Todays sermon is on Faith, and our text is from Hebrews, 11:1.

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Sat Dec 23, 2017, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Hebrews 11:1
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is defined in scripture as what is hoped for, and an acknowledgment that one has faith in “things not seen”.
First, of course, among these things not seen, is God, the Creator.

One must have faith in the existence of a Creator because one cannot necessarily ever see the Creator. That is not to say that the Creator cannot be seen, but that our knowledge of the Creator is based on our limited human understanding. But with faith, one can literally and figuratively see the evidence of the Creator in all of creation.

Faith of course does not constitute proof in any scientific sense of the word because faith is a personal recognition of things hoped for, based on things not seen.

So, if a non-theist asks for evidence, or proof, of our faith, we can respond with the definition of faith. Another way to describe faith is as a willing suspension of disbelief.

And if a non-theist cannot, or will not make that particular leap of faith, I understand that it is their personal intellectual and emotional decision. All of us, theist, agnostic, and atheist, do make leaps of faith in life, but we do not all make the same leaps of faith.

But, theist, agnostic, or non-theist, we should realize that whenever we make a statement that cannot be proven, we are engaging in an emotion based reasoning process.

Guillaume


Important note: My name and DU post name is indeed Guillaume, but not the French theologian Guillaume Bignon. We share only our first name, and our faith.

I am also not Guillaume Apollinaire. He has been deceased for many years.

Neither am I Guillaume de Machaut. He has been deceased for even longer than Apollinaire.

[Irish_Dem]

1. Guillaumeb, do you find your faith shaken or tested in times of

adversity? Do you question God? Rail at Him or Her?
Or pray for help?

Or does your faith steady you, give you hope,
and help you move forward??

[guillaumeb]

2. All of the above. All of the time.

I try to follow my beliefs, and often fail to follow them. At DU and in life in general.

My faith does give me hope, as it does I think for many of us, but I also attempt to be realistic in my expectations.

And you? If you have faith, what does it do for you?

[Irish_Dem]

7. I have exactly the same answer as yours.

All of the above, all of the time.

I try to live my beliefs and fail often. Here at DU and in general.
I intensely dislike evil politicians and say unkind things about them, but justify it by recalling the story of Jesus throwing people out of the temple and tossing their tables and coins around.

I also rail at God and the angels often, but also they provide comfort and direction.
Usually when wisdom is needed, it is right there waiting for me.

I am a mixed bag. One part of me is spiritual and idealistic to my core. The other is cynical and realistic. I think it is a good combination, I don't go off the deep end either way.

BTW I often think of you Guillaumeb, when I see goodness or God coming through on certain posts. If you recall, we had a discussion in which you saw God in nature, and I saw God in people.

Also thank you for telling us who you are not, I will have to look up the people on your list.

[guillaumeb]

8. Both are poets.

Machaut was also a composer of music in the Middle Ages.

Of Guillaume Apollinaire, a modern poet, Apollinaire was actually his pen name.

I feel that most of us are a combination as you well described. Realistic and idealistic. And if we are aware of our weaknesses, with luck we can correct or minimize them.

[Irish_Dem]

10. Yes I was just looking up your namesakes.

Yes two are poets, one was an atheist turned theologian.

One of my favorite fantasies is to do my life over, but knowing what I know now.
That would be the ultimate in correction of weakness.

[guillaumeb]

12. I feel that I would make the exact same mistakes.

As to Guillaume Bignon, the subject of a post here, he reminds me of a modern Saul of Tarsus who experienced a Damascus moment.

[Irish_Dem]

13. That is exactly what I am afraid would happen.

I would make the same stupid mistakes all over again.

Yes I loved Bignon's story, it is similar to mine.
Raised in a very Catholic home, Catholic school.
As a teen rejected religion, and as an adult, trained as a scientist and operated
in a strict evidence based way. Then some transformative events
occurred which could not be explained by science, so I started
reading about spirituality for a number of years and developed
an inner belief system. I see science and spirituality as quite
compatible and never have felt a conflict.

[guillaumeb]

16. There are many like you who see no conflict?

We recognize that science addresses certain areas, and faith addresses other areas.

[Irish_Dem]

19. Yes exactly.

When I go to an Indian restaurant, I order Indian food.
When I need my lap top repaired, I go to an Apple Store.

When I have a spiritual issue, I check with my inner core and belief system.
When I have a science based issue, I used my training and evidence based data.

I can hold two belief systems at the same time and use them accordingly.
Not hard at all.
God gave us both science and spirituality.

[guillaumeb]

21. Some would argue with that.

The non-overlapping magisteria position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

[Irish_Dem]

23. I must be wired differently from these folks.

I don't understand why it is difficult for them to have several different belief systems at the same time. Kind of like multitasking. Or going back and forth between two languages.

[guillaumeb]

32. Agreed. Some seem focused on the material.

And what is provable. Which eliminates art, and music, and poetry, and love, and many other aspects of intelligence.

[Irish_Dem]

33. To reduce complex events to simple provable parts does take away the magic

of the arts, creativity, love, romance.

[guillaumeb]

35. Perhaps they see themselves as more evolved humans.

Logical machines that reject what they see as primitive impulses. A fantasy, but fantasy can be useful.

[Irish_Dem]

36. Every person has their own valuable journey. But I would would think the advanced human has a

Last edited Thu Dec 21, 2017, 06:46 PM - Edit history (1)

strongly developed sense of science/logic but also has a rich inner life that allows for the creative and mystical side of humans. To forego the humanities, literature, art, music, love, fantasy is to reject some of the best part of being human.

[guillaumeb]

39. And impossible.

The religious impulse has persisted for 300,000 years. To assume that it will magically disappear is fantasy thinking of the first order. A fantasy promoted, ironically enough, by those who claim to follow logic and evidence.

[Irish_Dem]

41. Some recent researchers believe humans are hard wired for religion and belief

in God.

Good point, highly irrational to believe that humans will stop their guest for religion, meaning, and God.

[marylandblue]

50. I believe that, but that is different than evidence for God

Anymore than seeing the color red proves that color exists "out there" rather than just wavelengths of light that our eye happens to see a certain way.

[Irish_Dem]

53. Yes I agree. What do you think would constitute adequate evidence for God?

[marylandblue]

57. Verifiable miracles, for one thing

[Irish_Dem]

58. And what would constitute a miracle? What is your definition?

[marylandblue]

59. Something that violates the laws of physics

and cannot be explained some other way. Sun stopping in the sky, as in the Book of Joshua for example. Also the entire world would have seen that, so we'd have stories of it from every culture coming from the same time.

Another possibility is foretelling the future with 100% accuracy. This is mentioned in the Bible as the sign of a prophet. But we have no writings that we know were written before the prophecy was fulfilled and unequivocally predict the future event in enough detail not to be a lucky guess.

[Irish_Dem]

60. But something we think is a miracle by today's standards could turn out to be

the result of some scientific fact we have not yet discovered.
Such as primitive people thinking an eclipse was a miracle.

I think predicting the future might be in the same boat. If time is a fluid concept for some predisposed individuals, and time is like a river for them and they can move back and forth in it, could be some sort scientific law we have not yet discovered.
Physicists have been studying this notion for some time now.

So perhaps foretelling the future is not connected to God, but something different.

I think too that for people who are died in the wool skeptics, no amount of proof would be enough, they would always explain things away.

I also happen to think that God does not show him or herself in blatant ways for a reason. The test is about faith, and can you develop a spiritual core with a flashy sales job. If God is always showing off and being colorful, then we just have another con man making cults.

Edited to add: I see God and miracles in every day life. Not flashy or obvious, subtle but sublime.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. I think any of the old miracles would work.

Change water to wine in a controlled environment. That would be pretty damn impressive. Actually walk on water--we haven't solved that in 2000 years.

"God does not show him or herself in blatant ways for a reason." I think it's funny that God was more than willing to throw around miracles 2000 years ago but not now. Wonder why? I mean, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but wondering what you think.

[Irish_Dem]

62. We don't really know if those were true or not.

The bible is full of metaphorical stores, more story telling to explain
religion to the masses.

What is your theory?

Perhaps God sees earth as a classroom and matches the material to the human developmental level.

2000 years ago the baby souls get flashy miracles, today we get something else.

But yes if we could replicate the behavior you describe it would be impressive.
However, I think even if we could do that, the skeptics would explain it away.
There have been some attempts to investigate the paranormal with some interesting results, but the critics just laugh.

[marylandblue]

63. Well, the thing is, we have these stories all the time

We have the Bible which shows God acting all flashy and obvious. None of it verifiable. In modern times, we have astrologers and faith healers and mediums all acting flashy, but again, none of it verifiable. Some of us seem to have a hunger to believe in the fantastic. If we didn't have all the unverifiable miracles mucking up the water, perhaps we could find a verifiable miracle.

[Irish_Dem]

65. I think some of the people are able to heal or predict the future.

But yes there are so many charlatans that it is confusing.

And I do not know if those with extraordinary talents are evidence of God,
or they are just able to use energy and time in ways that are different from the norm.
Like people who are excellent athletes, or talented musicians.
They have an ability to do things most people can't.

I guess a problem for me is that I don't think we can define the term miracle.
We could not operationalize it for research in a way that seems accurate to me.

And even if we could, I do not think the skeptics would buy it.
Just like when scientists had proof that the earth was not flat, or that
the earth rotated around the sun, the skeptics refused to believe it.
Or when the notion of bacteria causing disease was introduced, people didn't believe it
because they could not see bacteria with their own eyes.

I believe that some of what we are talking about is exactly the same situation.

[Mariana]

69. Every skeptic would not be convinced, sure.

You can never convince everyone of anything, no matter how strong the evidence. The stories say that in Jesus's day, many of the people who saw the miracles did not believe.

But many would, if they saw it with their eyes and could examine the evidence - for example, the independent lab reports indicating that the water was water and the wine is wine. Or if ten medically documented blind people were made to see, or ten quadriplegics got up and started walking around. Stuff like that.

[Irish_Dem]

71. These miracles occur everyday. Those in health care see it.

People with terminal cancer who seem to be cured.
People with a terminal illness who live way beyond their expiration date.
People who inexplicably overcome a disability.

The healthcare professionals have no explanation for such events.
Not as flashy as some faith healer with mumbo jumbo praying over people.

[Mariana]

72. Miracles are flashy, pretty much by definition.

Otherwise, how do you know it's miraculous? One out of thousands who recovers from a particular malady may be spontaneous remission due to unknown natural causes, but to heal ten people out of ten with mumbo jumbo praying over them?

But if that's not enough, he could raise another rotting corpse from the dead. That doesn't happen every day.

[Irish_Dem]

73. I guess this is where I think our definitions diverge.

I see miracles as more subtle but sublime.
Not flashy.

Not the water into wine, or walking on water variety.
Which I think are just metaphorical stories any way.

And as I said, I think God deliberately does not do flashy for a reason.
Faith is an inner journey, and to make converts with splashy acts make
spirituality seem more like a con, or cult.

[Voltaire2]

79. No they actually don't.

What they see is selected events across a distribution of probable outcomes. They remember the outliers and ignore the data points that fit the curve. It is classic observer bias.

What you don't see is people growing a new limb, for example. Why won't your god do that? It would be an unambiguous miracle. Silly god.

[marylandblue]

25. I distinguish between religion and spirituality

Religion generally expects us to believe facts about the outer world on "faith." But the outer world is all about science, things that can be proven by evidence. If we are asked to believe in a God that created the universe, then that is something subject to empirical testing. Can it be shown the universe was created from nothing and not designed? If so, then there is no God.

Spirituality is the land of inner experiences. But there is nothing to believe there, other than your own personal thoughts and feelings. You may feel there is a God, but feelings are not proof of anything, they are just feelings.

I've had my own transformative events. But they were all explainable by science. It just didn't feel that way.

[Irish_Dem]

26. Yes I agree. Religion is man made and not my cup of tea.

My spirituality is made up of inner feelings and inner thoughts and beliefs.

None of my transformative events could be explained away by science, and I did
a lot of reading and studying on the topics involved.
Forced me to go in the spiritual direction for answers.
And then the puzzle pieces fell together very well.

[marylandblue]

24. I read a science fiction story like that

Basically, this guy was a creative genius, but he was stuck reliving his past, so he couldn't create any more. This alien race took him back to key moments in the past, and allowed him to redo it with his grown up perspective. So he went back to when he was 10 years old and got in trouble for something stupid at school, but was very scared when they lectured and threatened him about what he did. This time, he told him how stupid the whole thing was and he didn't have to listen to them. So he got in even MORE trouble and the end result was the same. Whatever he got a chance to redo, no matter how he did it, the result was the same.

When he got back to the present, he realize you can't redo the past, but those experiences made him who he his, so he resumed his creative life.

[Irish_Dem]

27. Wow, thanks for sharing this.

Very interesting story and yes I have a feeling that is how things would play out
even if I could re-do my life. The process and behavior would change,
but the end results would be the same.

There's karma for you.

[marylandblue]

3. If faith is based on hope and evidence of things not seen

And atheists do not accept evidence based solely on hope and things not seen, then atheists cannot have made a leap of faith.

[guillaumeb]

4. They can make a leap of faith,

but it might be described as a non-theistic leap.

Do you have any personal philosophy of life, and if so, can you literally prove the validity of it?

[marylandblue]

5. You'll have to tell me what you think constitutes a proof first.

I've had these type of arguments, and if there is no upfront agreement on what constitutes a proof, then there can never be answer satisfactory to both parties. Note, I did not say the question is "unanswerable."

But rather, instead of actually answering the question posed, the two parties really end up in a de facto argument about "proof." So I'd rather get the proof part out of the way first. Of course, if you believe upfront there can be no proof, then it follows you would never accept any proof, regardless of the standard of proof used.

[guillaumeb]

6. I can prove that water freezes at a certain temperature.

So, using that as the measure, feel free to respond if you wish.

[marylandblue]

9. If so, then you can also prove that a clear liquid

that freezes at exactly 0 C is pure water. If it had impurities in it, or was a different liquid, it would freeze at a different temperature. There is no evidence that such a liquid exist, as we know of many thousands of clear liquids none of which freeze at 0 C, we don't even know of two liquids that freeze at the same temperature at all. Since there is no evidence of such a liquid, we can confidently conclude there is in fact no such liquid.

Applied to God, there is no evidence God exists. We know of many things that do exist, all of which have properties that can be measured or their effects can be seen. None of these things are a conscious Creator Being such as God. Therefore God does not exist.

[guillaumeb]

11. There may be planets that have never been seen by humans.

1) Does that mean that they do not exist?

2) Does it mean that when our ability increases and we can see them, that they spontaneously spring into existence at the exact moment that the instrument is trained upon them?

2a) Does it mean that nothing exists that humans cannot perceive or measure?

3) Does it mean that if a human cannot scientifically define or measure what God is, that God does not exist?

What you are doing here, in my view, is attempting to validate an opinion that you have already decided is correct.

[marylandblue]

15. No.

There may be planets that have never been seen by humans.

1) Does that mean that they do not exist? >A planet is a different sort of thing than water. Water is molecule. This molecule has the same properties throughout the universe, and these properties are discoverable and provable. A planet is a specific example of a class of objects. Even if we cannot see a given planet using current technology, we know that planets as a class have certain properties and therefore, all planets are in principle discoverable. (Contrast to God, which you say in principle, is not provable).



2) Does it mean that when our ability increases and we can see them, that they spontaneously spring into existence at the exact moment that the instrument is trained upon them?
No, again, because there are always in principle discoverable and provable, the only limit being technology, not some fundamental property of "unproveability."

2a) Does it mean that nothing exists that humans cannot perceive or measure?
Again, we distinguish between that which is in principle provable discoverable, and that which cannot, even in principle be provable.

3) Does it mean that if a human cannot scientifically define or measure what God is, that God does not exist?
Yes. We can draw a parallel to quantum physics. We cannot precisely measure both the momentum and position of a subatomic particle at the same time. This is not because of a technological limit, because the particle does not have either momentum or position alone, it has a position-momentum property that is a product of the two. We cannot scientifically define momentum alone or position alone, therefore these properties do not exist.

What you are doing here, in my view, is attempting to validate an opinion that you have already decided is correct.
Well in my view, that would be like saying I have an opinion that water freezes at 0 C, and I attempt to validate it by freezing water. If we are not agreed on this point, we have not agreed on what constitutes a proof.

[guillaumeb]

17. You did not answer what I asked.

And my questions relate to the limitations of science, and limitations in our knowledge. Things undoubtedly exist even if we cannot see or assess them. Thus questions 1, 2, and 2a. And 3 also.

[marylandblue]

22. I am drawing a distinction

between unprovable in practice and unproveable in principle. If it's unproveable in principle, like you claim God to be, then I'd say it likely doesn't exist. This is so because if it's unproveable, we have no way of telling the difference between a universe in which God exists, and a universe in which God does not exist. I can't think of anything else that we'd say exists but is unprovable in principle. Lots of things in science are unprovable in practice, but could be proven in the future. We have not found anything in science that is unproveable in principle, yet exists.

[guillaumeb]

31. Your second sentence misframed what I said.

I suggest a rereading.

[marylandblue]

37. You have no response. I understand.

[guillaumeb]

40. No, you misunderstood. And I understand that.

You avoided what you possibly could or would not answer.

[marylandblue]

42. I gave you an answer

If you did not like or understand the answer, or you believe I got something wrong, please provide specifics on your concerns. But don't tell me to go back and reread your prior posts. I have read them and understood them to the best of my ability.

[guillaumeb]

43. Perhaps I was unclear.

Here is what I wrote:

There may be planets that have never been seen by humans.

1) Does that mean that they do not exist?

2) Does it mean that when our ability increases and we can see them, that they spontaneously spring into existence at the exact moment that the instrument is trained upon them?

2a) Does it mean that nothing exists that humans cannot perceive or measure?

3) Does it mean that if a human cannot scientifically define or measure what God is, that God does not exist?

My meaning:

Because we cannot see something does not mean that it does not exist.

Because we cannot measure something does not mean that it does not exist.

It simply points to the limits of our knowledge and abilities.

[marylandblue]

48. But the issue is WHY we can't see it

If it's simply that we lack the technology to see it, like our telescopes are not powerful enough to see planets in other galaxies, that's one thing. But if something is said to have characteristics that make it impossible to see, then it probably doesn't exist, because it doesn't do actually do anything. You can think of it as Occam's Razor, if you like.

Or consider this hypothetical case. I define a unicorn as a magical one horned horse that is invisible, lives in dense uninhabited forests, makes no sounds, leaves no footprints or droppings, has no odor, and can't be touched because it runs away faster than anyone can catch it. Does that mean that such a creature might actually exist?

[guillaumeb]

70. If one believes in a created universe,

or if one believes in a Creator who supplied the spark, the belief means that no proof is necessary.

As to a Creator, as I asked in a previous post, our human presumptions will govern how and where we look. There is no guarantee that humans are intelligent and aware enough to recognize the proofs. The limitations of humanity.

[marylandblue]

82. I am going to rewrite your post to be about unicorns,

please tell me the difference between unicorns and God.

If one in a universe created with unicorns, or one believes in unicorns, the belief means that no proof is necessary.

As to unicorns, our presumptinos will govern how and where we look. There is no guarantee that humans are intelligent and ware enough to recognize unicorns. The limitations of humanity.

[guillaumeb]

84. What do you see as the sameness?

I see an unprovable belief. As I wrote earlier, and in my post about faith.

[marylandblue]

86. By your definition, they are both unprovable beliefs

Therefore we should have faith in unicorns, or at least accept that lack of faith in unicorns is also an unprovable belief.

[guillaumeb]

89. You are free to have that belief. eom

[marylandblue]

93. I am free to believe that the earth is flat, despite ample proof it is not

So that doesn't really address the issue.

[marylandblue]

87. Belief in God and belief in unicorns are both unprovable beliefs

by your definition. You believe God might exist. Therefore unicorns might also exist.

[sfwriter]

52. This is where you should stop...

"What you are doing here, in my view, is attempting to validate an opinion that you have already decided is correct.
Well in my view, that would be like saying I have an opinion that water freezes at 0 C, and I attempt to validate it by freezing water. If we are not agreed on this point, we have not agreed on what constitutes a proof."

That sort of nails it. What point in the discussion after that?

[safeinOhio]

14. What ever works for you is fine with me.

What works for me is fine with me. I just don’t think there is any point to ask question about that for which there is no, and never has been, an answer.

While I have no answers for your questions, I always have guestions about your answers.

[guillaumeb]

18. Questions are excellent things.

And yes, some are unanswerable. The existence, or non-existence, of a deity is one such unanswerable question.

[Irish_Dem]

28. Guill I feel like I am in an echo chamber with you because we

keep answering questions the same way.

[marylandblue]

30. Guillaumeb's answers are confusing

Your's not so much.

[Irish_Dem]

20. It is the questions and answers which helps me learn and grow.

And I love questions about answers, that is as it should be.

[trotsky]

29. Still trying to define atheism for others, I see.

I wish you luck on your journey to become a better person.

[guillaumeb]

34. And you insist on defining Christianity,

as well as what others really mean when they post.

Be the change you wish to see.

[trotsky]

38. More false claims from you to justify your poor behavior.

I understand why you are unable to respond with ideas and must resort to attacks.

[guillaumeb]

44. Amazing display of unintentional irony.

Truly amazing.

[trotsky]

54. That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.

Others can come to their own conclusions.

[Irish_Dem]

45. A question related to faith in the broad sense:

And perhaps it is off topic, but Guillaume what do you think about Mormons baptizing dead folks (non Mormons) as Mormons? Recent thread about it in GD.

[guillaumeb]

46. I believe that I understand their motivation.

And I also saw the post.

Personally, I would have no problem with them posthumously baptizing me. I think that the Creator would understand the motivation as well.

But I know that people from some religions object to the practice.

And you, what do you think?

[Irish_Dem]

47. Perhaps I find myself being a hypocrite on the subject.

My first reaction was negative, that it is not their place to routinely baptize people without consent. Especially non Christians.

But then I thought about Catholic babies who are routinely baptized, other faiths do this as well. There is no consent there. And it is done for a similar reason, if the baby is baptized and dies, she or he can go to heaven. In Catholic hospitals in days gone by, the nurses would quickly baptize a dying infant without a thought about it. They felt they were doing the right thing.

And if I hear of person in trouble or ill, I offer a prayer. Seeing a car accident or hearing something on TV for example. I do not get their consent.
But I feel I am doing it for the right reason.

So perhaps intent is the key here, what is the intent as you point out.

But is baptism different than a prayer?
And the routine practice seems a bit arrogant and insulting to me.
I cannot get to heaven on my own accord, I need the Mormons to give me a boost. But that said, I welcome any and all help and all prayers that are sincere in intent.

So really I can have an argument all by myself on the topic.

[Mariana]

49. Someone on that thread compared the Mormon baptisms with evangelism.

The posthumously baptized aren't forcibly converted into Mormons, they are simply given the choice, in the afterlife, to become Mormon if they wish to do so. They did not have that choice before and after the baptism, they do. Is this materially different than a missionary who goes out to preach the gospel to the heathens, to try to convert them to Christianity? Is the missionary being arrogant and insulting?

[Irish_Dem]

55. Thank you for the clarification.

The Mormon intent seems a bit odd to me and raises a new set of questions.

They are not baptizing a soul to ensure admittance to heaven.
But to ensure that they can make a choice about becoming Mormon upon arrival in heaven.
Well as you point out, they had that choice while living on Earth and chose not to become Mormon.
And I seriously doubt that the first thing a soul does when it hits the Pearly Gates is to start choosing
a man made religion. I suspect God might ask souls to check that nonsense at the door.

When I thought the the Mormons were baptizing souls so they could enter heave, it did seem a bit insulting,
insinuating that I could not get to heaven on my own merits. But I do admit that prayers and thoughts for the
recently deceased so assist the soul on its journey to the after life.

I could argue that missionaries are somewhat arrogant and insulting, in that they assume their belief system
is superior to the heathens who may have some spirituality, like Native Americans, etc. Heathens would be defined
by the missionaries as someone who is not Christian, but we know that tribal people often have some sort
of religious belief system.

So yes I think the Mormons are like Christian evangelicals who believe their religion is superior and forcing others
to believe what they believe.

[Mariana]

64. Most of the dead the Mormons are baptizing

did not have the choice to become Mormon while they were living. Most of them either died before the religion was invented, or they never had the opportunity to hear about it.

Most of my family tree on my dad's side have been posthumously baptized, because we're distantly related to a famous Mormon. Some of the genealogies they used contain some pretty big errors, though. I have no idea how they believe that affects the souls in question.

As religious rituals go, this one is very benign. They're standing in a building, invoking the name of a deceased person and reciting some mumbo-jumbo. Zero harm is done. Even if their religion is real, they're not forcing or threatening anyone.

[Irish_Dem]

66. It does presuppose that there is something exceptional about becoming a Mormon.

And that being one perhaps gives the soul a leg up in heaven?

I am on the fence, on the one hand this practice upsets the survivors, family and loved ones.
And that goes against the grain of my concept of spirituality.

On the hand, yes it is benign to the deceased person, the soul, and I believe that prayers
help the soul on its journey to the next life.

[Mariana]

67. Every religion's adherents think their religion is exceptional.

That's why they subscribe to that particular religion instead of one of the many others available to them, or to none at all.

[Irish_Dem]

68. Yes, I agree. But most people had no choice about religion. Their parents, family or

community foisted it on them at childhood.

[marylandblue]

51. The people who object to it are the living

Relatives and coreligionists of the dead person being baptized. It is an insult to them and the memories they have of the dead.

[Irish_Dem]

56. Excellent point. It is not just about the dead person. It is about the family and loved ones.

For a Jewish family, it is particularly insulting and upsetting to have Christianity forced upon them in any way.

[Angry Dragon]

74. I read most of the posts...Here is my position and beliefs

What one does in their private space in regards to their religion is up to them, as long as they hurt no one. Articles recently and for a long time some religions hurt people. Staved kids, beat people. That is just wrong..
What one believes or has faith in is up the individual.
Once they bring out their beliefs and faith into the public space they lose all expectations of no one questioning that belief or faith.
Daddy Huckabee and others say gays and immoral society are to blame for the ills of the world......I say prove it!
Recently many have come out and said god's law supersedes man's law.........I say prove it!
Some religions teach hate and these people bring this hate into my space. It then becomes my right to call these people fake christians and I have this right. They are trying to force me to believe and be like them. That is where it becomes a problem. I have studied the christian religion for over fifty years so I have some sense of what a true Christian should look like. One only has to look to their deeds to see that they are FAKE christians.

What one believes is up to them as long as they keep it mostly in their space. Once they bring it into my space and I do not like what they are saying I will attack it until I destroy it. I also notice most christians have no name for their god. Funny. Nameless, faceless god.


In no way am I am saying this is you Gilly. This is just the way I feel.

[guillaumeb]

75. We can agree on most of what you said. And said very well.

And many believers, probably most believers, believe exactly as you do.

As to the name of God, the Jews do not say the hidden name. Christians generally say God, and mean the one god. Muslims do the same, saying Allah, meaning the (one) god.

While I am a Christian, I hold strongly to the concept of absolute separation of church and state. In my view, and it probably is a minority view among American Christians, there should be no subsidies for religion from the state. That includes tax exempt status as well as direct subsidies.

And while I have been called many names here, some possibly deserved, I attribute that to anger and passion, not personal dislike.

Appropriate seasonal greetings AD.

[Angry Dragon]

78. You have a nice holiday season

[Binkie The Clown]

76. Why are you not a Muslim? It seems their faith is every bit as strong as yours.

How can you justify dismissing their strongly held faith so easily?

And if you can't dismiss it, why do you not embrace it?

[guillaumeb]

77. Why would I dismiss anyone's beliefs?

Each of us decides what they wish to believe.

[Voltaire2]

80. Do you dismiss the beliefs of trump supporters?

I do, they are awful idiotic, deplorable beliefs that deserve to dismissed with prejudice.

[guillaumeb]

81. I do not dismiss the fact that they voted for Trump.

I might question their political analysis, and their knowledge of history, and the racism and misogyny of some of them.

But we are talking here of faith.

[marylandblue]

83. They have faith in Trump

For those who believe in Trump, no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe, no proof is possible. Non overlapping magisteria.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Can't save a Michael Bay movie, why would it save the bible.

[MineralMan]

88. There's much more to Hebrews 11 than that first verse, Guy.

Have you read the entire chapter? What do you think of it? Context is important. It truly is. Out of context, your quote is.

[guillaumeb]

90. Feel free to preach.

In a non-literal sense.

[MineralMan]

91. I'd rather just guide people to the original source material.

I prefer to let people discover things on their own, Guy.

[guillaumeb]

92. Do you do this without editorial comments?

If so, please link to those apparently older posts.

[MineralMan]

94. Oh, I always make editorial comments.

See my signature line, Guy. Unlike yours, it is descriptive of my posts and doesn't put words in God's mouth.

[guillaumeb]

95. Some confusion exists here.

Your prior post:

I'd rather just guide people to the original source material.

I prefer to let people discover things on their own, Guy.

Versus your most recent post:

Oh, I always make editorial comments.

See my signature line, Guy. Unlike yours, it is descriptive of my posts and doesn't put words in God's mouth.

In the first, you are a guide who prefers to let people...etc."

In the second, you are inserting your own editorial comments. So your preference is to allow people to discover things, but you will insert what you feel to be appropriate commentary to aid in the discovery.

Too much for a simple, childlike, believer such as me.

[MineralMan]

96. Some people are easily confused.

In the particular case, I would rather send someone to read the entire chapter than copy and paste it in your thread. I prefer economy of words in threads I did not start, you see. It's a matter of courtesy. If someone wants to examine my point, they can read the entire chapter. If not, they will not need to do so.