Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RememberJohn]

1. In my opinion, extremely...

Religion should be highly personal.

[StopTheMorans]

9. I agree

once humans start putting walls up to define God, then all hell breaks loose (pun intended). I feel that religion should be a personal experience, not one that you have to have dictated to you by some human prelate, who is just as human as you.

[helleborient]

20. Organized religion doesn't always dictate and define

Progressive Christians (Protestant and Catholic), Unitarians, and Quakers, just for starters, are just as aware of these issues as you are, but they do see value in religious communities.

[SharonAnn]

115. My aunt says that religion is supposed to be like underwear

personal and private.

[arwalden]

119. Well... I Wish Falwell Would Stop Shoving His Dirty Underwear In My Face!!

Your aunt is very wise... and very funny too!!

Thanks for the laugh.

-- Allen

[helleborient]

135. Open and communal

Would go a long way toward clearing up misunderstandings.

[Upfront]

2. Religion=War

Seems to me that we fight more wars over religion then anything else. I wonder why? Beleive what you wish, as long as it won't harm others, would be a good place for all religions to start.

[helleborient]

21. We don't fight wars over...

Economics? Ethnic Background? Colonialism?

It's easy to see Northern Ireland as simply a religious conflict, although culture, the Scottish invasion, etc. have a lot to do with it.

It's easy to see the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as simply a religious conflict although the economics of land ownership has at least as much to do with it.

If you try and solve many of these "religious" wars by only looking at the religion, you are destined for failure.

Wake up - neither religion nor the world are as simple as you make them out to be!

[leftofthedial]

28. so then you readily admit that religion is part of the problem

in these wars.

That's a start.

[helleborient]

52. Blind dogmatic adherence to a belief system is always a problem...

But I do not agree that religion itself is the problem.

[Az]

34. The reason religion is so often found at the heart of conflict

We can negotiate land. We can negotiate prisoners. We can negotiate nearly anything. What we cannot negotiate is religion.

Negotiation requires compromise. Religion claims to speak the truth. When two or more religions collide there can be no negotiation. With no ability to concede arguments to one another they can only shore up defenses and wait for the inevitible.

This is the situation we find in Israel/Palestine. Most issues have seen their fair share of negotiations. But when matters approach holy issues such as holy sites the negotiations break down. The very identity of the people become invested in their religious proclomations. They simply cannot back away. Some are even willing to strike blows in these cases.

Its not the religious claims themself that are problematic. It is the nature of how religions propogate and interact with the mind. It is not reserved to just theistic religions either. Structures such as Communism as practiced in the USSR utilized similar methods of propogation and control of the populace. It is these absolutist positions that create these inflexible doctrines that do battle with each other.

[leftofthedial]

38. and don't forget American capitalism

which long ago usurped representative democracy as the totalitarian principle that guides our interaction with the rest of the planet.

[realFedUp]

3. I'm an Episcopalian

and I like the idea that all over the world in all the different
Episcopalian churches we are all reading the same Gospel
and lesson on a given Sunday, praying collectively for the men and women in combat, for country and world leadership to make the right decisions and to live the message of Jesus. I think more
can be accomplished in a community.

The most important thing is we are not asked to check
our brains at the door.
I really abhor fundamentalist Christians twisting
Jesus's message to fit their own agenda. I believe in the
separation of church and state...everything has its place.

[FlashHarry]

33. Me Too.

I'm an Episcopalian (or Anglican, when I was overseas). It seems to be the most progressive of the larger Christian sects--especially the ones who preserve apostolic succession... you know who you are!

[CWebster]

125. Sure not the ones

who pouted when the Pope said no divorce for Henry?

[TrogL]

141. That wasn't the only problem

That was more the straw that broke the camel's back.

[CWebster]

178. Shhh

just poking Flash. ;-)

[shimmergal]

4. "Mythology is an attempt to explain the inexplicable."

No, I don't think it's "archaic to believe in a 2000 year old tale," if you take it as metaphor, rather than as the literal and complete truth about The Way Things Are.

Perhaps the tales are overdue for a refit, though. All that pastoral imagery doesn't make a visceral connection with many people today.
IMO one of the reasons Wicca and related religions are making a comeback is that we still have seasons--central to their imagery and sacred stories--which affect us in our daily life.

Yes, wars have been fought over religious belief. They've also been fought over political ideology, land, money, other resources (think _oil_), women (remember Helen of Troy), and trophy gathering (poll numbers, anyone?) Etc., etc. Why should religion be uniquely blamed for what's a far too common human tendency?

[mopaul]

5. alert! alert! you called someone's beliefs mythology

hang on

[sangh0]

7. Pay attention, mopaul

The initiating post speaks of "the storytelling aspect of organized religion, the mythology". IOW, they're not saying "religion= mythology"; They're saying there is a mythological aspect to the some of religous stories. As someone who is religious, someone who is one of the "tattlers" you complain about, I have no problem with anyone describing this aspect of religion as "mythological" for the simple reason that it *IS* mythological.

Note: mythology is not the same as "fairy tales". Fairy tales speak of specific cultural realities, while mythology speaks to the universal human condition.

[leftofthedial]

30. wait a minute

the sum of these posts clearly equates religion and mythology.

And your definitions of "fairy tale" and "mythology" are simply constructed by you to be convenient to your argument. Fairy tales frequently speak to the universal condition, just as do the Jesus parables in the New Testament.

[sangh0]

39. You are wrong

At the time I posted, the "sum of the posts" did not equate religion with mythology. Furthermore, the initial post did not. If you re-read that post, you'll see, by the sentence structure, that the subject of the sentence is the "stories" and not religion in toto.

And there is a difference between myths and fairy tales. I refer you to "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell.

[leftofthedial]

47. connect the dots

a particular religion is based on a book full of stories

the original post and the shimmergal post both allude to these stories being "mythological" or being spiritual metaphors (which is the same thing).

I don't need your help reading.

Just using a word like "mythology" or "fable" in a religious post has gotten those posts locked in the past.

[sangh0]

I disagree

a particular religion is based on a book full of stories

Not true. There are plenty of pre-literate cultures that had a religion. Since "pre-literate" means they couldn't read or write, I doubt they had a book of stories.

the original post and the shimmergal post both allude to these stories being "mythological" or being spiritual metaphors

Right! The stories are mythological, but there's more to religion than just the stories.

Just using a word like "mythology" or "fable" in a religious post has gotten those posts locked in the past.

I do not believe that to be true. Do you have a link? After all, this thread refers to mythology, and it's not locked. In fact, several religious DUers agree with the assertion that the stories are mythological.

[leftofthedial]

83. cut through the nitpicking

we're talking primarily about Judeo-Christianity, which is based on books.

this is not to deny that non-literary religions ever existed, but that's beside the point.

whether oral tradition or written words pass them along, many religions are based on myths. Christianity is particularly so. The Creation myth (demonstrably a false account), the Adam and Eve myth (demonstrably a false and incomplete account), hundreds of myths in the Old and New Testament.

Christians base their belief on the books that contain these myths, yet when the patent falsity and inaccuracy of any of these myths is pointed out, the Christian falls back on the "yeah, but it's just a myth that means whatever I want it to" line of argument.

You either believe in something or you don't.

At least we're getting some of the pro-religion contingent to admit that these are myths. Maybe now discussions like this won't be locked.

As for links to locked threads, how long have you been on DU. I don't think the phenomenon requires documentation. It is common. Two threads were locked on the subject yesterday, one started by mopaul.

That this thread remains unlocked is testament to the subjective nature of censorship.

[helleborient]

88. You are the one forcing Christians into literalism...

"You either believe in something or you don't"

Could have come right out of the mouth of Falwell.

[leftofthedial]

97. ad hominem is a poor tactic

what is wrong with the statement?

[sangh0]

98. It's not true.

.

[leftofthedial]

107. it is not true that you either believe something or you don't

the truth of the statement is self evident.

name something that you both believe and don't believe.

Sheesh!

[helleborient]

101. Here is what's wrong...

An insistence that the world is understood by dualities of which "you either believe it or you don't" is one.

I fight against a number of false dualities in my life...homosexual or heterosexual doesn't work, because I'm bi...masculine or feminine doesn't work because there are both aspects in me...belief in an afterlife or not, because at times belief in it gives me comfort and at other times the reverse.

Literalism forces one to make choices that are unnecessary to even make...our brains are sophisticated enough to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously...it doesn't all have to be logical or rational. Read Carol Gilligan's "A Different Voice"...and women may be able to explain this much better than I.

[leftofthedial]

108. with respect to your religion

what specifically do you both believe and simultaneously not believe?

[sangh0]

112. That God exists

.

[leftofthedial]

138. so you DON'T believe that God exists

and you DO believe that God exists

must make for some confusing church services.

[sangh0]

140. I don't, and I do.

And I don't go to church. I'm not a Christian.

[leftofthedial]

144. It's cool that you're not a Christian

what are you?

[sangh0]

151. Human

.

[leftofthedial]

156. Wow! We have a lot in common

[sangh0]

158. Yes, we do

We all have a lot in common, religious or not. That's one of the beliefs religion has taught me.

[helleborient]

121. That Jesus ascended from the dead

[leftofthedial]

143. So you DON'T believe that Jesus ascended from the dead

And you DO believe that Jesus ascended from the dead

So you both believe and disbelieve the key tenet of Christianity?

[helleborient]

147. I have evidence for both

Heart and gut instinct is that it's true.

Scientific knowledge seems to indicate it's not likely.

Neither leads to complete understanding for me...at least not yet.

But I'm comfortable with that.

[leftofthedial]

170. good luck to you on attaining (or at least seeking)

complete understanding

[Lars39]

99. Falwell has been a regular speaker at Southern Baptist Conventions.

The SB's changed their belief system from *everyone can interpret the Bible on their own* to, *in order to be a SB, you must believe that the Bible is the literal truth, no exceptions*. Don't remember the year, but when this was passed, the missionaries had to sign a formal agreement. Nobody forced this denomination to do this; they thought it up all on their own. :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

109. Missouri Synod Lutherans are also literalists

I don't care if you are a literalist, a relativist or whatever you want to be.

I'm just trying to figure out what the heck it is you DO believe and why you believe it.

[Lars39]

124. For most literalists.......

they believe in their literal version of *the truth* because it is what they are told to believe.

[sangh0]

92. You're nitpicking

*We* are not talking primarily about Judeo-Christianity. Maybe you are, but the rest of us are not.

many religions are based on myths

Wrong. The religions are based on beliefs. The stories are meant to help people understand the beliefs, and not the other way around, as you describe it.

Christians base their belief on the books that contain these myths,

Wrong again. (Most) Christians believe in a certain philosophy which those stories help people understand. The stories derive from the beliefs. The beliefs are not derived from the stories. Several religious people have been trying to explain this to you, yet you, an atheist, continue to insist that you know more about what we believe than we do.

the Christian falls back on the "yeah, but it's just a myth that means whatever I want it to" line of argument.

And again, it's not "whatever I WANT it to" - it's "whatever I actually and honestly DO believe it means"

At least we're getting some of the pro-religion contingent to admit that these are myths. Maybe now discussions like this won't be locked.

AFAIK, no thread has ever been locked because of the word "mythology". And AFAIK, no one on DU has ever denied that many of the stories are "mythological" in nature.

That this thread remains unlocked is testament to the subjective nature of censorship.

This thread remain unlocked because everyone here, with one exception, is reponding calmly and reasonably

[leftofthedial]

123. I really am trying to understand what you believe

Which is hard because you haven't said anything about what you DO believe.

Assuming you are a Christian (which I don't know because you won't say), If you are asserting that christian religion is not based on a belief in the bible (that book that includes stories that we agree are myths), then what does give form, structure, a name, a set of "rules," etc. to your belief? Surely your beliefs are not formless. Does not the Bible provide the basis for Christian beliefs?

Okay, so you fall back on the "yeah, but it's just a myth that means whatever I believe it to mean" line of argument. So?

mopaul just had another thread locked because of the work "myth."

I am calm and very reasoned. It is others who have compared me to Jerry Falwell (a ludicrous assertion and against DU rules, not that rules apply when they would protect an atheist from personal insult). all I have done is ask questions.

I sincerely do not understand what you believe or why you believe it.

[helleborient]

134. Trying to put in a nutshell what I believe...

Much of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount... (The "blessed are..." part of the Jesus story) and also Jesus' ideas of a radical form of "all are created equal"...from my understanding to him that would include women as well. Also, that the early Jews had it right in the idea of Jubilee (the basis for Bono, etc.'s approach to forgiving 3rd world debt...Bono is another Christian, by the way)

I look to much of the rest of the Bible in order to understand more about where these ideas of Jesus and the early church came from and whether or not there were mistakes and human errors happening in application of them.

I don't believe rule-making is an important part of faith or faith communities. I do believe that if a strong effort is put into understanding what Jesus meant in his teachings, pro-social behavior is the likely result.

[sangh0]

139. That's a pretty good nutshell

Though I'm not a Christian, I think the Sermon on the Mount does encapsulate a good deal of the wisdom religion has to offer.

[leftofthedial]

150. with all due respect

the Sermon on the Mount does not require religion to be true.

Similar philosophical tenets exist in other traditions as well.

Why again do we need to confuse good, moral, wise human behavior with religion?

[sangh0]

152. Who said anything about "need"

I, for one, do not think one NEEDS religion in order to be good, moral, or wise. I do think religion can be of service in the effort to be good, moral, and/or wise, but it's far from necesary

[leftofthedial]

160. I'm trying to understand why you are a Christian

you say because you believe the ideas in the sermon on the mount.

You don't need to be a Christian to believe the truth of these words and in fact the same basic ideas predate Jesus and are also found in many other traditions, both religious and nonreligious.

So. Why are you a Christian?

[sangh0]

162. I'm not a Christian

I apologize if I left you with that impression.

[helleborient]

159. Why throw it out?

It comforts me...it helps me create and be part of positive communities...in my gut it feels right.

I'm not confusing anything.

I can show you in books in my public library many understandings of "good, moral, wise human behavior" that were entirely secular that are awful, as I'm sure you can do with religion.

But there are positive secular communities...and positive religious communities.

For me...my faith does mostly come down to a point where I'm not ready to abandon a belief in Jesus' ascension...I really do believe it could be true. And, belief in it, does not cause me intellectual problems. My whole world does not have to be rational for it to work well.

Why not help spread the word that there are positive religious communities along with us...and help us fight the Falwells and Robertsons of the world?

[sangh0]

137. I understand, but you should try to understand

how difficult it is for one, specifically me, to tell you "What I believe" in a post. "What I believe" is the results of years of reading and living, and contains far too much to be easily explained in a post.

1) I am not a Christian, though I do have a profound respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ

If you are asserting that christian religion is not based on a belief in the bible

2) I didn't assert that. For many Christians, their belief *is* based on the belief that the Bible is God's Word. Many other Christians do not believe that. If I am going to assert anything about religion, or the beliefs of Christians, etc, it is that they hold a diverse range of opinions on spiritual matters, including the Bible.

what does give form, structure, a name, a set of "rules," etc. to your belief?

3) My experiences

Does not the Bible provide the basis for Christian beliefs?

4) Yes and no. For some, yes. For others, no.

mopaul just had another thread locked because of the work "myth."


5) Not true. Read Skinners comment. It has nothing to do with the use of the word "myth". It's because Mopaul has consistently shown a lack of consideration and has been obviously trying to "push the envelope"

I am calm and very reasoned.

6) I can't know your state of mind or your emotional state, so I will take you at your word. However, some of the things you have said seem to be emotional.

It is others who have compared me to Jerry Falwell

7) That's not what happened. You weren't compared to Falwell. Your statements was compared to statements Falwell has made.

all I have done is ask questions.

Not true. Maybe it was unintentional, but some of your posts have made assumptions that are not true, like "the religious believe in invisible cloud beings"

I sincerely do not understand what you believe or why you believe it.

And I would like you to know that I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when you make assertions regarding what I believe when the truth is, you don't know what I believe.

It's a complicated subject, and people have an incredibly diverse range of opinion on these issues. Sometimes the differences are great (ex free will, God's grace, God's existence, etc) and sometimes the differences are nearly neglible. It's no wonder that you have difficulty understanding. Religious people, or at least many of them, have the very same problem.

[Clete]

31. I have to disagree with you.

Fairy tales were once the mythology of pre-Christian peoples, so they are a form of religion, which has been discredited. For instance the Irish believe in fairies, leprechauns and many other otherworld entities. These beings are the gods and goddesses of their religion before Christianity.

I know that nowadays people think that fairy tales are cute stories for kids, but at one time they were someone's religion.

[sangh0]

41. I'm not convinced

The religions of pre-Christian peoples were about more than those stories.

For instance the Irish believe in fairies, leprechauns and many other otherworld entities. These beings are the gods and goddesses of their religion before Christianity.

This is why those stories are mythical, and not fairy tales, even if they're about fairies.

[Bake]

68. Westerners, and Americans in particular, fail to grasp "myth."

People hear "myth" and immediately think "false." In a philosophical / theological sense, it doesn't mean "false" at all. To say, e.g., that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth does not mean that it is false. It means that it is not necessarily "true" in a literal historical sense. If "adam" is the hebrew word for "mankind" and "eve" for "mother", then what we have here is the encapsulization in a single story of the incredibly huge truth about how sin came into the world, and continues to come into the world.

Example Two: The "Myth" of Creation. Westerners want to make it literal to the point of the process taking 6 24-hour days, and that God must have hands because He formed Adam out of the dust of the earth, etc. For religious people, the truth is (we believe) that God was the moving force behind creation--science can tell us (to a limited extent at this point) WHAT happened; religion tells us WHY and WHO.

Bottom line: Myth, properly understood, relates to truths that are too big to be adequately expressed in literal terms.

Bake

[sangh0]

72. Well put, dbaker

Thank you

[leftofthedial]

76. who gets to decide which words mean what they say

and which words get to mean whatever you want them to mean?

And at what point does the whole exercise become ludicrous?

[Bake]

81. Duh! You use the brain God gave you

You seem to have a penchant for wanting quick, "sound-bite" type answers. The answer is, you approach the text from various angles: historical, literary, theological, etc., and attempt to understand "what it meant" (historically speaking) and "what it means" (to the modern reader) in light of the body of human knowledge. That is not always easy, Grasshopper. But it is worth the effort. Few things that are worthwhile are also easy. You seem to like "easy."

Bake

[leftofthedial]

85. you still didn't answer the question

I don't require a soundbite. Write me a tome if need be.

[sangh0]

100. Yes he did

I'll repeat it - Each individual decides for themselves what the texts mean.

Who is going to tell you what my words mean?

[sangh0]

82. Each individual does it for themselves.

who gets to decide which words mean what they say

Each individual decides for themselves what the words mean, just like when you read any other book.

[leftofthedial]

87. you just undefined the word "religion"

So why does one need to belong to a "religion" if one is in effect just making this up as one goes along?

[sangh0]

95. No , I didn't

You seem to be fond of asserting your opinions as if they were fact.

So why does one need to belong to a "religion" if one is in effect just making this up as one goes along?

I don't remember anyone here saying that one *needs* to belong to a religion.

[Bake]

103. Because humans like to work in groups

Smetimes we're most effective that way. In terms of interpreting our religious texts, we try to arrive at the truth by individual effort as well as by discussing among our groups.

And no, we're not just making it up as we go along. We rely on the great exegetical scholars of the past and the present. Please try to restrain yourself from such overly simplistic and demeaning responses as "making it up as you go along." Sound-bite, once again.

Bake

[helleborient]

104. Community, for one

Shared belief structures are one way in which communities come together and provide each other with spiritual, intellectual, and physical nourishment, support, and protection.

And it is being "made up", if you want to call it that, communally.

The same way in which scientists "make up" scientific understanding communally...and we could go into a long discussion of scientific knowledge debunked after it was accepted as true...or the politics involved in academic science...the money structures....gee, sounds a lot like a religious community to me.

[helleborient]

91. Words are only language

Used to try and commuicate between communities. The actual meaning of words is continually under negotiation.

It is only ludicrous if commuication is ludicrous.

[leftofthedial]

127. FWIW, I never equated "myth" and "false"

Who and why are anthropomorphic impositions on the world. There is no compelling reason why there had to be a who or a why.

I don't see any evidence that a God even exists, or much less was the moving force behind creation, or that such a thing as "Creation" ever occured. The admittedly fragmentary scientific evidence of very remote history does not fully explain what happened, but it indicates no such thing.

I'm not insulting you. I'm telling you what I believe and hoping to better understand why you believe what you do.

[helleborient]

142. Do you believe in the scientific method for understanding?

The scientific method posits that we can never prove anything true...we can only prove a null hypothesis...that is, we can only disprove things which eventually leads us toward having only one remaining explanation.

If you believe the scientifc method, proof about God will only come about through efforts to disprove the existence...scientific method posits we can do nothing to prove the existence of God.

[leftofthedial]

43. question for you shimmergal

Yes, wars have been fought over religious belief.

So if we eliminated religion (hypothetically), we could eliminate some wars and part of the causes of other wars?

Wouldn't that be a good thing?

[sangh0]

46. That's only half the story

You can't just look at the bad side and come to a reasonable opinion. You ought to look at all sides, and then decide.

If we eliminated all vaccines, no one would die or get sick from a vaccine, which is undeniably a good thing. However, even more people would die from the diseases those vaccines were meant to protect against, and the is undeniably a bad thing.

[leftofthedial]

49. in the wars in question

dating back to mankind's earliest history, millions have died in religious wars.

Not the same thing as a fractional percent who die from vaccines.

Besides, the benefits of vaccines are clear. The benefits of religion less so.

[sangh0]

58. You missed the point

but at least now you're doing the sort of comparison I referred to.

the benefits of vaccines are clear

Yes, but we know this because people have examined BOTH the benefits *AND* the costs.

The benefits of religion less so.

I agree, the benefits are less clear, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[leftofthedial]

66. with due respect, I think YOU missed the point

even the pro-religion posters in this thread admit that religion has caused or been a contributing cause to wars throughout history.

Simple yes-or-no question.

If we eliminated (hypothetically) religion and prevented these wars, would that be a good thing?

Put another way, is your right to worship an invisible cloud being (or more accurately a sky god) worth the lives of the tens or hundreds of millions of people killed in the name of religion?

[sangh0]

69. Not a good thing

If you eliminated religion, you'd have eliminated the main force promoting non-violence, a theory created by religious individuals.

Put another way, is your right to worship an invisible cloud being (or more accurately a sky god) worth the lives of the tens or hundreds of millions of people killed in the name of religion?

Who says I believe in an invisible cloud being, or is that how you avoid dealing with what the faithful really believe in?

[leftofthedial]

74. not a bad thing

If you eliminated religion, you'd have eliminated the main force promoting non-violence, a theory created by religious individuals.

do you have proof that this is so?

I don't believe it. I'm an atheist and the most moral, peach loving person you know.

Who says I believe in an invisible cloud being

don't you? what do you believe in?

[sangh0]

84. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes!!

The people who have promoted the idea of non-violence are mostly the religious. The people who came up with the concept are religious. And if you look at the indivduals who are promoting the concept of non-violence, you will find that a majority of them are religious.

Note: There are plenty of non-violent atheists. However, atheists are not, as a group, promoting non-violence.

Who says I believe in an invisible cloud being

don't you? what do you believe in?

If you don't know what I do believe in, then maybe you shouldn't have tried to assert that I believe in an invisible cloud being.

[Bake]

73. Invisible Cloud Being and Sky God are offensive terms

Your inability to grasp the concept is revealed by your resorting to simplistic terms such as these. The great theologian Paul Tillich referred to God as the "ultimate ground of being," a concept I don't expect you to understand. I studied Tillich 25 years ago, and I'm still trying to grasp it.

Many religious people are arrogant in thinking that nobody has the truth but them. The same is true of many non-religious people.

Bake

[helleborient]

80. Paul Tillich was a wise man indeed...

I've known a number of religious scholars who see him as one of the greatest of 20th century philosophers of religion.

[leftofthedial]

154. I've been trying to post this apology for thirty minutes,

but I keep getting sidetracked elsewhere in the thread.

"Cloud" has become a perjorative word, although it si based on the Sistene Chapel depiction of God.

"Invisible being" is an accurate representation of what many Christians believe in.

"Sky god" is an anthropological term for the category of religions to which Judaism, Christianity and Islam belong. It is not perjorative and if you are offended, it is due to ignorance.

Still, I truly do not wish to offend, so I'm sorry I did.

Arrogant? Perhaps. I'm pretty fucking smart and I've given this subject much thought. I do not profess to have "the truth" and I do not believe that nobody has the truth but me.

[sangh0]

174. Here's where you erred

"Invisible being" is an accurate representation of what many Christians believe in.

Though it is true that many Christians do believe that God is an invisible "being", it is not the majority view. The idea that God is a "being" or "entity" seperate from the rest of the universe (as we are seperate from the rest of the universe) is known as "dualism", with the "duality" coming from there being God *and* the universe.

The majority and mainstream view is that God is not an "entity" seperate from the rest of the universe. I'm pretty confident that you have heard that "God is everywhere". This is a (possibly overly simplistic) version of "non-duality"

[helleborient]

78. I don't worship invisible cloud beings either...

For me, my concept of God is a unified spirituality in all people...it doesn't reside on a cloud.

Your personal definition of Christianity or religion is simply an untrue depiction of a huge number of Christians and religious adherents.

[leftofthedial]

164. WADR, you are very close to defining yourself as a nonChristian

what you believe, as stated above, has more in common with paganism or even occultism than with what is formally understood as Christianity.


this leaves me even more confused than ever as to why you are so threatened by atheism and rationalism.

[sangh0]

172. Not true

According to Christian philosophy, including Papal encyclicals, that description of God is well within the tradition.

And we are not threatened by atheism. We are threatend by intolerance, which is why the Fundies pose as much of a threat to us as they do to atheists.

[helleborient]

173. I'm not threatened by either atheism or rationalism

I mostly feel threatened when someone else tries to define for me what I believe. And choose labels for me.

Another item to add to reading list - works by Paul Tillich and his concept of "the ground of all being" as mentioned before.

It sounds like to me (and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that really is fine) that you want to have one specific way to understand your world, and if that works for you, that's fine.

That simply isn't the way I see things for me...my worldview is complicated. If I follow my own belief structures...they have gone from being rather black and white to being much more complex and murky. Part of that, I suppose, arose from trying to make sense of why I'm bisexual in a world that sets up monosexual (hetero or homo) systems to live in. Part of it arises from trying to make sense of the horrors of war. And part of it simply arises from trying to make sense out of the same person's capability of doing both great and awful things.

[helleborient]

63. Although Gandhi and MLK, Jr. are among the benefits...

Who are the great peacemakers in the world who have come from a non-religious background?

[helleborient]

54. And if we eliminated the science that created

Nuclear bombs we could eliminate threats from nuclear weapons and energy....Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Senseless to see it as any form of reality...but still a good thing.

[Az]

62. Knowledge accumulates

We can try to wish it away but that will fail. Instead we have to build our social ability to deal with what we discover. In general when left to human desires and needs science does seem to maintain a semblence of respect for social concerns. It is when virtual constructs such as corporations get ahold of the fruits of science that we see them abused in the name of corporate profits rather that benefitting humans.

Within corporate ethics survival of the corporate entity takes precidents. What benefits a corporation may not benefit humans. And this is the reason we must remain in control of corporations.

[helleborient]

75. Stanley Milgram was not controlled by corporate interests...

And his experiments were horrific, in my estimation. They were done with blind adherence to science as an ultimate good. Most recently details about the University of Iowa stuttering research in which children were berated and humiliated in the name of science have emerged.

Some of that respect for social concerns does arise out of religious beliefs for many.

I suggest that we be open to multiple paths from which knowledge emerges, spiritual, scientific, qualitative and quantitative.

[Squeech]

6. The language of the Bible is the language of feudalism

There's a Lord, and we all owe Him fealty. This speaks volumes to me.

Nor is this limited to the various Peoples of the Book-- which is how Islam describes its own heritage, including Christianity and Judaism. The tenets of Confucianism and Hinduism are also bound up with notions of hierarchy and mutual responsibilities up and down the so-called Natural Order.

As best as I can figure it right now, Buddhism is the first modern religion, in the sense of promoting self-responsible behavior. One could quibble with what the desired behavior is-- crave to give up craving?-- but the notion that you have to face the universe on your own and be on your best behavior for your own soul's sake is clearer there than in any other belief system I can think of.

It also speaks volumes to me that practicing Buddhism does not preclude following another faith. You don't worship Buddha as a god, you follow his example as a teacher. (Your mileage may vary. I know there are sects that have deities, and liturgies even more colorful than the old Latin masses, but the Japanese implementation coexists very easily with Shinto.)

My opinion, of course, and worth what you paid for it.

[leftofthedial]

35. feudalist as all get out

which speaks to the anochronistic part of the original post.

I really don't understand how anyone can believe this.

Why does one need a religion to get one to behave as you describe above?

[Az]

42. Which is ironic as we have new feudal lords

CEOs are becoming the new feudal lords.

[helleborient]

8. From my church's statement of purpose...

We have tri-affiliation - Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ

Anyhow, here's our statement:


"Our church is fully aware of the "mystery" and does not believe literally in the Bible...please don't misconstrue that literal belief in the Bible is THE belief in current Christianity

When we use the word "God," we refer to the Mystery in which our days are set, a Mystery which moves us to awe. We experience God as a presence at the center of our being and of all creation--a power and love our logic cannot define or our spirits deny.

We also see God through the window of Jesus, a human being like us, who showed us how to put God's love to work in our world. When we affirm the worth of others, minister to their needs, and participate in their struggle for wholeness and justice, we believe that we are following him.

In this Community, we experience encouragement in our spiritual journey and growth through on-going study and dialogue. We worship around a table that reminds us of Jesus' invitation to strangers to become a new community--a community in which we all become ministers to each other, to our world, and in particular to local institutions of higher learning.

Grateful as we are for our faith community, we believe that God is also known among people of other faiths and cultures. "

[Bandit]

23. Sounds like a good organization. ~ I appreciate faiths such as yours

I like people who wish to follow the words and deeds of Christ instead of the horrors of the old testiment. I am not a religious person but I believe in right and wrong and it is right to help people and wrong to hurt them whether by actions or deeds. Like Coulter or Limbaugh or Savage do daily. They relish in hurting folks. I find that abhorrent. Our nation's fixation on violence is also a wrong that I feel will be our downfall. I applaud churches like your who strive for peace and good will towards mankind.

[leftofthedial]

40. I have no idea what all that means

what is this "Mystery" that is at the heart of this statement?

[helleborient]

56. The undefinable nature of God

according to my faith community.

A willingness accept it as a mystery is part of what brings my community (a significant number of which are university scholars...including scientists) together.

[leftofthedial]

70. don't take this wrong, but

why is that more meaningful than, say "the undefinable nature of Shamalamadingdong"?

It still doesn't say anything meaningful. Seems to be a pretty vague premise to hang your guiding faith on.

[helleborient]

86. Let me spell this out...

It prevents a specific, connect-the-dots image of God sitting on a cloud, or my image, or anyone else's from creating divisions within our community.

Our community focuses more on the teachings of Jesus, but yet we do believe there is something indefinable that connects us spiritually that we choose to call "God." We choose not to get hung up on materialistic definitions of it.

A very central part of our community is the centrality of an "open table" communion as part of every service. Remembering that Jesus called everyone, regardless of background, personal wealth, ethnicity, etc. to participate in a community meal...this is very similar to the ideal of Jubilee (equal property ownership)

Our community took a lot of flak locally when a photo showed up in the local newspaper of a Muslim visitor taking communion with us...and it was this community choosing to protect our local Islamic Center from violence in the wake of September 11 that helped me decide it was the community to be part of.

[leftofthedial]

136. cheers to your inclusive and positive community

that was wonderful thing including a Muslim, especially in the wake of 9-11.

I have no doubt that you are sincere and positive in your beliefs and that your community is doing good things collectively. I'm not trying to attack you or insult you or anything like that.

I still don't glean an answer to my question from your reply though.

Could you not all collectively assemble and do good and wonderful things without the trappings of a sectarian adherence to a 2000 year old collection of stories, fables, myths, or whatever you want to call them? Why is a shared belief in a supernatural entity necessary for these things to happen?

What about the New Testament precept that you are judged not by your works, but by your faith in Jesus? Seems kind of odd to me.

[helleborient]

153. Some good questions here...

"Could you not all collectively assemble and do good and wonderful things without the trappings of a sectarian adherence to a 2000 year old collection of stories, fables, myths, or whatever you want to call them? Why is a shared belief in a supernatural entity necessary for these things to happen?"

Possibly we could, but we see few that do...some in my community do posit that the actual existence of this community is the working of God within all of us (that shared spirituality). Is the shared fait necessary or not? I don't know, and it's not a particularly important question for me. For some others in our community, it is. I believe there is a shared spirituality, and right now that is good enough for me, because I see wonderful things happening in this community and some others in its name.

Faith in Jesus and your works are nearly impossible to separate from each other for me...for me, the stronger my faith in my understanding of Jesus (Sermon on the Mount and such mentioned above), the more likely my works will fall in line. When the faith is weak, the works are all over the place and usually motivated primarily by materialistic and physical concerns.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. Only fundies and athiests interpret 2000 year old stories literally

Why is that exactly?

[StopTheMorans]

11. if you don't interpret stories in "sacred texts" literally

then any human is free to construe any meaning upon them, correct? So just as one person can interpret a "holy text" to tell them that all people who do not look like them are inferior, another can interpret it to say that they should help homeless people, and both are just as valid, because they are opinions based on a text that should not be taken literally, right?

[helleborient]

12. Yes...and the point is??

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across here.

My church focuses strongly on community and the shared sense of a "sacred mystery" in life. The stories and teachings of the Bible are primarily used as a starting point for dialogue amongst our community...in some ways similar to a novel used as a starting point for dialogue in a lit. class.

We do not impose a specific reading of the Bible any more than we impose a specific understanding of one's own life. Does this negate the value of shared community worship and spiritual exploration?

[sangh0]

14. I think the point is

that the fundies insistence on a literal interpretation of the Bible is due to their desire of fundie leaders to limit the questioning (by other fundies) their beliefs are subject to.

[sangh0]

13. You got it, and the irony is

that Protestantism was founded on the belief that each individual was qualified (by the spirit of God each of us possesses) to interpret the Bible for themselves, and now the Xtian fundies are mostly Protestants.

[helleborient]

16. Thanks...and perfect reasoning

For some who continually post smearing all of Christianity to be more specific as to what they are talking about.

[sendero]

29. yet those...

.. who claim to take the Bible literally seem the most likely to completely ignore many of the fundamental messages of the Bible, to wit, greed is evil, judge not others, etc etc etc.

This "literal belief" only comes into play when it suits their interests.

[Bake]

77. No, that is FAR from correct

There is still truth to be gleaned from texts that are not meant to be literal. It doesn't mean that one can interpret them any way one chooses. That's your Western mindset kicking in.

As a Christian, I believe that God gave me a brain and expects me to use it.

Bake

[Az]

79. I used to think my brain was my favorite organ

But then I realised which organ was telling me that.

Its a joke but it is also telling of the problem we face when dealing with understanding the world around us. It is our very mind that represents one of the greatest mysteries we have yet to conquor and it is our mind we are using to try to understand our mind.

[helleborient]

96. Interesting that introspection was once considered

One of the most viable ways to engage in scientific research. Scientific psychology arose in the late 1800's from German researchers who utilized introspection as their most common methodology of research...not surprising since most early experimental psychologists were also philosophers.

[Az]

19. Technically

Atheists do not interpret the bible literally. They see it in many different ways. Everything from a collection of myths and legends to a misinterpretted series of stories.

Unfortunately for the more liberal Christians the religious right is a bit more vocal and argumentitive than them. Thus the people the atheists find themself in debate with are more often literalists. Thus their impression of Christians is going to be dominated by the arche fundies tactics and beliefs. For every Rev Spong there are 15 Falwells.

[leftofthedial]

51. so 2000 year old texts mean whatever you want them to mean?

which means that they mean nothing at all?

Then why do religions worship these meaningless texts so fervently?

[sangh0]

60. No, not quite

Not "whatever you WANT them to mean", but what you really and honestly think they DO mean.

[helleborient]

65. I don't know for sure...

I would suspect for the same reasons some worship other religions and science so fervently...lack of security elsewhere in life, so they are looking for something larger than life for that security.

I seek my security in the human communities I'm part of.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

149. just as I said, only fundies and athiests do

The fundies worship the 2000 year old stories and interpret them literally, and the athiests say "how can you possibly believe this story, since a literal interpretation cannot be true?"

The idea that the 2000 year old stories are history, analogies, fables, and literature seems lost to fundies and athiests.

Then again, athiests would have little to bitch about on internet forums if they didn't have the fundies.

[Az]

15. Discussion

First I would like to say that it is not impossible to deny supernatural explanations. There are things we certainly do not understand but supernatural explanations imply occurrences outside what is natural. I think you will find that there are numerous individuals patient enough to keep looking for the explantions for the current myteries. What was unknown 100 years ago is common knowledge today. This is the process of discovery. To presume that no explanation can ever be found is the surest path to failure.

As to the nature of belief and religions. At some point in our history religion hit critical mass. When it did so it became a virtual entity unto itself. An evolutionary entity which exists within the enviroment of human minds and society.

Organized religions (whether they are based on truth or not) operate by securing members and then spreading to new members. There are a variety of ways this can be achieved. It is the success of this spreading that determines the success of the religion rather than any truth it may preport to represent. Simply put religions operate by survival of the fittest. Thus the more aggressive religions will spread farther while the more reclusive religions will fade and pass away.

Thus we see that the size and stature of a religion are independent of the truth. This does not mean it is a lie necissarily. The only thing it indicates is that the size of the church does not directly correlat to whether it is the truth.

The trouble is of course that the suviving religions have become very very good at surviving. Simply examining them rationally and reasonable is not enough to dismantle them even if they do not carry the truth. They have developed far too many defensive systems and are more than capable of surviving someone saying they no longer serve a valid purpose.

[helleborient]

17. Interesting point...

My experience has been that the more progressive Christian churches (those that encourage reflective thought) often have difficulty with mere survival, partially because most members have very mixed feelings about being evangelistic (spreading the word) in any way, because they are very very aware of past excesses of missionary zeal. But, without actively spreading the word to encourage growth, any institution, even DU, is doomed to disappear.

[arwalden]

32. You Know... I Really Missed You When You Were Away.

Posts of yours (like this one) are the main reason why. You should write a book.

-- Allen

[Doctor Pedantic]

18. It Doesn't Matter

As an Evangelical Christian who has not "checked my brain at the door," I always watch these debates with great interest.

Although I do not believe that every word of scripture is to be taken literally (if for no other reason, because there are too many different ways to translate too many different words), I do believe that God inspired the Bible. I believe in the mystery of the incarnation and the resurrection. Is that archaic and anachronistic? I don't see how it can't be -- this is a belief system that's been around for 2000 years. Of course, many other religious groups, from Jews to Muslims to Druids, also follow ancient philosophies and teachings.

For a believer, things that were true 2000 or more years ago are no less true today. For a Christian, no human progress can shake the belief that the "Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1). So if you're a believer, it just doesn't matter if the belief is archaic and anachronistic. If you're a nonbeliever, it shouldn't matter, either, because there are probably other reasons you don't believe (and the New Testament describes faith as a "gift" -- you either have it or you don't, and you can't obtain it by logic).

As people are quick to point out, religion of all stripes has been the cause of many wars and oppressive policies over the centuries. However, many belief systems have contributed much to world culture, art, philosophy, and humanitarian efforts. Please don't paint everyone -- even fundamentalist Christians -- with the same brush.

[opihimoimoi]

22. The sheep are the SERFs

we are organized mental slaves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Baghwajajajajahahahahah

take me away...


soryy , ran out of the meds

[BoogieBear]

24. Organized religion has been replaced by Patriotism

...at least in the United States.

[monkeyboy]

25. You may as well be asking...

...how archaic and anachronistic is the human mind? As long as there are people, there will be organized religion, in one form or another.

[leftofthedial]

26. I don't understand how you insensitive louts

can use inflamatory and judgmental words like "archaic," "anachronistic," "mythology," and "feudal," to characterize people's beliefs.

This is an outrage. I warn you. There is somewhere on DU even as we speak, a sobbing christ worshiper, burning with (self) righteous indignation, reaching for the Alert button. Call me horrible names, like "Kucinich supporter" and I'll have a rational discussion with you. But if you use the word "myth" I can't stand it! I just can't stand it I tell you and I'll do anything to make you shut up!

[Az]

27. Hey!

You calling Kucinich supporters horrible?! Where is that alert button!? :evilgrin:

[leftofthedial]

53. Dennis all the way!

His ideas should govern this land.

[sangh0]

44. I don't understand the need

to misportray the religious as being over-sensitive when there are religious people participating in this discussion, and none of us (so far) feels offended by what seems to be an honest question.

[Bake]

89. Well, I for one am offended

by much of the mischaracterization and belittling of religous belief ("Invisible Cloud Being" e.g.). I have chosen to respond calmly and attempt to offer reasoned responses.

I have not started any "How ignorant are atheists" threads, or any "Atheists are going to burn in hell" threads. Nor will I. I wonder why these types of threads DON'T pop up here, while the religion-bashing threads come up regularly. Particularly in light of the fact that this is a POLITICAL forum, not a religious/nonreligious one. Maybe some people ought to think about that. I think I know the answer, but people ought to be able to figure it out for themselves.

Bake

[edward]

102. With the rise of "fundamentalism", many people are concerned

that religious institutions have more power than they deserve.
Example: Bush evokes "God" for many of his actions, most notably the invasion and occupation of Iraq; how do we publicly debate whether "God" wants America to invade Iraq? Answer: we don't.

[sangh0]

120. That does not compute

If people are concerned about Fundamentalism, then why don't they direct their concerns towards Fundamentalists, instead of all religious people?

Would you justify race prejudice by pointing out that some blacks commit crimes? I dont think so.

[edward]

130. Never said all religious people in the world are fundamentalists.

Was talking about when conservative religious institutions have strong influence on politics and culture.
By the way, I am not one of those people on these boards to refer to people whose politics I abhor as "repukes" or other epitaphs.
There is nothing wrong with people's beliefs until they infringe on mine and what I see as the good of the country.
"Prejudice" means someone prejudges, not all negative judgements are unwarrented.

[sangh0]

145. I didn't say you did say that

What you did say was that people are concerned with how Fundamentalists are grabbing political power and that is why they question religion. My point was that if they are concerned about Fundamentalist, shouldn't they be questioning Fundamentalism, and not all religion?

[edward]

155. OK. But it seems that the primary expression of Christianity today is

fundamentalist. Is that not what we are talking about?Not religion in the general, vague sense.
The problem is that people who are religious(Christian) tend to see their beliefs as neutral and not political.
The judge in Alabama who wants to exhibit the 10 commandments in the courthouse refuses to recognize that the first commandment exhorts all to believe in the God as described in the Bible.
This is the heart of the debates about religion.

[TrogL]

157. not the primary expression, the noisiest one

Granted, fundamentalism is growing fast and needs to be put in its place. However, the liturgical churches are still there and have wide membership.

[sangh0]

161. What TrogL said.

Fundamentalists are a minority of the religious. A noisy minority, but a minority just the same.

[edward]

171. Reply to 157 and 161

While I am not convinced fundamentalist Christianity is a minority today-that's for sociologists-the point is their political clout.
As for "good" churches, we are not arguing with God about how much of the earth to flood. As the saying goes, evil triumphs when the good do nothing.
The problem I have is that whenever someone says, "God told me the world has to be this way" my reply is "God told me you're an idiot."
I just want the faithful to debate their beliefs in public(they never do) or shut up. Harsh? If you want the laws to reflect your religious belief, it better be.

[sangh0]

175. The Pew Foundation

has done polls that show that fundamentalism is a minority view amongst the religious in the US.

And I have no problem with your being harsh towards those who want to impose their beliefs on you through the political system. I just hope you restrict your criticisms for those who are doing that, and not anyone who might resemble them.

[edward]

180. Capitalists are a minority yet the proletariat does not prevail.

OK. George Bush is a fundamentalist Christian and no matter what the statistics show, it is a very influential movement.
Back in the 1960's even influential Protestant theologians were talking about "the death of God."
People can believe what they want, but if they get in my face, I'm going to push back.

[sangh0]

184. I agree. It is influential

and nothing I said contradicted that. However, that's not enough to justify attacking all people of faith. If the problem is with Fundamentalism, then that's what should be criticized.

Why criticize one group for what another is doing?

[edward]

188. Then we agree.

I never attacked anyone on this thread.

[sangh0]

189. Understood

And if I gave the impression of saying that you were attacking anyone, I apologize. It's been obvious to me that you've been trying to explain *why* some people have been criticizing religion (becuase of the fundies) You are right. I was just using the opportunity to make my point.

[helleborient]

198. Less fundamentalist religion has a less visible influence but it's there

There are many people I am aware of locally who have significant influence politically, socially, etc. in the community and regularly participate in faith communities, but most of the people impacted by them are unaware of their faith.

Fundamentalists tend to wear their religion "on their sleeve" much more than non-Fundamentalists. However, the individual's religion does often have impact on their public work.

It does for me, but no one I work with knows where I go to church.

Similarly, one of our best city council members (in my opinion), who led the fight for the Human Rights plank in our town government (the pro-gay rights plank) attends my church and is significantly impacted by his religious beliefs, but most people I talk to in the community are unaware of the fact. However, when a Fundamentalist runs for city council, everyone knows.

I would debate my beliefs in public if you wish, but I prefer to discuss the merits of my stance on whatever government issue from a humanistic level. The religious discussion is not necessary, in my opinion, if my stance is a pro-social one...unless I'm dealing with someone who has already brought up the religious question.

[CWebster]

163. Maybe "not -believing" is part of the evolutionary path

True faith is not indoctrination but revelation. It is a gift of sorts but it doesn't follow the rules. It is possible for a "non-believer" to experience a greater awareness outside of "religion". It is possible for a athiest to experience the mysterious and still reject religion according to the limited definition they apply to it. Perhaps athiests are in the process of rejecting the conventions of the religions they were exposed to. Sometimes the reaction replaces the religious belief in the belief of non-belief.

[helleborient]

61. You seem to be the only one getting overly emotional in this thread...

[leftofthedial]

132. Post #26 was totally sarcastic

or couldn't you tell?

[leftofthedial]

36. I disagree with and am insulted by your premise

It is impossible to deny that there is a spiritual or supernatural (in the narrow sense of that word) element to human existence

this statement is not true and demeans my beliefs. Lucky for you I am not a christ-worshipping tattle tale or I'd be "alert-alerting" with mopaul about now.


</satire>

PeteNYC, I love your posts, including this one. They are thoughtful, intelligent and very thought provoking. I do seriously disagree with the above premise though. It does not follow that because there are things we can't explain that these things are therefore spiritual. There is no evidence that such a thing as a "spirit" exists. Furthermore, "supernatural" is a fuzzy term. These unexplained phenomena may be perfectly ordinary and "natural," but we just don't understand ordinary nature yet. Immediately resorting to a hypothetical deity or unobservable state of being to explain these is not justified.



edited to fix my html tags. Doh!

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

55. as rational an explanation of faith as I've ever encountered

cheers.

[Clete]

37. Established religions IMHO are created by

human beings, no one else, to explain the unexplainable. One of these days we will learn the Great Truth. It will be scholars, who are philosophers and scientists, that will make the great discoveries, not the likes of Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson.

[opihimoimoi]

48. Most of the discoveries have already been made when it comes to this stuff

we happen to collectively reject them.

Pathetic

It could be so wonderful but we insist on Dualism, the Us and Them thingy.

This division eats away at our resources, our future children will think of us as horrible and deluded just as we think of our ancesters as ignorant when they bled people to cure them. when they pitted gladiators against ea other, when we gassed opposing forces, when we had slaves, when we had torture, when we gave blankets with measels to Indians, etc.

Peace is the only way to sustainability, something the Pubs abhor for some silly reason.

Damn, makes me wanna go surfing.

[Clete]

50. Watch out for the sharks.

We had a woman killed by a great white in the water of one of our beaches. Maybe the sharks at DU aren't as dangerous.:-)

[opihimoimoi]

59. DEath by sharks gatta hurt.

Death by Pub disease is slow and miserable but the pain still hurts.

In the future, our MIL IND COMPLX will be implicated for many deaths and suffering due to the weapons they concieved and implemented.

We have made weapon making an art form.

Fear leads to INSECURITY, which leads to MIL solutions.

WE REAP WHAT WE SOW....................... and we still don get it, do we?

[CWebster]

166. I grew up on the Jersey shore

and remember shark scares. Everybody out of the water and I remember seeing the fins. I don't remember fear of sharks like there is today, but I remember being taught a conscious fear of the undertow.

[leftofthedial]

57. it could be argued

that religions are created by human beings to weild power over and to exploit other human beings.

(In fact, read the early history of the christian church in the roman empire and that's exactly what it was.)

[opihimoimoi]

64. Research the Levites who wrote the first part of the Old Testament

they had it made.

No work.

no participating in war, but they led the Hebrews to conquest.

no nothing except talking to God and collecting "Burnt Offerings" and tithes.

They had the best clothes. the best food, the best houses, the best lives, all w/o working. They even got 10% of the virgins from conquered cities... and, all of the silver/gold. These guys were fucking evil man, evil.

Read < WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN, Merlin Stone >

[leftofthedial]

182. I'll check it out

thanks

[helleborient]

67. Most religions originated...

As a means to explain what was not explainable in another way and to bring a sense of security. Most religions originated in small communities...only later did a bureaucracy take over seeing the faith of others as a convenient way to seize and maintain power.

The Christian Church did exist before the Roman Catholic Church...the followers of Jesus were a quite small group in the beginning.

[leftofthedial]

93. undoubtedly the need for religion

came from individual's inability to explain natural phenomena, fear of the power of nature, fear of death, etc.

The rise of organized religion though was abetted by and exploited by those who wanted power over others, especially in the christian religion as it spread into Europe.

[helleborient]

71. There is quite a lot of scholarly debate on this

You can't just read "the early history of the Christian Church"

There is quite a lot of scholarly debate about what exactly happened in the early church.

I suggested reading John Dominic Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity" and the books of other members of the Jesus Seminar for the most current scholarly work in this area.

Early Christianity seemingly was the faith system that bound together a group of Jews who were resisting the authority of the Roman Empire and seeking to bring back Jewish principles such as the Jubilee - the equal sharing of land among all people.

[leftofthedial]

90. I would find the work of a secular historian

to be more believable,

but I'll add this to my reading list.

[helleborient]

113. Why limit your understanding?

Do you only read Democratic "preaching to the choir" material?

Your secular historian is likely to "preach to the choir" of the non-believers...why should that be any more accurate or believable?

[leftofthedial]

168. i said I'd add it to my reading list

I didn't say "non-believer" historian, I said secular.

I'd read (and have read) biblical scholars on historical and anthropological subjects with a grain of salt. They often (in fact pretty much always) start with the premise that the biblical account is true and then look, often selectively, for evidence that bears out the hypothesis. I don't presuppose that they have nothing of value to say though.

A secular and more rational approach is to collect all the evidence and use it to determine what happened.

[Bake]

196. Crossan is pretty secular :-)

I say that with a certain amount of flippancy. Just because a historian is religious does not make him/her suspect as a historian, particularly if the topic is church history.

Bake

[LeftHander]

94. You should explore Unitarian Universalism

This is exactly the type of discussions we have after the sermons during polylogue and over a cup of Fair Trade coffee after service.

UU is an advanced form of "organized" religion where the individual determines his or her own belief in a welcoming, supportive community. We are guided not by creed but a simple set of principles in covenent with each other:

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

(And even then the debate over adopting "principles" still continues.)

By removing the conformity requirement from sprituality UU's are free to explore their own personal spritual nature. We are the "seekers" so to speak.

I for one believe that it is archaic to fail to look to humanity as well as historic texts in determining ones place in the universe. I prefer to allow the conduct of great human beings to be my guide in understanding the common thread that they all possess rather than legend and mysticism. These people may be Jesus, Jefferson, Buddha, Leonardo, Martin Luther, Dr. King, Muir, Leopold, and all the others that have helped promote goodness, respect, compassion, nature and above all love. They may be religious figures, artists, writers, scientists, activists or the person sitting next to me, all influence how I utilize my life. The beauty is that I can belive this while worshipping together with a jew, christian or buddist who are also members of our congregation.

Since I became envolved at my local UU congregation my life has profoundly changed. From a narrow selfish corporate climber I changed back to the person I was in my twenties. That person who questioned, who lived to meet new people and to be kind, caring and creative. I changed back into the young person I was filled with the promise of a lifetime of experinces to come.

In doing so I also have found a community of people of all ages who continue to seek the truth, to live a rewarding life in service to others, to find comfort that the human spirit is still filled with goodness in a time when everything seems so wrong. I have realized there is so much inside of me that I have yet to give and much that I should allow to be recieved. I am starting to really live and deeply enjoy the short time I have in which experience this great universe we are part of.

Some here may believe in a god or gods or none at all. Regardless of the interpetation or name of that which connects us all, we live and grow together in peace and love.

It was not easy to open my crusty cynical heart and maybe it still slams shut from time to time, but I can at least find someone to talk with for support at my UU congregation.

I hope you find the answers you are looking for. I have found that many times that simply asking the questions is more important than finding the answers because the answers are more about your own personal "faith" than in quantified truth.

Peace.

[helleborient]

116. I love UU's but spare us the elitist "advanced" comment...

I attended our local UU church for a time but found it was so concerned about stepping on anyone's toes, that our discussions seemed to lack substance.

I went instead to a progressive Christian congregation and found that was a better fit, but I would never claim us to be more "advanced" than any other religious organization.

[LeftHander]

167. I knew someone would say "elitist"

You did point out one of the major problems in UU congregations is the need to avoid conflict....and they can get very "clique-ish" and in someways very protective against change that is challenging. They build little progressive communities in sometimes very conservative areas and tend to build emotional walls to keep people out.

The advanced point I am sticking with though. It does require one to "think" and engage rather than accept on faith alone. (did I step on your toes...?)

If you aren't prepared to engage the congregation and yourself to find balance and expect to be continuously "fed" one may become dissapointed with some UU congregations...though I feel if this happens then it is a failure of the congregation to nurture the needs of it's members

[helleborient]

176. No, no toes stepped on...and thanks for the response

I truthfully was just bothered by the word "advanced"

My congregation does share a service each year with the UU's. And we engage in quite a lot of discussion as well...in fact our service utilizes what we call "Reflections" from the minister instead of sermons, because we have an "open mic" response from the congregation after each reflection.

We have book groups reading Spong, Crossan, etc...and we invited Crossan to the local community last year...well attended by UU's, by the way.

[leftofthedial]

105. to sangh0, helleborient, dbaker41, et al

I want to clarify a couple of fundamental principles.

First, I respect your right to believe whatever you wish to believe. I really do. I admire those who are committed to ideals and are willing to defend them.

Second, I simply do not understand the phenomenon that is your belief. It makes no sense to me and the end of every chain of inquiry leads to some variation of the "just because" argument.

Third, the fact that I am an atheist and I am willing to state and defend this is not an attack on you personally.

Fourth, defending the evils of organized religion by pointing out that you are an individual who is not evil is a nonsequitor.

Fifth, I must be a masochist. This is an unresolvable debate. At the end of every line of logic lies your appeal to a belief in a supernatural entity and a willingness to call me names or accuse me of bigotry. You can't produce this entity or even hard evidence that it exists, but in these arguments, it is your trump card.

Sixth, Again, I respect your right to hold your religious beliefs. My dispute is not with you as individuals, although I still do not understand why you believe what you profess. My complaint is with religion collectively.

[helleborient]

126. I wish you would consider applying your reasoning here as well...

What do we make of atheism after the Stalin's atheistic purge of the Soviet Union?

What do we make of science in the wake of Milgram's electro-shock experiments, nuclear weapons, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the University of Iowa's stuttering experiments, etc....

I don't understand why people like you put all of your eggs into the scientific belief basket...one which is just as capable of bringing awful things about as any other belief system, in my experience.

[leftofthedial]

128. yeah, let's abandon rationalism

it clearly isn't working.

(WTF!!??)

[helleborient]

169. No, not abandon

But don't worship it either...

I do believe there are other useful ways of looking at the world that are not entirely rationalistic...and don't deserve to be cast off as useless.

I've really appreciated this exchange with you as well...and I think more of this is needed, but maybe not in DU.

[edward]

186. One of U.S. chief propaganda tools to say the Soviet Union is

athiestic therefore we can fight them relentlessly with God's blessing.
Stalin executed and allowed many people to die, they only had to challenge his power.

[helleborient]

192. I mentioned specifically Stalin on purporse

Because he set out specifically to destroy religious buildings in addition to murdering people...and the Soviet Union did claim to be atheistic...against any kind of religion or belief in a God.

Just because the U.S. government may have used that fact for negative purposes does not negate the fact.

If the Soviet Union was theistic in nature and Stalin in particuarl, what God did he believe in?

[Az]

197. Soviets and the nature of Dogmatic systems

The Soviet Union placed itself as a dogmatic authority in just the same way that orthodox churchs do. In effect it was vying for the same territory of the mind that religions do. In the battle for the human mind dogmatic systems take no prisoners. Historically whenever two or more such systems collide it results in the attempted purge of the weaker systems.

Thus the Soviet Union (and modern China) see any mental contagion that does not support their particular dogma as a threat and seek to drive it out. The system they espouse does not function without the unquestioning compliance of their followers.

[helleborient]

193. In case you missed my point,

It was that I think it's wrong to say it would be good to get rid of atheism because of Stalin.

It's wrong to say it would be good to get rid of science because of nuclear weapons or horrific medical and pyschological experiments.

It's wrong to say it would be good to get rid of religion because of wars fought in the name of religion.


I think there's a "throwing the baby out with the bath water" point here.

[sangh0]

148. Thank you

You are right to say that this is an unresolvable debate. That's why it's so important to engage is such debates with as much respect as possible. I appreciate your attempts to do so.

[supernova]

106. From my POV it has more to do with institutions

than with the story it's based on.

Human institutions, once comfortably established, adopt self-preservation over their original mission. They resist change. It's the same way with churches. Witness how long it took the Catholic Church to apologize to Copernicus. :wtf: Oh, sorry, 500 years later, we agree you were right. The earth does revolve around the sun afterall! *slaps forehead*

And before you go saying I'm picking on the CC, I'm picking on the protestant side equally. Not ordaining women was also about resisting change. Squabbles about gays in the church in the present are also about resisting change. People in power hate it because it means giving up some power, some dominance.

It will ever be thus as long as religion is constrained within religious hierarchies. Today, you can't just go join a group of people and have a beautiful experience with them. And I'm speaking of organized xtianity here, you have to "join," be all official. You have to pledge allegiance to a sect and/or it's by-laws. And you have to have officers, and credentialed ministers, districts, and national organizations, ad infinitum. Blech. It's enough to suck the enthusiasm out of a varsity cheerleader!

Sometimes I envy the first xtians studying together in their houses. No, I don't miss the persecution or the lack of indoor plumbing. But I do think they had a certain immediacy and intimacy that we lack today.

Anyway, I think the percieved shortcomings in the stories, all the pastoral imagery as someone else noted, is really more telling about our reluctance to embrace new things we learn on this journey, and keep to what has been comfortable and familiar. I don't think this says anything about God or the Great Mystery not wanting us to know.

[Clete]

110. Western religions seem to be cast in granite and

resist change in their beliefs until they no longer can resist and then must yield to facts presented or lose their credibility like the apology to Copernicus.

The Dalai Lama has stated that this is the difference between East and West. In Buddhaism and other eastern religions like Hinduism it is is encouraged to question beliefs and to open one's mind to other possibilities. So not all religion is dogmatic.

I suppose one could say that one camp thinks it has all the answers and the other camp seeks answers to all the questions.

[helleborient]

131. We've not done a good job with PR then...

There have been sea changes in many Christian groups as far as belief structures, governance structures, responses to minorities, etc. in the past few decades.

[supernova]

179. I have nothing but admiration for tha Dalai Lhama

and another brother in the path, Tich Nacht Hahn. Both extremely generous and beautiful men. There is much wisdom there.

My point remains, it's not the philosophy so much as the intractability of the institutions who charge themselves with keeping it.

My own personal opinion is that the bible represents a living conversation between god and human kind. We in the present are just the latest chapter.

[arwalden]

111. I Just Wish They Would Keep Their Noses Out Of Politics And Policy...

Are they trying to compensate for their faltering control of the masses by other means?

-- Allen

[Clete]

122. This is nothing new Allen.

Why do you think Pharoah was also considered a god.

In this day and age, it certainly is absolutely imperative that religion be kept out of government period. What all these religious people don't realize that this protects their right to exist. If another religion moves in that is different from theirs, they could find themselves outlawed and persecuted as well.

[helleborient]

129. Who is THEY??

I guess this is a primary point of many of us on here who are Christian...we ask for specificity, which requires you to get to know more about the incredibly varied history of Christianity and the diversity of current groups.

[Clete]

133. Considering that creationism is replacing evolution in

science classes in public schools in heavily fundie Protestant states like Kansas, it's not hard to figure out who the "they" is.

[arwalden]

146. Please Don't Pretend To Be Confused When You Know What I'm Talking About..

Obviously I'm talking about myopic religious fundamentalists like Robertson, Fallwell, and the Pope. All injecting themselves into American politics.

Puh-leeze.

Did you actually misunderstand me? Or were you merely afraid that someone who's not as smart as you were might misunderstand me?

In any case... oh never mind... you might be offended by that too.

-- Allen

[helleborient]

165. Well, yeah, it can get kind of confusing

When a huge part of this thread is about whether religion in a big sense is worthwhile or not...and your particular part apparently is about right wing Christian fundamentalists...there are a number here who paint with very large brushes and seemingly do see all of Christianity as evil.

[TrogL]

114. Literalism and data structures

One of the big problems with organized religion is its organization or lack of it.

The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Church of Canada to name just a few) have a carefully prepared data structure (eg. the Creeds) to refer to in support of their theology. Any upstart religion claiming to liturgical is expected to acknowledge this body of work, then post an apologia indicating where its dogma differs and why. Unfortunately, wars have been fought over these minor dogmatic differences.

If I understand correctly, even mainline Baptists acknowledge the main body of Christian thought and differ primarily on infant and immersion Baptism. The RC's have (among other things) the Transsubtantiation of the Host and the Anglicans have their take on divorce (which got them off the ground in the first place).

The problem is these ridiculous/scary "Bible churches" with no firm body of theology. Their preachers practice "cafeteria Christianity", picking Bible verses apparently at random, totally out of context to preach sermons steeped in heresy. In some cases they come up with completely new material (eg. the Toronto "laughter" movement) that makes no sense whatsoever, but cannot be internally discounted because there is no "authority" to refer to.

Let's push the restaurant analogy over the cliff. Cafeteria Christianity allows you to rush in, grab a coke and a sticky bun and call it "nutritious food". A fine restaurant has structures to allow you to properly enjoy a tasteful, healthy, well-presented meal. There's a place to hang your coat. There's a menu. There's a chef who understand nutrition. There's people trained to clean the tables. In the same manner, a properly organized religion gives you a structure allowing you to approach spirituality in a cogent, well-thought out manner and not get lost in the seas of heresy.

[LeftHander]

177. Warm slices of anglican with trinitarian taters....

And Presbyterian lime jello upside down cottage cheese and pinapple surprise....Mmmm Good eats....

Sorry....it's friday...

I liked the resturant analogy...

[supernova]

202. SNARF

I resent the implication that we Presbys are the keepers of all things congealed. :P

Sometimes we use green bean casserole. :D

ROFL!!

[bearfartinthewoods]

117. how many allegedly thoughtful religion threads will it take

before everyone has had enough and drops it for a while?

who knows.....

[CWebster]

118. Religions have always come and gone.

even those lasting for thousands of years.

Hard to imagine into the far distant future, archeologists digging up hundreds of thousands of crosses with a man, suffering in agony, bound to it and wondering what kind of ancient barbarism it was.

The age of the fishes draws to a close.

[Upfront]

181. Last Word On Religion

There is no last word. People have faught over religion for ever, and they will continue to do so. The world is quite simple when you face the truth.

[CWebster]

183. Whatever

that may be

;-)

[JustJoe]

185. What have you learned from this thread?

Have you had your mind or heart
changed because of it?

[edward]

190. Only dogmatists think religion should not be debated.

nt

[JustJoe]

194. Just to be clear...

I wasnt saying religion shouldnt be debated, if your
comment was directed at my questions. I was seriously
curious. Or ... are you saying that's what you've
just learned from the thread---that only dogmatists
think religion shouldnt be debated.

[helleborient]

195. I have learned some (and a major participant this time)

From both people who seem to agree with much of what I've said and those who disagree...

This thread hasn't descended into serious name calling on either side...a good step, I think.


And it doesn't seem like we will disentangle religion from politics any time soon (I'm not sure it ever has been disentangled in the history of the U.S.), so it's useful for me to hear where those who have concerns about the entanglement are coming from.

[Az]

200. Never been disentangled from the people

But the function of government must be kept disentangled. That is to say religious individuals can serve the government but they cannot make the government serve their religion.

[arwalden]

201. Weren't Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin Both Atheists? ...

... eek! The horrors!

No, seriously. Seems I remember reading or hearing somewhere that many of our founding fathers were atheists (or not Christian).

Is there any definitive source or reference to this?

-- Allen

[helleborient]

203. Franklin, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, 1789, near end of his life

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion...in whatever sect I meet with them."

He continues on in the letter about Jesus and his doubts about Jesus' divinity.

This comes from "The First American : The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin" by H. W. Brands, published 2000 by Doubleday.

There's another more recent bio. that my library has but its checked out (Yay!)

I did see a website to that says Franklin is often erroneously identified as atheist...and the term "freethinker" is probably more appropriate.

[helleborient]

205. Thomas Jefferson

He was accused of atheism by his political enemies, but it seems historians don't view him as completely atheistic...more interested in serious reform of religion.

Here is one scholarly quotation:

"Thomas Jefferson’s religious philosophy was most heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke. Two works by Locke, A Letter on Toleration (1689) and The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), specifically shaped Jefferson’s bill for establishing religious freedom. Locke presented a philosophical justification for religious toleration, one that Jefferson advocated in his writings and actions. Locke’s belief in toleration, that ‘‘no man, even if he would, can believe at another’s dictation’’ induced Jefferson’s internalization of religion. Jefferson emulated this doctrine of toleration, advocating that privacy and freedom meant everything in a personal relationship with the Supreme Creator. Locke coupled his emphasis on toleration with intellectual support of an eventual day of reckoning before a just God, further influencing Jefferson’s understanding of religion’s role in society. Even though Jefferson rejected many orthodox Christian beliefs, he sided with Locke and whole-heartedly envisioned this day that God alone would evaluate one’s life. It was this belief in the future judgement that naturally led to increased incentives for morality linked to self-interest.7 The future judgement provided impetus for a society to function cohesively under the premise of universal accountability. Jefferson found this argument both reasonable and necessary to the success of United States (and the world) at large."

It's from this site:

http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper9.html

[supernova]

206. Jefferson referred to himself

as a "deist", someone who believes in god but just not organized religion. He preferred to see god in his studies of nature. And certainly didn't want religion in the political realm.

IIRC, the classic Enlightenment view of the supernatural is that god is some sort of eternal clockmaker who set things in motion but did not interfere in creation or human events once things got going. It is possible and indeed desirable and necessary to figure out how creation works, ergo the scientific method.

Jefferson famously got so frustrated once that he sat down with the KJV and ripped out every single thing he didn't think was real. He left only those things he thought could be attributable to Jesus. As you might expect, this is a very slim book. To this day, you can walk into any bookstore and ask for a copy of the "Jefferson Bible."

[arwalden]

208. Thanks Supernova And Helleborient...

... much appreciated.

-- Allen

[edward]

199. Both, probably.

Have recently been thinking that religion is a subset of political organization. No one would join a religion if it did not in some way help them attain "power."

[snooper2]

187. The more important question to ask is how religion began?

(spelling edit)
Essentially, wearing a yak's skin and dancing around the fire is = to the family going to the local church on Sunday morning. This is the reason I think that current religion is archaic.

It tis all in thy mind....

Check out this paper...

"The beginning of religion at the beginning of the neolithic"
http://www1.arcl.ed.ac.uk/arch/watkins/banea_2001_mk3.pdf

snip
"Once humans had a full, modern language faculty, they had the potential to produce systems of symbolic representation in other media, particularly material culture. But it was a potential that we can see with hindsight, a potential application of symbolic representation that needed to be developed and realised. Throughout hominid evolution language had been evolving in ways that are little understood and certainly not agreed by linguists."

snip
"As Steven Mithen (1998, 1999) has pointed out, it is no coincidence that the first uses to which this extension of symbolic representation were put included representations of beings that are half animal and half human, non-natural or super-natural beings. With the emergence of what Mithen calls 'cognitive fluidity', the human mind enjoyed the power for the first time to reflect on the nature of the world, to use its power to cross-reference across all the realms of experience and knowledge, to think analogically, to formulate vivid ideas iin terms of metaphors. Just as humans enjoyed the faculty of turning the most abstract thoughts into the spoken terms of language, they also began to recognise that there were other media in which to formulate, articulate and express those ides, including symbolic representation in material culture. Pascal Boyer (1994, 2000) helps us to understand Mithen's point, as he explains the common, cross-cultural features of our (mental) representations of the supernatural as anthropomorphic, human in some or many regards, whether of appearance or behaviour, but counter-intuitive in other regards."

[The_Golden_Child]

191. That depends completely on if a religion is the actual Truth...

If it is, then it will never be archaic.

If it isn't, it became archaic upon the death of its particular founder.

[MiltonLeBerle]

204. You lost me at the start of paragraoh 2-

"It is impossible to deny that there is a spiritual or supernatural (in the narrow sense of that word) element to human existence, i.e. there are aspects to life (including life itself) that we cannot explain through conventional means..."

I disagree whole-heartedly. that's how the whole god & gods thing got started in the first place- people didn't understand a lot of the aspects of the world around them or their own existence, and attributed almost all of it to various gods and goddesses.
As man and civilization evolved a lot of those previously non-understood 'supernatural' things came to be understood, and accepted as less super and more natural.
Just because most of mankind has pretty much whittled their superstitions down to just one god- it surely doesn't mean that the rest of the stuff that has yet to be satisfactorly explained is therefore "spiritual" or "supernatural" in its ultimate explanation.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.