a good approach to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:18 PM

Mainly, it comes down to me not finding or needing or having any invisible means of support.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:37 PM

Various dates are claimed for the 4 main gospels..here are 3 of them:


"    The current dating of the four Gospels, accepted by the biblical establishment, which includes scholars of every persuasion, is: Mark 65-70; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; John in the 90s. These dates are repeated by the columnists who write in our Catholic newspapers and the experts who draw up the curricula for religious education in our Catholic schools."

"Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110."


"Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70"


The upshot of it is that none of the four saw the events, but relied on hearsay, writings and 'maybe' some eyewitness accounts.
We end up with a collection of documents that suggest that the various biblical stories of Jesus did have some historical basis....that there were real events & people that were being annotated.

This is important, but says little about the subjective, metaphysical aspects of the stories. In this day & age, with photographic evidence and known eyewitness we can't even agree on what happened to JFK or the WTC on 9/11. A story as complex as the life of Jesus, based on old documents, loosely translated and freely interpreted, is hard to authenticate.

These are some of the reasons why *I* changed my religious views as I grew up.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:39 PM

I had to look it up, Nickhere. The capital letters were for emphasis, not admonition. The darned gospels contradict each other frequently.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:44 AM

Personally i think the main problem with all religions is right here in this thread, everyone has too much to say about it, Its a very personal thing, If you have a faith and you find comfort in it, then good on you. Its going to make your life a happier journey, if you dont have a faith but feel that you dont need it,,,, good on you, your lucky to have a complete life with all you need to keep you focused.
Its no one elses business exept your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Marion
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 02:51 AM

Thanks for your answers, folks - there's some interesting reading here.

Marion

PS Scoville said, "Library school is an absolute crock. Nothing there I couldn't learn better with an apprenticeship. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole if I didn't have to have a stupid piece of paper to stay in the job market. " That's exactly my impression of nursing school, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,ex-Christian
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:54 AM

All really interesting ideas. It seems to me that being religious is like being in love. In other words, it comes primarily from somewhere much deeper than thought, logic or argument, though all three may be used to justify it. It is a state of mind puzzling to outsiders who cannot 'see' why this person / religion is so loveable. When you are in love, everything looks different, and you come to different conclusions and act differently towards your true love / religion because of it. It can drive you to do crazy things, for good or ill. And no one, no matter how hard they try, can convince you not to be in love / have that faith - because it is not based on convincing arguments. Indeed, the more others try and dissuade you, the more you hold on to that precious thing. Religion and being in love are both based on faith - a deep rooted and intangible belief in something you base your life on that can never be proven.

And, like love, when you fall out of religion you may look back and say, 'What did I? Why did that work for me then?'

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM

GEC, you make interesting points. It raises the issue of states of mind and their relationship to the commons. Like love, thekind of passionate certainties that religion brings out can induce conclusions which look extreme when compared to the average muddle of experience in the town square. And of course the probelm with those states is that no two are quite comparable. That's fundamentally why the state and religion have to be kept clearly separate; every religious experience invites solutons of an extreme sort (just look at life under Sharia law, Puritan law, Amish law, orthodox Jewish codes, etc.). From the commons point of view all of these things seem arbitrary and not conducive to the best survival. The introduction of arbitraries into the solutions of civic life just makes things complex and unworkable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:02 AM

Nickhere,
Buckley was simply stating his opinion.

As for the RC church and the lack of $, the property & businesses held by the church are in many instances not on the tax rolls. Maybe the huge judgements against pedophile priests are emptying the coffers?? Didn't the Boston Diocese declare bankruptcy for that very reason?   

As for the Vatican's art - which may be worth hundreds of millions - I've a feeling that a Place like the Metropolitan Museum of art could finance a   few pieces if the V. needed or wanted revenue. The Met is financed by gifts, endowments, grants,NYC & admission fees. Are you presupposing the reason the V. is holding on to their art is so they can share the beauty with the public? I think not-they are not an eelymosynary institution by any means.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:20 AM

(The term eleemosynary means relating to charity, charitable, or the giving of alms.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 03:17 PM

Yes, it is like being in love. As such, it's about the most joyful and expansive and loving state of mind a human being is capable of...as long as one still has faith. If that faith is broken, however, as often happens, the emotional devastation that follows is simply terrible. For some people such faith (whether it be in the realm of religion or romance) can resurrect itself repeatedly, like a phoenix rising from its own ashes, but it's probably never quite as achingly pure and innocent in subsequent episodes as it was the first time around.

The story of Joan of Arc is an interesting one to demonstrate how great religious faith becomes synonymous with the highest love and social idealism, and with the willingness to risk all and sacrifice all in service to others. Read Mark Twain's amazing book "Joan of Arc" if you get the chance. His investigations into her life and his writing of the book turned him from a lifetime cynic and atheist into someone willing to consider the possibility that there were realities out there which he had overlooked. His final conclusion was that she had to have been inspired and assisted by God and by Angels...hard as that was for a man like Mark Twain to swallow.

I don't expect anyone here to necessarily swallow it if you're not inclined to, by the way, so you don't have to tell me that...cos I already know.

But you might enjoy the book anyway. Like all of Mark Twain's writings, it's extremely good. He considered it the most important thing he ever wrote, but it's not very well known. He published it under an assumed name, wanting people to simply take it on its own merits rather than on his reputation. Almost no one knew for some time that it was his book. Accordingly, it did not sell very well when first published, and it has remained much less known than his popular tales of life in the America of the late 1800s.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 03:57 PM

Of course with Twian, one could never be sure if he was writing it under an assumed name for the reasons stated, or if he had some covert reason of his own for doing it that we haven't discoverd yet.
          Some people think you ghost wrote U.S. Grant's autobiography, and then there was that thing he wrote when he was in Nevada under the name of Jesus H. Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 04:26 PM

If I thought that the core truth of Christianity was "religious", I would reject Christianity too. I don't and I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 04:30 PM

Excellent comment, John.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 04:32 PM

"My last name, Hell, points to a firm Catholic background, "

I hope you state that TIC, Wolfgang. You should be the first to assert that 'hell' in German means nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:02 PM

In German I believe it means "light" as in hellblau (light blue).

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:20 PM

It's not as though Wolfie doesn't know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:49 PM

No doubt. What of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:58 PM

Art, I loved your comment.

Many psychaitrists say that "being in love" is a kind of insanity. It's a lot different than loving.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 07:55 PM

ouch

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:14 PM

Mickey 191 -

I don't know about the church not being on the tax rolls - maybe they are, maybe they ain't. I guess they'd have to have their tax affairs in order at least as much as the next person, or risk the wrath of the IRS. Yes, there have been massive payouts I gather over the activities of paedophile priests, though I don't know all the ins and outs of the Boston case you mention. Their activites were disgusting and shameful, I don't think any sincere Christian would defend it. Jesus said "and if anyone hurt any of my little ones (children) it were better that a millstone were put around his neck and he was cast into the sea" The church, as an institution, shot it itself in the foot there, by moving these guys around instead of rooting them out. It let itself down and it let the flock down. I think the situation underscores a flaw of institutional religion - when the practice becomes almost entirely social rather than spiritual. There are many dedicated and good priests, but many have also joined in the past as it was a respectable 'career' at a time when few other options were open. Ireland in the 19th & 20th centuries saw many men join the priesthood because the first son got the farm (an unjust system in the first place) and the options were joining the British army, emigrating to the States or joining the preiesthood. Hardly the best basis for what is essentially a vocation.

"Are you presupposing the reason the V. is holding on to their art is so they can share the beauty with the public? I think not-they are not an eelymosynary institution by any means"

I am not saying they open the museum out of charity - afterall, you have to pay an entry fee, though quite an affordable one. The Vatican could simply close the museum to the public if it wished. It is not under any obligation to display it, if the Popes wished to wander among the treasures for themselves like Smaug the dragon out of The Hobbit. But it available for the public to see and enjoy, as millions (literally) do every year, and for researchers to make use of. The Vatican is even slowly trying to put some of its big collection of illuminated manuscripts online (a major task) so they can be shared by even more people. I don't believe the MOMA or the Louvre are charities either? Museums also cost a lot of money to run - security, humidity control, salaries of attendants, brochures you-name-it. the ticket cost goes towards all this. The Vatican as far as I know, unlke the MOMA (for example) is not an acquisitive museum - in that it doesn't set out to acquire new pieces, unless they turn up on Church property and are sent ot the Vatican museum for conservation, or come as donations.

But once again - if the MOMA (or any other museum) is such a charitable institution as to be willing to buy pieces of the Vatican's collections so that the Vatican can fund charity work, then why doesn't the MOMA (etc.,) simply fund the charity work itself?

"Buckley was simply stating his opinion"

Sure, of course he was. But my question was essentially 'on what basis did he come to that opinion'? Presumably he had some reason to think that and didn't simply decide it at random. You also state his opinion is 'good enough for me'. I'd be interested to know why you agree with Buckley's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:45 PM

Marion, going back to your original question, I thought you might be interested in checking out former Korn member Brian Welch's site, where he talks about about becoming a Christian and why:

Headtochrist

And on dating the gospels, and many other similar questions, you might be interested in this site:

Who is Jesus really?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:55 PM

In hi susual elegant manner, Art Thieme nailed the issue in one quiet post about "having no invisible means of support".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John O'L
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 09:46 PM

My last name, O'Lennaine is a Mudcat username, but my actual name is something equally Irish and points to a firm Catholic background, but my dad was abused as a child in the Catholic school system and when he married a practicing Anglican, they brought us up as, well, lapsed protestants, she being protestant, he being lapsed.

I have a clear memory of Sunday School at around age 7 or 8, wondering about how and why Jesus could possibly have died for my sins. I could not join the dots to make sense of it. At age 13 I got confirmed and tried really hard to seriously commit to what I was promising, but I knew deep down I was lying, and I felt fery guilty, but strangely, unafraid. (Not because I didn't believe in God, I did.)

When I was 30, I think, I had a car accident in which I nearly died. I survived by the slimmest of chances, and was left with no residual after-effects. I tried to make this a "Lo & Behold" moment, but once again I was unable to commit to the rapture.

I have noted similarly freakish occurrances at regular intervals, saving my bacon again and again, to greater or lesser degrees throughout my life, and am drawn to the inevitable conclusion that I live a charmed life, and that there must, presumably, be some reason for it, since so many clearly do not live such a life.

I have done nothing yet to warrant such consideration, and at 56 years of age, am beginning to wonder when it's going to happen and what it could possibly be. I see guys my own age retiring and basking in the glow of their achievements, and here's me still wondering what I'm going to be when I grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:44 PM

I've lost Bill's phone number. I think you will have to find William F. and sit him down and ask why he made that statement. I've stated my beliefs - they're in this thread.

I said _IF_ the Vatican needed money -I'm sure said museum and others as well, would find a way to finance the purchase through grants, endowments,etc. The charity issue you keep bringing up is irrelevant to this discussion. The Met. Museum is not a charitable institution. And my feeling is the R.C. Church is not either! It's a business.

I'm moving on Nick. Ciao!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:19 AM

John O'L - it's possible that any reason for your survival has already happened but you just aren't aware of it.

We touch many people in many different ways as we go through our lives and it could be that some, to you, insignificant event was a turning point to someone else. Maybe that is yet to happen. Maybe there is no reason for your survival other than Irich luck.

For myself,I live life without worrying about why I'm here and what is my purpose. I just try to appreciate the world around me and the people I am in contact with.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: mick p r.m s.c
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 03:35 PM

Never had any religious views,I am a MONGOLIAN BAPTIST.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 03:44 PM

Would that be Outer,Inner Or Regular Mongolia?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 03:59 PM

Just heard this from a friend:
Tallulah Bankhead was a very dear friend of Cardinal Frances Spellman of New York. She went to mass frequently at St. Patrick's Cathedral even though she was not Catholic.

This day,during a high mass, the Cardinal was walking down the aisle dressed in a long fancy habit and was sending incense into the air. As he neared Miss Bankhead-he nodded to her. She was heard to say:
"Franny, I love your gown, but the perfume has got to go."

Apocryphal? Perhaps-but knowing Tallulah-Perhaps not.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: PSzymeczek
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 08:44 PM

I was the product of an excommunicated Mennonite and a Southern Baptist. Some of my great-granddparents were Amish. 'Nuff said

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:13 PM

Mickey 191: "I'm moving on Nick. Ciao!"

OK, William what's-his-name isn't around to discuss the issue with, so I can't 'sit him down' etc., But since you mentioned him and said his views were good enough for you, I thought perhaps you'd read a book or something he wrote and so could explain to me how he arrived at that conclusion. If not, since you (according to yourself) hold the same view, I thought you could tell me why you do. I've looked back over your posts as you suggested, and I honestly can't find anything there that explains to me why you think God (if He exists) isn't a good God.
So my question to you remains unanswered.

But, if you'd prefer not to discuss it further, no problem. I don't understand why you don't want to discuss it further, but I respect your wish not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:16 PM

Peace "I had to look it up, Nickhere. The capital letters were for emphasis, not admonition. The darned gospels contradict each other frequently"

Sure, no problem, understood. I don't know why I wrote Nazareth - I've sung enough Xmas carols to know it's Bethlehem! Late night, typing at speed...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 10:03 PM

Nickhere, I can't answer for those other fellas, but I can try to explain to you why I would agree with the statement (God, if he exists, is not a good god).

Strictly speaking, we have only three sources to look to, regarding God's goodness: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the world we live in.

The Old Testament is full of horrific stories of God not being good. He directly destroys cities, men, women, children, animals, again and again: Sodom and Gommorrah (remember Lot's wife? All she did was look), the firstborns of Egypt (including firstborn animals, and after repeatedly 'hardening Pharoah's heart' so he will continue keeping the Jews in Egypt), the Flood (every living thing).

He indirectly commits genocidal and homicidal acts by having the Jewish Tribes do it for him (kill all the men and boy children, and the women, save the young virgin girls for yourselves).

He likes 'testing' people. He tests Abraham by cruelly letting him think he must sacrifice his own son. He tests Job by, among other things, killing his entire family - all for a wager with Satan.

In the New Testament, he invents what to us non-Christians seems a horrifying plan of redemption: he inserts part of himself in a human body and allows himself to be publicly tortured to death. This bloodshed (horrible, but no worse than and not as bad as many of the deaths that have happened to multitudes of mere humans) he wants remembered and commemorated in a somewhat cannibalistic fashion and this will somehow cleanse our sins. This may have made sense 2000 years ago, but doesn't today, to me.

In the world, we see no correlations like good people get good things, bad people get bad things. God told us prayer had some point, that we would get help from prayer: patently untrue, as anyone stuck praying in a church in Rwanda a few years back could testify, or in fact anyone who's watched their child suffer and die.

In the world, that this good god created, we see even nature is cruel: carnivores must kill, prey animals are killed, creatures suffer, eat their young, die in terror, starve, etc.

It's difficult to see this kind of deity as entirely benevolent - wrathful, capricious, vengeful, yes.

I am aware of the variety of Christian Apologetics for these things, but I find them pretty weak.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 10:10 PM

Shouldn't being god mean never having to say you're sorry?

(ducking and running for cover)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 11:50 PM

Bee, That was a terrific,mordant answer to Nick. You answered for me-100% better then I could.Thank You!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: skarpi
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 08:33 AM

Have I changed my religious views , I have often wander about it .
why well first all , most of the wars in the past started
becouse of religious views and for what ? why ? If the holy book
is the " book " we should not go to wars, the 10 commitments
do we go after them ? thats a big question and I think everyone has to answear that for him/her self .

If we think about thouse 10 commitments they make alot of cence ,
dont they . We shure dont go after them in Iraq, or in africa were
we let people die of hunger , while we eat our self to death the greed is
taken us to hell someone said if you earn 10 $ you want more , right
are we willing to give our little brother in africa witch is going from hunger ........... well I have not been very good at this but
if I can go and get 4 ltr of Coke cola , I can just get 2ltr and give away the money for the other to our little brother or sister   

We can see the greedness alround us , we see men and wimen selling kids
and wimen into sexual slavery, work , and drugs , what do we do ?
nothing or a little as possible , but what could we do ?



all thouse thing I was wrote down are in the 10 commitments

and we dont go after them at all.

and I still wander if I should change my faith ,

maybe I should go to our old Viking faith , Thor , Odinn, Ofeigur
they are their gods .....................


Well I wish you all Happy easter I am not feeling Negative at all
but these thing s .... we keep forget about .........
1000 Isl kr, helps one family in africa to have food for one month
thats about 16 $ thats what I am told by the Isl Red Cross.


I work with people from Africa , people who have been taken
to prison , slavery and worse , they are just people like us
looking for hope and change to live their live in peace , they are
good people and I like them and I can not I will not put me in their
past live .


meybe I should just shut up and dont say a word , but I had to.


If you think I have go over the line , please say so ... I can take it.

All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 09:00 AM

Skarpi - you say it so eloquently. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 10:35 AM

"I am aware of the variety of Christian Apologetics for these things, but I find them pretty weak."

I love these kind of comments tagging a long diatribe. They're meant as a final nail in a coffin, but are instead so often seen as the shell-game rhetoric that they are.

No need to look under this shell, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mickey191
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 11:00 AM

Skarpi, Your thoughts are genuine--from a good soul. Thank you for sharing.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 12:12 PM

Skarpi, your words are, as always, refreshingly beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 02:00 PM

"I love these kind of comments tagging a long diatribe. They're meant as a final nail in a coffin, but are instead so often seen as the shell-game rhetoric that they are.

No need to look under this shell, folks. " - John Hardly

There is no 'shell' to look under, John. What I wrote is what I think. It isn't the first time I've said it, and indeed, the rote apologetics I've been handed in return are weak and unconvincing.

If you think that was a 'long diatribe', I can't imagine how you sit through the average sermon, or even manage to wade through the average post discussing a song's origins.

Your remarks are apparently meant to belittle my words and attempt to encourage others to dismiss them without considering them. Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 07:24 PM

Jacqui, it has occurred to me that I may already have fulfilled some purpose that I will never know about, and when I look at my two glorious children it's easy to accept, but it's not so easy to accept that there may be nothing left for me to accomplish.

As far as blind luck goes, if there was that much luck around, then it wouldn't be called luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 07:55 PM

John - that is what is so wonderful - none of us know what we have left to accomplish. Just live every day to its fullest.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 08:11 PM

I couldn't Bee little your words.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 08:51 PM

Hi Bee, thanks for your reply. Yes, the Old Testament does look fairly tough indeed!

Ok, sorry about the length of this post, but I'll have to reply in some depth for me to make any sense..

The Old Testament (Testament meaning 'agreement' of course) framed one relationship with Yaweh. The Jews were (and are) God's chosen people. He looked after them (brought them out of Egypt, Babylon, gave them the promised land etc.,) and in return they agreed to make him their God alone. He explained when giving the 10 commandments that the very first commandment was to have Him alone as their God "for I am a jealous God" etc., I understand all of this (in context) to mean that He saw their best future lay with Him and that they would be decieved and led astray if they turned to false Gods. There's another phrase (in the New Testament, I think) that correlates here, to paraphrase: a good father chastises his children, a bad one never does. In other words, a good father will correct and discipline his children when they go astray, not for the pleasure of doing so, but for their own good. In the same way you might ground your kids for skipping school or taking drugs (maybe something stronger for the latter offence! ;-> ) You don't do it to see them cry, but because you want to warn them away from behaviour that's harmful or self destructive, for as long as you have any influence in their lives. And I'm sure many kids resent being disciplined terribly - how often has some kid, banished to his room, declare angrily "I hate my parents! They're such killjoys!"

If you look closely at when bad things happened to the Jews in the Bible, you'll find it was when they themselves abandoned God first and said more-or-less "Get lost God! We can manage fine without you, thanks!" So it wasn't He who abandoned them, but they who abandoned Him. Yet He was ever-ready to come to their assistance at the first sign they had turned theirb hearts back to Him. As any parent will know, there are times when you simply have to wait until your children screw themselves up enough to ask for your help, and until, they do there's not much you can do.

The New Testament brought a new dimension to this relationship - the Old Testament God had required sacrifices etc., but the New Testament (new agreement) was to do away with all that (like Abraham's son - yes, God tested Abraham and Job - but He never tests any of us past what He knows we can bear, and Abraham's would-be sacrifice prefigures the Crucifixtion, but there's too much to go into here). The whole idea was that Jesus would be the perfect sacrifice (offering to God) since He had no sin. Therefore, blameless, He took on himself all the guilt of our sins and so we need no other sacrifice. It was his death on the cross that makes Him the gateway to salvation for this reason. Plus the New Testament widened God's chosen people to include the Gentiles (non-Jews) though Jews got first call on Jesus' message.

But I suppose, Bible aside, the facts you mentioned about the world today are typically the main reasons why people either believe there is no God, or that He is not a good God if there is.
You know, all the religious wars, the misuse of Christ's name by leaders for politics. We only have to think of George Bush or some Islamic fundamentalists to see how God is used to justify people's wants. Some people mentioned the inquisition, others mentioned Hitler. I've alreadf spoken about the inquisition - it was largely a political tool, nothing very out of the ordinary for its time in either aims or methods as any student of the Middle Ages will readily appreciate. And inquisitions exist for much the same reason today (anti-communist, anti-terrorist etc., mainly political). And of Hitler had studied his christianity a bit further, he would have known the Jews were God's chosen people - hardly a suitable target for a 'Christian's' genocidal rampage!! It is worth noting, that far from being Christian, on the contrary the Nazis were deeply steeped in occultism, and made a big cult of various Teutonic and Norse gods such as Thor, Odin etc., as well as other occult themes (even during pro-Nazi rallies in the mid 1930s, Nuremburg etc.,)

One of the best ways for an enemy to discredit their foe is to dress up in the uniforms of their foe and commit acts that will then be attributed to the foe, rousing the indignation of the people. What I am saying is that many of the acts carried out by so-called Christians that horrify us, on closer inspection turn out not to have been carried out by people who were truly christian at all.

But apart from those evidential arguments, there is a basically logical argument to be made that demonstrates God is a good God:

People often ask, if God is good, why does He allow wars, hunger etc.,

What does God direct us to do?

Love your neighbour (including your enemy), don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't hanker after what your neigbour has, don't sleep around with other people's husbands or wives, etc., (basically the 10 commandments)

Now, is anyone wiling to argue that we would be worse off if we all followed these commandments? Would there be MORE war, MORE injustice, MORE sorrow and pain? Surely not. Therefore the things that God commands us to do are GOOD for us. Does this sound like an evil, vindictive God? If we even followed the basic commandment of loving our neighbour, we would ensure no one was hungry or cold or lonely. The world would in fcat be a far better place if we did these things, but being weak as we are, we often find it easier (in the short term) to be selfish, love only ourselves and those who do something for us, be dishonest (stealing, lying), kill the other guy instead of accepting a just solution etc.,

So why doesn't God stop these things happening anyway?

Well, He could, being all-powerful. He could freeze that finger on the trigger this instant, stop the bullet in mid-flight, force us all to tell the truth like Jim Carrey in 'Liar Liar'. But is that really what the world wants? We say we do, but like the strict Calvinist in the apocryphal old tale, we think a good 'fire and brimstone sermon will do our NEIGHBOUR a world of good'! Because we tend not to look so much at our own faults. Let's be honest - we all like to think we do fairly OK, and are moral people, and perhaps often we are. But who can 'cast the first stone'? Not me anyway! Have you ever lied to your partner, told your boss you were sick when in fact you dossed off for the day, claimed welfare when you were well able to work, helped yourself to a few extra bottles of wine from the shop where you worked, maybe justified it all through various extraneous circumstances? (for example, though the list is endless, add to it at will). ALL of these things would also have to stop if God were to intervene in the direct way people sometimes demand of Him. Because God is a fair and just God as well as a good God. These things are as much a part of the whole system of corruption as the bigger sins like war. Not everyone would be comfortable with that!

To stop all of the evil things we do, big and small, God would first have to take away His biggest gift to us: our free will. This is our capacity to choose good or evil, to consciously decide to be for God or against Him. But if he did that, we would no longer choose to do good because we wanted to - we would do good because we had no choice. And where's the good in that? Ok, it mightn't seem to make much sense, so here's a kind of parallel: you have a girlfriend. She loves you and wants you to be happy. She does lots of things to make you happy. you feel happy - and lucky to have such a girl. Scenario two - you have a girlfriend. You've hypnotised her into doing only the things you want. She does them, but you never know whether she does them because she wants to, or because you are pulling the strings. Which do you think is ultimately the more satisfying realtionship for both?

Without free will, we would be like Isaac Asimov's robots in "I, Robot" - serving our master because we had no choice, doing good because we couldn't do anything else. Doing good, but without any love or charity in our souls.

Finally, if God were really evil..... don't forget that God (for the sake of this argument we are assuming He exists and has certain attributes) is also all-poweful / omnipotent. Try and imagine an all-poweful and sadistic God.... life would simply be one endless torture without any good points coupled with total despair (a bit like Hell, really). I once read a science fiction story about a world where people had tried to make a powerful supercomputer and it took over (very original! ;-) ) It had trapped five people inside it and delighted in inflicting every conceivable torture and humiliation it could devise on them. It controlled them so carfeully that they couldn't kill themselves and wouldn't die, so the computer could prolong the agony endlessly for its own delight. Eventually one guy figured a way to beat the computer and kill the other four, releasing them from the living hell, but alas, there was no one to kill him, and the computer vented all its frustrated fury on him afterwards.... I don't remember the name of the story, but if God was truly a vindictive evil God, life would be something like that.

Sorry for going on at length, but the question required a carefully explained response. In short:

When the Jews turned their backs on God in the Old Testament, hard times usually came their way which implies God was looking out for them when they followed Him. He was always ready to accept them back if they changed their minds, like the ever-loving parent who can't say No when their child needs help. Both facts point to a good God.
In the New Testament, He went so far as to send His son to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Not just for the good people, but for everyone. All we have to do is accept this sacrifice. This points to a good God.
If we did more of the things God asked us to do, there would be a lot less suffering in the world. This points to a good God.
God could stop us from doing evil, but only by taking away His gift of free will. leaving us loveless automatons acting on instinct alone like animals. He would rather we had free will and loved Him freely, even if this means some of us will turn our backs to Him. This points to a good God.
If God was both all-powerful and a vindictive sadist, life would be a living hell all the time. I think even the most unfortunate can find something redeeming in life. This points to a good God.

All in all, I think we'd have to say God is good!

And I can add my own personal experience - as I said in an earlier post, all the good things I wanted from life never came to me through indifference to God or the occult, but followed quickly enough when I accepted Christ as my saviour. He has been nothing but good to me, I have no complaints. For all the years I spent dabbling in witchcraft and the occult, in the end I found the real magic - the real power - was in Jesus and God.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM

Bee: "In the world, we see no correlations like good people get good things, bad people get bad things. God told us prayer had some point, that we would get help from prayer: patently untrue, as anyone stuck praying in a church in Rwanda a few years back could testify, or in fact anyone who's watched their child suffer and die"

I know this looks especially tough to non-christians. But what I wrote about free will explains part of why bad people seem to prosper. Remember also the riches of this world are temporary, there are no pockets on a shroud. Christ said "don't store up treasure for yourself in this world where moth and rust can consume it, and thief steal it. Instead store up treasures in the next world where there is no rust or thief etc., to touch it' and also "what does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?' He was saying that in the end those who chase after the world and ignore God will be the real losers.

Having said that, I have personally had my prayers answsered more than once. Non-believers will probably put this down to coincidence, so the influence of God (where it does not affect my freewill) is probably impossible to prove 'scientifically' (the only curently acceptable yardstick for the sceptic).

Then there are times when we pray for things that are not good for us (and God knows what's good for us better than we do) or not in line with His plan for us. When I was a very young child, I prayed fervently for a laser gun as I'd seen in a science fiction story called "Leap into the Future" (in a magazine called "Tell Me Why"). Luckily for my neighbours, the cat, dog and general welfare of the countrside around, my prayers went unanswered.

On a more serious note, what about people who are praying that someone close to them who is dying may live? There are cases on record where someone's cancer cleared up inexplicably or they unexpectedly and against all the doctor's predictions got better, after people prayed for their recovery. That said, it hasn't happened always, and people may wonder why. We ask ourselves 'didn't I pray hard enough?' I don't think that's usually the case, but God may have had a better idea. We all have to die sometime, and death of a loved one is a fact we all have to learn to cope with sometime (otherwise we'd all have to live here forever). We may not want a person to die, but obviously we are simply delaying the inevitable. Sometimes God grants this for a variety of reasons - as a kindness to someone who loves Him, to give the dying person further time to find God - and salvation if they haven't already done so, to prompt stronger belief in someone close to the dying person, sheer love.
But for a christian, death in itself is not a bad thing, though it brings tears. Death is a portal which we must pass through in order to reach something beyond this world. The physical body cannot go there. For a christian, the most important thing is dying in a state of grace, accepting Jesus as your saviour. Dying any other way is a disaster (as far as Christians are concerned, and we're NOT looking down our noses at anyone, here, just stating our beliefs).

Christians look at things a bit differently to what worldy common sense might dictate. There is a prayer to God that i think sums it up nicely; "God help me to change the things I can change, and accept the things I can't change" In other words what can't be helped (e.g the death of a loved one, God can at least help you cope with it. We can't always control our world but God can help us to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 10:25 PM

Oy vey...ya got tsuris, pal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 09:01 AM

Thanks for your responses, Nickhere. Leaving the OT aside for the moment, I would like to react to your explanation of prayers not being answered (or being answered). It seems very reasonable (God has a different plan, one we can't know, etc.) when looked at in the context of a generally peaceful and wealthy state - we can't know why God would choose to save someone's life or not, and surrounded by our general safe prosperity, deaths usually happen singly and with the comforts of western medicine.

But when I look at places in the world where deaths and horrible diseases and dreadful injuries occur en masse, due to wars or intense poverty or famine, it becomes impossible for me to think that this is part of some plan. To be sure, someone's free will has caused or not sufficiently helped alleviate these terrible circumstances. But for the people caught in these, life often is very like the endless torment you describe as a world with a sadistic god. Very few of the people caught up in famine or war have their prayers answered, where their prayer may be as powerfully simple as 'help my children not starve or die', compared to many in, say, the US or Canada, where a prayer might be as trivial as 'help me get this job', and often is perceived to have been answered. (Note: I have not postulated that a god would necessarily be 'evil' if not 'good' - he/she/it might be simply indifferent or not inclined to interfere with a world set in motion.)

The implication seems to be:

"And I can add my own personal experience - as I said in an earlier post, all the good things I wanted from life never came to me through indifference to God or the occult, but followed quickly enough when I accepted Christ as my saviour. He has been nothing but good to me, I have no complaints. For all the years I spent dabbling in witchcraft and the occult, in the end I found the real magic - the real power - was in Jesus and God. " - Nickhere

that this is placing blame on entire suffering nations of people (many of whom are Christian) - they must not have really accepted Christ, as good things have not come to them. For me, the contrast between a preacher believing god answered her prayer for someone to help her load groceries in her car (true incident) and a fourteen year old girl who was the only surviving (though badly mutilated) member of her entire extended family, all of whom were certainly praying when they were massacred in a church in Rwanda (true incident) is stark evidence that prayer is ineffective.

I don't know if I've been able to sufficiently explain my rejection of prayer here - but I think that if this presumed God answers any prayers at all, he appears suspiciously to favour some populations over others.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 09:40 AM

Sectarian violence.

Genocide

ethnic cleansing

fundamentalist purity

cruelty and killing...

Some of it is prescribed by the laws of a religion/ideology and some of it is born by the tribal psyche of mankind.

Like a snake consuming itself starting at the tail or the chicken and egg concept, the wars of religion fueled by the reptillian ego of man have no begining and no end.

Even now when war is waged for purely imperialistic economic advantage, the foundations of such wars are given the justification of God's will. In the US patriotism is linked with Christianity. In the middle east patriotism is linked with the purity of Islam.


I can not blame religion for the violence. Religion and violence walk hand in hand down the aisle and marry each other generation after generation. The violence is within and can be easily created even when there is no innate conflict.

For all the beautiful truisms that religion may provide they are all undone in the presence of war.

All I know is that slaves will escape and that some men preach love in terms of hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:35 AM

Of course the truth is that all these cataclysms and badnesses have nothign to do with God, any more than the erosions of sand cliffs can be blamed on Neptune, the God of the Sea. The two things are of entirely different orders of magnitude, and it is as foolish a conceit to blame an entity described as infinite for the losses of human idiocy, or the legends others generate about It, as it is to think such an entity will hear prayers for a better sex life or more money or saving cousin Polly from her emphysema. Such an entity -- the ultimate Cause of Universe -- is not going to worry about you touching your peepee or whether or not the West Coast falls into the ocean on some third-rate ball of mud stuck on the fringes of a second-rate galaxy somewhere.

On the other hand, there is a local composite right here on Earth that might have some effect on these concerns. It is not God or even a god; it simply the web of interconnected life force that beings make in their ordinary connectedness through friends, groups, nations, life forms, breathing and eating and wrassling with dogs and girlfriends and strangers from the gummint and soccer moms and folksingers. There is a great deal of potential spirit-power in this web, which can be directed or tapped into by individual thought under the right conditions. And it is more responsive to human concerns than any postulated infinity.

AND it is not imaginary, in the sense of one individual's fantasy, since we are all subscribers to it.

Maybe I'll start a New Church. I dunno. The guys down at the Temple would miss me something awful.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 12:05 PM

Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things requires religion. Wish I could remember who said something like that.
Also, I recommend the Blogging The Bible series on Slate.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM

Bee: "But when I look at places in the world where deaths and horrible diseases and dreadful injuries occur en masse, due to wars or intense poverty or famine, it becomes impossible for me to think that this is part of some plan"

Yes, I think you're right. It is not part of God's plan that we suffer horribly. On the contrary He would like us to lead happy fulfilled lives. Christians believe that the best way to do that is to discover and follow God's plan for each of us individually. My point was that these horrible things stem from our misuse of our free will to do evil acts, not from God.

"that this is placing blame on entire suffering nations of people (many of whom are Christian) - they must not have really accepted Christ, as good things have not come to them"

I was actually referring to my own personal experience, as I explained. I was trying to add a personal note about my experience of prayer. I personally found that, not following God's plan for me seemed to get me nowhere, and indeed into many bad places, but following it seemed to bring the good things I hankered after. I'm not looking down on anyone here (Christ told us not to judge) but I cannot ignore my own experience either.

I think we have already agreed that good things can happen to people who have not accepted Christ - we have already agreed on this thread that "In the world, we see no correlations like good people get good things, bad people get bad things. God told us prayer had some point, that we would get help from prayer: patently untrue (Bee)"
But Christians see two differences: 1) they do not judge 'good things' as being material successes alone (Ok, apart from Weber's "Protesant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism") so that someone who reaches the top of the pile in career and riches isn't necessarily sucessful or has had good thinsg happen to them in a Christian sense. 2) The most important thing for Christians is salvation. Good things for us are the things that lead to it, bad things are the things that lead away from it. Thus as Christians, we believe ultimately that those who have not accepted Christ as a saviour will lose out on the most important things in life.

But before anyone rushes to judge me on that statement could I say that those who do not accept Christ might be quite satisfied in the lives they lead and quite sucessful according to their own criteria, and of course that's their right.

Amos: "Such an entity -- the ultimate Cause of Universe -- is not going to worry about you touching your peepee or whether or not the West Coast falls into the ocean on some third-rate ball of mud stuck on the fringes of a second-rate galaxy somewhere"

Actually, according to the New Testament, you're wrong on this one. God actually does give a hoot about what happens to each one of us, in detail. Jesus said "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed the very hairs of your heads are numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows" (Luke: 12:6-7)
How does any of us know that even in bad times God isn't trying to look out for us? Perhaps those bad times could have been worse if God hadn't been trying to mitigate them. I have already pointed out how He cannot actually stop people from committing evil acts without taking away their free will and reducing them to automatons. Once again, death isn't the total loss for Christians that it might seem to others. Indeed Christ says on the same topic: "I tell you do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. Fear him, who after the kiling has the power to throw you into hell" (Luke 12:4-5)

It is one of the devil's nastiest manouvres to stir people up to violence and hatred and killing and then have them blame it on God

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:21 PM

Bee: fair enough - a God that was not good might not necessarliy be evil. But you have to ask why an indifferent God would bother to create a world and people to then be indifferent to it.

You said "Note: I have not postulated that a god would necessarily be 'evil' if not 'good' - he/she/it might be simply indifferent or not inclined to interfere with a world set in motion"

But in an earlier post you wrote:
"It's difficult to see this kind of deity as entirely benevolent - wrathful, capricious, vengeful, yes"

Which sounds fairly close to a picture of an evil God to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:23 PM

This month's issue of Scientific American magazine has an article on the last back page. It is Bayes Theorum being applied to the possibliity of showing the likelyhood of the existence of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:30 PM

In one sense God does intervene directly in this world by constantly exhorting a little pressure on each of us to do the right thing. We call this 'voice' our conscience. But it is up to us whether or not we act on it, and often we listen instead to the devil telling us to do the wrong thing.
I should add that (as Christians view it) our conscience is almost useless if it is informed by ourselves alone - 'be true to yourself' as we can easily lie to, and fool ourselves. We can find all kinds of justifications for evil acts, as we can see when we look around the world today and we find so-called Christians killing and maiming. Therefore we need our consciences to be informed by God who can be neither lied to nor fooled by us.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:31 PM

Sounds interesting Donuel, must check it out. Is there an on-line version?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:34 PM

It amazes me, Nick, how familiar you are with the detailed emotional foibles of this man-like Infinite Being you describe, and how clear the details of his manly plan for the individual bipedal life forms on the third rock from the 311,000th sun in the 7,345,697th galaxy in the perhaps ten-millionth cluster of galaxies in this quadrant of the Universe are. How did you come by such intimate knwoledge of the Infinite and its attitudes and cogntiive states?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:17 PM

Amos - funny you should ask! Don't be amazed - it's really very simple and anyone can do it. Prayer (which basically means talking with God), meditation (reflecting on God, focusing on God) and of course, both Old and New Testament. God is very accesible to anyone who really wants to know Him, because He wants to be known.

I'd say those are the three main ways. The Bible is especially important - read it closely enough and you will indeed find a picture of God emerging. Nor is it difficult to read - just a few 'chapters' (not as long as the chapters in a 'normal' book) a day and you'd have it read in a year or less. If you still find that a daunting task, you could try one of these 'Bibles made easy' which is basically the stories of the Bible condensed into a kind of simple story - much like a novel. This gives you the basic outline of what happened and why. I mentioned earlier that the story of the Israelites tells us a lot about the character of God and contains many parallels for our own spiritual lives. This became apparent on reading a book like the one I described above, but it's still important to read the full text sometime.

BTW I wouldn't call them foibles. God is very consistent, even when the organised forms of religion (including the various consistent churches) aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:28 PM

Nickhere:

"You said "Note: I have not postulated that a god would necessarily be 'evil' if not 'good' - he/she/it might be simply indifferent or not inclined to interfere with a world set in motion"

But in an earlier post you wrote:
"It's difficult to see this kind of deity as entirely benevolent - wrathful, capricious, vengeful, yes"

Which sounds fairly close to a picture of an evil God to me. "

The difference being 'a god' and 'the God (Yahweh) of the OT', who certainly appears wrathful, capricious and vengeful.

I think we are at an impasse regarding prayer. I would like to continue regarding some other concepts, but it will have to be later. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:33 PM

I'm surprised that you feel the need to ask that question, Amos; don't you know it's all there in the Bible?
Nickhere, you refer to various instances of God punishing his "chosen people" in terms of a loving parent disciplining his children. How can you possibly draw the comparison. A LOVING PARENT DOES NOT KILL SOME, OR MOST, OF HIS CHILDREN TO TEACH THE REST OF THEM A LESSON. HE DOES NOT CONDONE THE KILLING OF ALL OF A FRIEND'S FAMILY TO PROVE THAT THE SURVIVIOR WILL REMAIN HIS FRIEND.
Understand here that I am not renouncing God. All I am renouncing is the notion that the Bible is anything like an accurate history of God's dealings with man; it is a totally human, totally fallible, interpretation of the experience of the ancient Jewish people and the early Christian Church.

And, guess what? I personally appreciate quite a bit of the New Testament, and even some of the Old, where I think the writers "got it right" to at least a very worthwhile degree.

                        Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:33 PM

Hmmm. ;-) A little bit of cultural bias there, Nickhere? I agree with the prayer and meditation part, but you can also glean much useful spiritual information from other books such as: the Koran, the Bahgavad Gita, the Upanishads, the various Tibetan texts, Sufi writings, Taoist literature, Buddhist literature, the Bahai faith, books from a host of other religious traditions (probably all of them, in fact), and at least a few thousand other valuable spiritual books presently available by a host of modern writers, because enlightenment didn't begin and end 2,000 years ago, it still happens now, nor are God's inspirations limited to expression in only the Old and New Testaments.

If they were, it would truly be a world gone mad, in my opinion. Not that there isn't some valuable stuff in the Old and New Testaments. There is. But they are not the one and only source of "The Truth". Jesus did not instruct his followers to base their lives on the Old Testament...or on a bunch of further books that were going to be written after his death, called "the New Testament". He never once made any such prediction. If what Christians claim about the exclusivity of the Bible were true, he would have. His teachings were not dependent upon any written books, and would still be equally valid if no such books had ever been written at all.

But if those books are the be-all and end-all for you, that's fine for you. Maybe not for another.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:34 PM

Mrzzy: "Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things"

Christians don't believe there are good or bad people. There are people who choose to do good things or bad things. Depending on whichever they do more of, and come to be associated with, tends to be how they are labelled by the world. But a 'bad' person can of course change and become a 'good' person (someone who tries to do, or does good things). Indeed most Christians I've ever met, myself included, were (and unfortunately sometimes still are) 'bad' people - people who've led less than ideal lives. Remember the thief on the cross? When Jesus was crucified, there were two thieves crucified at the same time, one on either side of Him. They had both led very bad lives indeed, for which they were now paying the penalty under Roman law. One thief cursed Jesus, taunting Him - "if you're God get us down from these crosses!" Of course if Jesus had done that (and gotten Himself down off the cross as well) there would have been no sacrifice for our sins and no salvation - another example of how God's plan doesn't always make sense to the casual observer. On the other hand the other thief said "have you no shame? We are being punished for what we've done - justly. This man (Jesus) has done nothing to deserve death" Then he turned to Jesus and said "remember me when you come into your kingdom" to which Christ answered "I tell you, today you'll be with me in paradise" (see eg. Luke 23: 39-43)
That choice is open to all of us - even right up to the moment of death.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:45 PM

Frogprince:
Someone mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah back along the thread as an example of a venegful God. If we look up that account, we see that Lot implored God to spare the cities, if 50 good people could be found there. He asked the same question you put today "will you not spare the city for the sake of 50 good men?" We don't know the population of those cities, but apparently Lot didn't think 50 was such a big number. God said Ok, I won't destroy them for the sake of 50 good people. Lot then bargained him down to 20. So in the end God would have spared the cities for just 20 good people living there. But it seems that Lot went there and couldn't even find 20 good people.

As for destroying the city: we read that fire and brimstone fell on it. What actually happened in real life? We don't know. Did fire simply fall from the blue sky? Were Sodom and Gomorrah near a volcano? Did a meteor fall on it? We don't know. We do know that Lot and his family were saved because God told them the cities would be destroyed (perhaps by a natural disaster). His sons-in-law wouldn't listen, stayed and were destroyed too. Lot had tried to save the citizens by warning them of God's anger and telling them disaster would fall on them, but they wouldn't listen. So this may actually have been an instance where their decision to refuse God's word (literally) meant they didn't heed the warnings given - warnings they might have heeded had their hearts been open to God.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:15 PM

LH:

Cultural bias? I don't know. Some of the other books you mentioned probably have good spiritual insights in them, but they lack the essential ingedient necessary for a Christian - salvation through Christ (eg. the Koran doesn't regard Jesus as anything other than a great man). Plus the Bible seems to contain everything I need already. Getting to know it well is a lifetime's work.
What is interesting is how so many religions contain similar ingedients, as if they were all groping towards the same truth. This seems to confirm there is indeed some higher truth.
I have read (many times) an excellent book by a guy called John Fire Lame Deer (by Richard Erdoes and Lame Deer, Sioux medicine man). It is an excellent book, an had a major influence on me when I was in my formative years. It was from that book that I developed much of the sense of indignation at the West's 'moral superiority' that we've discussed at length on other threads. But, good and all as that book is, and close and all as John Fire was to God (and I've no doubt he was very close to God) as a Christian there is one extra onus on me, once I became aware of what the crucifixtion was all about.

"Jesus did not instruct his followers to base their lives on the Old Testament...or on a bunch of further books that were going to be written after his death, called "the New Testament... His teachings were not dependent upon any written books, and would still be equally valid if no such books had ever been written at all"


Jesus was also a fully trained Pharisee (priest) something that's often overlooked, and knew his scriptures (the Old Testament obviosuly, and Torah) very well. He did in fact numeous times state that our lives were to be based on these scriptures. For example, when he was tempted by the devil after his 40 day fast in the desert.

The devil tried him three times, and each time Jesus responded by quoting the scriptures: "it is written that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (scriptures). Again "It is also written you shall not put God to the test" and finally "It is written worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone" So three times he referred to scriptures to say what choice he should make in face of the devil's offers (temptations). The first of his replies shows that He very specifically intended the scriptures to be the cornerstone of a Christian's daily life. When we are tempted, we too should turn to scriptures to see what we should do, as Jesus did. He set the example. The first defence against the devil is familiarity with the Bible. (Matthew 4: 1-11)

At another point He stated "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" He added that anyone who advised others not to follow the Law would be least in heaven. (Matthew 5: 17-18). The Law of course, are the scriptures, Moses, Leviticus etc.,

There are many other examples, Jesus quoted the Old Testament throughout his career. He also added to and expounded on the old Laws as in Matthew 5: 21-26 when He warned that figthinmg and being angry put people in as much danger of Hell as someone who comiited murder (perhaps because they are the first step to that awful deed?)

Jesus taught many things about how we should live our lives, and He intended we put His words into action. There were people who heard what he said, remembered it, and later helped put some of it down on paper. Thus the New Testament, as Jesus' word, should be a basis for oour lives, according to Jesus (since they contain His words).

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:17 PM

God ain't the problem. The problem is the people who talk with God and then tell us what S/He said in return.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:24 PM

Too true Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:24 PM

The New Testament account of Jesus actually shows him as taking a "liberal" rather than "fundamentalist" stance toward the historic Jewish writings. At some points he quoted them to support his own teachings. At other times he felt free to say "it is written", but go on to say "but I say" and express his disagreement with an "Old Testament" adage.

Nick, When I was growing up, every living soul nearest and dearest to me believed in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. I absorbed that, especially at the Bible camp where I had a personal conversion experience at 13. It was so important to us that the Bible be the "Word of God" that, in reading it, we filtered all our reactions to, and perceptions of, things that we never could have accepted in the same way in any other book. I hope two things for you. First, that you come to see the Bible realistically. Dealing with anything in life realistically, rather than in terms of wishful thinking, is a lot healthier. Second, I hope that you can reach that first point without such an emotional shakeup that you "throw out the baby with the bath water" spiritually, rather than drop back and consider your faith and spiritual experience in a broader light.
                            Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 04:04 PM

If Christians don't believe in good and bad poeple -- a sentiment I share for very different reasons and on very different grounds -- why would God be quibbling over finding twenty or 50 good ones? If this playmate of Infinite proportions is so wise as to see so deeply into poeple's souls as to know they are all redeemable, why in Heaven's name would he care whether they made statues of him or not? Quibble about people feeling covetous of various possessions and spouses? Care about dietary habits or which day of thw eek anyone chose to think about him/her? Don't these alleged attributes strike you as a bit petty minded? They do me. Don't bother answering -- I am violating my own rules here, by arguing about things that are not arguable. I am not going into it any further. SOrry to bother you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 04:09 PM

Ok Amos, if you prefer, I won't reply. You're not bothering me btw, and i enjoyed our discussion as far as it went.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 04:25 PM

verse from a well known English song called, in me Liverpool home:-

What's your religion?' a feller once said
so I climbed in me 'wellies' and I Kung Fooed his head
"Oy! hold on!" he said, "I'm not starting a nark"
"Do you worship at Anfield or Goodison Park?"

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 04:26 PM

I'm well aware that Jesus frequently quoted the scriptures. Naturally. He needed to speak to those people there in the language they best understood at the time, so he did. He also went well beyond those scriptures, in my opinion. He was breaking new ground.

I appreciate that some people wrote down what he said (or what they SAY he said...). It's a start. It ain't the whole ball of wax by any means. I think that among the apostles and Paul there were some varying agendas, and I think that the record may have been considerably muddied and altered along the way. It was further muddied and altered by councils of bishops in the church, when they decided what to keep, what to throw out, and what to change. But that's a long discussion...

I regard the New Testament as a flawed, damaged, and very partial account of Jesus' teachings. That's just my opinion. I've read books in regards to Jesus that impressed me a lot more than the Bible does. It shocks me that people can just take it all (the Bible) in one gulp as being "The Truth", but it's a tradition to do that, right? And a very powerful church has been telling people to do that (or pay the price!) for almost 2,000 years now, so no wonder they do. They'd be afraid not to. ;-)

I also read and re-read Lame Deer's book when I was in my 20s. It's great. Very entertaining and pretty illuminating. He, like most medicine people, was a real character. (grin) I wouldn't take it as gospel or anything, but it's a pretty cool book in a lot of ways.

The only thing I take as gospel is stuff I experience directly or know in my heart for some reason. Whatever the reason may be, there's no way of explaining or justifying it to another human being, that's for sure...and I always try to bear in mind that passage about not casting pearls before swine (for they will turn and rend you).

Darned good advice, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:07 PM

Well, Amos...that was an elegant and insightful post back the at 11:35. It really expresses the way we really OUGHT to be viewing ourselves and our relation to the universe.

I really can't blame you for deciding not to continue trying to debate with Nickhere, though, as he is a prime example of the way of dealing with these issues that I have described before..."first you take the dart or arrow and place in the target by hand...then you draw the bullseye."

Nickhere...what I mean is, that you BEGIN with the premises that 1) God does exist. 2)That he does concern himself with our everyday affairs, and 3) The the Christian Bible **IS** God's literal word about his opinions and rules.
Perhaps #3 should be first in the list, but no matter. The whole point is that we KNOW the Bible was written down by men, that the specific scrolls included in it were chosen by men, translated by men, and are now interpreted by men.....many of whom disagree seriously about the details. What we are believing, therefore, is the man who CLAIM that they 'got it from God'...and since men have so VERY many reasons, some honest, some dishonest, to lie, fabricate, embroider and embellish what actually happened, and that 2000+ years of embellishment and interpretation of already dubious data doesn't feel very convincing to some of us.

   There is no doubt the Bible is *important* in human history, as are many other religious texts, but telling me what Jesus said, if I am not convinced that Jesus was more than a charismatic guy with a good line, is rather useless.
(I had the experience of having Jehovah's Witnesses explain their theology, and defend parts by reading me Bible verses. I explained that *I* did not accept the Bible as 'authority'. Frustrated, they went away, but returned in a few days with a 'more experienced' elder, who tried to resolve my objections by reading me different Bible verses!)

So...I, too, feel much as Amos does on the matter. You, honest and friendly and reasonable as you are, have COMMITTED yourself to one viewpoint,(placing the dart) and are now interpreting all relevant issues in light of that committment, (drawing the bulleye), and insinuating by that logic that Amos & I..and everyone else, 'ought' to play the game on your dartboard.

*smile*...that's a pretty heavy claim, whether done in a quiet, friendly manner, as you have done, or in a hostile, demanding manner as 'some' we see today are doing....or even in a scary, guilt-laden manner as the guys who write the "Left Behind" books are doing.

Sorry...but if God gave me the mental faculties to read and reason see these inconsistencies, he needs to pop in more often and explain what I'm missing....I'm willing to listen, but I'm a tough nut to crack!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:55 PM

When people claim that "1) God does exist", it's usually for one of two reasons...

1. They were told about God a long time ago (meaning since childhood) by people whom they trusted, therefore they don't doubt it. This is a bit like Americans who believe that the USA is "the greatest country on Earth". Same type of acquired faith, same basic means of acquiring it....through common hearsay, repeated over and over again by people you trusted.

OR.....(reason 2)

2. It's because, as I said in my previous post, they "...know (it) in (their) heart for some reason. Whatever the reason may be, there's no way of explaining or justifying it to another human being..."

And there never will be.

So there's also no use arguing about it. Let them who believe, believe and be happy. Let them who don't, not believe and be happy. Works for me.

Then too, you have to know what they think "God" is so that you have some idea what they're talking about when they say "God". That always helps. Finding out what other people think God is can be pretty interesting. I find it much more interesting than someone telling me he doesn't believe in 'God'. If so...well, yeah, okay...so what are we gonna talk about instead...now that that's taken care of?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:55 PM

The price of turnips? That oughta be calming.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:06 PM

LH:

You left pff #3: The assertion make sthem feel safe against the trials and tribulations of things they would rather not confront squarely.

And #4: The sasertion makes them feel they are more "right" and others are more "wrong" and they therefore have an opportunity to dominate others.

It is very charitable to leave these two out, but I think less than accurate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:15 PM

It has come to my attention that (a) I am not a speed typist and (b) for someone who is not a speed typist, I type much too fast.

Sorry!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:28 PM

also left off was #4...

...the possibility that they are objectively right.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:31 PM

...along with numbers 6 and onward...

...those reasons that aren't confined to the comfortable (for you) cartoon straw man reasons you have stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:35 PM

For sure, Amos, but I think those are sort of like...secondary or tertiary variations on the theme, rather than original primary reasons for one's beliefs. They're the trimmimgs on the tree. First you establish the essential theme (Belief? Or non-belief? Which shall be my sacred credo?)

THEN you add the secondary variations, the tawdry emotional payoffs, such as you alluded to...

"Hot diggety! Now that I believe/don't believe (whichever...doesn't matter), I feel much safer against the trials and tribulations of things I would rather not confront squarely. Mmmm...mmmm! Feels good. Also, I feel, no, screw that, I KNOW that I and those who think like me are more "right" and the others who don't are more "wrong" and I therefore have an opportunity, perhaps a sacred duty to dominate those others...or at least make ruthless fun of them and show them up for the losers they really are. Goody, goody. I think I'll start a thread on Mudcat questioning their silly beliefs (or deriding their lack of same). That'll fix the stupid bastards. In fact, maybe I can even save a few of them from their folly and convert them to THE TRUTH. That would be noble and generous of me."

I believe these tawdry emotional payoffs I have just alluded to can be seen gyrating in the verbal gymnastics of both believers and non-believers quite frequently on this forum.

We may all in fact, be guilty of doing it on occasion. Well, almost all. There are a tiny few individuals on this forum who are totally beyond yielding to such nasty inclinations and completely without malice. I wouldn't claim I was one of them, though. I get angry enough to be malicious on occasion. It's a weakness I have not yet entirely vanquished.


As for turnips, Bill, they've been reasonably priced around here lately...

How about artichokes though? Waaaay overpriced, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:46 PM

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, John, but I was simply giving the two most common basic reasons for why people "think God exists".

Again...

1. Because someone else told them so, and they believed that.

2. Because they had an inner feeling of some kind in the heart (quite independent of other people telling them anything) that convinced them so.

The first is a response to cultural conditioning...and it is the main reason why most believers believe. The second is a response to a personal inner experience which cannot be confirmed for or by anyone else, because it's simply an inner experience. As such, it has nothing to do with outer objective evidence. It is beyond debating about objectively. It is sufficient simply for the one who experiences, and its probably quite meaningless to most other people. Such things have been happening since the dawn of humanity. It's kind of like falling in love...it happens, but you can't explain it in objective terms (though I'm sure that some are willing to try).

That doesn't mean it's not real. It just means it's totally individual and subjective, that's all. Like falling in love.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:50 PM

Bill D: "So...I, too, feel much as Amos does on the matter. You, honest and friendly and reasonable as you are, have COMMITTED yourself to one viewpoint,(placing the dart) and are now interpreting all relevant issues in light of that committment, (drawing the bulleye), and insinuating by that logic that Amos & I..and everyone else, 'ought' to play the game on your dartboard"

Fair enough! ;-) I am committed to one viewpoint - obviously it's the one that makes most sense to me. Since I do accept there is a God etc., then of course my interpretations will be in light of that. But isn't that what everyone here is doing? The atheists start on the premise there is no God, and work from there, interpreting everything from that perspective, and to quote your own words expect everyone to "play the game on your dartboard". Isn't that basically what is meant when people demand scientific proofs of God's existence? Suppose science isn't advanced enough to deal with this question? There was a time not so long ago when anyone attempting to propound relativity would have been laughed out of the academy. Suppose science is the wrong tool for the job, as it demands physical proofs that can be measured and weighed?

Perhaps it's possible that God is beyond the measure of science. Indeed there's a hint of this in chaos theory already when it was realised that any attempt to measure a natural system (e.g the weather) could never measurfe it accurately as there are too many variables, and even the attempts made to measure it and collect the data would have to be included as these could affect the system; and that in turn these measurements done to collect data on the attempts to collect data would have in themselves to be measured and so in ad infinitum. Simply put, it's beyond our measure though we can get snapshots of the system.

But many of the points raised here can be addressed - if there is a God, is He a good God? Why do wars happen if there is a God? Does God concern Himself with our affairs? Is there such a thing as absolute truth or is it all relative? Was Jesus a real historical person?

And I believe I have addressed most of them (and I should add I'm no expert)
I have also pointed out why the Bible and Jesus in particular are so critically and uniquely important to us - to repeat -

Christ's death on the cross was the offering for the collective guilt of our sins, the perfect offering to God, the one sacrifice from which He cannot say 'NO' if we invoke it, and why the devil is so keen to have people believe ANYTHING rather than that. Christ himself says "I am the way the truth and the light" and says that to get to God we must go through Him, because He is the way to God.

Now I know many people will say that if there was some physical proof... then they would believe. Doubting Thomas was of course the prime example. But Jesus said to Thomas - "you believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" In His own time Jesus apaprently worked many mircales with which I suppose you're already familiar: healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, water into wine, and some really big ones like bringing no less than three people back from the dead (Lazarus, the Widow's son and Jairus' daugther - John: 11 1- 45 / Luke 7: 11 / 8:40 and I think there was a fourth, but I'm not sure.

Yet inspite of all these marvels, there were many people who refused to believe in Him and what He was saying. So my guess is if He were around today doing the same things, nothing would be that much different. There are those who would belive in Him and those who wouldn't. Some might even say he was actually evil, maybe from the devil. Jesus was even accused of being in league with the devil after he had cast out an evil spirit from a man. In reply he said "every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...if Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself.." (Matthew 12: 22-30)

At the end of the day, though He gives us many good solid reasons to believe in Him, Jesus wants us to come to him on the basis of faith. That way we are far more recepetive to the kind of trusting love required to have a relationship with Him. He makes this point many, many times in the New Testament, e.g to the Roman centurion "your faith has saved you" and much the same to the old woman who touched the hem of his garment in order to get some blessing from Him. Likewise he castigated those who wanted signs, calling them "This faithless generation" (Matthew 16: 1-5)

"The whole point is that we KNOW the Bible was written down by men, that the specific scrolls included in it were chosen by men, translated by men, and are now interpreted by men.....many of whom disagree seriously about the details. What we are believing, therefore, is the man who CLAIM that they 'got it from God'...and since men have so VERY many reasons, some honest, some dishonest, to lie, fabricate, embroider and embellish what actually happened, and that 2000+ years of embellishment and interpretation of already dubious data doesn't feel very convincing to some of us"

I think I know what you mean...'infallibility', the sun goes round the world etc., Once again on these points what we actually arrive it is institutional religion, e.g in the Catholic church. And I've already agreed that all instituitions (religious or not) are prone to political manouverings that have nothing to do with Christianity. But we must learn to separate one from the other, to see where one starts and the other finishes. To put it another way, just because the police hammered Rodney King (for example) doesn't mean we stop believing in the concept of justice or decide we will no longer have a group established to try and catch criminals, or do away with our whole legal system. It might mean we are a bit sceptical of those who wear the uniform of the Law, but the concept itself is beyond their actions.

I have also written at some length about the importance of accuracy to early scribes, the correspondece of the various Bible texts with the Dead Sea scrolls, the independent historical and archaelogical evidence to support many of the events described. There are a lot of reasons to believe the Bible as we have it is quite accurate to the originals and to history. Even the fact that the 4 gospels were written years apart, do not always cover exactly the same stories and tell the ones they do slightly differently is significant. Afterall if you read 4 witness statements taken by the police and they corresponded word for word, you'd be suspicious too, right!
Also worth noting is how the Old Testament seems to be a pretty accurate history of the Jews. Once again, there are independent records and evidence to suggest they were in captivity in Egypt and Babylon and so on. Plus, any history that was written to glorify a people would only tell the triumphs, not the defeats and humiliations (check out Froissart's Chronicles from the Middle Ages, for example, written mainly to please the king) which the Old Testament does.

The strange thing is why the Bible (especially the New Testament) isn't more political. If someone were writing it for dishonest reasons, you'd expect to find more stuff in it like "and the Roman empire is the best in the world" or "and eveyone should leave 10% of their salary around the back behind the statue of Zeus" and so on. What is remarkable in fact is the LACK of political agenda and the timelessness of what's written - read carefully, it's as fresh today as 2,000 years ago.

Where you find problems , they tend to go back to the institutional practices mentioned above.

"and since men have so VERY many reasons, some honest, some dishonest, to lie, fabricate, embroider and embellish what actually happened, and that 2000+ years of embellishment and interpretation of already dubious data doesn't feel very convincing to some of us"

Ok, I accept men (people) are weak and prone to error. But what parts of the Bible are dishonest or embellished?

BTW - I also agree with you about people explaining their viewpoint in a "or in a hostile, demanding manner as 'some' we see today are doing" - aggression and smugness of course are counter productive, and quite against what Jesus was teaching. C.S Lewis (he of 'Narnia' fame) wrote a great book called "The Screwtape Letters". It took the form of a senior devil advising a junior devil on how to lead a newly-converted Christian astray. He gives tips on how to get the worst out of what should be a holy occasion, like the new convert going to mass. Screwtape advises the junior devil to put a picture in the convert's head of christians being people who go round in togas and sandals, so that he'll find it harder to relate to the other mass-goers as real christians, then work on from there to get him to focus on how the old lady mumbling her prayers is disturbing him, or the guy in front whose shoes squeak... and so on until anger creeps in and he's distracted away from communion with God! He should also try and get the new convert to vigorously try and convert everyone else, but in an agressive way, which hopefully will turn them off God for good, and end up with him angry instead of full of love and charity!!
It's a brilliant book and well worth reading even for it's spot-on depictions of human nature!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:50 PM

By the way, reason # 1 pulls no weight with me, but reason # 2 is something I give full respect to...just as I respect it when someone else falls in love (maybe with someone I don't think is all that special). It's not my business to tell them their love is not real.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:11 PM

"So there's also no use arguing about it. Let them who believe, believe and be happy. Let them who don't, not believe and be happy. Works for me." - I'm sure it would work for others if only the believers WOULD let us not believe and be happy...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:12 PM

"Also, I feel, no, screw that, I KNOW that I and those who think like me are more "right" and the others who don't are more "wrong" and I therefore have an opportunity, perhaps a sacred duty to dominate those others...or at least make ruthless fun of them and show them up for the losers they really are. Goody, goody. I think I'll start a thread on Mudcat questioning their silly beliefs (or deriding their lack of same). That'll fix the stupid bastards. In fact, maybe I can even save a few of them from their folly and convert them to THE TRUTH. That would be noble and generous of me."

I'm not sure who this guy's referring to: Christians like myself who talk about our beliefs or atheists who laugh at us for believing in fairy-tales!!!

I gather this thread's a discussion where anyone is invited to present their thoughts, beliefs whatever. What I have posted here on this topic are my beliefs as a Christian, and what Christ has said in the gospels. If anyone doesn't believe in God or what's written in the Bible, no problem.

Though I know the beliefs of Christianity might not be acceptable to everyone, surely there's no harm in discussing them with anyone who's willing and interested? If you met the most wonderful girl in the world and were deeply in love, you wouldn't be able to hide it even if you tried - the smile on your face would say it all!! It would be all you could do not to bore the ears off everyone you met singing her praises! ;-) It's the same for Christians - we're excited about our life and want to share it with anyone who's interested. The aim is not to 'convert' them as some seem to think. Any converting won't be done through our 'brilliant' arguments (said with heavy irony) but through God's will. It's not Christians who convert people, but God. How do you think I became a Christian in the first place? No one converted me. I just reached out to God in desperation and almost to my astonishment, found Him. Here I have both tried to share my experience with you all and explain why I believe some of the things I believe. Anyone and everyone is welcome to take from it what they want.

And of course, once again Christ had something to say about this too: "Do you bring a lamp and put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead why don't you put it on its stand?" (Mark: 4: 21 - 22) In other words, I understand this to mean He didn't intend people to hide their Christianity all the time. A lamp doesn't do much good hidden away.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:34 PM

"if only the believers WOULD let us not believe and be happy"

Yeah, man. And the other way too!

I kid you not. I knew a born-again atheist who pestered people so constantly about his philosophical penchant for atheism that they used to go to considerable lengths to avoid him. He was an ex-born-again Christian who had "seen the light" a 2nd time (so to speak) and became a born-again atheist. His efforts to convert the world to his own way of thinking never stopped, they just did a 180 degree turn when he left the church and kept on full speed ahead in the opposite direction. He was like a man possessed. ;-)

At one point he had a scheme going to infiltrate a Christian group. "I know all the rhetoric," he said. "I can fool them easily."

"Why do you want to?" I asked.

"I want to find a girlfriend, and there are some really good-looking girls in that group. I figure I can impress one of them pretty easily, because I know all the Christian stuff up, down, and sideways. After she falls for me it shouldn't be too hard to get her to stop believing all that crap." He grinned. "Two birds with one stone, eh?"

(*shudder*)   

I'm not making this up. I really knew the guy, and we had this conversation over a donut and coffee in the local Tim Horton's.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:44 PM

Thank God for Tim Horton's....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Hawker
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:45 PM

No
Lucy

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:47 PM

"A lamp doesn't do much good hidden away."

And I should add I don't think I'm important enought to call myself a lamp!! But if God does good in your life, He kind of appreciates it if you tell other people about it if they ask. It's important for m to show God a little gratitude now and then!! Tha 'lamp' is your experience of what God has done for you ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:48 PM

I have had better help from Harvey the Invisible Rabbit. At least, back in the day, girls found him a bit more entertaining.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:50 PM

Yeah, Amos. (grin) I think their coffee has small amounts of cocaine or speed or something in it. Tastes godawful (if you'll excuse the expression) but it really JOLTS you into full wakefullness.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:53 PM

Which one of your prayers has Harvey answered, Amos? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 10:45 PM

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, and then went off to the seminary in ninth grade, at the age of 13. I spent eight years in seminary, and loved it. I changed from a shy, pious, quiet person to a 60's radical. I left the seminary to get married, but I've worked in the Catholic Church ever since - usually as a volunteer, and sometimes as an employee.

I guess since college, I've always considered myself part of the "loyal opposition" in the Catholic Church - some outsiders and some fundamentalist Catholics might not consider me Catholic, but I'm well within the mainstream. My theology is consistent with what you'd find in the Theology departments of most of the established Catholic universities. I'd like to see married women priests and an easier home for homosexuals in the Catholic Church, and I'd like to see a less combative opposition to abortion and an openness to birth control and to remarriage after divorce. Lots of Catholic priests and nuns (and a fair number of bishops) would like to see the same. Outsiders see the Catholic Church as monolithic in authority and doctrine, but it has never been that way - there has always been discussion, disagreement, and growth.

In general, I'm happy being a Catholic and see it as a good context for my spirituality, my study, and my work with the poor. The pope and even my local bishop have very little to do with my life as a Catholic, although the institutional Church does provide a culture and facilities and resources (like the schools I attended for 16 years). I've never, ever thought I had any need to obey the Pope. I've always thought if was every bit as much my church as it is his. And if my church has flaws, then I feel an obligation to do what I can to fix them.

As I've grown older, I think I've become somewhat less doctrinaire in my liberalism, and somewhat more able to tolerate conservatives. And since I went through a sad divorce in the early 1990's, I've found that I no longer had to try to be a religious person. It's hard to say this to people who won't believe it, but I've felt a constant, comfortable Presence of God with me since then. It's not a chit-chat sort of thing and I don't see anything other people don't see, but I do see God's action and presence in the life that surrounds me and that is within me. I'm not heavy on doctrine, but Jesus makes a lot of sense to me. But I'm hesitant to say that, because this is something that is sacred to me. I don't care to preach to unbelievers, or to force my faith on my children or on anybody else - but I do hope that they see something good in the way I live, and that perhaps people see that my faith gives deep meaning to my life.

And fundamentalists hate people like me, more than they hate atheists. I have always tried my best to tolerate people who have other beliefs, but I have to say that it has always been hard for me to accept and understand the rigidity of fundamentalism.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:02 PM

well...gracious...
"But isn't that what everyone here is doing? "...why, no, it isn't.

"The atheists start on the premise there is no God, and work from there, "

ummm..not exactly. Many,...probably 'most', do not start that way, since religious ideals are promoted pretty thoroughly in this (USA) society. **I** certainly did not start as an atheist..(and that is not how I label myself now.)

Nickhere: You really cannot compare the thinking of most non-religious folks to the belief structure of those who are thoroughly IN a religion...such as yourself. We are not comparing two 'different' beliefs, and debating which is right. What we usually have is a 'belief' by some, and non-acceptance of that belief by others..such as myself.


"...But what parts of the Bible are dishonest or embellished?"

This is where I have trouble making the point. ...and the point is, we don't know which parts might be problems because of deceit, dishonesty, embellishment...or merely mistaken stories by fallible witnesses...like the JFK assassination or the 9/11 events. If you understand the history of period IN the Bible, plus the culture & demography of the areas where early Christianity began and developed, it is easy to understand why such an interesting and profound story would be attractive.
...So...I cannot, of course, claim or prove that ANY specific parts of the Bible were either fabricated OR blown up for effect...but history is FULL of events which were! It is not the historical aspects of the Bible that are really the issue though, but the metaphysical truth and relevance of whatever historical events which CAN be annotated. *IF* we can establish the "historical Jesus", we must still ask whether he was what was claimed and did what was claimed for him.
.....that is where I suggest that if a 'God' wanted us poor, fallible, confused people to follow his teachings/instructions, he would need to refresh our memories of *why* a bit more often.
Supposedly, 2000 or so years ago, there was no doubt when God spoke to various people..(Moses, Abraham, Noah...etc.) Claims of direct conversations more recently have been, let us say, hard to substantiate. Perhaps they were back then, also, but all we hear about were the agreements. (Who would have written scrolls saying Moses was a fake, and hidden then in caves?)

So...since, as you say, we ultimately asked to believe "on faith"...partly BECAUSE the details cannot be proven, it should not be surprising that many are unwilling to buy into the complexity of religious doctrine and all its obligations, without better evidence.
Am I willing to bet my 'immortal soul' on that attitude? Well...as I startled the Jehovah's Witnesses by saying that time, I really do not care to LIVE an Eternity in a Heaven that is set up with rules and entrance exams as they are presented to me. There are just too many questions and articles of blind faith.

I will try to live a good life, not cheat & steal...not kick dogs around or say bad things about my neighbor..etc...but if acting nice and smiling a lot won't do without a commitment to a doctrine, then I guess you'll just have to enjoy all those golden streets without me....

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:26 PM

Well, I am willing to bet good money the Red Sea never was made to split by some Israeli with an attitude, for one thing. I am pretty positive no-one ever got two of every animal in a boat. I doubt MEthuselah ever lived five hundred years -- or whatever the number was said to be. And I am downright dubious about that Jonah feller. Oh, and the prvenance of Eve, And the notion that the whole species was born out of a couple who had only two sons. II may have that one wrong). Just a few instances off the top of my head.

Now if you want to accept these things as metaphors and myths, and therefore say that they are not deceptive, well, fair enough.

But don't try and hand it 'round as some sort of revealed truth, pal. Leastwise, not to me. Take the comfort you can from it, but keep your devotions private, just like Jaysus said to do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 02:26 AM

OK, Amos, but take that Jonah feller. Have you read the book of Jonah? It's a wonderful, colorful story with a nice touch of humor at the end. Not only that, it teaches a profound lesson that you can't expect God to go around destroying your enemies forever and ever.

It's quite clear that the Book of Jonah is an allegory, not a news report. Same with Adam and Eve - a wonderful story with a good moral. Did the author of the story intend people to believe it literally?

The Bible is an amazing collection of folklore and folktales and poetry that provided the ethical and spiritual underpinnings of our culture. But no, the Scriptures weren't intended to be news reports. "Literal" interpretation of Scripture is the product of narrow, unimaginative minds - it's not the fault of the Scripture writers that they were misinterpreted.

And it's hard for me to understand how "folkies" can understand and accept and appreciate the Folk Process in folk music, but not in Scripture.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 02:51 AM

I am completely of accord in admiring the allegor, metaphor and parable, Joe. That's as far as I would want to take it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 07:31 AM

LH,

In general, I have read your comments here and agreed with most of them: I must, however, take exception to

"It's not my business to tell them their love is not real. "


You might state that the love is not material, or not permanant, or will change with time, but to the individuals at that time, that love is certainly real ( or can be: Perhaps some people even lie to themselves)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 07:44 AM

That was me- my cookie got et.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:33 AM

Agreed, Guest. (And yes, some people certainly do lie to themselves...and they may be quite unaware at the time...at least on the surface of their consciousness...that they are doing so! I've seen a fair bit of that. It can be pretty scary sometimes. Gamblers are often like that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:38 AM

Oh, hi, BB. We cross posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 10:37 AM

Been offline during the Easter days.

Ebbie, I didn't post "Hell pointing to a Catholic background" tongue in cheek but I admit I posted that line for to be misunderstood. "Hell" is a typical Bavarian name and Bavaria is the most Catholic of our lands. So if you meet a German called Hell, Hölle, Höll, Helle or something similar the best guess is that she is Catholic.

"Hell" now means "bright" in both senses of the word, but my last name comes from a word stem that is closely related to the English word "hell".

A "Hell" for a Bavarian (or other South Germans) is a very deep and very narrow dale, a dark place. Well, a place that in some more folk-talish accounts may be pictured as the entrance to the Christian Hell. So these words and meanings are very closely related. But the origin for my last name is like so often in many languages the placename. One of my forefathers must have lived in or come from a deep dale, so to discern him from others with the same Christian name the last name "Hell" (man from the deep dale) must have been added.

But when travelling in English speaking countries I stick to the wrong "bright" explanation. This explanation is short and comforting.

Amos,

a first cause God who since long has stopped interfering but whose works can be seen in nature is the only belief in a God that seems defendable to me. It is not my belief, but if I had one it might be.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 10:52 AM

Well, Wolf, I am all for the notion of a first-cause "X" that has long since stopped interfering. Primal Causation seems reasonable to me in some way. Perhaps this is because I have no visibility into the distant precedents for the big bang, or whatever "that" was -- the collapse of an earlier universe, perhaps, which just loops the issue again. Insight gets obscured and no data to go by.

But for the question of Why Existence instead of Not, I think a Primal Cause is as good an explanation as any. I suspend judgement pending further data.

:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM

I dunno...I treat the concept of 'first cause' rather like 'last number' or infinity, we need to refer it for some purposes, but we really can't wrap our poor, finite brains around it as an actuality. The idea of 'remote cause' is more useful, as that can be pushed further back as we learn more, and doesn't get us into such awkward metaphysical conundrums.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

I just got this mental image of Bill D in a spandex costume, with a big "L" on the chest, for "Logic Man" : )

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM

...you peeked!








(funny...when I get dressed in my costume and 'come to save the day', the audience seems to wander away and head for shorter, less convoluted posts. Do you suppose.....could it be possible.....am I boring them!...*gasp*)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 02:06 PM

Bill, if you contract your supermanly pecs alternately whilst talking, quite a few of the women will stick around...

Oh yes, my coat....

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:05 PM

ohhh..will there be swooning? I never had any women swoon!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:06 PM

Well, you rendered Amos speechless...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: John Hardly
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:10 PM

"a first cause God who since long has stopped interfering but whose works can be seen in nature is the only belief in a God that seems defendable to me."

I strongly agree, though I just wouldn't say "only".

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:15 PM

Not bloody likely...


A-who-never-swoons

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM

You that speak of Bill D in Spandex, have you ever seen him?
I'm a tolerant man, but the sight of Bill D in Spandex is not something I can stomach.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 06:31 PM

To name God as the "first cause" of anything (such as, for example, humanity or the Universe) is to first of all make the very common assumption that God (if he exists at all) is somehow separate from us and the things we observe around us. That may in itself be a completely incorrect assumption. All those things may be integral parts and aspects OF God. God may not be separate from anything. If so, searching through time and space for the author of the first cause would be a pointless endeavour, as would most of the debate on this thread. If time and space are themselves simply aspects of God, then you won't find God lurking somewhere in the vastness of time and space, any more than you can find the ocean by looking in a bucket of seawater! ;-)

You'd probably need to study the higher levels of either Buddhism or Hinduism to know what I mean by suggesting, however, that God is not separate from anything. Or....you could read some of the recent books in the "spiritual/New Age" section of your bookstore. There's a ton of stuff out there, but I guess people here would just prefer to go on debating the pros and cons of conventional Christianity, would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 06:49 PM

I don't see that such an assumption is implicit in the "first cause" proposition. If you substitute the word "We", appropraitely capitalized, it also makes perfect sense in both equations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 07:01 PM

Bill D: ""The atheists start on the premise there is no God, and work from there, "

ummm..not exactly. Many,...probably 'most', do not start that way, since religious ideals are promoted pretty thoroughly in this (USA) society. **I** certainly did not start as an atheist..(and that is not how I label myself now.)"

That's not what I meant, Bill. I was not saying that people are brought up as atheists but that atheists start from the premise that there is no God and then continue to explain eveything from that perspective.

"Nickhere: You really cannot compare the thinking of most non-religious folks to the belief structure of those who are thoroughly IN a religion...such as yourself. We are not comparing two 'different' beliefs, and debating which is right. What we usually have is a 'belief' by some, and non-acceptance of that belief by others..such as myself"

Well, the comparison is that we both believe something - I believe there is a God, you believe there isn't. We then both model our world view from that perspective.
You say there is no comparison because e.g Christians believe X, and atheists don't believe X. But you see that statement can also be read as: atheists believe Y, Christians don't believe Y.

Atheists have no scientific proof (usually their own criteria) that God does not exist, anymore than Christians can scientifically prove to atheists that He does. So in the end of the day we have two contrasting beliefs, and of course our beliefs inform our behaviour.

OK, so we both agree there is no proof as such that the Bible is actually full of embellishments and deceptions, other than to say it is possible, because embellishments and deceptions occur in other areas of recorded history. I have already commented on this and noted how we would expect the Bible to be far more grandiose if the Israelites were simply intent on leaving an account of themselves (as later chroniclers often did - I gave the example of Froissart) - though of course, that's not a proof in itself of course.

I think Joe has already mentioned the metaphorical nature of some Bible stories - indeed some are labelled as parables to make clear they are not intended to portray actual events but to illustrate a point. Interestingly 'Adam' simply means 'the father of all men' or something like the origin of men, and Eve likewise means 'the origin of all women'.

Yet even accounts like the creation in Genisis are not that far off the mark. God said 'let there be light: and there was light' It sounds a lot like the Big Bang! Once, there was nothing, then in a split instant (as the astrophysicists also tell us) light etc., was created.

"Then waters were created, the waters above being called 'sky'. Again, quite like astrophysicists tell us - huge volumes of gas condensed and condensed and cooled to become stars and planets. Indeed the water 'above' is gas, and the sea comes from a gas origin (H2O).

"The waters gathered in one place to become land" - some of the gas condensed enough to become more solid, as well as all the heavy metals spewed out by supernovae explosions over millions of years.

"After that plants began appearing on land, seed bearing plants..." We know that plant life was first to develop before animal life.

"Then came the living creatures", just as the paleontologists tell us is so from the fossil record.

And finally, at the proverbial 'minute to midnight' came 'man' Which again we know to be the case from the fossil record.

Finally "man started naming the birds and animals etc.," ...the arrival of langauge.
(I've paraphrased the above from the opening paragrpahs of Genesis, the first book of the Bible)

OK, so there are some bits and pieces here and there that to my inexpert mind, don't quite seem to fit. But you'll have to admit that, even though all this may be obvious to us now with our centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge, there was a time not so long ago that people had no idea how the earth or any of the rest of it had come about. So for someone well over two thousand years ago to have such insight was, to say the least, inspired.

".....that is where I suggest that if a 'God' wanted us poor, fallible, confused people to follow his teachings/instructions, he would need to refresh our memories of *why* a bit more often"

Not to worry: we regularly refresh our own memories every time we have a war, or see all the suffering that comes when people lie to each other, cheat on each other etc., etc., This was what God was teaching / instructing us not to do. On a more positive note, we are reminded of why everytime we feel uplifted by an act of charity or someone choosing to do the right thing.

"it is not the historical aspects of the Bible that are really the issue though, but the metaphysical truth and relevance of whatever historical events which CAN be annotated"

I quite agree with you here - above all the Bible aims to instruct us in how to live our lives. God has given us enquiring minds and a natural curiosity to explore our origins and research our history if we are interested to do so. Science is a useful tool we can use to this particular end.

Amos: "Now if you want to accept these things as metaphors and myths, and therefore say that they are not deceptive, well, fair enough.

But don't try and hand it 'round as some sort of revealed truth, pal. Leastwise, not to me. Take the comfort you can from it, but keep your devotions private, just like Jaysus said to do'

Come now, Amos, you wouldn't like me telling you to basically keep your opinions to yourself regarding your own beliefs, and I'd expect a bit better from you! Let's be fair - it's a public forum to discuss this very topic and share our ideas. If you don't like them, no problem, no-one is obliging you to accept them - at least I'm not trying to anyway, and if I somehow gave you that impression, can I take this opportunity to clear the matter up? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 07:05 PM

If something is said to cause something else, then it is by definition separate from that which it has caused, is it not?

How can you have the chain of cause and effect without expressing the concept of separation? If God causes anything then God is separate.

And it must happen within time. What if God is larger than time and space themselves, existing beyond time, beyond space, and they are both simply observable phenomena that arise out of the unseen field of limitless possibility that is God, seen through the mechanism of our separated consiousness....? That mechanism being yours and mine...our busy little separated minds, observing, naming, and categorizing things...and debating about them here for a little space as if we knew!...like Shakespeare's fictional characters in his plays...strutting, fretting, and declaiming while their part lasts.

Then the play ends, and it was all seen to be a clever illusion. We're all actors, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:05 PM

" I was not saying that people are brought up as atheists but that atheists start from the premise that there is no God and then continue to explain eveything from that perspective."

I guess I was trying to combine 2 points....one IS that 'some' people are not 'brought up as atheists'....but the real thrust of my point is different, and I did not express it well. I am saying specifically that there is a major difference between the kinds of arguments used by most non-believers (who may not may not be atheists) and most believers...and that the difference is important.
Almost always, non-belief is a response TO belief. One makes a claim; the other rejects it for various reasons. Rejecting a is not always claiming the opposite. Yes, some ardent and strident atheists make sweeping statements, just as some similar Christians do...but for many, it is just a matter of "I am not convinced." Sometimes these people are just agnostics.
I, personally, am MUCH more concerned with the form and details of the claim FOR God than in any counterclaim that 'there is no God'. I can't prove any such thing, so I simply say that I find many of the details FOR belief circular, awkward, incompatible, and not convincing. At the same time I see the historical reasons why belief was easy and natural for many...it does have tremendous emotional power and promise, and many folks would be lost without that promise.




"Well, the comparison is that we both believe something - I believe there is a God, you believe there isn't. We then both model our world view from that perspective.
You say there is no comparison because e.g Christians believe X, and atheists don't believe X. But you see that statement can also be read as: atheists believe Y, Christians don't believe Y."

I sorta covered this above, but I will reiterate: the positions are not mirrors of each other. Atheists do not start with a claim...they are rejecting a claim, even if the form of their argument 'sounds' like like it if you take it out of context.

The operable philosophical position is: "The burden of proof lies with the assertor." Since we seem to agree that 'proof' is simply not what one gets with religious claims, all the 'assertors' can hope for is agreement...and obviously, they have a lot of general agreement, for some sort of religious belief is quite common.

...so, why is all this important? For me, it is relevant to how my society and laws are constructed. In the USA we 'officially' have separation of church & state, but we have many, many who would like to have Christianity (often specific types of it) inserted into the laws and institutions as if there were no question as to its truth.
This is quite different from allowing 'freedom of worship' for believers who practice it privately. I support freedom of religion...but in order for it to be fair, it MUST include 'freedom from religion' for those who wish it. Unfortunately, some adamant believers take the position that 'since Jesus did say, "go and become fishers of men" and "whosoever believeth...etc", that attempting to convert the multitudes is a duty, and if we can't convert them we must at least control them'. So far, they have not managed to do this, but you know & I know that that movement is alive and well.

I find it very awkward to walk that narrow line between wanting freedom for religious folks who practice privately, and feeling that I need to be forever alert for indications that my freedom FROM religion is being eroded. This is the practical side of my continued debate of religious positions expressed here....that is, to keep making the points about why something that is ultimately ONLY a belief should be kept in proper perspective.


(and I really do appreciate your orderly & thoughtful discussion...I hope we can disagree amicably as we proceed0

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:06 PM

LH: that was an interesting comment on "What if God is larger than time and space themselves, existing beyond time, beyond space"

It reminds me of a mathematical / philosphical problem I once came across that might have some bearing on the difficulty of proving scientifically, a God.

Imagine a 2-D person. Difficult, I know, but just imagine. Then draw a square around this 2-D person (once again a practical impossibility, since even the thinnest line of ink will be a few atoms high, but just imagine). You have just effectively trapped this 2-D person within the square: having only two dimensions, they are unable to escape from the 2-D square. Now imagine along comes a 3-D person. They can steap in and out of the square with no difficulty at all. Because they exist also in another (third) dimension, the 2-D square represents no barrier to them. What would the 2-D person percieve? Perhaps he would only be able to percieve the movement of the 3-D pseron as a series of infinite 2-D slices, each one appearing just after the previous one disappeared. Perhaps he would not be able to see the 3-D person at all. If he was able to percieve the action of the 3-D person, that action would appear as inexplicable as magic, as the 2-D person would have no tangible concept of 3-D.

Our physical beings are 'trapped' within our physical world, and must obey its laws. We cannot really grasp or concieve what is beyond it in its full sense in physical terms, since we don't even know what it is we can't percieve (like the 2-D person has no idea of 3-D).

My point is basically, science is like the 2-D man - it can explain very well certain things, but exists, like our bodies and tangible physical evidence, within certain dimensions. What if, as LH has postulated above, God exists beyond those dimensions? Then science would be as unable to grasp Him any more than the 2-D man can grasp 3-D.

BTW I'm not presenting this as any kind of ultimate proof or otherwise of the existence of God, but as food for philosophical thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:21 PM

Bill: "(and I really do appreciate your orderly & thoughtful discussion...I hope we can disagree amicably as we proceed0 "

Absolutely Bill ;-)


I'll get back to some of the points you mentioned above asap, but I have to get to bed soon or I won't be able to function tomorrow.

In brief though - I understand your concern about wanting seperation of Church and state. I haven't worked out all my ideas about this one yet. On the one hand I understand why Christians would be concerned to see Law based on Bible, believing it to contain the best code for how to live our lives anway. On the other hand, Christ did say His kingdom was not of this world, and most previous attempts to marry church and state have been a disaster even from a Christian's point of view. It has generally brought a kind of ossification of spiritual exercise of religion into a more social kind, where religion just becomes all about rules and laws, do's and dont's, with little real spiritual love or charity. Then again, a Christian has a responsibility to speak out against and try and do what they can to prevent evil...but up to a limit beyond which it is up to God to work on the hearts and minds of men. So, while I would be in favour of say, Christians protesting about abortions, I most certainly would not be in favour of Christians blowing up doctors who perform abortions. I think this is part of what Christ meant by 'don't judge' - in other words, don't take it on yourself to act as judge, jury and executioner - that's God's job alone.

Generally I would prefer to see separation of Church and State. At the very least, people couldn't then blame religion if things then went wrong!! ;-))

Ok, I'll sign off here and catch up on this later!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:36 PM

LH:

Such an entity could easily cause all kinds of things, starting from Without spacetime, and, for example, creating some spacetime for entertainment. If such were we, we're still here, perhaps cut off from our ancient powers, subdivided and fractured into small viewpoints, and contained within the space of our own creations past.

Not that I think this is the way it is, but for the sake of discussion. Sounds like Nick is climbing the same mountain on a different path.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 09:44 PM

Yep, that's right, such an entity could....assuming it IS an entity in the sense that we think of when we use the word (which I don't assume, actually...I think of it more as a state of consciousness).

And none of us know. Nor are we in any position to. We're like the 2-D person in Nickhere's example (a good one), completely unable to grasp or even describe anything that is 3-D. That's what I figure is our position...more or less...us embodied beings who are living out short lives here in space-time, and figuring that's all there is to it. We can't see what we can't even imagine.

That's why it says in a lot of religious texts (Christian or otherwise) that God is inexpressible, indescribable, beyond any means of definition in our terms.

Simpler folk in the various congregations throughout history, however, have always preferred to worship a human-like diety...in effect, a larger and more powerful version of themselves. It's something they can imagine. I regard that anthropomorphic version of God as probably quite misleading and basically a form of fairy tale or myth...but it works for a lot of people, because they can relate better to a deity that seems human.

I figure if there is a universal and intelligent "source" of everything that it would reflect all characteristics found in the Universe, not just the human ones. For instance, it would reflect those characteristics found in animals, stars, planets, comets, plants, micro-organisms, and alien life on other worlds that we presently know nothing about. It would be simply beyond describing in human terms if it did reflect all things simultaneously.

God would then also not be the property of any particular religion, and I think that's an important point to remember. Christianity may be based on Jesus...but Jesus was not a Christian! ;-) Nor was he simply a Jew (in my opinion). He was an avatar (an enlightened being). And Buddha was not a Buddhist. He was an avatar. And there have been others. I'm sure that some have been female as well, though you don't hear about them so much. People like that (enlightened beings) are completely beyond any religious labels, in my opinion. They should not BE used to spread religious labels that separate people. However, that doesn't stop their followers in the centuries after from attaching labels to them, does it? That's when the trouble begins. The moment you have a label, you've got the "insiders" and the "outsiders"...and in due course of time you've probably got a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:18 AM

"Atheists have no scientific proof (usually their own criteria) that God does not exist." - Almost true. There is no scientific evidence that anything nonexistent doesn't exist - goes for unicorns, dryads, centaurs, flying spaghetti monsters, and gods. What we do have is statistical evidence that there are no supernatural beings, in that so far, every time anyone has tried to explain something using the supernatural, science has demonstrate that No, it was natural.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:45 AM

If something is said to cause something else, then it is by definition separate from that which it has caused, is it not?


On revisiting this post, I think you have articulated a major and important fallacious premise. While this may seem true in a non-quantum, macroscale physical universe, we are talking about the sphere of causation that is transcendent. In fact most assertions about God seem to imply It is all pervasive, not separate from anything.

I grant you it doesn't work for billiard balls, but in matters spiritual the notion of the cause being its own effect seems quite normal and fundamental, IMHO. We are not accustomed to non-local communication of effects in the body business -- that is, we assume from habit that cause moves through distance to effect a change. But the tendency to extrapolate from material patterns when trying to decode the spiritual is probably an erroneous approach.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:22 AM

The problem with the 2-D person and the ( postulated) 3-d God is that it still does not resolve the problem. ALL 3-D beings would be gods to the 2-D being- as 4-D beings would be gods to the 3-D, and 5-D to the 4-D, etc. Therefore, one is defineing GOD as ANY being of transfinite dimensions.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM

BB has put his finger on the problem of monotheism. It is possible that we are discussing a universe set in which there is in fact an infinite number of n-dimensional beings capable of impressing people in bodies as God. In fact each of us might be one of them, temporarily battened down by the burdens of body-hood.

Given the multiple personalities described as belonging to God through the Old and New Testaments, I think this a likely explanation. After all, if there were one God, he wouldn't be schizo, would he?   

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:15 AM

Actually, we ALL could be 3-D manifestations of a single ( or of several) (3+N) dimensional being(s)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:25 AM

"the multiple personalities described as belonging to God through the Old and New Testaments" The way you used this seems to imply that all the Biblical accounts of what God did, or instructed people to do, have some validity. I prefer (whether or not on with logical reason) to think that people dreamed up a rational for the various atrocities they committed. If we are actually being toyed with by any number of capricious, sadistic "deities", we're in deep doodoo
and in serious need of help from Dr. Who.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:29 AM

If infinity has any use at all in our daily discourse, it might be to refer to the number of "what ifs" we can posit to rationalize our various viewpoints *wry grin*.

It can be fascinating to speculate about 2-D gods & 3-D gods and n-dimensional space and meta-realms which we can only approach mathematically...but very few of these concepts have any relation to our need to cope with the practical problems of accepting or rejecting religious claims about how we should live our daily lives and who has the authority to decide.

Old saws like "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." are not just clever word play...they illustrate real problems in reconciling the possible & probable inherent in life.

My grandmother used to sing...."If I had the wings of an angel, over these prison walls I would fly." Yup...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 12:59 PM

Bill, you are SUCH a stick-in-the-mud sometimes!! LOL!!

I take it you don';t consider yourself to be a candidate for inclusion in the set of potentially infinite but temporarily bound, natively God-like spiritual entities wandering around Earth wondering what the hell hit them?


:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 01:39 PM

Nobody has the authority to decide for you how you should live, Bill. Of course, the civil powers that be in this world have civil authority over you and me...there's not a whole lot we can do about that, short of launching another revolution.

So we compromise and put up with it, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:21 PM

It sounds a lot like the Big Bang! Once, there was nothing, then in a split instant (as the astrophysicists also tell us) light etc., was created.

That's nothing like what the astrophysicists tell us. Current estimations suggest that there was no light until about 3 to 400,000 years after the big bang. click here. Hardly the biblical account!

This has been a really interesting thread though, and I'd like to pay particular tribute to Bill D's contributions.

The following was intended for Carl Sagan, but I think it fits Bill just as well:

"He is wise, humane, polymathic, gentle, witty, well-read, and incapable of composing a dull sentence."

And if you don't like the fact that I'm posting as a 'guest' you can....

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 06:54 PM

BBruce: "The problem with the 2-D person and the ( postulated) 3-d God is that it still does not resolve the problem. ALL 3-D beings would be gods to the 2-D being- as 4-D beings would be gods to the 3-D, and 5-D to the 4-D, etc. Therefore, one is defineing GOD as ANY being of transfinite dimensions"

You see BBruce, I wasn't saying that the 3-D person is a God, or that *any* trans-dimensional being qualifies as a God. I was postulating that the methods people sometimes demand in order to provide *empirical* proof of existence of God may not be up to the job because of the limit of our cognitive minds. Even if science was able to provide such proof would we even be able to recognise it, much less interpret it? How do we know that science isn't already providing such proof, but we just can't see it or interpret the data? We simply don't know, in fact.

I was saying in another way, "what does a fish know of the water in which it swims?". This was the old philosopher's way of saying that, being a part of the system, we can only be objective about it to a certain degree. I was thinking of how science is heavily relied on to provide explanations of everything, since it is so successful in providing explanations of the physical world. In a sense, a belief in the all-pervasiveness of science has in effect, become a religion: a system that is relied upon to provide an explanation of everything, now or in the future.

Don't get me wrong - I am not rejecting science, just commenting on its limited ability to explain things beyond its scope. Once you reach the spiritual, and even aspects of our nature (questions like 'why do we sing?' 'why do we like music?' 'why indeed do we want to know where we come from?' 'why do material things alone seem inevitably to fail to satisfy?' etc., etc.,) science ceases to be a useful tool. We don't try to hammer in nails with turpentine!!

But there has been a paradigm shift in the last 300 years. The alchemy etc., of old were replaced by more experimential and empirical sciences from the 1600s onwards. Since this approach produced verifiable data and explainations of natural phenomena, it came to be seen as a means of explaining our whole rasion d'etre little by little. And where no verifiable data for our rasion d'etre could be produced, it was then assumed there must be none. This is the weakness of relying on a system that provides numbers and statistics - it is an excellent tool for certain jobs, but absolutely useless for others. We must learn to recognise the areas where science cannot be relied upon to provide answers and find other ways to explore these areas.


Mrzzy: The above kind of doubles up as a reply to your post, basically covering the same points. It's a bit of a generalisation though, isn't it, to say that science has provided natural explanations for everything claimed to be supernatural?

I know lots of cases of hauntings etc., proved to be fakes and so on, but, by way of example, has any convincing and final scientific explanation ever been out forward for the events (and apprently miraculous cures) at Lourdes in France, or the events at Medjugore or Fatima?

On a similar note, even though I am a UFO sceptic, I find it intruiging that Project Blue Book was able to explain 95 per cent of the sightings as having some natural explanation. Of course it's the other 5 per cent that interest me....!

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:04 PM

Guest, Ed: "That's nothing like what the astrophysicists tell us. Current estimations suggest that there was no light until about 3 to 400,000 years after the big bang. click here. Hardly the biblical account!"

300-400,000 years is hardly a huge length of time by cosmic standards. Using the time-honoured model of a 12-hr clock to represent the history of the universe, the 'light' would have been switched on a fraction of a second after the big bang...

The Bible also says the world was created in 7 days...I think astrophysicists would disagree there also! But I was saying Genesis should be taken that literally, rather that the sequence of events described are in fact quite similar to the way things happened according to the experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:06 PM

Personally, if something's unexplained I don't feel compelled to come up with just any explanation. As to proving God doesn't exist, I can't prove the little man who turns my refrigerator light off doesn't exist either. Does this mean he must really be in there? It's not possible to prove a negative.

I must say this thread stayed on-topic as to personal experiences and people resisted shoving it into the usual 'religion' argument for longer than I expected...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Nickhere
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 07:08 PM

BTW - Sorry, that last post should have read 'Geneisis should NOT be taken literally" (unless of course, the Biblical translation of 'day' has some other meaning, such as 'age' or 'aeon' though I've never heard anything to this effect)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:53 PM

Sure, it's a bit of a generalization. But, so far, it's true...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: GUEST,Aleister Crowley
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:08 PM

"Have you changed your religious views?"

Yes I have as a matter of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:08 PM

The "little man" who turns your fridge light off is usually made of black plastic, Jeri. He's an electric switch. If you pay my air fare and meals for 2 days I will come down there and show you, okay? ;-) If you pay me another hundred bucks, I'll explain the little man that turns the dome light on in your car too.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:09 PM

I'd pay you a hundred bucks if you could just tell the little man who who deals with the oven light to clean the oven while he's in there doing nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:58 PM

But it's not his job to clean the oven...

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 01:26 AM

And it's not God's job to answer prayers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:37 AM

So, Amos, what, then, is 'God's job'?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:47 AM

His job is to make sure that the little men who turn fridge lights on and off, make CDs go around very fast, and organize the location of dust particles on windsheilds, are doing their jobs.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:53 AM

Why would God have to have a "job"?

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Scoville
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM

Some people think he's retired now, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Bee
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM

Thanks, Amos - nit-picky kinda Boss, then, what with the dust arranging. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 11:05 AM

I'm a bit miffed that I haven't heard back from Jeri about her fridge. I thought my offer was quite reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 11:57 AM

Well, Bee, I asked Him about the charge of being nit-picky, and he just smiled benignly (He does that a lot) and said, "Well, if you're gonna make a Universe, you oughta make it right!". Besides, He has to be consistent in His Message, that chaos and randomness are the Devil's playthings. At least, that's what one of his Senior Cherubim told me while I was waiting for my interview. "We take Message very seriously around here," the cherub told me. "Even when the Boss forgets, we have to keep it on track."

So there ya go -- 's all I know!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM

As I was leaving the pearlescent Anteroom, my escort furtively slipped me a note, looking both ways first.

I pretended nothing had happened until I got out on the street and had caught an ordinary taxi. Then I settled down in the back seat and opened it. This is what it said:

On the end of the world: [ 119 ]

Someday, someday, this crazy world will have to end,
And our God will take things back that He to us did lend.
And if, on that sad day, you want to scold our God,
Why just go ahead and scold Him. He'll just smile and nod.

Kurt Vonnegut

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Partridge
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 03:58 PM

Yes I have and quite dramaticaly. I used to believe in nothing. We were here, lived and died and that was it.
I thought that those who believed in any thing were using religion as some sort of crutch.

I cannot pinpoint the change, I now know that we are spiritual beings that go on forever and here to learn what ever lesson we need to.

I used to think that our conscience was like a little bit of god and perhaps I still do.

love

Pat xxx

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

Sounds like the same process I went through, Pat.

Subject: RE: BS: Have you changed your religious views?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:10 PM

Where is AWG? We're off topic...