Smokey, I meant to say I seek union with that essence - but I think you get my point.

Steamin' Willie, I accept your points, but only to a certain extent.

If one adheres to a "strict, literal interpretation of the Bible," then I suppose the exactness of the translation of "thou shalt not kill/murder" may make a difference. It's certainly clear from the context that "thou shalt not kill" does not prohibit all killing under all circumstances, and most Christians and Jews can happily eat hamburgers with no serious feelings of guilt (cheeseburgers are another matter...). Still, I think that "thou shalt not kill" is a perfectly adequate translation - it's just that you have to read it within context and make your own decisions, as any wise person would do with anything they hear or read.

OK, Willie, so then you say It must be frustrating if you are of the persuasion that anything written over a certain number of years ago must be divine. Well....I think it might be more proper to say that members of religions have certain sacred books that they consider to be divinely inspired - not all books that are ancient, just certain ones. And what does "divinely inspired" mean? I suppose that extremists generally claim that their sacred words were somehow dictated by God. More moderate believers see their sacred writings as written by believers who were divinely inspired through their faith relationship. Moderates see the essence of their faith in the sacred writings of their religions, and they see profound truth in that - but that's quite different from seeing every word and the absolute and unquestionable dictates of God. The Pentateuch (first five books of the Hebrew Bible) contains a large number of moral codes, not just the Ten Commandments - and some of these codes have elements that contradict one another. These codes come from different (mostly Jewish) societies at different periods of time, and they can be quite interesting to study. They were binding for their time and place, but who's to say that every moral code printed in the Bible is binding for all times and all societies?

And Jesus gave another code, Love God and Love Neighbor - but that was one of many moral codes he presented in his teaching. The Beatitudes are another moral code, as are the "feed the hungry, clothe the naked" provisions of Matthew 25.

Willie says, No matter, the old testament doesn't exactly teach morals that hold up in a civilised society, so thankfully, the vast majority of decent sane people gloss over their inferred creed. Virtuous hypocrisy is nothing to be ashamed of.... Well, no, but the moral codes expressed in the Old Testament did function reasonably well in their day, and there is truth in those codes that have valuable lessons for us today. In addition, the Bible stories of the failures of the Old Testament leaders, have profound lessons for us today - the story of David and Bathsheba is a perfect example of a person who sinned grievously, repented, and went on to do much good. The story of pagan Ruth and her devotion to her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi, is a profound lesson in fidelity. The story of Jonah is the funniest and most colorful story in the bible, and yet it has a profound lesson that has endured for at least 2,500 years. I don't "gloss over" the considerable moral wrongs expressed in the Bible - I take those shortcomings very seriously, and attempt to learn from them. So, how is that "hypocrisy," virtuous or not?

OK, Willie, and then you say another thing: Never occurs to anybody that their flavour of religion is, and only can be, the sum of all its activities and actions. Well, yes, I suppose it's true that the whole is the sum of its parts. And I am well aware of the failures and shortcomings of religions, especially of the atrocities committed in the name of my Catholic religion. My view of "original sin" says that I have partial responsibility for the ills of my society. Even though I may never have directly committed an act of wrongdoing, I have some shared responsibility for the injustices committed by any society with which I identify myself. So, yes, there is truth in what you say - but I think the flaw in your logic is that you assume that if a person follows a religious creed, that person is bound to support and take responsibility for all the evils committed by everyone who shares that creed. You assume a uniformity and rigidity that does not exist in even the strictest fundamentalist sect. If I belong to a family, to what extent do I have responsibility for the actions of my brother, or my adult children? I think I do have some, but there are limits. Same goes for religion. People who do evil in the name of religion, certainly do not do it in MY name. But on the other hand, it's absolutely true that many people do unspeakable evil in the name of faith in the same God I believe in - I'll get back to you when I have an answer to that puzzle. But I do think you're wrong in thinking that religion requires uniformity and the consequent forfeiture of individual freedom.

Willie, I think the major flaw in your thinking is your assumption that the only correct interpretation of sacred writings is a literal one, that all adherents to a religion must believe and act exactly the same, and that the only definition of religion is that religion is the absolute acceptance of a rigid doctrinal and moral code. In short, you see all believers as fundamentalists, and make no allowance for any believer who has a more rational view of faith. I'm a Catholic in "reasonably" good standing, eight years of seminary education, with 45 years of experience teaching the Catholic faith, about to be accepted as an associate member of the Sisters of Mercy, and I don't believe any of those things. Where do I fit in your picture? And MOST of the Mudcatters who profess a religious faith, adhere more to my picture of religion than they do to yours. So, where do THEY fit in?

And if I'm not a Fundamentalist and if I think they are a perversion of religion, why do I have to bear their shame?

-Joe-