|
If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?
The very nature of faith and religion makes the whole question of truth moot. Hilariously so, though in a depressing fashion given the amount of ignorance that religion spawns and perpetuates in the world.
Truth is a thing sought, not created in the mind of someone who today would be relegated (even if wrongly) to a psychiatric institution. The more specific someone or group is regarding what they be to the answers to the kind of ultimate questions that philosophers largely agree are outside our epistemological limits (what we can know).
The success or failure of a religion depends not on its degree of truth, but rather on how successful it is at perpetuating itself. Religions are viruses, memes that, like genes, just try to spread. Look up the term 'jack-mormon' and the rules of who counts as technically Jewish and you will see.
*Correction- should read: " the more specific... the kind of answers... the less likely they are to be true. A=A is true, and irrefutably so (even a god could not change that) but you cannot build much from there without making other axioms (math and logic require a few of these). Leibniz tried to build from A=A to a full system of philosophy and theology and failed.
Forgive my dual posts.
If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?
Conversation and common ground are not possible with anyone (religious or not) who claim a monopoly on truth. There would be no difficulties and certainly no benefits to such a conversation.
There *is* common ground, and it will be pragmatism that guides us to it. As an example, some believe that abortion is murder, and some believe that it is the reproductive right of the potential mother. These two views of the "truth" are irreconcilable, and yet, overwhelmingly, both sides would agree that it's desirable to drastically reduce the number of abortions that are performed. We mistakenly see abortion rights as being the proper battleground, when both sides would be better served by seeking ways to reduce abortion without bringing the question of "truth" into it.
"Monopoly on truth" is a mischaracterization of the way most religious believers think. One key question is whether objective truth, that is the same for everyone, exists (this is, fundamentally, the same as asking if there is an objective reality that is the same for everyone). While some modern philosphers have questioned this, it seems a matter of common sense and common experience for most people. (e.g., if a jet airplane successfully flies to Los Angeles for me, it successfully flies to Los Angeles for you also; if gravity obeys an inverse square law for you, it obeys an inverse square law for me also; if the earth is round when you look out the space shuttle window, it is round when I look out the space shuttle window also). Of course, we are limited in our ability to study and comprehend truth, but the fact that the ancient Sumerians may not have discovered that the earth is round did not make it flat.
The next step is to ask whether objective "metaphysical" truth exists. In other words, is objective truth limited to the physical sciences - gravity, planetary shapes and orbits, etc. - or can statements such as "God (given a suitably careful definition of God) does not exist" or "God does exist" be objectively true or false? Again, we may be limited in our ability to determine their truth or falsity at any given point in time (e.g., string theory is still a work in progress), but if God does not in fact exist, is that true regardless of who you are (ignoring for the moment whether you understand or are willing to accept that fact). Other similar questions might be "does a non-physical, self-aware human soul exist?"
Most deeply religious people believe that these questions - and many others addressed by their faith - are meaningful and address issues of objective truth. Most (at least the honest ones) will also admit that there is much that they, personally, do not know. But, they will claim that if "God exists" is true, or "adultery is morally wrong" is true, its true for everyone, whether or not they understand and acknowledge it.
In their minds, this is no different than a scientist claiming that gravity obeys an inverse square law (or that there is no non-physical human soul, or that God does not exist) - the scientist may or may not have misread his data, but if the statement is true, it is objectively true for everyone.
Does that leave room for dialogue? Of course - scientific dialogue goes on all the time, as does theological dialogue within faith communities. But for the dialogue to be fruitful, there must be a basic ground of agreement. At a minimum, it's going to be difficult to have a useful dialogue if the parties do not agree that the questions are meaningful, and that they deal with objective truth. (Otherwise it's like a bunch of frat boys arguing about whether Tina Turner is hotter then Cher.)
Believers generally accept that members of other religions are:
1) Sincere
2) Want to know the truth.
They do, however, disagree about what is true (e.g., divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, inspiration of the Koran, whether serving in the armed forces is morally wrong). They also use arguments that would be more familiar to a classical philosopher than to a modern physicist (because the questions they are dealing with would be more familiar to the philosopher).
Because they are convinced that they are dealing with objective truth, they will not agree simply to get along - any more than a scientist would change his equations for planetary movement just for sake of academic comity.
So, "monopoly on truth" - is that because they believe that the truth they see is objectively true for everyone? Because they will argue that contradictory claims are false - unless they are convinced that they were mistaken in their original belief?
Applying the same criteria to physicists, you could say that they believe they have a "monopoly on truth." To have a meaningful dialogue with a believer, you have to take their religious beliefs seriously, understand why they believe what they believe, and take the time to understand and appreciate the evidence and reasoning involved.
The question is not one of two views of "truth". The question pertains to, "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth". . . If someone believe's they have a monopoly on truth, they are not functioning rationally; and if that's the case, who cares what their "truth" might be? Neither of the examples you use above are "truth". Abortion is not murder (legally), and a person's reproductive right, is a right, not a truth. Neither of the two are affected or better served by reducing or increasing abortions.
Religion, it's evolution through pre-history and history via faith in what cannot be seen seems to have had it's ultimate end product in scientific thought and discovery. Science forever poses theories of what cannot be seen and is not understood on human terms. Rather than blindly adhere to these beliefs the scientist then goes on to prove, using fact and experiment, the truth of their theory. The initial step for science relies on the ability to believe in what cannot be grasped by the mind but is felt intuitively and or sensed to be possible. This initial step of science that the human mind takes has it's origin in religion and it's painstaking development. We will forever rely, as a foundation, on this ability that humans cultivated and should give due credit and thanks to this fact. So when we see our religious play out the ritual of belief without proof, remember that is how all science begins, one cannot pursue something that is not known without first imagining it exists. This one simple truth should be the basis for the common ground that may be found in a human psychic power that can be used for different purposes. I believe that we should see the deeply faithful as offering a very valuable service to humanity, by sustaining in symbol the memory of our beginnings and the origins of our eventual mental capabilities that we now enjoy. On the other hand we should honor science that takes this beginning and leads us even further down the path of our growth and learning. One simply came before the other, and the other could not arrive without the beginning in that one.
So thank you Sam for pointing out that belief without proof does not satisfy our time but proof for belief could not be satisfied without a time past in which belief was the beginning.
Thank You
The Mother
"There *is* common ground, and it will be pragmatism that guides us to it"
I don't think what you're talking about is pragmatism. I agree that the way we're all going to find our way out of these ProChoice-ProLife (or ProWar-AntiWar, ProGay Marraige AntiGay Marraige, etc.) debates is to take a step back from the debate, find a common ground and try to move on from there, but I don't see how this related to pragmatism. Being pragmatic might be a way that a person whose views on abortion are guided by dogmas could justify changing their stance, but I think anyone with a point of view based on a combination of factual information and honest intuitions will only be influenced by new scientific information.
Someone who believes that abortion is wrong because the soul enters the zygote at the time of conception believes it because they were told that and believed it without demanding the same amount of proof that they would demand for other claims about the nature of the universe. It seems as though this person's beliefs are not necessarily attached to scientific information, meaning that new scientific information might not mean much to them at all.
I can't imagine from your statement that you would agree that the religious people in the abortion debate should shed their dogmatic beliefs before coming to the table, so for what reason do you think they would just decide to look at the common ground instead of the ground on which they so firmly believe they correctly stand?
I do not believe it possible for two individuals from different faiths to have a truly honest dialog with each other. To believe in a one faith is by definition to believe that the other is inferior or incorrect. Since neither has any hard evidence for their believe, one is left with a hard faith, which is therefore not subject to debate, at least not a truly honest one. I would argue that the only true practitioners of religious tolerance are atheist. A truly religious person knows in his heart that their religion is the only true path to God and therefore tolerance of another is but a mere condensation, much as one might with a child, whose feelings one does not want to hurt.
"The question is not one of two views of "truth". The question pertains to, "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth"."
I strongly disagree. Religious believers - even those that are tarred with the "religious right" brush - do not claim to have a "monopoly on truth." They believe certain things to be objectively (and demonstrably) true. They believe that others can weigh the same evidence that convinced them, and come to the same conclusions.
You say that "Neither of the examples you use above are "truth"" - that's in fact at the heart of the disagreement. You do not accept that the statements deal with objective truth. [As a thought experiement, how would you classify the statement that "murder (excluding any consideration of abortion) is morally wrong" - is that a question of "truth"?] Many religious people do believe that they deal with objective truth.
More to the point, they believe that statements concerning a) the existance and nature of a supreme being, b) the existance and nature of the human soul, and c) moral "right & wrong" are matters of objective truth or falsity - in other words, they are questions of fact. Just as in the physical world we may have opinions about questions of fact, but at bottom, they deal with objective truth.
You would appear to disagree - at least when it comes to certain moral questions. But don't fall into the fallacy of assuming that people who strongly disagree with you are "irrational" - they may understand everything you say, and still think you're mistaken. (And seriously - haven't will all been mistaken, sometimes ludicrously, from time to time?)
If one is unshakebly convinced they know the truth, and all other positions are lies, then there are few reasons to engage in dialogue. The dialectic process is risky; if your opponent is more practiced he may make the more convincing arguement and endanger your faith. Running this risk is done only to aid the other seeing the truth, or to gain satisfaction by reveling in one's own superior knowledge.
What is required before two parties can join in meaningful conversation is a fragment of humility: the acknowledgement of the possibility they have erred and the willingness to evaluate one's own beliefs. It is also required that both parties are willing and able to speak without hinderance of a repressive dogma or strictures on items of faith. For instance, a Jehovah's Witness may be reluctant to examine articles of their faith because of the risk of being disfellowshiped for heretical beliefs (similar to excommunication).
Without these shared values between parties, conversation is possible, but only at a superficial level. One may be interested in a historical sense to catalogue the errors of the heathens to aid in evangelism, but this is not the type of meaningful exchange that is sought.
Dialogue with mutual respect between parties are rare because of these requirements. One of the benefits of religion is a sense of security, or of one's place in the universe. The provision of solid answers to people who live in an uncertain world is another. These aspects hold tremendous psychological appeal and often claim people's faith and belief even in the light of cogent, well reasoned and supported arguements. Religion is often an ingrained part of personal identity and many people are not willing to jepordize that sense of self by dissecting its component parts.
Politics further complicates the process of coming to dialogue by introducing emotional issues of loss of land, the death of kinsmen, restriction of movement, and all manner of assaults on the autonomy of the people. Lack of education or training in reason and logical thought also gives rise to thoughtless adherents of all creeds and faiths and these followers tarnish the reputation of the greater faith through violence, through hate, and other means.
Conversation is possible, it is worthwhile, but it is not a pursuit that will spread to the majority of the population. Those who can engage in dialogue are not the problem, it is those who will not that kill, maim, and burn and spread suffering in the name of God or the Gods.
Bob:
If a person believes that he has a monopoly on truth, and that one of those truths is that abortion is murder, it does not preclude him from thinking rationally about how to reduce the number of abortions that occur. Reducing the number of abortions *does* serve that person, because he is - in his own view - helping to prevent murders from occurring.
I hope that clarifies my point.
"A truly religious person knows in his heart that their religion is the only true path to God and therefore tolerance of another is but a mere condensation, much as one might with a child, whose feelings one does not want to hurt."
That's incredibly arrogant. There are many examples of religious conversion by individuals who were deeply invested in their first religion. Of course, there has to be something that makes them question their first beliefs - just as a scientist must find something that makes the question whether their current theories are adequate before they consider changing them. Martin Luther might be a good example here. He was deeply invested in the Catholocism of his day, but saw a number of things in scripture and the life of the church that did not fit with his beliefs. As he sorted through them, he became convinced that what he had believed was wrong, and accepted a new - and very different - set of religious beliefs. Just the same pattern you might see in a string theorist who comes to decide that a new approach is needed.
No disrespect intended, but have you ever considered how much peace and harmony, how little strife and bloodshed there would be without religions?
Or if religions lived up to their moral, ethical, and spiritual tenets and teachings?
Today, religion is used as a political tool, to justify and sanctify the most heinous acts of brutality.
I find little to recommend religions and alot of reasons to avoid them.
Faith is an antidote for the Truth. Both Muslim and Christian faiths fly in the face of a world where divinity, spirit or if you want to name it such allah/gawd are present as a force. Rumi, St. Francis, RamaKrisna, as saints share the same territory. The layity, the non mystic, from their actions makes up a story, that becomes a religion, or view of religion....religion is by definition a dogma. IF the members of a group are not open to self examination and an examination of their beliefs in the face of honesty, truth and reality as the true book of Allah........not some misinterpreted words of a prophet, then we are all doomed, and might as well agree with Bush........and that seems like a hopeless excuse for giving up on life and just rolling over and letting them steal my job, my future and my country..... Sufism is completely different than what passes for ISLAM....and actually has a heart. The cleric heart of Islam is dead and cold and offers no connection to gawd, it is another level of control over society.
"Dialogue with mutual respect between parties are rare because of these requirements."
In all honesty, it's easier for a deeply committed Catholic, Muslim, Jew and Protestant to talk about religion and morals than it is for any of them to talk to an atheist - they all accept that the questions are meaningful, and have a general consensus on the type of evidence and reasoning that should be brought to bear.
"Or if religions lived up to their moral, ethical, and spiritual tenets and teachings?"
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Much harm has been done by people using religion as a front - just as much good has been done be people who take religion seriously, and try to live up to the high standards it supplies.
"Today, religion is used as a political tool, to justify and sanctify the most heinous acts of brutality."
As are many other things, from nationalism to socialism to pure old greed and lust. There are very few things in life that politics and human brutality cannot corrupt. That says more about people than it does about religion.
"If one is unshakebly convinced they know the truth, and all other positions are lies, then there are few reasons to engage in dialogue. The dialectic process is risky; if your opponent is more practiced he may make the more convincing arguement and endanger your faith. Running this risk is done only to aid the other seeing the truth, or to gain satisfaction by reveling in one's own superior knowledge."
Yes, and that's true about political ideologies (communism, socialism, captitalism, libertarianism), personal moral beliefs (vegatarianism, animal rights, "right to choose") and, more often than we would like to think, academic, philosophical and scientific beliefs (post-modernism, cold fusion). People are people - and always have been. The problem is in us, not the religions that try to address existential and moral questions.
"I can't imagine from your statement that you would agree that the religious people in the abortion debate should shed their dogmatic beliefs before coming to the table, so for what reason do you think they would just decide to look at the common ground instead of the ground on which they so firmly believe they correctly stand?"
What I'm saying is that they don't need to shed their dogmatic beliefs, as long as they come to the right table. Finding a way to reduce the number of abortions without requiring that abortion be made illegal is pragmatic (I think) in that it recognizes that people are probably not going to change their minds about the "truth" of the abortion issue, and focuses instead on an aspect of the problem that almost everyone can agree about -- that there are way too many abortions.
“That's incredibly arrogant. There are many examples of religious conversion by individuals who were deeply invested in their first religion”
Perhaps it was arrogant, although not intended to be. But on to your main point about conversion. The many examples you point are actually the exception that proves the rule. In fact the vast, vast majority of individuals are invested into a religion by virtue of family, and they carry that believe system to the end. The string theorist is driven by some incompatibility with our explanation of the world and empirical evidence and tries to rationalize the two. Not being religious myself I cannot speak to what might drive someone to convert from one religion to another. I would guess it must be a deep level of personal comfort derived from one religious view over another. Its rare and does not necessarily mean that the convert is necessarily truly tolerant of his prior faith in any case.
organized religion =`s organized crime.
I'm going to have to sign off, guys. I'm seeing much more interest in slinging insults and one-line jokes at the expense of religious individuals (e.g., "organized religion =`s organized crime"; "Faith is an antidote for the Truth"; "they are not functioning rationally") than in trying to understand how believers think, and how best to foster communication with and between them. I would suggest, however, that if this group can't bring a bit more respect and humility to the question, it's not the one to be part of the solution.
Of course, the link to Elie Wiesel's comments "doesn't work" - I can only wonder why. Could it be because Elie Wiesel brings up challenging issues that Newsweek / WP does not agree with?
In response to your question, there can only be peace when we learn to accept everbody. When we do that, we are able to see others as equal and understand their point of view. God or no god, we as humans have the power to solve all of our problems. Religion is a internal process that only needs to be practiced rather than talking about it.
"Not being religious myself I cannot speak to what might drive someone to convert from one religion to another. "
I am, and I can. My father changed religions, and my beliefs have evolved pretty significantly over the last 30 years (although I am still associated with the same general religious community).
"I would guess it must be a deep level of personal comfort derived from one religious view over another."
Basically, it generally happens either because you become convinced that your prior beliefs were incorrect or incomplete in some way, or because you find that your religion does not satisfactorily answer the questions of life that you're facing. In my father's case it was primarily the former (and that's generally been my case as well).
You learn (for example) that Christianity or Judaism or Islam, as taught at your local house of worship, is inconsistent with the principles and ideals laid out by the founder and early believers. Or, you gradually realize that your understanding was simplistic - you didn't recognize an allegory (e.g., "would be better off if a millstone were tied around his neck and he were cast into the sea" was for dramatic emphasis - not a prescription). Or perhaps you take certain scientific findings - dealing, perhaps, with the age of the earth - and revisit the creation accounts and decide that they were never intended to address a scientific question (e.g., the seven days of creation make a great deal of sense when viewed in the context of a polytheistic society - if you think of all everything that has been worshipped in a pagan temple, such as sun, moon and stars, it systematically goes through and says, "yep, God made that . . . and that . . . uhuh, and that too . . .").
It can also happen if what you've been taught about evil, suffering or life in general just doesn't add up with what you see around you. Martin Luther is a good example, because his conversion happened over time, and was based on both what he saw in the Catholic church of the day, and on what he saw in the Bible.
"Its rare and does not necessarily mean that the convert is necessarily truly tolerant of his prior faith in any case."
It's more common than you think. If you say "Christian" or "Muslim" and have done with it, you won't see the huge evolution of, say, a Martin Luther (or, my dad). You won't see the man who moves from violent Wahhabism to moderate sunni.
I'd ask what you mean by "truly tolerant of his prior faith." If you mean that he thinks it is equally valid & correct, the answer has to be "no" - otherwise he wouldn't have changed. (And I need to point out, here, that people who take their religion seriously generally don't convert for "stylistic" reasons, such as the type of music used, order of worship, vestments, architecture, etc. - when they do, that's really more a matter of choosing a new place of worship than a real religious conversion). They do generally understand and relate to adherants of their old faith - and often bring a unique point of view to their new faith. I think of my dad, who was deeply committed to his new church, but never had any patience for the intramural squabbling - he knew just how pointless and dumb it appeared from the outside (if you see what's truly valuable and attractive about a religious tradition, you tend to have little patience for the "angels dancing on a head of a pin" sideshows).
i believe it is high time that liberal Christians make their voices heard. i read this article about how th new evangelicals are moving away from the radical religious right and want to now be focused on world human suffering and yet people like Jerry Falwell advocate the geoncide of the Arab nation and on national television he invoked Jesus to do it. Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of a head of state. they spout all these platitudes about lovind their neighbors and wanting to take care of the poor, yet they vote to curtail the rights of anyone who doesn't align with their agenda.
i believe in God and Jesus. i pray every day. i believe God communicates with me as much as he does any evangelical. i don't believe we should shun people just because we don't like the color of their skin, their country of origin or who they sleep with.
they talk about following what the Bible says. they give lip service to the single most important statement that Jesus made and then go home from churh, fornicate with their secretaries, or some little boys or steal from their constituents and advocate hatred. Jesus said that there are two great laws: to love God and to love one another...without prejudice. you can't love your neighbor while you're fighting to take away his rights because he's gay. you can't love your neighbor while you fight to take away his right because he's not a Christian. my parents are Buddhists and they are better Christians than most i know.
God loves everyone. if you believe, truly that God is the Creator of the universe, that He is Omnipotent, then we have to believe that God doesn't make mistakes. maybe the test for us is to find true love for one another by giving up our incessant obession for control. the parabal of the good samaritan seems to be lost on us. he did not ask the man lying on the ground if he was Hebrew. he didn't ask him is he was gay, or a muslim, or any other thing. he simply helped him.
let us not forget that we live in a FREE nation, not to be run by, or dictated by any religious sect. we will cease to be a democracy and become a theocracy if we do. if you truly believe in God, then you must concede that He created all people exactly the way they are: white, black, asian, arab, fat, thin, straight and gay.
the answer is right in front of us and yet we are so blinded by our own abitions that we cannot see it. the Golden Rule is the most perfect sentence ever written, yet so impossible to achieve because of our gluttony for power over others. it is written in a dozen different ways in all the major religions and the equisite beauty of it, is that you don't even have to believe in any god to see its worth. imagine, for a moment, in your wildest dreams that we did actually live by the Golden Rule. could there be abject poverty, famine, geoncide?
but, i am told that i am a fool for advocating such an idea that people have so much faith in God and themselves that they don't need to dictate to others how they should live. really, have you all so little faith in God's wisdom to think the He needs your help for one second to judge even the lowliest bum living in an alley in New York, or an untouchable in India?
and for all those radicals out there, Christian, Muslim or other, don't you see your headlong obession is doomed to fail because you can only dictate the body and not the soul. no matter how many laws you pass, no matter how many people you kill, you cannot rule peoples' hearts and souls without their permission. you may take away my right what i can do with my own body, but that will NOT make me embrace your beliefs, rather it will make me hate them. God is Love, and God is Freedom. and when i die, my sins will addressed by Him alone and i doubt He will take into account anything that any of you have to say. i would start looking in the mirror and considering what you are doing every day, not to corral everyone in the world to your faith, but how you've made an example of your life as one who is loving without prejudice. that's what God wants.
"i am told that i am a fool for advocating such an idea that people have so much faith in God and themselves that they don't need to dictate to others how they should live"
Aren't you telling us what we should do? Nicely, passionately - but pretty clearly?
We must love. Remember, though, that Jesus had a great deal to say about how people should live - including all aspects of life (not just what we think of as "social justice). Personal morality was part of it. We are not true to the message of Jesus if we don't talk about all of it - social justice (which conservative Christians often shortchange) AND personal morality (which liberal Christians generally shortchange).
Balance is tough, isn't it?
;-)
A conversation between those posessed by a notion of absolute truth and those otherwise inclined is clearly possible- but not in the the democratic sense of a deliberation that might lead to a consensus, or at least an accomodation. The great danger the faith represents is that it is at its very heart an anti-democratic model of understanding.
Democracies flourish because they adapt- it is not a stretch to draw an analogy between democratic adaptation and survival, and genetic variation and survival. In the latter it is the diversity of genetic possibility that ensures survival- and it is that same diversity of idea and opinion that makes democracy strong. The very purpose of belief is to extinguish doubt, establish an absolute, and thus end the deliberations. All theocracies tend to the authoritarian, to political paralysis.
Science, like a healthy democracy, is dynamic. It holds challenge and revision as a virtue. Religions hold them as damning heresies.
While religions might provide some perverse comfort to the insecure and frightened on a personal level, to the extent they reject the very precepts of democracy they deserve no formal place in democratic institutions. You can't sit down and plan a menu with cannibals.
"You can't sit down and plan a menu with cannibals."
Lovely analogy. Do you include Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama in the "cannibal" contingent?
"Democracies flourish because they adapt"
Lot's of things adapt. What defines a democracy is decision making through broad-based voting. Science does indeed adapt - but not through the democratic mechanism of majority rule. (I would note, as an aside, that many modern Christian churches are in fact governed through a democratic structure where members elect leaders, who then in turn vote on the positions to be taken by the group.) In science, it doesn't matter how many researchers would raise their hand and say "X" - "Y" may in fact be correct, and may be proven so by a lone dissenter.
Religions do in fact adapt and change over time. We can debate whether that's on balance good or bad, but it is in fact true. (The Congregationalist church of today is not that of the early colonies, nor is the Catholic church of today that of the Spanish Inquisition, and where the heck did the Pentacostalists come from if religions don't adapt and survive?)
"While religions might provide some perverse comfort to the insecure and frightened on a personal level, to the extent they reject the very precepts of democracy they deserve no formal place in democratic institutions."
If you're even beginning to hint that this means religious people - including those who take it seriously - do not deserve a formal place in democratic institutions, you've become profoundly undemocratic yourself. And if you want them to leave their moral beliefs at the voting booth door, you'd better be willing to do the same with yours.
I agree that for any useful dialogue to take place, it must begin with a degree of humility. One must be able to accept the facts that present themselves, to be led where the evidence points. When it comes to religion, there is abundant evidence to indicate that many religious groups have betrayed the principles that they claim to uphold. When religion is used to promote war, terrorism and hatred, or when religion is used to bilk money from the poor only to line the pockets of corporate-style "pastors," that religious group must be held to account, and its adherents -- however sincere -- need to come to grips with whether their group is worthy of allegiance. On the other hand, claiming that truth does not exist is inherently arrogant and misguided. Such an approach gives all the power to the questioner, and can be misused much like the priniciple of "reasonable doubt" is abused by an unscrupulous attorney.
For unity to exist on any level, people must be able to submit themselves to some unifying principles. That is where the difficulty lies. Why give in if you can make up your own rules?
Alessa makes a good point about the Golden Rule -- imagine the effects if properly applied. For instance, you would have people who conscientiously refuse to take up arms for any country, and who are willing to face any penalties that result. You would have Hutus & Tutsis who protected one another in the midst of that horrible slaughter. You would have Arabs & Israelis who would freely embrace one another, blacks & browns & whites in South Africa who view each other as brothers. Sound farfetched? It isn't. Find people who are willing to submit themselves to unifying principles, even at personal cost, and you will have found something remarkable. They may, in fact, be trying to find you.
"When religion is used to promote war, terrorism and hatred, or when religion is used to bilk money from the poor only to line the pockets of corporate-style "pastors," that religious group must be held to account, and its adherents -- however sincere -- need to come to grips with whether their group is worthy of allegiance."
And, as a believer, I can absolutely get behind any effort to misuse religion. Where I suspect we may part company, at times, is in distinguishing between leaders who are abusing their position and "the group" - you may be quicker than I to tar a faith with the sins of its practicianers - and in identifying "misuse" - bilking the poor and preaching violence are evil; calling for a high standard of sexual ethics or opposing the destruction of innocent life would not, in my mind, be misuse (easy to say, in general - but where will we be when we come to apply those rules to hot-button issues like abortion or gay marriage? Just because we disagree and each argue strongly for what we believe to be moral does not mean that either of us is "misusing" religion.).
Ooops!
"And, as a believer, I can absolutely get behind any effort to COMBAT misuse OF religion"
My fingers got ahead of my thoughts - sorry!
Shake free from your brainwashing and except there is no divine beings of ANY type or persuasion. No evidence = no superbeings. Religion is a terrible lie and outdated form of population control. Think for yourselves people.
Religion is delusion, and the root of most of the evil in the world.
On Faith: Can There Be Common Ground?
Nearly all Faiths will agree there is one supreme God. In the history of most cultures, over time, the Spiritually experienced and knowledgeable experts who had known God and experienced his presence did their best to explain to their people their knowledge and experience by building a religion so they also could know God. Naturally they had to do this using the language and culture of the same people. Thus we ended up with a religion built to suit each culture or civilization.
As a country, culture, civilization grows and develops it naturally makes many changes in thinking and working and the religion has to adjust to fulfill its role. For example Christianity in the Middle Ages was quite different from the Victorian Times and today it must change to suit a post-modern world. As the world grows into One World all the religions will have to adjust to serve God adequately. Those that do not adjust will perish. Once they realize this the ones that start to change in the right way will prosper accordingly.
Here is common ground.
Growing-up I did not believe in god. My father did as did his two brothers. My dad is a Mormon one uncle is a Jehovah Witness the other Presbyterian. My dad is 85, his oldest brother died last year at 96 the other is 93. These god fearing men have not talked to each other in over forty years because of their religious differences. My uncle that passed on threw me out of his house in front of my son who was seven at the time because I said I do not believe in god. He got irate, his eyes bulged, the veins in his neck and face exploded. My son asked what was wrong with uncle Gil. I told him it is not his fault it is the way he was raised. Two years later he called me to his house and apologized. We never spoke of religion again and had a wonderful relationship. When he passed I was at his bed in the hospital. He became conscience saw me there and began to cry. He told me he was so afraid to die and asked me to take care of his wife. He took his last breath and left. I helped him in his later years as much as needed because it was the right thing to do.
One my way to work I drive a road in my town that has the highest property value in the county. In the middle of the K houses they are building a super church taking up enough land to build twenty K houses. I have to shake my head and wonder about the hypocrisy of all the Churches, synagogues, Masques, and temples where good peoples of faith worship and the misery that fills the world with children dieing each minute of starvation.
The other day I received my shipment from Amazon. As I was reading Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation someone knocked on my door. Even though I have a sign that says "NO SOLICITING" posted on my door some young missionaries thought it would be OK because of the message they had to share. I agreed as long as I could read them something I was now reading and they agreed. I was on page 48 so that is where I began. They stood there nervously as I read the next three pages. I then asked them what there message was and they handed me a flier and left.
Most of my thoughts about religion have resulted from my day to day interactions with other people, it is not based on anything that I have read or been told. Here are some of my experiences. When I was about 8 years old, a friend of mine ask me to go to church with him. I said okay. When the collection dish was past around, he acted like he was putting money into the dish, but actually took money out as he winked to me. When I was in the seventh grade, I told my teacher that I was an atheist. She told me that I was not. She said that God did exist and that an atheist was one that knew that God did not exist. Since one could not know something that was not so, there could be no atheists and that I was never again to say that I was an atheist. When I got out of the army, I was working in a factory and people who worked there would put church letters on the lunch bench for people to read. At that time I belonged to Americans United for Separation of Church and State and brought one of their magazines in and left it on the lunch table. The general foreman saw it picked it up and read it and was outraged. He called me into his office and his face was beet red. He said he wanted to beat me up. He said that what that magazine was about was against everthing he believed as a Catholic. He knew that I was going to quit that fall to go to college and he said that he would make sure that I was never hired there again. I did quit and I did later try to get rehired but the foreman kept telling me that for some reason he couldn't get personnel to agree to rehire me. On another occasion I had a disagreement with a minister. The minister assaulted me. I charged him with assult and battery. It went to court and when the judge found out that I was an atheist, he fined the minister $10 for assaulting me. I guess if you want to beat up an atheist you can do so for $10. On another occasion, I was living in a neighborhood where the mayor of the city had a disagreement with several of the apartment building owners. He had police cadets come into the neighborhood to harrass the residents. I asked one of the cadets what he was doing and he stated that he was measuring the distance from the cars to the intersection and if they were too close to the intersection he was writing them a ticket. I asked him if he was prepared to write tickets on any cars that were in violation of parking ordinances. He said of course. I asked him to accompany me over to the next block which he did. I showed him cars that were obviously parked illegally. I asked him to ticket them. He asked where were all of the people that were parked there. I said they were attending the church that was next to the places they were parked. He said he couldn't ticket people who were in church. He said that would be wrong. I interviewed for a job and I was hired but only under one condition. The person hiring me was someone that had known me for over two decades and she said that she wanted me to promise never to let anyone at work know that I was an atheist. I agreed in order to get the job. That is only some of the interactions I have had that have caused me to have no respect for religious people. I have found that religious people are very forgiving of themselves and they are always ready to mistreat other people. They do not live by the standards they want to impose on other people. When I have brought up to religious people that they do not walk the walk their response is almost always: "we are only human and we need forgiveness." As I say, they are very forgiving of themselves.
This whole debate and it's endless cycles of rhetoric come down to these basic premises.
Faith = Belief without proof.
Atheism, Humanism, Free-Thinking = the demand for proof before belief.
In a society that bases it's beliefs on faith, the following statements all have the same validity:
1 "This person is evil Because I say so"
2 "1+1=2"
3 "pink unicorns live on Neptune"
"It's time to peel back the foreskin of miscomprehension, and apply the wire-brush of enlightenment"
"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"
Conversation is possible, but common ground is not. The problem as I see it is that the ones who 'believe they have a monopoly on the truth' (or the fundamentalists as I would interpret that), are so wrapped in their dogmatic belief system that it takes a great amount of forced logic to break them out of what I think of as the short-circuit of their brain. I don't say this in any way hateful, or in an attempt to denigrate them (one generally isn't hateful to someone suffering from any other mental disorder), simply as an explanation. My experiences have been mostly with Christians, as I live in the US, but I've had many a conversation, calmly, quietly, with them, and we've talked about where we're coming from.
I cannot understand how a person can fail to contemplate information presented to them which indicates a drastic change in their world-view. They can't seem to understand how I go through life without a 'moral compass' or something of that nature. Sadly, it seems that the only way to find that common ground everyone wants to get to, is to totally abolish the ground upon which the religious stand on.
The debate should not be between religions and about faith but why individuals believe in the absence of any proof. It is mass insanity.
The problem between religions is not truth, understanding, talking, forgiving, assimilation, evangelisation, and so on...
All religions, and not only Islam, talk about love and understanding but kill and terrorise in the name of god. God is used to give good conscience in killing the other axis of evil...
Is Islam responsible of the exterminations of the Jews, the slaves of Africa, the colonisation, the Indians...?
If you want to know where or who is the devil, Count the number of its victims... 3000 thousand in NY, 3000 in Baghdad but 650.000 Iraqis... 6 millions Jews... 100 millions blacks slaves... Indians...
The Devil has created God to kill in his name and the God needs the devil to live...
Man is the creature of the devil... this is why he talks about God, truth, civilisation, religion, human rights... he used it to cause destruction of nature and life... we are now in the edge of chaos... the earth boat is sinking with both the devils and the gods…
The dream of Lenon "imagine there is no country and no religion is gone" ... we have an imperial country with religion... of God ... American people don't deserve the hatred brought by their leader. How is it that the smartest people on earth vote for the most stupid fanatic religious leader on earth?
See you in hell (death) cause paradise (life) is gone … we missed it. We could have used all our energies for killing our real enemy death… we have chosen “not to be” as Hamlet did … he believed his ghosts (devil father) and killed and be killed …
The problem between religions is not truth, understanding, talking, forgiving, assimilation, evangelisation, and so on... God is used to give good conscience in killing the other axis of evil... The Devil has created God to kill in his name and the God needs the devil to live...
If you want to know where or who is the devil, Count the number of its victims... 3000 thousand in NY, 3000 in Baghdad but 650.000 Iraqis... 6 millions Jews... 100 millions blacks slaves... Indians...
Man is the creature of the devil... this is why he talks about God, truth, civilisation, religion, human rights... he used it to cause destruction of nature and life... we are now in the edge of chaos... the earth boat is sinking with both the devils and the gods…
The dream of Lenon "imagine there is no country and no religion is gone" ... we have an imperial country with religion... of God ... American people don't deserve the hatred brought by their leader. How is it that the smartest people on earth vote for the most stupid fanatic religious leader on earth?
See you in hell (death) cause paradise (life) is gone … we missed it. We could have used all our energies for killing our real enemy : natural death…
I think that God's Presence is indivisible, and that we can all learn to respect each person's way to worship. When we try to become faithful witnesses to the love of God as we know it, then we can paraphrase Kahlil Gibran's universal realization, "Think not you can direct the course of love, for love, when it finds you worthy, will direct your course." We could paraphrase it by saying, "Think not you can direct the course of truth,...,", or "Think not you can direct the course of the Holy Spirit...". As we are faithful to our being and the Creator of Being, as we know it, we do find a unity of spirit, and an awareness of a Spirit greater than ourselves, which unites us with other persons, regardless of denomination or religion. Pope Benedict XVI, when asked how many ways there were to God, replied, "As many ways as there are people".
Chesterton said "Compassion is the first sign of God's Presence." Leslie Dewart said, "Truth is the fidelity of consciousness to being.". Contemplating these guideposts in humility and and love, we find that universal truths begin in the recognition of universal dignity.
There is no God.
Mahatma Gandhi has shown a common ground. According to Mahatma Gandhi, belief in one God is the corner-stone of all
religions. ``But I do not foresee a time when there would be only one
religion on earth in practice. In theory, since there is only one God,
there can only be one religion. But in practice, no two persons I have
known have had an identical conception of God. Therefore,
there will perhaps always be different religions answering to different
temperaments and even climactic conditions.''
Mahatma Gandhi said, ``I believe in the fundamental truth
of all great religions of the world. I believe that they are all
God-given, and I believe that they were necessary for the people to whom
these religions were revealed. And I believe that, if only we could all
of us read the scriptures of the different faiths from the standpoint of
the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the
bottom all one and were all helpful to one another.''
Mahatma Gandhi's concept of Hinduism certainly included the Vedas, but it also contained a
broader vista. Without impairing the dignity of Hinduism, he saw no inconsistency in paying equal homage to the best of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Mahatma Gandhi's prayer book, Ashram Bhajanavali, contains Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Zoroastrian and Christian Prayers. All of us approach one God by various names, such as Isvara,Rama, Krishna, Jehovah, Allah, God, and so on.The Allah of Islam is the same as the God of Christians and the Isvara
of Hindus. The God of Gandhi cannot be different from the God of Mother Theresa. The names do not indicate individuality but indicate attributes. The common man has tried in his humble way to describe almighty God by giving Him attributes, though He is above all attributes indescribable, inconceivable and immeasurable.
The only religious truth is that no religion has a monopoly on truth. All religions are created by mankind and as such all are inherently flawed.
As long as people view their religion's teachings as infallible there will be little room for compromise. It will only be when religions are seen for what they are that we as a race will be able to negotiate in "good faith" together.
There is no truth, no god and no devil. All we know about these things are bloody words said by human who quotes other humans ... God is used by Saudi Arabia to govern and decapitate…
In one of his book Khalil Gibran talks about this priest who found the devil lying dead and asking for help. The priest could kill him but the devil remind him that his job would finish if the devil is dead... how many people will loose their jobs... trillions of dollars in the killing of other and you talk about god...
see the history of humans ... we are proud of killings... we have memorials of our deaths but not for our victims… killing is now our new high tech job ... to be proud of. We are not human any more… we have become American, Spanish, black, soldiers, Muslims, humanist, terrorist, Jews, pedophiles … because of ou cultres, civilisations, values ...
All people should abandon religious faith and take up the Buddhist practice of sublimating the ego in an attempt to attain enlightenment. This is not religion. This is true psychotherapy.
Egos "believe", egos feel afraid, egos kill.
I need no god to respect you or to love you... Can you respect me and love me without God?.
So bloody Hell, keep your bloody goodies for you (Allah, Boudha, God, Dieu, Descartes, Socrates, Science, reason, Zarathoustra...). Don't tell me to believe or not believe on what you love and hate... If you believe or not then good for you ... why do you need to convince me?... is it for my love ? So just love me ... this is enough for me ... just you and me and no god, no race, no country, no sex and no language between...
Is love too hard to understand???
What prevents us from coming together is the investment we have made in our belief systems. Were it true that religion was just a matter of belief, this still would be a major obstacle, but religion is a social, financial and political institution. It asks things of us. If we follow, we use much of our being as well as material resources. It seems like betrayal to be asked to reconsider beliefs that have caused us to give much of our being and our resources. Religious disputes are less about ideas than they are about scarifices made that may turn out to be meaningless if we accept that there are alternatives. I wager that the most spiritual among us are those who see no threat from other's beliefs because what they have put forth was genuine and not dependent on being "right".
dont you think that you should know how you think? it's called training, indoctrination. It stands in defense of a hostile world that would have you understand a living gawd not a dead religion, used to control and milk a population to maintain itself....wanna talk or just quote dogma?
bhakti is the yoga of devotion, and as such serves the purpose of allowing one of lower intellectual level to achieve union to the degreee that they are capable of.......
faith is that, it is not the religion of the deep thinker, or the true mystic....
ramakrishna, jesus, rumi, wovoka, and others who have had direct experience do so by using the same methods....
the monastic experience is the same in christianity as it is in sufic orders....it is the money oriented hierarchy of the church and that includes television evangelists that seek to use borrowed authority to milk your credulity.
Direct experience is attainable, and belief is completely unnecessary unless you are under roman rule and still believe that they believe in christianity.........they stole it, like Microsoft buys up it's competitors and then remarkets their works as add ons that you haveta buy.......
that is modern day faith based religon, I don't admire people who live on faith, I want direct connection....
it's ordinary everyday communication with divinity and you don't have to belong to mans religions to be intouch with the divine....unless you wanna pay....then majick beans await you, and you can give them your golden cow....
angels on the head of a pin....you know where that quote comes from doncha? Aquinas, but youve read him right? naw yer a believer.
.
divine, not point at a symbol of it and say, "that's me." Pat Robertson is a believer....in voodoo.
IF I were SATAN, I would go to each group of people and send them energy and good feelings, and then whisper into the ear of each..."you are special to me and I hold you more dear than all of the others," and I would go to each group and repeat those words, them walk away and watch the fun start......the more erudite of you, might want to read "The Screwtape Letters," by the author of Narnia.
Chritian worship the One God, and muslim worship the One God, too. 'the One God' is 'the One God'. They worship the same 'One God'. What is different is their thought about the Only God and the way to worship him. But how men think is not that important to God. Why are they being enemies to each other?
faith is LOVE,love for self,for parents,brothers and sisters, for neighbors, and FOR the human beings.
Kofi A. Annan's the Golden Rule of “do as you would be done by”, reminds me of a chinese traditional proverb"己所不欲,勿施于人",meaning "never do what you don't want to be done to others" or "never treat others the way you don't want to be treated". if everyone on world could go the way as the proverb hints, then there would be no conflicts at all on our globe. yet, it is so badly that that is impossible.
How childish to assume that there is a "Almighty Character" who has such human traits like ego which have to be stoked by praying to him and getting points to go into a good place called heaven.
If this was a tale that was believed by 6 year olds it would be understandable but its amazing that in this age of reason we cling to these stories till the day we die.
Faith is a way for the individual to deal with questions of their existence. Mix in the superiority angle that each faith espouses (otherwise why would you join up with them) and you have a powder keg waiting to be lit again and again and again.
Of course their are common grounds on which inter faith relation ship can be established.
we have to differentiate between religion and religious people.
religion or faith irrespective of we are believers or non believers is a way of life which bond the humans on moral and ethical values. these are common in all religions and even for those people who preach love as way of life.
religious persons are different story. they are marketing people selling religion. just to attract the people they have to add more spices in the curry.
today the religion become a commodity and being commercialised. so different faith and even sects have their own marketing strategy and hence fighting for market share.
so sincere people who have a dream of coexistance of human race definately find a common ground where they can negotiate each other
Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura had it about right when he said "organized regligion is a crutch for weak minded individuals." We can only hope that mankind is wise enough to eventually overcome its superstitious tendencies.
If God lays a turd, what should we, as concerned humans, do about it?
Earth is a Spaceship with All the Resources aboard, to be Shared Equally with All Life, like the Lifestyle on a man-made spaceship. What will happen in one of our spacsehips if the Crew would live like we do on Earth? It is Time to accept what divided the Crew on Earth, to be a Killer Species of Human, so that they had to be in competition for their daily needs instead of Equal Sharing of all the resources on Spaceship Earth.
With our High Tech Science today, we do have the High Tech Science Knowledge of how to Colonize a planet, and how to reproduce an Asexual Pure-bred Crew, in a High Tech Womb. But instead of proceeding in this endeavor, since the 1970s, we have used our High Tech Science Knowledge to make Nuclear Bombs and weapons of massive destruction, which will cause the Last Days 'Arm'ageddon of religion. One sign of the Last Days: The 'abomination of desolation' does stand in Israel today.
We do some genetic correction of the fetus in a dish, and insert it into the female's womb, but most of the genetic defects are still not corrected. We have progressed to where the sex act is not needed for reproduction, but we still have Body Birth damage to the female and the child.
By dividing Atoms instead of joining Atom together, we have polluted our Home Planet with nuclear waste, and are destroying our Ozone layer that protects us from the ultraviolet rays of our Sun. When this layer is destroyed Life as we know it, cannot continue to exist on Earth.
With the return of High Tech Science, we should translate the Christian Bible and all scriptures and myths with a High Tech Science explanation. Science and relgion/myth are about the same Asexual Human Physical Life on Earth and on planets, and in spaceships in space.
The Supernatural in religion, of Gods that flew in fiery chariots, and sat on thrones up in the air, are our High Tech Ancestors (HTA) from Space, that Colonized Life on Earth. They are the Higher 'Beings', Angels, Gods and Goddesses, etc. of religion and myth, that were seen and did talk to people face to face. They were not Spirit 'Beings'. What is a Spirit 'Being'?
They also reproduce in a High Tech Womb, 'Super'naturally. The Asexual Adam and Eve 'Colony' were reproduced in their Lab in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were not the only two people at the start of Life on Earth. When Asexual Adam and Eve, not reproduced by Body, reproduced Cain and Abel by Mis-bred Genetic Heterosexual Body Birth, the Original Sin of High Tech Pure-bred Humans, Death began on Earth.
Cain did kill Abel, and killing is the Lifestyle of Fallen Man ever since. Cain did marry and go out and start another city. We have the History of the Fallen Lifestyle ever since, in religion, myth, and secular history.
In a High Tech Science Society, they do have Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life 'After' Birth, because they can repair any defects that happen, and keep their Physical Bodies Pure-bred. They do Colonize planets with Pure-bred Colonies, and they can also escape their Solar System when their Sun dies, and even their Universe when necessary.
We do know that a Universe can collapse into a Black Hole, and no one can escape this without High Tech Science. The Black Hole of Science is the Hell in the Bible. It does regenerate and in time does explode into a new universe, so Physical Life as we know it can be Everlasting.
The Bible does teach about Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth. Is there Life as we know it After Death? The Bible is a collection of different religions and is the Code Book to understand the History of Life on Earth from the Colonization to the Judgement Day. It is the only Book with all this information. Man's pollution and nuclear bombs will cause the End of our Eco System, and Life as we know it cannot continue on Earth.
Our HTA did 'regenerate' Jesus in the tomb to a Pure-bred Asexual Body, and Jesus did go Alive, up into Space with them, in a physical body, not a Spirit. Maybe other people that had contact with our HTA in the Bible are also with them.
Our HTA and Jesus will return at Judgement Day, and will 'regenerate' the ones left, and take them to a new planet they are Colonizing now. The 8 Days we have had for our Fallen experience gave them the time to Colonize a new planet.
The Saved Ones and Jesus will be the new Colony on a new Planet. The Bible is a 'literal' history of real High Tech Science Asexual Humans that do Colonize planets and do Have Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth.
Our HTA do not Kill and the Gods that kill in the Bible were the High Tech Science country of Atlantis at the time of Noah, like the USA is today. The Bible when translated has to decide which Gods were the Killer Gods that flew in the air also. They were the people of Atlantis. Religion and myth are about the same Life on Earth.
There was a Planetary Flood Catastrophe from Atlantis' pollution and weapons of massive destruction, which broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy around Earth, that was set up along with the Ozone Canopy at the Colonization. The Ice is at our poles. The remains of that Civilization is in the new Top Strata that was set down from the tidal wave action of the Flood.
Each Day of the Colonization was 1000 years. A Space Time Day with the Lord/HTA is 1000 years on Earth. It took 6000 years to Colonize Earth and it has taken 6000 years for Fallen Man to destroy their Eco System. Now we are in the Day 7 Millennium and the coming Judgement Day.
Our Pollution will break the Ozone Canopy, and our nuclear waste, all other pollution and oil spills on land and sea, will cause the Planetary Judgement Day Fire.
Man need to return to the most important Commandment of Life, Thou Shalt Not Kill. It is impossible to have Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life on a planet with Mis-bred Bodies, that leads to Killing and Inhumanity, Inequality, Greed, Haves, Havenots, Sickness, Disease, War and Death.
The Asexual Agape Love of Pure-bred Humans passes the Understanding of Fallen Mis-bred Humans
Peace and Asexual Agape Love.
My web site: http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
Dolores
It is time to understand the Bible is the Code Book from the Creation/Colonization of Human Life on Earth. We again have the High Tech Knowledge of Colonization of a planet and of reproducing Human Life in a High Tech Womb. The Creation/Colonization was by our High Tech Ancestors from Space, called God in religion and myth.
The supernatural in religion is "super"natural High Tech Science and Myth. The Noah/Atlantis Society was a High Tech Science Society that broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy, the water above the firmament at the Creation. This caused the Planetary Flood. The ice is at our poles today.
Then history continued up to where Jesus was 'regenerated' in the tomb, by our HTA, the Man Gods and Angels in the Bible, and was taken up into Space Alive. They will return at the Judgement Day to rescue those Alive and take them to a new planet they are Colonizing like they did Earth.
The Bible is the Code Book to Life on Earth from the Creation/Colonization, to the Fall of High Tech Pure-bred reproduction of Adam and Eve, to Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth of Cain and Abel. To the Flood, and Jesus, and today.
We again have the nuclear bombs and pollution, just as the Atlantis/Noah Society had, and will cause the Judgement Day Fire with all our nuclear waste and other pollutions and oil spills on land and sea.
We will break the Ozone layer that protects us from the Suns ultra-violet rays, and then Life as we know it will end on Earth. Pure-bred Man was supposed to be the Equal Caretakers of Earth, not the Unequal Killers.
Life is for the Living, not the Dead.
My web site:
http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
Dolores
I was raised in a religion that believes they have a monopoly on the truth, and now I am no longer part of that religion, and conversation is possible, however, very little common ground is with these people. In these types of religions or beliefs a person who believes "different" is as actually felt sorry for (they just won't accept "the truth), so any conversation would be for the purpose of conversion, nothing else. I think it's interesting to learn about religions such as this, and why they believe they have "the truth". We all should respect each other's beliefs and simply treat others the way we wish to be treated.
As long as the belief in a god exists, people will use it to kill, enslave and impoverish others.
Monopolies on truth are always, in time, broken. They can't hold. The prime difficulty is time.
It takes time for a larger truth to become self-evident to a critical mass of a society. The benefits are so huge they cannot be calculated.
Examples abound throughout all of history, in every endeavor of mankind. Progress occurs at the expense of what people used to believe was true.
The reason I have two posting, the first one said submission error occured, so wrote another. Then I checked the comments to see if it was posted and both were on.
Dolores
Forget religion! Discuss what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's evil. You can leave God or gods out of it!
I've come to believe that faith, perhaps, is a good thing; religion on the other hand is not.
okay, first of all... i would like to know how you expect to have an open discussion about religion if we can't even mention God in school. The other day, we brought up evolution in my History Class and we had to end the discussion because the teacher was afraid of getting us in trouble because we moved to the religion side of the situation. I personally, think that the "separation of church and state" is complete crap. Church is the house of God. God is the reason we have "religions". There is no logical reason as to why we've brought this country up on Godly standards, and all of a sudden we can't even discuss it.
Second of all, Christianity is not a religion. Any true Christian would tell you that. Christianity is a relationship with the One True King. Religion is all about the "you can do this, but you can't do that because its simply not done" and always worrying about screwing up. Christianity isn't about that. Just like any relationship, we fall and we make mistakes. God is love. He forgives our mistakes. There isn't any "He can't forgive me for what i've done" because everything is on the same level for him. Sin is sin. God is perfect, so he cannot allow sin. This is why He sent his son, Jesus, to live a perfect life. He died for our sins and rose again 3 days later. Because he conquered death, we can accept him into our hearts because he can wipe clean everything we've ever done and he can see his perfect son's life in us, even if we aren't perfect. No man is perfect, that is why we need Jesus in our life. When we die, if we have Jesus in our life, we go to heaven. If not, we go to hell. There is no "purgitory". Even if you think about it logically, there is no reason to even think that there is. If you die and could pay off all the sins you've done so you dont go to hell, there would be nobody in hell. There would be no reason for it. Besides, those of you who are athiest reading this, there is a reason for us to be here. Look at your hand. See the veins? Breathe through your nose. Are you alive? We have been so precisely made. There is no possible/logical reason or way we could have just popped out of nowhere. If when we die there is no heaven or hell, what is the point of us being here? We wouldn't exist. Nothing would exist. Try wrapping your head around that one. Who believes in evolution? is it you? well, how do you explain all of it? We evolved from monkeys? Where did they come from? How come our hands stayed the same and our feet are different? ITS NOT POSSIBLE. God has created every single person that lives on this earth special and precisely. Nobody is a mistake. Even if you weren't wanted or you have a kid you didn't want to have, there is a reason you or your child is alive. God loves you. God loves them. He longs to have a relationship with you! If your reading this, and you have been thinking about abortion just because you don't want your kid or for whatever reason, think about this... What if your mother aborted you? You wouldn't be here. You wouldn't have the life you have. You really wanna take away someone's opportunity to live? What if someone had invented abortion hundreds of years ago and decided to abort Terry Roosevelt, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Christopher Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci, etc. What if your child could change the future? What if your child had the ability to create what we haven't even imagined yet? Your going to kill an innocent child, and don't give me that "it't not alive" crap. If unborn children weren't alive then how come they have to be killed to get rid of? Science is a way of expressing God's wonders. Science says that the characteristics of life are movement, growing, etc. Unborn children grow. Stop beating around the bush, because deep down you know abortion is murder. It's like walking up to an innocent person in the street who's standing still and saying "It's not moving, it's not alive" and shooting them in the head. Whether it's the day its concieved or its 9 months later, ANY CHILD is alive unless killed or died. In order for that to happen they have to be alive, which they are.
Why can't we express this in school or anywhere else? Because people in higher levels think that it will "cause conflict". When everyone knows the truth, there won't be any conflict. Minor detail, but you people don't realize that conflict is good once in a while. Debate opens opportunities. It's not bad. Going too far is bad, but we shouldn't "let the fear of striking out, keep us from playing the game".
Please, i'm begging you... if you are reading this and you know in your heart i am right and you haven't done anything about it, accept Jesus into your heart. This is the most important decision you will ever make. Besides, wouldn't you rather go through life believing there is a God who loves you and cares for you and tells you that you're going to heaven and finding out you were right, or don't believe in Him and find out you were wrong...
We ought to go back to the idea that religion is a private matter. Obviously a portion of people who believe in their religion as the "one truth" will be able to get along with each other in conversation and find common ground. If this were not so, then the human race would probably have wiped themselves out fighting over religion long ago. Some religious fanatics are apparently still bent on that now. Hopefully, the majority of us, who can hold a conversation without deteriorating into murderous territorial animals, will survive the nuclear age long enough for the fanatics to come to the same live-and-let-live conclusion. I pity peace loving agnostics and aetheists who suffer the injustice of fanatic religion, without the aid of the comforts of religion. The common ground all believers and non-believers should peace on earth, goodwill towards all.
Religion should never be a private matter... Just because it makes some uncomfortable doesn't mean its not good to talk about it. Sometimes, uncomfortable is how we need to feel in order to be humble. I am not trying to start a fight or anything like that, all i am saying is that if we're gonna talk about religion, then let me tell you the truth. No offense to anyone else, but i would rather have someone tell me the TRUTH and be uncomfortable than live a comfortable life in lies.
There is nothing called monopoly over truth. And all religions: Hinduism, Christanity, Buddhism and Islam are manifestations of one unitary truth called LOVE. This love is to be felt first by the five senses...a strong force working actively in nature...on mother earth. So problems arise because the mother of truth is always a PARADOX. When dualities subside, the truth is reached. Arguments/counter arguments...all these lead to verbal conflict and a common universal ground is never reached. This is particularly the stage when conversations with multiple-viewpoints cannot reach a fruitful conclusion. But these conversations are very much required to know different perspectives. " It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end"- Ursula K. Le Guin
So its the conversation which is more valuable than its conclusion. Each conversation is like a river flowing into the grand ocean of life. All are waters in the end , all same and different in the eyes of the Divine Mother. There is unity in diversity, that is the beauty of life that nature gives us with one common thread- LOVE , LOVE, LOVE.
Joy Roy Choudhury
E-aryans
Not one person on this earth has the right to tell another what God is, what he/she/it looks like, or what a particular God requires of us. The very first Commandment gives the greatest clue of all that religion is man-made. If God was the only true deity then why worry that humans would support other Gods!
These dialogues should focus on what we have in common in our beliefs, then use arguments based on reason to discuss the differences. When we start as liked minded individuals, dealing with the controversy could be more civil.
People with strong opinions, who display a degree of intolerance, cannot and should not be part of an open discussion like this one. The Goal is to find common ground in our humanity.
A person who believes that his faith has the monopoly on truth would only be able to hold a dialogue with persons of other faiths if he was still open minded enough to see that all faiths have revelations of the truth he/she believes to be the one truth.
If there is one truth then it is bound to be revealed partially everywhere and wholly in the place where it is fully revealed.
I note that a majority of the comments here are from fellow secular humanists, and self-professed athiests. Yet I notice that in the media coverage of the "Faith" story on Today, MSNBC, Newsweek etc. that this viewpoint is completely ignored. It's obvious to me and others that the evangelicals and fundamentalists also control a portion of the media in addition to government. It seems that the best way to unite differing faiths is to present an opposing viewpoint that denies the basis for their religions, that there is an afterlife or a god.
I think it has been shown that the greater your education in the sciences, the more likely you are to be secular and acknowledge that there is no objective evidence to support the concept of 'God' or any form of afterlife. Current research tends to show that faiths and religion, though serving a social function in society, have no basis in reality.
Irrational beliefs are an outgrowth of abstract thought and rational thought processing. In times before our advancement of the sciences, a need to explain the workings of the world, cause and effect, produced religion. It was the only connection humans could make to their environment beyond the physical. A huge storm devastates the fruit trees, and we starve, which must be due to the displeasure of a mighty god. Lightning stikes a tree, starting a fire, which we then steal to keep warm and beasts at bay. We must be favored for our virtue, or forgiven for some sin.
When viewed in the right light, religion is obviously a crutch to support our personal and subjective perception of the world. It is much the same as the Santa mythos, where good behavior is rewarded with toys and sweets. The belief by the child produces right action, the reward is delivered via the parents in the form of gifts, and the child PERCEIVES Santa to be real. This of course breaks down when the older child applies logic to the mythos and discovers the fallacy. With most religions, the belief produces right action, and the reward is a 'good feeling', a rush of endorphins and seratonin. Those who propogated the early religions realized that no other tangible reward was possible, thus the tendency for all the "rewards" of a faith come in a supposed 'afterlife'. This protected priests from reprisals for lack of rain during growing season, wildfires, plagues, etc. that the priests had no actual control over.
So, if you really want to start a fight, get thrown out of a church, or fail to get elected in an election, all you have to do is kick that crutch out from under someone. Question a faith, or worse present factual scientific evidence to the contrary, and you have just removed the basic subjective understanding of cause and effect that a person of faith has been relying on to survive. The position of faith that they profess is really a representation of how they view the physical world around them. The only way to remove that crutch is to present a more cohesive and logical framework of cause and effect.
That's where education comes in. The average human intellect at this stage of our evolution is barely capable of understanding the basics of our scientific body of knowledge. Only rare, highly intelligent humans have been able to abstract the functioning of the particles of our Universe. Thus it is not feasible at this time to remove all religion from the human masses, due primarily to lack of eduacation resources and lack of a social framework to replace it with. I am a secualr humanist with a defined moral code and value system. However, it is arrived at through personal eduacation and comtemplation, much like most religions. This framework of secular views is far LESS comforting though, and produces few definitive answers to the 'big questions' beyond that of simple existence. Meaning must be subjectively provided, something that appears hard for most people to do. In other words, I decide WHY I am here, and how I will live. I am not instructed or succored by any higher power, I am not assured an afterlife, and I am not assured that my loved ones continue in any meaningful way beyond death. It is my opinion based on observation that few humans alive today can live well and happily with those uncertainties left un-answered.
So, much as I despise the irrational insanity of the masses, I must acknowledge the need for a social framework for most people. I just wish more were able to realize that the religion they belong to is a human invention, and that humans daily perform the miracles of kindness, aid, support and comfort. Not a god, just people, doing Santa's job and delivering the toys. Christmas still comes, every year, and all due to people, human beings, not some mythical Zeuss.
I was struck by a line in the movie 'Contact' based on a Sagan novel. When asked what her beliefs were regarding god, the protaganist answers that as a scientist she does not believe in a god. The questioner then points out that ninety-five percent of people believe in a higher power. "Why would we want to send as our representative someone who thinks 95% of us are crazy?" Why indeed?
I was raised attending church regularly until I was 12, when I had progressed enough in the sciences to renounce my faith and religion, and acknowledge it for what it was: An excuse for why things happen the way they do. My early education in physics and quantum wave-form collapse put the final nail in the coffin. It is not possible to hold conflicting viewpoints without a great degree of rationalization. So I'll continue to live in the world I see as 95% irrational, and struggle to impart my perceptions to those less well educated. To those of you who truly believe, I do not wish to destroy your perception of why things happen the way they do. But I do want you to stop proselytizing to children and others not of your faith, as it's detrimental to the forward growth and progress of our race as a whole. When only 5% of all humans still believe in a god, maybe by then we will be ready to join a greater civilization of galactic proportions.
SYRINX
Something I rarely see addressed these days is looking at The Bible and The Koran and other holy texts as media...
The bible is a piece of media, nothing more. I do not say that to insult, but to illuminate. Religion and faith are powerful social structures that give a great deal of comfort to people around the world. Yes, they also cause harm to many people, but I believe that is not the religions doing the harm as much as it is the fundamentalist followers of said religions.
I went to Catholic school, and I was taught by the NUNS at the school that the old testament was full of stories and parables, not that the bible is the infallible word of God, so it is always funny to me to see so many born-against thump their bibles as if it is recorded history written by Jesus himself. That is not the case, period.
The bible is a collected work of media, fiction to be quite honest. All religious texts are simply media. Non-fundamentalists put themselves at a huge disadvantage by engaging zealots on even ground when it comes to discussing religion. People who want to treat their holy books as singular truths should be quickly explained that is not an acceptable position to hold. It is a verifiably false concept, and I believe that is a huge point.
If I walked around with the plays of Shakespeare and preached them to people as fact, I would not be treated seriously. If I wanted to discuss them as plays that are profound and which have shaped my life and culture, I would be welcome at any bookstore in the country - but Hamlet as historical record, nobody is buying that. Why do we let people on the news and television discuss their religious texts in such a way. You could ask the Pope himself and he would tell you that the Bible is a collected and edited text, not hand delivered by Jesus himself, but a piece of media.
If we were to make that the foundation of more discussions of religion with religious fundamentalists, I think they would turn out differently. Zealots are dangerous, and should not be treated as rational people, no matter how much it helps the ratings or magazine sales. It is the media (more media issues) that talks to these people like they might have a leg to stand on which is the real problem.
Pat Robertson and his kind should be patted on the head and asked to be quiet while the grown-ups have a conversation. We have much bigger problems in the world than arguing about The Rapture, or some other bit of fiction that isn't even IN the bible, which isn't even a factual book.
Come on, people! Let's stop letting misguided people take the lead in the debate, using their own believes as the basis for reality, when, in fact, they haven't a leg to stand on.
The Truth is that there is only One God. Nobody has the right to think that they can make God whoever they want. He is omipresent, all-knowing, all-powerful... You CANNOT even comprehend all of who He is. Nobody ever could. That's why they made images that they could understand, which is why they are trying to say they know who God is.
Nobody has the "right" to force anything on anyone, but everyone has a right to talk about what is in their heart. Nobody can force "Christianity" on anyone because it has to be a willing and conscience choice to turn to God. Nobody can just slip by God. HE KNOWS ALL. You have a conscience. It's a gift. It helps us to make right decisions. It also helps us avoid bad involvement with certain things we know we shouldn't do. Your conscience, made by God, has been trying to get you to understand since your first breath there has been more to life than this world alone.
Some specific people on here would think i'm a fanatic, and in some ways i am. I believe STRONGLY about everything i have discussed, but for the most part i'm not a "fanatic"... i'm just passionate.
In a successful family, there is unity. Unity does not mean that everyone dresses the same way, or eats the same foods, or that each member does not have individuality as far as choices. However, for the family to have peace and harmony they must look to ONE moral code. Now, if the family has a moral code that dictates its ok for "sally" to stab her sister "mary", then what is the eventuality of that family? Clearly, it is survival of the fittest. Anarchy would eventually reign, OR the family would have to come to the conclusion that their moral code is deficient somehow. What do we see when we look around the world today. Disunity. One country in opposition to another, neighbors killing neighbors within countries, and now we are down to parents killing children, and it goes on an on. The truth is Unity. The moral code has to be from a source other than our own imperfect selves. The inability to see this is a sad consequence of missuse of power. The Bible clearly points toward those who would be "sighing and groaning over the detestable things" on the earth today. Humbly, we need to accept the teachinigs of the Bible.
"if we're gonna talk about religion, then let me tell you the truth. No offense to anyone else, but i would rather have someone tell me the TRUTH and be uncomfortable than live a comfortable life in lies." - Sharaya
A conversation has more than one side, this is not possible with the views as quoted above, here conversation is confused with preaching.
If one side is viewed as the TRUTH and everything else as lies, without reason there cannot be an exchange of ideas.
How to accommodate religious claims to truth in a pluralistic and democratic society is one of the most important issues facing our country, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Much of the discussion thus far addresses the issue from the "outside" of the specific religions, offering a kind of philosophical perspective, and that is useful. But the religious people who are advocating their own views of truth, thus raising the question in the first place, don't think that way. They draw their conception of truth from the religious tradition, not from some external philosophical or political standpoint. If theirs is a circular approach, it still can be addressed because each religious tradition carries within it both a justification for absolutism ("we alone have the full truth") and for pluralism ("we all 'see through a glass darkly' and thus need to learn from one another"). Establishing and sustaining effective toleration in a pluralistic democracy depends on developing within each religion that tradition's own theological grounds for valuing pluralism. Christianity--whose right wing advocates are raising for us the issue under discussion--has a long and effective theological tradition that supports toleration. In fact it has at least two of them: One is the recognition that we are all limited in knowledge and always, therefore, looking at the world in inadequate ways ("seeing through a glass darkly"), which is derivative from its doctrine of sin. The other is the doctrine of creation, which entails that all religions and cultures bear some imprint of God's creative grace and thus have some knowledge of the divine to share with the rest of us. In this country the development and articulation of specifically Christian reasons, such as these, for practicing genuine tolerance (which is more than putting up with someone in the hopes of converting them) is essential if we are to get past the religious absolutism in our society. And this means, of course, that it is the adherents of these religious traditions who must go to work to develop and articulate persuasively their own theological resources for the practice of tolerance. In a pluralistic society there must be many approaches to the defense of tolerance, many though not all of them religious.
"The Truth is that there is only One God. Nobody has the right to think that they can make God whoever they want."
I have the right to think whatever I damn well please, Thank you very much.
And you are right I do think you are a fanatic.
That dude above me's love is hard to understand.
Religion is a tool, it gives weak people comfort and allows the weak to feel better about being dominated by the strong.
It is also a tool that can be used to exploit, and rightly so. I think the Republicans were ingenious for using the religious right to beef up the votes. Although it does sicken me that so many people can be so stupid and follow so blindly, in the long run, its better for people like me who can use their ignorance for my gain. I'm starting a religious book company, interfaith press. As long as people remain sheep, weirdos like me will be in the position to become a shepard. I don't think that is what any of us want.
Social Services should take Susan's children away, its in their best interest.
In negotiating one starts with commonalities, the points where the parties are in agreement, then the discussion slowly proceeds to the talking points where opinions and values diverge. On a purely intellectual level one could find points of agreement between Pat Robertson and an Hamas terrorist, between George Bush and Nancy Pelosi, between Karl Marx and Milton Friedman.
The most difficult steps of the process are getting the parties to the table, finding a common language, and having them listen to the other side. Any one who has ever observed parents and teenagers can understand this . . .
If someone blindly believes that they know the truth and the truth allows no other interpretation ("This is the only Bible"), one could get them to the discussion, but I doubt that they would open their hearts and their minds really to listen to any other opinion.
This is the saddest and scariest attribute of the people in power from the far right faction of the Republican Party, and of the people advocating for the far left.
I'm glad to see so many great comments critical of religious faith. IT'S ABOUT TIME!! Each religion has its own holy book that the believers claim is, literally, the Word of God. Unfortunately we have many, incompatable versions of such books. They cannot all be correct in their claim. It is my opinion that none of them are. Imagine a world in which generations of humans come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendents murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows. Could anything, ANYTHING, be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in right now.
Some lines in my comment came from Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason." Also a great read is Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" Check them out.
"Faith = Belief without proof.
Atheism, Humanism, Free-Thinking = the demand for proof before belief."
This is the type of inflammatory rhetoric that serves to divide us and undermine any attempts at understanding. It is also the reason many believers feel that our society is becoming openly hostile to religion.
To understand individuals who are deeply committed to their religion, you must understand that they are convinced that they have proof that the key tenets of their faith are true. You may disagree with the value they place on the evidence (e.g., question the reliability of the documents they rely on, the veracity of the writers, the compentence of the witnesses involved) and with their reasoning (e.g., the internal consistency of their beliefs, the consistency with other things you believe to be true) - but they are convinced that they have good and sufficient support for what they believe.
Non-believers often misunderstand the concept of "faith." For a Christian, Muslim or Jew it does not mean that you simply pick something to believe - without evidence - because it's personally satisfying, and then run with it. Too much time and energy has been placed into the intellectual defence of those faiths for that charicature to pass the laugh test. Members of all three faiths believe there is sufficient evidence to logically prove the existance of God, and to validate the inspiration of their key scriptures.
For believers, faith comes in once you've demonstrated who God is and what he says. If you get to that point, the question becomes "do you trust him, and are you willing to live the he wants you to live?" If the answer is "yes," that's faith in the sense used by the Abrahamic religions. But the difference between believers and non-believers is not whether evidence is required - it's a matter of whether the evidence is sufficient and convincing.
If you tell a Christian, Muslim or Jew who has thought deeply and seriously about his faith that he's a gullible fool who thinks "faith means belief without proof" is insulting - and will convince him of nothing but your arrogance and prejudice. If you ask him why he believes, what things he has had doubts about, and how he resolved those doubts (if he has) - then you can start a meaningful dialogue. Ask him what things he doesn't understand about life and faith - and tell him the things you wonder about. Share with him your experiences with religious people and organizations - and what led you to the beliefs you have.
But if you enter the conversation viewing yourself as bringing light and civilization to the benighted heathen, then don't bother to open your mouth - you'll just be part of the problem.
I'm glad that talking about religion is no longer taboo. When I was in high school, I was teased about praying before I ate lunch. It got to the point where I thought "It's not worth it to do this." That was seven years ago. This spring I watched the Passion of the Christ, and I would like to thank Mel Gibson for showing me the error of my ways. Since I saw it, I have been in church almost every Sunday, and now I wonder what I would have done without God in my life right now.
I do not agree with some of the religions that are out there, but the thing that makes this country great is that there is room for all religions, and all faiths. The only thing most people know about the Muslims is that the extremists are giving that religion a bad name. If you don't understand a religion, I belive that you don't have the right to critisize it. I belive that the terrorists are evil and should be eliminated. I don't belive that war is the answer to every problem, and I dream of peace in the world, but if you read Revelations, you will find that there will only be three and a half years of peace on earth.
Thank you for allowing me to share this, and God be with you.
James, Your comments sicken me, how can you let something as important as your mind be molded by someone like mel gibson, all he did was make a snuff film of a fictitious man. How many other people have suffered worse more terrifying and horrible deaths... Millions I"m sure. And further more you are insane to believe anything in revelations, those kids were right to make fun of you.
I know this is harsh, but wake up man, wake the hell up.
When I was in eighth grade at a Catholic school our religion teacher, a very humble, intelligent assistant pastor, commented that: "Remember God is love. If you want to know what God thinks is important, look for the commonalities between religions. Love God, and love all other people as yourselves. If you want to know what has caused most of the bloodshed throughout history, look at the differences between religions." I tried to talk to a co-worker (who is very involved with his church) on this topic, but he explained I was wrong because he was so much better versed on the Bible and therefore we could not have a discussion until I also knew the Bible. I suspect a devout Muslim would also decline discussion based on my ignorance as well.
Yet, if God is loving, would he not keep it simple? Jesus said the two great commandments are "Love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." Three elements: Love God, love yourself, and love your neighbor to the same extent. So, logically, if someone states that he hates another person, wouldn't if follow that you are then required by God to hate yourself?
So, do we need organized religion? Expensive buildings, hundreds of thousands of "experts" who expound on why their beliefs are the best truth? "By their actions you will know them" Jesus stated to describe good men. How much better off would Earth be if we'd plowed all that money into schools and hospitals? Instead we have sacred buildings and well-paid preachers who, intentionally or not, continue to stress the differences between men, instead of celebrating their brotherhood and promoting the advance of all mankind.
SYRINX, Your story is very similar to mine, Very good post.
Hi James,
Interesting how Mel Gibson's film helped you to find GOD, how about reading Richard Dawkin's book 'The God Delusion' hopefully it will help you to 'lose' GOD.
I write this not to ridicule you or even to critise you, I'm just a humble atheist trying to save your mind. Please give logic a chance....
To Syrinx,
I second Dennis' sentiments, Very Good Post, most welcome.
God's Truth naturally resonates with God's inclusive and exclusive nature: "I am God and there is none else." The problem comes as we bring this infinite idea into the human dimension - where its aberation becomes my side is right and you all are wrong. The challenge of inter-faith discussion is when we come to appreciate the intelligence, devoutness and sincerity of others, we are compelled to gradually lift up our sense of spiritual inclusiveness, to embrace more and more of God's children in love. Then we are gradually weaned away from our human theologies into the purity of love for God and man, until there is nothing left of us but angels.
I'm struggling here. It's clear that there are many people posting who are thoroughgoing atheists, and do not believe in any religion. There are a few who are believers in a variety of different faiths.
The majority who have no religious beliefs (the majority in this conversation, but if the polls are correct, the minority in the U.S.) appear to be making no attempt to engage the few believers who are trying to participate.
Why is that?
Many of the posts suggest that the atheists in this group honestly think that any form of rational conversation with a Christian, Muslim or Jew is impossible. Do we really believe this? Even though millions of us go to school with, go to work with, and do everyday business with believers every day?
Help me, guys - do you really just want to talk among yourselves about how dumb believers are? Is that your idea of a meaningful public conversation about faith?
Please think about the effect on society if we all take that approach. Believers will hear nothing from non-believers but hostile statements attacking their intelligence, motives and most deeply held beliefs and values. How would you expect them to react? Will that benefit, or harm, our society and political processes?
Dialogue and debate are both different from choral performances.
First, I thank Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn for establishing ON FAITH as a forum for religious and spiritual dialogue. I believe the members of the world's temples, mosques and churches ought not to be afraid to discuss their beliefs and to extend their friendship to any and all visitors to their places of worship. These places need to be different than the surrounding culture. If they are not different, people might as well join social clubs.
In August 1993 I took advantage of the opportunity to go to work for a small Christian book store that called itself charismatic. Fortunately our customers ranged from fundamentalists through evangelicals to liberal
Christians, Jewish and Muslim people.
Our emotional insecurities drive us deep into our heads for comfort. The elicited visions, musings, beliefs, desires and fears are unique to each of us. But do they exist in the real world - the physical, or just in the imagination?
History suggests we are just another version of those in the past who made up of beings and wove fanciful stories from which we took emotional satisfaction. Why would we think that those of today are any more genuine?
I begrudge no person his/her religion. I only ask that it remain just that - THEIR faith - understanding that inflicting it on others has been one of the primary reasons for strife in the history of Man.
Republicans, such as myself, aren't using our beliefs to "get more votes" on our side. We ask people for help and to pray. In case you haven't noticed, our world is screwed without God. There are so many issues that we need God's intervention with. I tried discussing earlier those issues that you are trying to tell me are just tactics for our "wanting to be in control of everything".
"If one side is viewed as the TRUTH and everything else as lies, without reason there cannot be an exchange of ideas."
Well, Thank You Davin. You're basically telling me that my ideas that i believe are true (that i know are true) are not allowed to be discussed because i labelled it as just that. Yet, i believe what alot of people are saying on here aren't completely accurate and you can discuss that. I say what i know is true because i can't sit back and say nothing. Too many people don't say anything. I'm *not* sorry i'm like that, but i am sorry that you feel that harshly about it. Please don't ridicule ME when i'm just expressing what I know to be true, whether you believe me or not.
I find it unbelievable that someone... anyone really... would even think to say that someone should have their CHILDREN taken away from them, just because they believe in the BIBLE.
The BIBLE isn't fiction. It's the most respected book ever written and is still "best seller" in the world. The BIBLE of course was not written directly by Jesus, but God selected certain people whom he could trust to accurately write what he said. That is why The BIBLE is God's word. It IS what he said, whether it was directly written by His Son or not.
As we all know, Science cannot explain everything. God doesn't want us to be able to explain EVERYTHING. Some things are just simply unexplainable. It was meant to be that way. That's where faith comes in and helps us to believe the unexplainable. You don't need proof of something to believe it. You can believe it before you see the miracles and wonders of God, or realize them anyway. They are everywhere. People, Nature, Science, Love, etc. are all wonders of God. Gifts given to express his love and who he is.
Dear Believer,
You make a valid point, the thread is about conversation, go ahead start up meaningful dialogue, we'll back you up if necessary.
Go for it.
Sharaya has effectively summed up the entire discussion with this telling sentence:
"You don't need proof of something to believe it."
I am a firm believer that organized religion of any kind breeds intolerance, hatred, and ignorance. My experiences with many religions around the world has shown me that those who believe they have the monopoly on truth are the most freightening people on the planet. Those who believe they have all of the answers are quick to judge or chastise those who would dare to think independently. Organizaed religion and those who fall under its spell are at the core of the worlds problems today. As a non-religious person I feel it is my responsibility not to tell others what they should or should not believe, while I am exposed on a daily basis to the prosthelatizing practices of my colleagues and more vehemit family members. Those who feel they know all are incapable of reason, logic, and seeing that other people are beings of value and independent mind that should have the freedom to choose for themselves without being scourged by evangelism or other radically fundamentalist religio-types.
I have come to understand that God=Love that we are not humans trying to be spiritual, but rather spiritual beings trying to be human. I believe we are much bigger than what we are on this earth, that we come here for our soul growth, that we have been here many times before and we live to learn and pay our karmic debt. I believe in the Universal law of cause and effect, and taking personal responsibility for "everything" that happens in my life. I do not wish to seek out any one religion to follow, as I feel religions often seek power and control. There is (in my opinion) not one road that leads to God. But mostly I believe that the only ones that are wrong are the ones that believe theirs is the "only" way to heaven, it is a very selfrighteous attitude.
I also believe that in the end I may be completely wrong, and that is fine with me, I do not try to get anyone to believe in what I believe in. I believe in loving one another, forgiveness, brotherly love, non judgement. I believe war can "never" create peace. I believe in doing unto others as you would wish them doing unto you. I believe in respecting one another despite our differences and I believe the only way to peace is through establishing inner peace first.
I don't believe anyone here on earth can "claim" to know the answer right now, it does not matter who is right, but who lives and loves well. Therefore we should be less focussed on the splinter in our brothers eye but focus on the log in our own, because I also believe that the only one who may cast the first stone is the one without sin, so if we would be willing to work more ourselves rather than trying to safe the whole world there would be a lot less fighting.
I think faith is necessary as we know the universe as it is like and then got to know that nothing come to existence by chance. Anybody else created it and this being might be a supernatural power which some name it God or any other name. But the problem of faith is that people alter the commendments of the books of their faith, saying that they had been revealed something new ant arrange the doctrine according to their own thoughts, crating new rules, principles or even laws to assure their rights or even to impose obligations to someone else. I call this "religion" and to me religions is the biggest problem of the world which causes war, divisions, conflicts and all kinds of troubles you name. I think people should believe in God (as they name him), have good behavior and citizenship and that's all! Saying good bye to religion.
Dear Sharaya,
I apologise for ridiculing you, but you make such sweeping statements without proof and profess that it is the TRUTH thereby ruling out discussion or debate.
Science cannot explain everything, we are still learning and science is making new discoveries everyday, these discoveries are made using scientific method and are subjectable to examination of the evidence, your 'truths' aren't. You just can't know something to be true, knowledge doesn't work that way.
As to the Bible being the word of GOD, maybe you should research the history of the Bible a bit, how it came about etc, the involvement of Emperor Constatine et al, the divinity of Christ and the divisions of Christianity of the time.
"Some things are just simply unexplainable. It was meant to be that way." - if you could provide some details that would be nice.
And stop bending my words, I never asserted that your ideas are true, that's as far from the truth as you can possibly get.
"In case you haven't noticed, our world is screwed without God." don't really understand what you mean by this, if God exists when wasn't he around?
On more thing if you believe in something that is not enough to make it true, I know it's a republican creed that if you lie enough and frequently people will believe you but that doesn't make it true, case in point Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
In my view, "common ground" is only possible if all religious doctrines give up their claims to literal truth. Those doctrines try to define the world for people, interfering with science and rationality. when doctrines concern themselves solely with the purpose of life, instead of imposing a certain view of the world on beleivers, then we can start talking about "common ground."
To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, all religions are true in the metaphorical sense and false in the literal sense. Religious myths are metaphors designed to teach certain concepts and lessons. Here is Campbell: "The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu."
One last comment to Believer:
No, we non-believers do not scorn you, nor wish you ill. We have no "Truth" with which to inform or inflict on you. We do not engage you in meaningful conversation or debate of faith, because we have no agenda. We have no right to impose our views on you any more than religious folk have to impose their views on others. It's impolite.
How many atheists have come to your door this year to imply that their version of immortality was correct and yours not? How many wars have been started by groups arguing over whose version of atheism was the true one?
We only desire that we be left alone, that we not be subjected to the alleged dictates of someone else's invisible being.
We also recognize that you may be correct - I do not have Absolute Truth, . . but I do not seek to change your personal beliefs, only to ask for exclusion from the influence of your religion.
How many more readers do want to loose with this god BS. Meacham Newsweek is for News, keep your god junk in your church or whatever.
David:
The question before us is:
"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"
I don't care what the person in your example thinks he's doing to make himself feel better and sustain his "monopoly on truth", I'm not interested in seeking conversation and common ground with that individual. I don't care what else he thinks. I don't want to inform him, and I certainly don't want to be informed by him. There are no difficulties or benefits to such a conversation.
I'm simply responding to the question before us.
David :
Bob:
If a person believes that he has a monopoly on truth, and that one of those truths is that abortion is murder, it does not preclude him from thinking rationally about how to reduce the number of abortions that occur. Reducing the number of abortions *does* serve that person, because he is - in his own view - helping to prevent murders from occurring.
I hope that clarifies my point.
November 15, 2006 2:41 PM
Dear George Kamburoff,
I used to agree with you points as stated to believer, but don't you think your only wish to "be excluded from the influence of you religion" is a big ask?
If we could be excluded, then there would be no problem nor debate as to the effects of religion, unfortunately this is not the case, for too long religions pervasivness has been allowed to dominate by polite society, the effect of religion is far reaching, Sam Harris makes some valid and scary points, maybe it's time for non-believers to stop allowing the progress of mankind to be handicapped by the religious zealots. It may be impolite but it's not murder.
I'd like to suggest a couple of avenues for discussion. Let's start with Christianity, because it's what I'm most familiar with.
1) The core claims of Christianity, as traditionally understood, are based on events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. These are taken, by believers, to be historical events that actually happened (setting aside, for now, some more modern liberal interpretations). The most important of these events is his resurrection from the dead.
2) A huge structure of theology is placed on these events in the life of Jesus (as well as what he said). But ultimately, in the traditional view, all of the theology depends on the events having actually occured.
3) The primary evidence Christians depend on for Jesus' life and resurrection are the accounts in the New Testament, which are believed by most Christians to represent eye-witness accounts written within decades of his death. (There is also some non-biblical evidence for the fact that Jesus lived, and for the beliefs and practices of his earliest believers.)
4) Most non-Christians part company with Christians not over whether Jesus actually lived, or even if he taught good ideas, but whether he rose from the dead. Most Christians will admit that if he did not, their religion makes no sense. I suspect that many non-believers would admit that, if they were to become convinced that Jesus did rise from the dead, they'd have to reconsider the claims of Christianity.
5) Ultimately then, we get to a question of fact. It's a historical issue, rather than a scientific one, so the evidence we are looking at is more akin to that we would use to study the life of Napolean than that we would use to study nuclear fusion. I hate to say it, but it's likely also going to be a "preponderance of the evidence" question - as you often get in history, philosphy or political science - rather than a "let's run that experiment one more time" question.
6) Non-believers don't believe, because they've looked at the evidence and said, in essence, "that's bogus" for one or more reasons. Perhaps the most common reason is that they think the claim is simply impossible, because we don't see any other resurrections. The other most common reason is that they don't judge the New Testament accounts to be reliable. Scholarly opinion is all over the map on the reliability of the texts, and has shifted over time. Not surprisingly, the scholars who view the texts as reliable also tend to be believers, and those who do not tend to be non-believers (or rather liberal believers who do not see the truth-claims of Christianity as important, which personally makes no sense to me - if it's not true, why bother?).
This is, of course, an oversimplification, and ignores a great deal of arguments for and against the Christian faith. But can we get some dialogue going by:
a) As non-believers, trying to understand what believers see as supporting their faith, and why they find it convincing?
b) As believers, trying to understand how a non-believer could look at what we see, and walk away unconvinced?
c) Talking about what the key questions are - for instance, is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth determinative for Christianity? In other words, if it didn't happen, do we have to reject Christianity, and if it did in fact happen, do we have to accept some form of it?
d) Talking about what evidence we think is relevant to the question - and whether we can agree on some of it (what the evidence is, not necessarily what it means)?
I have thought about how to reconcile the debate between the religious and the non-religous, and I don't have many conclusions short of everyone eating psychedelics and sweatlodging together.
Someone earlier asked how such a fractious debate could benefit society if both camps are fervently opposed to anything the others have to say. But if the religious people think that this is argument that can be sustained and not simply seen as drivel, I don't think there is anyway to avoid irreconcilable clashes.
"Some things are just simply unexplainable. It was meant to be that way."
Above is why us atheists should keep our mouths shut, run for office, start a business, realize that there is a huge profit to be made off of exploiting people's beliefs. Morally I don't see that there is nothing wrong with this because most religious people have barely questioned what they are taught, which is socially irresponsbile, so technically they have chosen to be exploitable.
I have thought about how to reconcile the debate between the religious and the non-religous, and I don't have many conclusions short of everyone eating psychedelics and sweatlodging together.
Someone earlier asked how such a fractious debate could benefit society if both camps are fervently opposed to anything the others have to say. But if the religious people think that this is argument that can be sustained and not simply seen as drivel, I don't think there is anyway to avoid irreconcilable clashes.
"Some things are just simply unexplainable. It was meant to be that way."
Above is why us atheists should keep our mouths shut, run for office, start a business, realize that there is a huge profit to be made off of exploiting people's beliefs. Morally I don't see that there is nothing wrong with this because most religious people have barely questioned what they are taught, which is socially irresponsbile, so technically they have chosen to be exploitable.
To Believer:
The points you raise centre around Christianity, the discussion is on religion not an attack on Christianity, there is only really one question, the answer to which makes all the other questions irrelevant namely, Does God Exist?
IMHO not very likely, as close to NO as you can get, but I reserve the right to be wrong (I have an open mind based on scientific method).
SupremeOne,
You make me sad and I pray for you.
I touch my toes and thumb my nose at the devil, Gods love is radiant and shall overcome the doubt in the non-believers mind. Submit to the love of the Lord and you will find everlasting peace and virtue.
At the right had of the father sitteth the son and on the left the ghost and in front of them there is a table with steaming pot rost.
The virgin Mary is there, Jospeh and the wise me too, angels sing them songs and polish their heavenly boots.
The chorus sings and the harps do play, you can be sure that there are no gays,
Except for the jester tried and true, he's a queer, but he sure is funny.
JP said: "People with strong opinions, who display a degree of intolerance, cannot and should not be part of an open discussion like this one. The Goal is to find common ground in our humanity."
I agree with the last part. The first part begs the question.
The whole point of the question has to do with how to find common ground between "people with strong opinions, who display a degree of intolerance" -- or, people who "believe they have a monopoly on truth." Furthermore, most people have strong opinions -- especially religious people, I think that's self-evident.
The problem is not "how can those of us who already get along continue to get along"; it's "how can the extremists/zealots/fanatics be reached?".
And, related to that, if you believe that faith is virtuous, on what basis can you even try to "reach" someone whose faith (for example) tells him that he must kill all the infidels?
But I do share your sentiment. And unfortunately, the sad/hilarious irony of posting self-assured, self-righteous and intolerant comments in response to a question about tolerance and common ground, is lost on those commenters.
"How many atheists have come to your door this year to imply that their version of immortality was correct and yours not? How many wars have been started by groups arguing over whose version of atheism was the true one?"
Hey, I've never knocked on your door - I don't do that! ;-)
I'd challenge one of your assumptions, though. Yes, evil men have used religion for their own evil purposes. But atheists don't have clean hands either. If we want to count corpses, you'll need to claim Stalin and Pol Pot. Stacking up deaths isn't going to leave any group of people looking really good (except perhaps the Amish and the Buddhists).
I'd also push back a bit on the idea that religion should not be "pushed." We talk about all sorts of things in this country: animal rights, smoking, income redistribution, economic growth through tax cuts, abortion rights, socialism, vegetarianism, etc. The discussion often falls far below Socratic standards - regardless of the topic.
Right or wrong, the claims of religion are important. We should talk about them - and your point of view is important. Sure - you have every right not to join in the debate. But Buddhists, Hindus and Christians have as much right to approach you with their message as does the local anti-smoking advocates. Handle them the same way you do the local Congressional candidate from the other political party - politely decline and shut the door.
One last comment:
Throughout the short history of Man, we have had many gods. Those existing contemporaneously usually found ways to coexist in many societies of the past, but monotheism seems to have ended that accomodation.
Since we have repeatedly failed to respect each other, perhaps it is time for a new approach.
To save Mankind I suggest the world adopt what I would call The Universal Commandment:
KEEP YOUR GOD TO YOURSELF
i have recently come to a broader understanding of religion and God. I was very much an active member of a religion that thought without a doubt that they in fact are the true religion, God's organization here on earth. With just a couple of hours of research the very foundations of my faith turned to dust. But then I look at all the other organized religions and could not bring myself to participate fully in what they dish out either. My conclusion is that there are good and bad people in every religion. That there can be a common thred if people would just open their minds a little. There are always going to be differences in every persons thinking but these differences should be embraced not judged.
Dear Believer,
I'm very happy for you and your faith. I think that you should celebrate it anyway you want except in public. At first I was truly offended
when the "evangelistas" would visit themselves upon me (at work, in parking lots, at the grocery, on my door step, etc.)now I'm annoyed and repelled. My faith is my business. Your faith is yours. If I don't ask you a specific question about it, don't bring it up. The concept of "witnessing" is rude and socially unacceptable behavior in every situation but a church service or a revival. I live in Tulsa, OK. a city with more non-denominational, evangelical churches than convenience stores. In this neck of the woods, the second question a new acquaintace will ask after your name is: " What church do you belong to?" A rude apropos of nothing, none of your business question. It has become all I can do to not be rude back to these people. I'm always amazed when I read somehwere that evangelical christians feel like they are under attack. If they are ( which I do not believe is true) then it's because people get sick of their "in your face" attitude about their rightiousness. I have come to learn a hard and fast rule. Never do business with a person or a company that puts a fishy in their logo or on their business card. If they think they need that to convince me that they are honest, they probably are not.
"The points you raise centre around Christianity, the discussion is on religion not an attack on Christianity, there is only really one question, the answer to which makes all the other questions irrelevant namely, Does God Exist?"
Yes, because that's what I know best. But more importantly, because it illustrates the type of evidence most believers rely on, and that most non-believers see as totally non-credible. The credibility of the New Testament accounts is central for Christians; the credibility of the Quran is central for Muslims. We can't talk intelligently if we don't engage on the issue of "what's the evidence."
"IMHO not very likely, as close to NO as you can get, but I reserve the right to be wrong (I have an open mind based on scientific method)."
Well, yeah - that's where we disagree. You mention the scientific method. I'd like to suggest that philosophy should be considered as well as the physical sciences. IMHO religion deals with questions that can be framed meaningfully in terms of philosphy, but not in terms of the sciences. In my experience, this seems to be a key issue where discussion often breaks down. Dialogue between a believer and a non-believer who accepts only the scientific method as a valid source of knowledge generally goes nowhere. Dialogue between a believer and a non-believer who accepts philosphy as a valid way of seeking knowledge tends to be much more interesting and useful. They may not agree, but they can frame the key existential questions in ways that make sense to both.
Although there are quite a few people today who are convinced that their way of faith is the way, this view has become increasingly difficult to sustain after the advent of anthropology, psychology, international travel by air, and other developments. It takes imagination and empathy to understand a religious point of view which is not one's own from the inside, without distortion and caricature. And we all know of those who have no time for religion because of the many deplorable things done in its name.
"KEEP YOUR GOD TO YOURSELF"
Along those lines, how about:
KEEP YOUR VEGETARIANISM TO YOURSELF
or
KEEP YOUR SOCIALISM TO YOURSELF
or
KEEP YOUR FEMINISM TO YOURSELF
or
KEEP YOUR EXISTENTIALISM TO YOURSELF
or
KEEP YOUR ANIMAL RIGHTS TO YOURSELF
or
KEEP YOUR DISABILITY RIGHTS TO YOURSELF
or
KEEP YOUR ANTI-SMOKING MESSAGE TO YOURSELF
or
KEEP YOUR ENVIRONMENTALISM TO YOURSELF
or
well, you get the idea.
(And don't kick back and say "but, those things affect other people too." All the moral messages of the world's great religions affect other people as well - as does the assertion that there is no absolute moral standard.)
Why do people believe that God is just a God of words? Some people believe that this world will NEVER come to a end. The things happening in this world now should let you know that the end-times is here now. Things are just around the corner,and people want things done in the way of their religion only!!!!! God is the God of us all that have "Faith,Hope,Trust" in HIM at all times. Nobody can JUDGE each religion,but read the word of God,and believe He is the LORD of us all that have the TRUST in him. We must trust each word in the Bible that was written.
i have recently come to a broader understanding of religion and God. I was very much an active member of a religion that thought without a doubt that they in fact are the true religion, God's organization here on earth. With just a couple of hours of research the very foundations of my faith turned to dust. But then I look at all the other organized religions and could not bring myself to participate fully in what they dish out either. My conclusion is that there are good and bad people in every religion. That there can be a common thred if people would just open their minds a little. There are always going to be differences in every persons thinking but these differences should be embraced not judged.
Why do people believe that God is just a God of words? Some people believe that this world will NEVER come to a end. The things happening in this world now should let you know that the end-times is here now. Things are just around the corner,and people want things done in the way of their religion only!!!!! God is the God of us all that have "Faith,Hope,Trust" in HIM at all times. Nobody can JUDGE each religion,but read the word of God,and believe He is the LORD of us all that have the TRUST in him. We must trust each word in the Bible that was written.
"The concept of "witnessing" is rude and socially unacceptable behavior in every situation but a church service or a revival."
Well, yeah - if you just walk up to someone and dump it on them. But so is political canvasing, telemarketing, and aggressively pushing a variety of social causes from smoking bans to vegetarianism ("do you know what that DOES to your BODY?"). It also doesn't work very well. Those are two of the primary reasons I don't do it. Just as with anything else, discussions about important topics are best limited to people you already have a relationship with and who are open to talking to you about it. Unfortunately, it seems that people inevitably become rude when they find a message that they believer is vitally important, whether that be political, religious, or social.
"I have come to learn a hard and fast rule. Never do business with a person or a company that puts a fishy in their logo or on their business card."
That's certainly your privilage. There are people I don't do business with either. I used to work for a large insurance company that provided group health plans. We made a conscious decision with the printed materials for each group, whether or not to include the little logo showing that it was printed in a union print shop. Guess how we decided? Depending on whether or not the client was a union, or had unionized employees.
I suspect you'll find that most business people who advertise with Christian sybolism do so not to demonstrate to you that they're honest, but to appeal to a Christian market segment. Some Christians like to do business with co-religionists. Sure - part of that is that they assume people who share their moral values are less likely to cheat them. But bottom line, it's more of a secret handshake between insiders than any attempt to say "yeah, I'm honest . . . that's the ticket . . . honest I am . . ."
"It takes imagination and empathy to understand a religious point of view which is not one's own from the inside, without distortion and caricature."
Amen to that. And it's true of any world view - religious or not.
All of this talk of god and government scares me. Even more so with the election of Bush and his faith based connections. Religion has absolutley no place in politics. This great country was formed largely due to reactions to religous persecution and unfair taxation. Our constitution ensures that we maintain levels of personal freedoms that promote the right to worship as our conscious dictates. This is as far as relgion should permeate the rank and file of governing bodies.
I personally do not subscribe to any sect of formal religion. I do have very deep and personal beleifs about "God" that differ greatly when compared to the average American. I am not so naive to think that that there is only one "right" religion or faith. Civilization has manufactured many dieties over the centuries. Literally millions have died supporting the doctrines of their faith. Without a doubt, the human race has developed a need to understand the meaining of their brief existence on this planet. Religion is a perfect answer to these universal questions. However, these answers are not objective. Much to the contrary, they are the result of cultural experiences that are very much subjective to regional interpretations and bias.This issue in itself should be more than enough to convince any logical individual that religion moves you further from the truth in providing answers to the universal questions that attempt to explain human existence.
Many doctrines are based solely on faith. How do you explain faith. It is not tangible. It is not something you can touch and feel and say "look at this" to a confused child. Consequently, it is left to ones imagination for a detailed explanation. Who accepts responsibility for this creation? Usually your immediate family. This is were the issue becomes so emotional. Faith is born of the bond between children and their care givers. This is the primary reason for the intense emotion that poses a perceived threat to ones well-being when religious views are criticized or demeaned. Based on historical events, the general population of many cultures take this very personal and link these attacks to anarchy and genocide (i.e. Hitler and the on going Middle East religious conflict).
Based on the influence and control religion has over it's following, church and state must always remain separate. While having faith can be a positive influence in ones personal life, providing a foundation for fair and equitable policy development, and subsequent subscription and enforcement, it should never become so interwoven with government policy that it allienates those that do not subscribe to the dominant christian faith. Our forefathers had enough insight to define the role of church and state in our constitution and bill of rights. We must trust and have "faith" that their direction and intent was motivated by the pursuit and support of the "God given right" to have the freedom to worship as our conscious dictates. There is no wrong religion. The real crime is to enlist the doctrine of your faith to discriminate against those that subscribe to a beleif that does not represent mainstream western Christian theology. Furthermore, passing judgement on those perceived as non believers, relegating them to "eternal damnation" or a life void of prosperity and good deeds, is not the doctrine of a loving God. Governemnt should not promote or show support of any religion that embraces separation, exclusion and unfounded superiority of the Christian faith. "One nation under God" The Christian God, Muslim God, Budhist God, etc. "One nation under God" as defined by your individual or collective faith.
Jim Frederick
Southeast Colorado (The mecca of judgemental Christians and hate mongers)
Why equate religion with faith? Isn't this just the presumption of protestant theology? This is like substituting New Testament for scripture.
Christianity is a bridge between religion and spirituality. Its very sad to many people never cross over the bridge to spirituality. When a human has found their spirituality then they can see the beauty in all things and don`t have to look at the fear that religion is based on.
"I am not so naive to think that that there is only one "right" religion or faith. Civilization has manufactured many dieties over the centuries. Literally millions have died supporting the doctrines of their faith. Without a doubt, the human race has developed a need to understand the meaining of their brief existence on this planet. Religion is a perfect answer to these universal questions. However, these answers are not objective. Much to the contrary, they are the result of cultural experiences that are very much subjective to regional interpretations and bias.This issue in itself should be more than enough to convince any logical individual that religion moves you further from the truth in providing answers to the universal questions that attempt to explain human existence."
This is a perfect illustration of a key divide among believers. More traditional understandings of most religions do, in fact, seek universal and objective truths about the nature of man and thee universe. Others see religion as a way in which we choose to see the universe, that is neither true nor false in any objective way. Those of us who are traditionalists see no point in the latter - if it's not telling us anything that's true, why bother? Better to read great literature while enjoying a good glass of wine and appropriate music.
That may be the key for traditional believers and non-believers to talk to each other. We do share a belief in the universal nature of truth.
Wouldn't the best place to start a discussion on Religion be to first recognize how difficult it seems to be to drop all of the hypocrisy put forth everywhere as stone-cut truth?
Look at us...how often do our actions match our oft-quoted words?
Wouldn't the best place to start a discussion on Religion be to first recognize how difficult it seems to be to drop all of the hypocrisy put forth everywhere as stone-cut truth?
Look at us...how often do our actions match our oft-quoted words?
Religion and faith are blinding tools which the leaders of societies use to keep the ordinary citizens in mental and psychological bondage. Humanity will not be truly free and self-aware and moral until these stinking fetters of bygone ages are rusted away for good. Every "holy" person is a sham and a tool of oppression and moral darkness.
I agree with Jamel. Mans creation of the concept of a god sets limits on who we can accept and love. The human heart really has no limit on what or who it allows us to accept and love. Love and understanding is all we really need in order to get along. Think about it.
I have always operated on the very firm and unshakable belief that all religions, of whatever source or practice, are the one true faith, and thus treat all faiths, of whatever source or practice, accordingly.
This makes tolerance automatic, and I recommend it to others.
Considering that the only ones who know the truth are those who have died, this strikes me as the only safe course.
Believer, I don't discount the possibility that there may be "universal and objective truths about the nature of man and the universe." My issue is that religious dogmas not only claim exclusive title to those truths, but they also use their truths to define people. According to that view, one is a good person only if one accepts the dogma, and one is a bad person if one believes something else. I see that as an attempt to control what people think and what people believe.
Men made the gods humans worship in their own image, propogated by the few to control the many. Consequently religion is akin to a computer virus or meme, if you prefer, whose self replication is disastrous to society as a whole. I could conceive that there could be an actual God, but I don't believe that mankind has the intellectual capacity to understand that entity, and anyone claiming to understand God or his will, is, I think, guilty of an enormous act of destructive hubris, not necesarily to themselves but to all other living things. That's why for me, agonostism is the only position that makes sense. If I put my faith in anything it is science, because science actually progresses towards improving life, although, I acknowledge with a few major missteps. It wasn't religion that developed polio vacine; it was science evolving thoough scientific memes. Religion is a tautlogy that attempts to stiffle enlightnment and the benefits of science and inevitably circles back to the proposition, X must kill Y because X has a different absolute belief than Y. Any comparitive religion course should have as required reading, the book, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, the foremost evolutionist and aethist. Thank you for reading--doug@arnoldnet.com
Oh like the MSM/DNC alliance on the truth? Like the NYT command of the truth? Like the "truth" we get on Iraq/WMD/terroist thugs? That "Truth"? Yes lets worry over religious folks outlook on truth....
Oh like the MSM/DNC alliance on the truth? Like the NYT command of the truth? Like the "truth" we get on Iraq/WMD/terroist thugs? That "Truth"? Yes lets worry over religious folks outlook on truth....
The question was
"If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible?"
I believe the answer to this question would be no. Unless either or are willing to accept there are religions other than their own, and that not one religion is right then the answer to this question is no. If one can accept it is ok for others to follow a different path or religious belief, and not hold their truths over the head of the other then yes the conversation is possible. If they can eccept the other persons truth as their own then it is possible. However, it is my experience as someone who is not Christian, that this is not possible because those who believe their truths to be true believe just that. They don't believe there is any other religion but their own and they don't believe there is any other truth but there own. We all believe in something different and one has to accept this fact before there can be true conversation about religion between two people.
My spirituality is Earth Based, ie I follow one of the oldest religions on this planet. I would never say my truth is truth, because it is the truth that I follow on MY path. The truth that a christian or muslim or other religious persons follow is their truth because that is the truth they follow on their path. Religious truth is different for everyone therefore there is no absolute truth in religion.
in response to the comment made by me, i wouldn't tell anyone what they should believe or how they should live. morality is different to different people and that's one the real problems with organized religion. yes, i said people should live by the Golden Rule, but that isnt' a commandment or a declaration by me. it's is a wishful thought, if you will. the difference between what i said and what radical religious groups say, is that they profess, encourage and demand that everyone follow them or else!
i believe in the Democratic process. our founding fathers understood that a free nation cannot be under the yoke of religion because by its very nature religion is not free. it dictates that you follow the tenets or you burn in hell, or don't reach nirvana or you don't get 40 virgins. but, i believe there is difference between believing in God and following the dogma of a specific religion. Jesus wasn't some right wing conservative having dinner with the Pharisees on saturday night. he was a radical! he told people that they didn't need the Pharisees to get into Heaven. he told people all they had to do is have faith and try to live that faith not only in their lives but in their hearts and they would find God. people don't even have to believe in God to believe in treating people with kindness and respect. and faith in one's self is soul saving if you think about it. the modern Pharisees try today to convince us that only they can save our souls, but they can't even save their own, so why would we follow them? i think it's because the modern Pharisees exude power and if you follow them you get to share in that power and a false feeling of superiority over others.
i believe that anyone who really wants to, can find common ground. you just do it! you just decide that you will not let your personal beliefs interfere with the lives of others. you open your eyes and you discover that wonderful differences that we all have and celebrate the diversity of the human race! this isn't a command, it's a suggestion, perhaps a challenge to all those out there that say there is no common ground. of course there is, but you have to be willing to walk down that road! and there's the rub. too many people won't. not, can't, won't. there's too much to sacrifice by letting go of personal power, that sense of superiority.
i think one thing that would help is if we could accept that God is not a human or anything like one. He describes Himself. "I am that I am. I am the beginning and the end." He is a spirit, an energy, not some old man sitting on a throne with a septre in his hand. and Heaven, as it were, isn't a place like central park. who knows what it is, if it is? maybe heaven is just being in the presence of God. i don't know and actually, i don't care. because, it is something beyond my control and my understanding. what i do know and what i can control is myself in the here and now. i can Choose not to hate. I can Choose not to be prejudice. I can Choose to care for others and treat them with dignity and respect.
If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible?
No, if they believe they have the monopoly, then there is no other ground.
If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?
Difficulties - The religious people actually listening to you and wanting to understand you.
Benefits - The slim chance they will stop being religious.
All we have to work with are uncommon pieces of the common whole.
all uncommon pieces added up equal the common whole.
I prefer to have the whole relative picture rather than one or a few uncommon pieces that add up to the part of the picture that is relative to those pieces.
The mind that gives this psychic power is the creative mind. The feminine mind. We are imbalanced right now toward the ego masculine
intellectual mind. A return to inclusion of the feminine creative will solve this problem.
Thanks for your comments, Believer. I would like to as a question regarding one of your points.
You asked that non-believers try "to understand what believers see as supporting their faith, and why they find it convincing"
Could you please describe why believers have such confidence in faith (as in "I believe X on faith") as a valid route to knowledge when it comes to religious matters, but not as a valid route to knowledge when it comes to secular matters.
thanks.
Spirtualism is where it's at. But who really knows? Until this big ride is over, will anyone ever really know? I'm just glad I was born with a mind that can give such things thought. Keep it up folks! In life, there are only questions to more questions. Hmmmmmm.
I have found that reality exists without me. I can believe what I want, but it does not change reality. I can stae what reality is to another person, but then it becomes a belief. Each person has to experience reality for him or her self.
Religion that is a belief system is logically the trusting of another person's word. For those that have had experiences, that belief system can put the experience in perspective or interpet the experience. It can not generate the experience. Either an internal or outside force is generating the experience.
I can state that there are three things that exist, Creator, Creation and Void. I can state that all of Creation is within the Creator. How do I get you to agree with me? I can't. You can. How can you? Ask. Ask reality to show you the truth. Ask the Creator to be revealed to you. If nothing happens, then no loss to you. If something happens, than your richer for it.
Have a good day.
yesterday on one of these chats, someone mentioned that Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day and that there were witnesses, therefore it was proven!?
How can one argue against logic like that?
OJ said he didn't do it either.
"My issue is that religious dogmas not only claim exclusive title to those truths, but they also use their truths to define people. According to that view, one is a good person only if one accepts the dogma, and one is a bad person if one believes something else. I see that as an attempt to control what people think and what people believe."
We should talk about this. All of the major world religions claim to be universal, in the sense that they believe all people come from the same source and are open to anyone from any background. They don't define members of a particular tribe or lineage as human, and others as non-human (or part-human). So, you could become a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Jew if you wished to do so, and be fully accepted by the faith community you chose.
Each does have its own moral code, and each defines serious violations of that code as bad, evil or destructive. Religions aren't alone in doing this. There are Vegans who believe eating meat is wrong, PETA advocates who believe wearing fur is wrong, environmentalists who believe driving SUVs is wrong, businessmen who believe price controls are wrong, and so forth. Anti-fur activists can be just as absolutist about a fur coat as any conservative Christian will ever get about a mini-skirt, low neckline and push-up bra.
Bottom line, whether we're religious or not, we have to ask whether it matters how people live - in other words, are some actions good, and others not so good? (This is very different from asking if everyone has personal worth and dignity as a human being.) If so, how important is it to us? People who answer "yes, it matters how people live" and "yes, this is very important to me" will want to live good lives, and will want to help others live good lives too. That may involve combatting smoking, combatting mistreatment of animials, combatting drinking and driving, combatting teen pregnancy, combatting sweatshops, or combatting adultery and throw-away marriages.
Are Vegans defining people and trying to control what they think and believe? Well, they're pretty clear about whether or not it's right for me to order veal this evening. They also want me to understand and agree with how their view of eating veal, and to act accordingly. We can ask the same question about other groups and other issues, such as buying clothes made in sweatshops, CO2 emissions, and smoking pot. We can also ask it about religious groups. Frankly, though, I'd much rather talk to a Mennonite farmer about my lifestyle than have paint thrown on me by a PETA activist because I happen to be wearing a leather jacket.
Not all believers seek to control people through fear and violence, and not all non-believers seek to gently persuade through sweet reason.
When a group of people believe they have a monopoly on truth, there can be no dialog. Why converse when you have all the answers and by default the other side is wrong? I, like Elton John, have long had a problem with organized religion. Historically, religious organization seems to be synonamous with the death and destruction of those who are defined as "the other". Currently, Muslims have decided that their ways are the only acceptable ways. The rest of us can give in and convert to Islam, or fight. Dialog will not work. Why should it when their God has given them permission to slaughter us by the thousands? Why try to convince someone they are wrong when you can just kill them, eliminate the problem and keep the living in line with the terror you have created?
in terms of a monopoly on truth, yes there has to be some black and white in religious beliefs i think. theres some room for compromise and interpretation, but if youre a believer of the rules the bible sets out for a daily walk with God in His plans for you, theres certain ideas and things off-limits that are not debatable. but theres also some topics that are debatable such as the interpretation of specific morals. even if you believe you do have a monopoly on truth, or at least some truths, i hope people will still be able to have honest and open dialogue about their beliefs even if there are certain things they cannot compromise on. if you truly believe in the salvation of Jesus Christ then you cannot accept other means to salvation, but can dialogue about other aspects about being a person of faith, especially where the bible is not as clear.
In my opinion the answer to this question is a resounding NO. Any religion or branch of a religion that believes its version of truth is the only truth does so because it believes that it is following "Gods word" or "Gods law". There can be no compromise, there can be no middle ground. The only common ground must be on their terms. To do otherwise would be a sacrilege and heretical.
To all of these people you are either with them or against them, it's just that simple.
"Could you please describe why believers have such confidence in faith (as in "I believe X on faith") as a valid route to knowledge when it comes to religious matters, but not as a valid route to knowledge when it comes to secular matters."
Godma, that's an excellent question. Since I'm most familiar with Christianity, I'll start there.
Traditionally, Christianity is based on the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was divine, and that he died and then rose from the dead. These are some huge, huge claims. Why the heck would anyone believe that?
Well, in practical terms today, it's because they were taught it. At some point we all ask "uh, excuse me, how do we know that?" (You get similar issues with other religions - for instance, with Islam, how do we know that the Prophet did this and said this, and why should we care?)
In the case of Christianity, the first response is generally "because people saw it, wrote it down, and we can read about it today." Bottom line, it's an issue of "who do we have for witnesses?" The discussion then generally turns to questions of "do we know the documents are what they claim to be," "what do we know about these people," "are the stories consistent," "did they have any reason to lie," and "did they act like they believed it, or did their lives suggest they were scamming people." So, Christians tend to get very exercised about things like the reliability of the New Testament greek texts, the dating of the various books of the New Testament, and how the early believers lived (for example, one issue that comes up is why early followers of Jesus would persist in their claims if they new them to be false, when all it did was get them fed to the lions).
You may or may not buy the evidence - reasonable people come down on both sides of it. And all it can ultimately do is say yea or nay to the claims that Jesus of Nazareth performed apparant miracles, made certain claims about God and himself, and rose from the dead. For those who accept the evidence as demonstrating that Jesus was divine and that he taught certain things as the will of God, then those teachings become pretty darn important.
It then becomes a matter of:
1) I'm convinced that Jesus was divine
2) I trust what he said about God and how I should live
(It's a bit like saying "I'm convinced that my architect is competent, and I trust what she said about our needing a steel beam in the new addition to our house.")
"Faith" involves #2 - it's really as much a matter of trust as anything else.
People who don't accept #1 based on the evidence available to them will never make it to #2. Those who accept #1 based on nothing but "well, mom always said" don't really have their own religious convictions, and generally don't stick with Christianity.
And I will say, at this point, if you don't find yourself convinced of #1, then you shouldn't become a Christian. It really isn't something that you should just say "well, I'll close my eyes and take it on faith."
But, for those who are convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and thus was demonstrably divine, and that based on what he said and did he was trustworthy when he spoke about God's will - faith is taking him at his word when he taught, for instance, that adultery is morally wrong. Does that involve belief without proof? Yes, in the sense that we don't require a philosophical proof that adultery is wrong to stop doing it. No, in the sense that our trust is based on what we believe to be convincing evidence that Jesus and his message are authentic, and came from God.
Again, you get similar questions with other religions, such as Islam. To be a committed Muslim you have to be convinced, on the basis of some sort of evidence persuasive to you, that Muhammed was a true Prophet of Allah, and that the Quran accurately preserves what he did and said. Faith, then, is the next step of saying "if Allah says not to do it, well then, I'm not gonna do it!"
Does that help?
Dear Believer,
I would like to say that I agree completely with the asertions that you made in your rebuttle to my statements. Political canvassing, telemarketing, etc. are also rude. I feel that they are also socially unacceptable behavior. You are dead on. These types of conversations belong in the home with close friends or relatives. As for my remark about the fishy. I actually know that you are pretty correct. It is a form of marketing. However, around here people display it as a "badge of honor". I have no aversions to Rotary pins, Lions pins, Masonic pins or those of any other philanthropic/civic organization. These logos/paraphenalia are usually worn to a meeting or event, not printed on business cards or business vehicles. When people start displaying the fishy as a "badge" it would be the same behavior as a decorated war vetern wearing his medals to work daily. Sometimes a little humility and good taste are in order. Peace be with you friend.
This question begs another question. How do we come to an agreement on what is true and moral. Previously abortion was used as an example of friction in truth. It seems that the human family evolves and experiences an enlightenment in truth. Slavery was once considered acceptable until we realized that it is beneath our dignity to submit our fellow man to such depravity. Will we find revelation in regards to issues like abortion? Can we afford to monopolize truth without dialogue before we do?
Believer, whether the evangelist uses gentle persuasion or fear and violence, the evangelist still wants to change what other people believe. That is wrong. I regard that desire as an inherent threat to my freedom of conscience. Evangelism says that the individual has no right to his or her own religious beliefs. It says that the individual should choose his or her beliefs based on what pleases other people. Even when the evangelist sincerely wants to help other people, the effect of that desire is to control people. It implies that belonging to a different belief system is akin to alcoholism or drug addiction, which is insulting and condescending. And yes, all this applies to secular evangelism such as veganism.
Dear Believer,
"adultery is morally wrong. Does that involve belief without proof? "
I don't think that this a matter of belief, a marriage can be seen as a contract of fidelity, like a broken promise=wrong, it doesn't take Jesus telling me it's wrong to know it's wrong.
Does unto others as you have them do unto you - 'Golden Rule' works fine. Listening to common sense doesn't necessitate a belief in God nor does come from that belief.
Truth is not commodity to own but rather a product to seek; it is not a destination to reach but rather a journey to move towards; it is not a possession to squirrel away and conserve, but rather a philisopohical tenant to spend one's life to secure.
Truth is, therefore, both changing and changeable! It is no one's possesion, and no systm's propiritary right.
Search!!!
"Believer, whether the evangelist uses gentle persuasion or fear and violence, the evangelist still wants to change what other people believe. That is wrong. I regard that desire as an inherent threat to my freedom of conscience."
I have to disagree with you here. Efforts to persuade, whether religious or secular, are not at all saying that "the individual should choose his or her beliefs based on what pleases other people." Far from it - they presuppose that the person approached has the right and power to choose. They certainly do not imply "that belonging to a different belief system is akin to alcoholism or drug addiction, which is insulting and condescending."
We attempt to persuade all the time - in many cases, for reasons that are altogether laudable. For instance, we encourage students to stay in school, we encourage alcoholics to consider treatment, and we try to convince people that voting for a particular political party (or AGAINST another political party) is for the good of the country. We may even try to persuade people that religious beliefs have no part in the public political discourse ;-)
This is all necessary for human knowledge and understanding to increase (the primary justification for guarding free speech), and for a society to make collective decisions - more fundamentally, it's necessary for people to live meaningful social lives and help each other. (Imagine, if you will, a world where all you could say was "Sure been raining a lot lately," and "How 'bout them Braves.")
You seem to be using the term "evangelism" in a special, restricted sense. What are you trying to denote? The nature of the beliefs being advocated, or the way in which they are advanced? I don't think there's much value in saying it's wrong to "change what other people believe" - that would prohibit most of what teachers and professors do in the classroom (it took a great deal of time and effort to sort out my beliefs about trigonometry), as well as all political speeches and pretty much everything that mental health professionals do (or is cognitive therapy a special case?).
I don't think it's helpful to proscribe the advocacy of certain categories of beliefs, either. I may agree with you about vegetarianism - but what about environmentalism? What about feminism? What about Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Or socialism? Or social darwinism, for that matter? Who gets to draw the line - and how do we decide that, without talking and persuasion?
I'm happy as a clam, actually, about stating that certain forms of persuasion are wrong, though. Violence and physical coercion are wrong, as are threats of violence - whether done by Al Qaeda, the National Democratic Congressional Committee or the Amish. Talking - as we are now, is entirely unobjectionable.
I am an atheist, and I have no problem with other people's religious faith. I've always made a point to be respectful of other people's beliefs. As I see it, it's everyone's right to believe as they choose - or NOT believe as they choose - on the topic of religion. Whenever I've attended a wedding - especially in a house of worship - I've always dressed appropriately, to show respect; not just for those who are getting married, but also for their house of worship and their religion. It just seems to me to be the right thing to do, respecting the beliefs of others. I believe most atheists have the same position that I have on this topic.
However, I feel that most religious people in our nation do NOT reciprocate this sense of respect for the beliefs of NON-believers. Americans in general, in fact, have become conditioned to think that they do not owe the same degree of respect to people who are not religious - e.g. who don't believe in a God. In fact, many public figures, pundits, politicians, and journalists frequently display a disturbing lack of respect for non-believers. It's almost as though it's become fair game to ridicule, demean, and deride atheists in any way you choose - no holds barred - simply because they don't share the predominant belief in an all-powerful deity!
Atheists have become the number one target for demonization - we've even got gays and lesbians beat hands-down, on that front! In fact, there are a number of elected officials who are openly gay - but I dare anyone to name a single elected official who is openly atheist! I think this is because it has become an accepted wisdom in the U.S. that atheists are without any value. This is not only disturbing, it's truly offensive, because it couldn't be further from the truth.
The fact is, in order to be a self-proclaimed atheist, you have to be a truly honest person, with a very strong sense of values and integrity. It would be so much easier for atheists to just keep their non-belief to themselves, and masquerade as members of "the faithful". (In other words "to pass".) It's alot harder - though far more honest - for atheists to tell the truth about what they really believe. The reality is that most admitted atheists have a stronger sense of values than the average American.
Of course, you'll never see that point made by any of the cable-news pundits. Those sniveling cowards just act as though they accept the prevailing wisdom that religious people are by definition "strong on values", while atheists are sadly lacking in any sense of values.
In reality, to be an atheist means that you take onto yourself the responsibility for doing the right thing in life simply because it is the right thing to do; not because some higher power will reward or punish you for your behavior. Atheists are answerable to the harshest power on earth - an uncompromising sense of conscience. So the next time you hear a religious leader, politician, or TV pundit call religious people "values voters", think about the hypocrisy inherent in that statement; and please do your part to shine some light on the truth. Thank you!
excuse to not have to apologize for chosing something based upon direct apprehension.
it is the cure sold to those subjugated by anothers rule......
romans and moors
christianity used as a whip and islam used as a ploy to incite warriors to battle.....
Mohammed had a dream, not a vision.
.
I am an atheist, and I have no problem with other people's religious faith. I've always made a point to be respectful of other people's beliefs. As I see it, it's everyone's right to believe as they choose - or NOT believe as they choose - on the topic of religion. Whenever I've attended a wedding - especially in a house of worship - I've always dressed appropriately, to show respect; not just for those who are getting married, but also for their house of worship and their religion. It just seems to me to be the right thing to do, respecting the beliefs of others. I believe most atheists have the same position that I have on this topic.
However, I feel that most religious people in our nation do NOT reciprocate this sense of respect for the beliefs of NON-believers. Americans in general, in fact, have become conditioned to think that they do not owe the same degree of respect to people who are not religious - e.g. who don't believe in a God. In fact, many public figures, pundits, politicians, and journalists frequently display a disturbing lack of respect for non-believers. It's almost as though it's become fair game to ridicule, demean, and deride atheists in any way you choose - no holds barred - simply because they don't share the predominant belief in an all-powerful deity!
Atheists have become the number one target for demonization - we've even got gays and lesbians beat hands-down, on that front! In fact, there are a number of elected officials who are openly gay - but I dare anyone to name a single elected official who is openly atheist! I think this is because it has become an accepted wisdom in the U.S. that atheists are without any value. This is not only disturbing, it's truly offensive, because it couldn't be further from the truth.
The fact is, in order to be a self-proclaimed atheist, you have to be a truly honest person, with a very strong sense of values and integrity. It would be so much easier for atheists to just keep their non-belief to themselves, and masquerade as members of "the faithful". (In other words "to pass".) It's alot harder - though far more honest - for atheists to tell the truth about what they really believe. The reality is that most admitted atheists have a stronger sense of values than the average American.
Of course, you'll never see that point made by any of the cable-news pundits. Those sniveling cowards just act as though they accept the prevailing wisdom that religious people are by definition "strong on values", while atheists are sadly lacking in any sense of values.
In reality, to be an atheist means that you take onto yourself the responsibility for doing the right thing in life simply because it is the right thing to do; not because some higher power will reward or punish you for your behavior. Atheists are answerable to the harshest power on earth - an uncompromising sense of conscience. So the next time you hear a religious leader, politician, or TV pundit call religious people "values voters", think about the hypocrisy inherent in that statement; and please do your part to shine some light on the truth. Thank you!
To "BELIEVER" :
I think we're on the same page, in terms of requiring good reasons for your beliefs -- but this is decidedly NOT faith, it is the opposite of faith. In fact, it's really science (in the loose sense).
I wish all religious people thought in the way that you do, because then there would be very, very few believers, and this discussion would not be necessary.
In your specific case: I find it astonishing that anyone can look seriously at the Bible and the history of Christianity and conclude that these books present an accurate, factual description of reality, rather than a hodge-podge of myths and allegories. Seems to me it takes several huge leaps of faith to even consider the possibility that it might be true.
But, that aside, IF people are willing to condemn faith (using the only definition which makes sense, which is "belief in that for which you have no evidence"), then a discussion can actually be productive, because we can evaluate the reasonableness of claims.
I'm afriad, though, that most religious people are willfully ignorant ("willfully" being the key word here) , and have no desire to question, to doubt, to reason, to look honestly at the evidence and change their mind based on empirical evidence. (Hence the entire "monopoly on truth" issue.)
Am I mistaken?
Believer, a person's religious beliefs are in a special category. They are a part of a person's identity, probably more so than any other type of beliefs. Not even political beliefs or dietary beliefs are that wrapped up in a person's sense of self. Also, religious doctrines are about not questioning things, which automatically invalidates the individual's religious beliefs. So when an evangelist attempts to change the person's religious beliefs, the person's entire identity is threatened. Persuasion simply isn't as threatening when secular beliefs are involved. If evangelists really respected other people's right to decide their own religious beliefs, they would leave other people alone.
" Listening to common sense doesn't necessitate a belief in God nor does come from that belief."
No one said that it did. In fact, one of the arguments that's been advanced for the existance of God is the universal moral sense that all people share, in all cultures. Many religious people are very concerned by attempts to make moral codes relative, or to understand them as cultural choices. In other words, if you were to say that adultery might be acceptable in some countries, because they do not place the same value we do on "contracts of fidelity," I'd have to disagree with you. I do believe in some moral absolutes - which tends to come with a belief in God.
One poster said "to be an atheist means that you take onto yourself the responsibility for doing the right thing in life simply because it is the right thing to do; not because some higher power will reward or punish you for your behavior. Atheists are answerable to the harshest power on earth - an uncompromising sense of conscience."
Sounds pretty powerful and uncompromising. What many believers will ask, though, is "what guides that sense of concience - if I accept his arguments against the existance of any higher power, is there truly any universally binding standard of right and wrong?" I've read some of the responses from atheist thinkers, and I must admit, I've been a bit underwhelmed. They seem, ultimately, to come down at some point to "and so we must choose a moral standard." Not everyone chooses wisely.
Dear Believer,
How can you believe in moral absolutes when there are so many 'shades of grey'?, and could you elaborate, ie do you mean the 10 commandments from the Bible?
It is my personal opinoin that religion is inherently reactionary. I feel that in todays climate the increase in religiosity, superstition,
and obscurantism and the move away from reason and critical thinking is the greatest danger to progress and a civilize society. In closing it would benifit us all if christianity, islam, and judaism, should all be abolished. i know that this is impractical, considering just how many people are caught up. But, my GOD!!! look and how much death has been brought by just these 3 alone. All in the name of something that is a figment of their imagination. i would think that GOD and religions should be about Love and peace.
How about the Mormon's (fundamentalist) belief in Polygamy?
and it's not just accepted there,it IS the road to heaven?
are we to honor their beliefs?
(the Republicans took their votes without question.)
or challenge them as morally wrong....
As I see it, the Judeo-Christian tradition comes from two fundamental dictates, namely the so called first and second commandments, [as related by Jesus Christ] where love of God and Love of neighbor are the primary componants.
Any discussion of religion where Judeo-Christian thought is concerned has to stem from those two precepts. If religion is a delusion then it is more likely to be on the part of man and not on the part of God.
In Judeo-Christian thought knowledge of God was delivered to mankind by way of a mortal being who was call a prophet, seer or revelator. Without these various individuals there wouldn't be a Bible or its accompanying various religions.
If we regard the moral teachings of the Hebrew and Christian biblical traditions as valuable elements in our religious institutions then I believe the next step is to try and verify if a God really taught these precepts to man or if they are merely a natural development out of a need for civilizations to establish principles for cohesive societies.
My reason for this approach is based on the the premise that behind all of the tenets of the worlds major religions God or some other super naturale being is given credit for their invention. It would seem reasonable then that evidence could be introduced to help verify the various religious God breathed doctrines.
If some valid evidence could be produced then it would also follow that one could answer with authority what it means to love God and ones neighbor. As it stands, love of God and love of neighbor are hollow words and concepts with little if any substantive agreement on the part of religious groups.
"I wish all religious people thought in the way that you do, because then there would be very, very few believers, and this discussion would not be necessary."
:-)
I think you'd be surprised - most of the great Christian thinkers, from Augustine through Luther and on to C.S. Lewis have thought this way.
"In your specific case: I find it astonishing that anyone can look seriously at the Bible and the history of Christianity and conclude that these books present an accurate, factual description of reality, rather than a hodge-podge of myths and allegories. Seems to me it takes several huge leaps of faith to even consider the possibility that it might be true."
Now this we can talk about. I'd challenge you to sample some of the mainstream modern scholarship on the New Testament texts. The greek textual evidence is pretty good - we can reliably date the material to the first or early second century, and the text is better than that of most of the ancient Greek and Roman classics. Of course, even if you grant that early Christians did in fact write the texts, and that they've been pretty accurately preserved, you may still have a hard time believing what they say. But I'm convinced that early Christians wrote them in pretty much the form we have before us know, and that they intended them to be coherent, understandable, and an accurate record of what they believed to be true. The question then becomes "do we think they knew what they were talking about?"
As an aside - many, many things have been done in the name of Christianity that Jesus of Nazareth would condem immediately, loudly, and without equivocation. Bad stuff. Doesn't mean that his message was the problem, though.
"I'm afriad, though, that most religious people are willfully ignorant ("willfully" being the key word here) , and have no desire to question, to doubt, to reason, to look honestly at the evidence and change their mind based on empirical evidence. (Hence the entire "monopoly on truth" issue.)"
That's something that gives me real heartburn. Many religious people have come to believe - not without cause - that modern scholarship and modern scholars are actively hostile to religion (and unfairly so). So, for instance, they believe that university professors try to educate young adults out of their religious convictions. Not surprisingly, they react defensively. This has fostered an anti-intellectual tendency among many religious groups.
I personally believe this is very harmful - for everyone involved. It undermines public support for scholarship and institutions of higher learning. It tends to make many religious people less thoughtful than they otherwise should be. It feeds the worst stereotypes on both sides: that non-believers are arrogant and hostile to religion, and that believers are ignorant and hostile to learning. It makes it very, very difficult to connect in any meaningful way, and undermines the humility and respect that should be offered on both sides.
I'm more than willing to admit that many believers are more than a bit anti-intellectual. That's driven by the sense that there are many intellectuals who are unwilling to accept religious and moral truths, and use their learning to try to undermine those who do. I'd challenge you to review the posts in this discussion, and ask yourself if you can see where they might get that impression. And yes, in turn, I'm more than willing to admit that some have reacted by putting in ear plugs and simply trying to shout louder (that's a pretty common human reaction).
How do we get past this? I have to say - I think it's going to take effort on both parts, not just on the side of religious believers. It's also going to take non-believers who're willing think that they might learn something useful from believers, and believers who're willing to think that they might learn something in return. (Ya never know - stranger things have happened!)
ETHICAL CONUNDRUM
Ethics represent a consensus on values that should govern behavior of individuals as they relate to other individuals in the society, or the culture, or the clan of which they are a part, so as to preserve and enhance the welfare, and dignity, and quality of life of all concerned, insofar as possible.
We confront a conundrum, posed by the difficulty of establishing, in positive terms, a consensus to which almost everybody can adhere.
That is because ethical principles are very often expressed as “do not” strictures. For example, doctors swear by the Socratic Oath to “do no harm,” and the Ten Commandments repeat “thou shall not” many times. This poses hurdles to translation and incorporation of such golden rules as part of one’s own behavioral repertoire. A crucial question: How do you integrate an ethical code -- make it part of your own way of life --not just as conformity to rules others have laid down and enforce.
These are all interesing comments, however, I am under the impression that most "truth" is relative. My truth does not necessarily have to be your truth. If someone sees a crime, people she different aspects but the same incident.
With that being said, although some subscribe to an organized denomination, I am intelligent enough to know that God is "spirit", not flesh. Very has been been, never will be. And they that worship him must worship him (FIGURATIVELY, because God has NO GENDER) in "spirit" and in "truth".
God has DENOMINATION and all that try to "fence Him" into a denomination, is sorely off the market. Sprituality has nothing to do with religion. We must try to understand that before any of us can move to a higher concept of what God is and what God stands for.
King James and the scholars that came together to put together this book everyone worships, did not have the whole story, so get over it. The Jews don't have the whole story, nor the Muslims or Buddists. Why is one better than the other? I think people with a very small God, believe that God only loves them and hates the others. My God is bigger than any concept that can be captured on paper, therefore, I live in the realm of understanding that says "There is no searching of His Truth". PERIOD.
Why can't we come together? Because it would cost us too much money. We would lose money in tithes. We would have to accept everyone for who they are, black, white, gay , jew, christian, etc. That is inconceivable to some people.
We do not want to accept everyone and draw people to God so He can lead them in a path of righteousness. We want to draw people unto ourselves. Lift us up. Praise us. This is man's way, not God's way and until we realize that, we are are destined for failure.
Man is the reason we can't come together. Our hang ups, our needs, our Jesus, our God, our Allah... our Buda (sp?) We are all guilty of trying to keep God to ourselves and because of this, we are fouls.
For those who are wondering what religion I belong to...again, I belong to a religious sect, but I don't think it is relevant. It doesn't matter and if you are one of the ones wondering, then you are the very person that needs conversion.
GOD IS IN A CLASS ALL BY HIMSELF (HERSELF, ITSELF). PERIOD. HE HAS NO HANDS AND NO FEET. HE HAS NO RELIGION. HIS THOUGHTS ARE NOT OUR THOUGHTSM, NOW HIS WAYS OUR WAYS....So whatever way we think is right, we are probably getting it all wrong.
LET GOD ARISE AND LET HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED!!!!
"Believer, a person's religious beliefs are in a special category. They are a part of a person's identity, probably more so than any other type of beliefs. Not even political beliefs or dietary beliefs are that wrapped up in a person's sense of self."
I have to disagree here, too. The firm conviction that there is no God is just as fundamental as the firm conviction that there is a God.
"How can you believe in moral absolutes when there are so many 'shades of grey'?, and could you elaborate, ie do you mean the 10 commandments from the Bible?"
Well, that's not specifically what I had in mind, but that's a reasonable place to start. What I mean is, for example, that adultery is morally wrong in all times and in all places. Sure, there are grey areas - when does interest become exhorbitant and immoral? But theft is wrong in all times and in all places. If it's wrong for me to steal, it's wrong for you to steal, and it's wrong for a man in Afghanistan to steal - this isn't a conventional choice along the lines of "which side of the road will we drive on here in Great Britain."
ETHICAL CONUNDRUM
Ethics represent a consensus on values that should govern behavior of individuals as they relate to other individuals in the society, or the culture, or the clan of which they are a part, so as to preserve and enhance the welfare, and dignity, and quality of life of all concerned, insofar as possible.
We confront a conundrum, posed by the difficulty of establishing, in positive terms, a consensus to which almost everybody can adhere.
That is because ethical principles are very often expressed as “do not” strictures. For example, doctors swear by the Socratic Oath to “do no harm,” and the Ten Commandments repeat “thou shall not” many times. This poses hurdles to translation and incorporation of such golden rules as part of one’s own behavioral repertoire. A crucial question: How do you integrate an ethical code -- make it part of your own way of life --not just as conformity to rules others have laid down and enforce?
Right-on Aleesa!
Dear Believer,
Does not the reason for stealing enter into the equation? eg, stealing the detonation switch for a nuclear weapon to prevent a terrorist attack, wrong?
Dear Believer,
Sorry terrible example, how about a poor man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family? nice and simple.
If you do not believe your faith and God to be real and true, what is the point of believing at all? And from a logical standpoint, it is obviously impossible for all religions to be equally true, since they all advocate a different way to God and what occurs after death.
I as many other people are all for allowing one to worship as they wish. If they worship the god of mohammed or buddah or what ever. This country was founded on religious freedom. I would die to assure that this principal is upheld, and I am an Air Force veteran. However, I part company with the folks who say that we can intermingle with these folks such as marriage and governing. With the assurance of freedom aside, our government is based on the Bible, Not the Koran. So if we are to bring the muslem into total equality including having their faith intermingled with our governing system, we face a severe challange to our own religious convictions and how they impact our nation. We can allow it to a point, but must draw a line when it comes to that point. If we do not as Christians draw that line, we will be guilty of believing a differant gospel and therefore compromising the word of what we believe to be the one true GOD . We must see that there is a limit. Weather we believe it or not, we are casting our pearls before the swine when we allow the gospel of Jesus Christ to be cast aside, or even just suggest that it is equal to other religions. If we do not, we have allowed Christianity to be converted to a differant gospel. God of heaven Help us!
Time is up for casual Christianity. We need to dig into God's word and find out what he's saying. Too much is going on out there without answers, but GOD has them. People need to understand that man will fail you all the time, but GOD will never fail you. We need to seek his face first. Whatever you've said or done in your life GOD will forgive you. He will throw all your past sins into the sea of "Forgetfulness". We need GOD in every situation in our lives. He will give you his perfect peace. It's not for us to understand what's going on, but give it to him. Let him fight your battles. Love is hard if GOD's not in it.
From what little I have read, I already caught a 'heated-discussion' or two between people who, contrary to what this "On Faith" site precisely promotes, try to Impose their beliefs over the rest, instead of just presenting them and trying to make other people Respect what they have expressed.
This is, in my opinion, the MOST IMPORTANT element that's needed in order to having any 'Constructive Dialogue': If I say I believe in Buddha and his teachings, then that's OK as long as I don't want the person next to me saying the exact same thing, even if this is not the case (if it's not True)... It will be Constructive if the other person says "My beliefs are with Jesus, but I Respect your thoughts in Buddha"; and in return I answer -"Thank you for Respecting me. I in turn Respect your faith in Jesus"...
Unfortunately, this is not always the case and Faith tends to create much Hatred and Disrespect among societies.
... As long as there's no Respect, there can be no Constructive Dialogue (and here I'm talking about Every Faith; even in the case when there's NO faith).
Good luck with this Important and very-much-Needed 'Exchange of Ideas'; I hope it leads somewhere POSITIVE.
D.
Davin,
I was just going to make the same point. (And I actually think your extreme/hypothetical example was spot-on -- it's always good to start with an extreme to at least clearly demonstrate that there ARE exceptions, thus everything IS relative [to the specific circumstances].)
Incidentally, Bush and Cheney are apparently the ultimate "moral relativists," since they apparently think torture is o.k. if it saves the lives of others. (I'm not even stating my opinion, here; just observing that they are, in fact, moral relativists.)
On some level I'd like to separate the question of ethics from that of religion -- because ethics is not like math (black and white, right or wrong), it's more like literature or art or something.
But, it's true that they overlap. And it's true that one of the reasons many people (like me) dislike religion is because it's so often self-righteous, hypocritical, mindless and harmful/destructive in its moral prohibitions and condemnations, etc.
But on that topic, I'll start by simply stating this: I have more respect for an adulterer who has thought about it and concluded that adultery is o.k., than I do for a chaste husband who doesn't cheat on his wife simply because it happens to be written on a rock.
Even something as abhorrent as suicide bombing: in the name of fighting a grave injustice (hypothetical: Jews in Warsaw blow themselves up trying to drive out the Nazis), there is some moral weight (some "grey area"); but if you're doing it simply because your interpretation of some word in some book supposedly written by your invisible deity tells you to, you have my complete and unequivocal condemnation, obviously.
Faith is a vice!
I'm not surprised at some of the comments I am reading by many people on this category. Some say it really doesn't matter what you believe. I disagree. I had much rather believe and try my best to follow the teaching of one true God who sent his only son to die on an old rugged cross for the remission of our sins now, in the past, and in the future. I happened to believe in the Christion version of the Holy Bible that teaches one must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. The must believe he is the son of the living God and that he rose from the dead on the third day and is now sitting in heaven on the right side of God interceding for each of us - if we will only ask for it. Now let's just assume for a minute that I am wrong. If I am wrong and there is no God then I just wind up wherever dogs, cats, etc wind up. Afterall I have lived a good life and I really have not lost anything. But if I am right Just look what I have gained. I have missed Hell altogether, I will get to see all my saved loved ones again, I'll get to stroll around Heaven with Jesus and all the saints of old. and I will live in a city with golden streets forever and forever and forever. Never any pain or war or hunger or disease, or discord. Just think about it. How sad it would be to just ignore the fact that God exists and wind up in Hell, burning in fire that cannot be extinguished, yelling and screaming in pain and begging for just a little water to cool your tongue. I wish everyone of you and others could go to Heaven with me, but with the ideas I have been reading I cannot believe that will happen. So sad. There is still time to read God's word and accept him as Savior. Please do it.
Well believer, sorry you were doing so well, you seem like a nice guy, then the Rev decided to help out, it's that kind of rhetoric that scares me, and probably a few others, the limit of freedom due to religious belief, religion must be kept seperate from politics.
We have to get back to hearing what GOD has to say about every situation. People always want to put their thoughts into what it should be, but it's suppose to be what GOD said. If you would just study the Word of GOD you'll see that he is the answer. It's not what we think, it's what GOD says. Too many times we look at the situation and not praying to get an answer. If you ask GOD for peace about a situation, he'll give it to you and he'll take you thru it. If you don't know him, you need to know him. If you give your life to Christ, you'll never be alone. He'll always be there for you. You have nothing to lose. With Christ, you can go thru life without all the screaming, yelling, stressing, and thinking you are crazy. GOD is a wonderful GOD.
Well believer, sorry you were doing so well, you seem like a nice guy, then the Rev decided to help out, it's that kind of rhetoric that scares me, and probably a few others, the limit of freedom due to religious belief, religion must be kept seperate from politics.
Bob T. said:
".....Now let's just assume for a minute that I am wrong. If I am wrong and there is no God then I just wind up wherever dogs, cats, etc wind up. Afterall I have lived a good life and I really have not lost anything. But if I am right Just look what I have gained. I have missed Hell altogether....."
What if you're wrong, and there IS a god: Allah? (Or some other selfish and jealous god.)
Hell awaits you, my friend.
How do you choose which god[s], if any, to believe in? This, to me, is the crucial question.
(If you're just looking to be safe, and believe what's convenient for you, then just pick [or form] a religion in which everybody goes to Heaven. Easy enough.)
Dear Bob T,
I don't think believing in God should be taken outn like an insurance policy, one's beliefs are much too important to be so casual about. Just in case belief is not really belief it's not thinking.
Dear Terrance Turner,
So is it a case of disengage brain? Not what we think? You may have the wrong forum.
How can one monopolize truth?
Something is either True or False!
The origins of religions are usually in the creative minds of good people. Unfortunately, when religious insitutions are created, they are based on human thoughts. Nobody knows the mind of God. To speak for God is absurd. Yet, that is exactly what the followers of the world's religions do, with the notable exception of a few such as the Dali Lama. Martin Buber said that we have a relationship with God in each relationship we have with another person or animal or object. We fail often then to have the real relationship with God which is the result of our opening ourselves rather than promoting our own ideas of religion. We love God only by loving others.
Terrance Turner said:
"We have to get back to hearing what GOD has to say about every situation. People always want to put their thoughts into what it should be, but it's suppose to be what GOD said. If you would just study the Word of GOD you'll see that he is the answer. It's not what we think, it's what GOD says. Too many times we look at the situation and not praying to get an answer......"
How do you know what "God" said? Which particular books of which particular religious texts are, in your mind, the Word of God? And how do you know this?
Does He in fact talk to you? Answer your prayers? Perform miracles for you? Or do you just like to pretend, or what?
I'm always amused that people call atheists "arrogant", when you've got religious people claiming a direct line to God, claiming to "know" things about "Him," claiming they're going to Heaven and every other religion is going to Hell, "God Loves Me," "God Made Me," "I'm Made In God's Image," "God Watches Me," "God Listens To Me," "God Answers My Prayers," etc. etc. I can't think of anything more arrogant than that. Pretty much defines the phrase "monopoly on truth" (although "monopoly on fiction" would be more apt).
The only person who makes any sense is JAMEL.
If religions were the words of God then why there are so many of them? Think! the world is in such a mess because of religion. Nothing which does not come naturally can be good. It is only a one person belief and persistent enough to convert people. Just like a Charles Manson.
The only truth is that which we as individuals, or collectively as a group, choose to accept as truth. However, through knowledge we can also choose to alter that which we believe to be truth. Therefore, conversation would lead us to understanding, which in turn should lead us to tolerance. We do not need to accept, only tolerate that which we cannot control and live our live's as our religous doctrine teaches us to do, or at the very least have respect for the other. If everyone practiced what they preach this question would not need to be asked.
I did not make the comments I made to infuse anyone. This just happens to be the way I believe. Anyone else has the freedom to believe the way they choose. I believe that regardless of the way anyone believes if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior we WILL end up in a burning Hell. And anyone who winds up in a burning Hell will wish the had studied more and made the right decisions. Good Luck!
TRUTH POLICE said:
"How can one monopolize truth?
Something is either True or False!"
I agree with you. But religion claims to "know" things which cannot possibly be known -- even in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence directly contradicting their claims.
(In short: claiming to "know" things which are, in all likelihood, completely false -- or, at best, completely unknowable.)
The only truth is that which we as individuals, or collectively as a group, choose to accept as truth. However, through knowledge we can also choose to alter that which we believe to be truth. Therefore, conversation would lead us to understanding, which in turn should lead us to tolerance. We do not need to accept, only tolerate that which we cannot control and live our live's as our religous doctrine teaches us to do, or at the very least have respect for each other's views and opinions. If everyone practiced what they preach this question would not need to be asked.
Dear Truth Police
When discussing religion truth isn't always verifiable.
Dear Truth Police,
That is why faith is required, ignorance isn't good enough alone.
Bob T., you are not entitled to believe that other people are going to hell if they don't accept Christ. You are only entitled to believe that you yourself are going to hell if you don't accept Christ. Why would anyone believe something so hateful about other people, if the believer honesty didn't hate those people? How dare anyone tell others that they're evil and worthless and deserving of death.
Wow - I am amazed at the confusion in this blog. I can put it simply and this is not belief, it is KNOWING!
1) there is a God, and his son is Jesus Christ
2) WE (all of us) are his children
3) we have come to Earth to be tested and make choices
4) there is an eternal plan, called "The Plan of Salavation" of which the earth part is a small part of (there is lots more)
5) loving our fellow man, serving each other and giving support and charity are key elements to our development
6) we can and will be with our families in the eternities
and finally
7) there is JOY and BLESSINGS and HAPPINESS so far beyond our current comprehension available if we just do what he instructs us to.
SO simple -- BE HAPPY people -- God loves you!
That would be the PLAN OF SALVATION
Not "Plan of Salavation!!
That would be the PLAN OF SALVATION
Not "Plan of Salavation!!
AND Yes, different religions should and can collaborate on making this world a better place. There are people in need and we can step up and get along with each other.
Dear Sharon,
Spelling is the least of your worries.
To all who have posted comments and to ones who will be reading them as well, religion will not get anyone to heaven, being the nicest, caring, loyal person will not get anyone there either the only way a person will get to heaven is accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness of your sins. The ones who say they don't believe in God when you stand before him at the Great White Throne Judgement and the book is opened and your name is not in The Lambs Book of Life you and anyone else will be case into Eternal Hell forever and everything that is stated above can be found in the Book of Romans and Revelation, so if anyone is sketpical about the world events that are going on read the Bible and drop on your knees and ask Jesus Christ to come into your heart and your eyes will be open and believe me it will be one of the greatest things you ever will do.
Dear Believer,
Please come back, please!!
I love you Davin :)
Maybe it is just me, but after reading peoples comments it seems that all the arguement is proving that the answer is a resounding "NO!" to the "are conversation and common ground possible" question. No one looks for common ground, no one wants common ground, no one cares for common ground. This is not a conversation where ideas are discussed and honestly looked at. It seems to be people talking at each other, trying to get other people over to their own ground. Who ever has the most ground wins. This is sad on so many levels.
Here is some common ground (for non-aethists, sorry):
We are all creations.
We all have free will.
What we do effects us and/or the world around us.
We all want our lives to mean something, what ever that something is.
Stop interpeting everyone comments into your own mind set and listen to people. Maybe then your response will have meaning to that person.
Dear James,
Just toclarify a point, 'We are all creations', imply the existence of a creator, this isn't common ground for the atheists lobby.
Dear Sharon
Thanks, you seem very nice too;)
The phrase "a monopoly on truth" is vitually meaningless. It needs definition. It seems to imply truth that covers all aspects of reality and truth that is exclusinve in the sense that all other religious or secular views are totally false. But this is, of course, a straw man. All religions that I know of--including my own, that of Christianity--believes other religions and secular belief systems have some truth. Also, religious truths need to be applied to situations that are concrete in time and place. Does a "monopoly of truth" include only basic religious truths or our often fumbling applictions of them in today's world. Define your terms!
Said I was sorry, but faith in something versus faith in nothing is hard for me logically reconcile. Went for the largeest grouping.
Have fun!
If someone doesn't believe whole heartedly that their religion is truth, they are a fool to follow after it. Truth is not a many splendored thing. In our postmodern era, it is now taboo to say that there is only one truth, but all of creation speaks of truth and error, right and wrong, up and down, in or out. If Jesus Christ said He was the Son of God and he wasn't, that makes him either a liar or a very self deluded person. That doesn't make him just another good teacher. Either He was who He said He was or He's a farce. To suggest that there are many truths is lunacy. Imagine a surgeon in an operating room. He believes in many truths when he opens your heart for surgery. He's even heard rumor that he can fix a heart problem by working on your toes. Would you want to go in that operating room? Exclusive truth matters in that operating room. Life hangs in the balance. The The same is true with an airline pilot. Good intentions and good faith aren't enough. He has to have truth as to where that runway is and which direction is which in order to land the plane. There is a compass and he uses it. Only fools would deny the existence of truth in the realm of ideas. In fact, to deny the existence of truth is to make a statement that you believe is true. If truth is a relative thing, why should we believe those who deny its existence? It's all relative anyway, right? Why make any truth claims at all? This is the world we're increasingly living in. Those who believe in absolute truth are now considered fascists.
Faith is not God or some other idol. Faith is the all-encompassing belief that there is more, whatever it is, that is beyond man. Whether the idea of being lonely is too much, or some other issue is involved, there is no doubt but that man, however smart, does not have all the answers.
While Faith is not God, many want to transform it into their own possession, either as a group-owned possession or some other form of owned rights. These persons, who have lost their way as to the meaning of Faith, seek instead to ensure that they and only they, whatever the group or person, are alone in their pathway to some other life. Thus it is that everyone who participates in this form of Faith believes that theirs is the Way, and that no other Way exists.
As with all other material goods in the World, possessions tend to change one's perspectives. Either fright at loss, or hubris at ownership, or some other frailty exposed through the possession and worries about its loss. Thus is the situation with most modern religious beliefs. Forgotten are the important parts of Faith. Belief in universality. Belief in the Common Good. Belief in the improvement of Man.
Only if and when we determine that Faith is not a possession do we begin to realize the true power of Faith.
WINGS OF EAGLES MINISTRY: A Call To Service:
The events of Sept. 11, 2001 were remembered on the 5th anniversary with many solemn and reflective memories of the tragic lost of life. As the events of that notorious day retreat from our minds and those images seared on our psyche fade with time, we the people loose focus of the war we are in. Let us not forget the true enemy of this conflict. Our country and our Christian faith are now facing the must serious threat ever. Very few Americans believe we could possibly lose this war. Have you ever thought what it would mean if in fact we don’t win this war on terror?
This war did not begin on Sept. 11, 2001. It began 27 years ago. Let us look at a list of attacks on us.
1. Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979
2. Beirut, Lebanon Embassy, 1993
3. Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks, 1983
4. Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988
5. First New York World Trade Center attack, 1993
6. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military Complex,1996
7. Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy, 1998
8. Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000
9. New York World Trade Center 2001
10. Pentagon 2001
11. Pennsylvania, United Air Line Flight 93, 2001
It is estimated that from 1981 to 2001 there were over 7500 terrorist attacks worldwide. Who are these attackers? In every case, the attacks were and continue to be lead by Muslims. I don’t blame peaceful Muslim but they offer no protection from terrorist Muslim leaders that call for the death of all “infidels”. The Muslim population of the world is 25% and we would hope to be peaceful. Lets not forget that that there were 5 to 6 million predominately peaceful Christian killed by Nazis in WW II in addition to the 6 million Jews. Can you honestly say it isn’t the Muslims that have declared war on us? So why are we being attacked? Is it racial Islam against Christianity? Is it good against evil? Or to put it another way, is it Satan against God? Is there a larger picture than just us against them, I believe so. I dare to say that the vast majority who read this would label themselves Christian. That being the case you have to acknowledge Gods influence in all of this. Are we now living in the latter days? Is the Book of Revelations being unfolded before us? Is this the generation that shall not pass before the return of Jesus Christ? I believe so. If you find yourself in agreement with me what should we do? Matthew 24:13 calls for us to endure to the end and vs. 44 tells us to be ready, chapter 25:13 says to be alert.
In addition to the threat of Muslim terrorists there are other tribulations that are to befall mankind in the latter days. Hurricane Katrina was so awful. The thousands that were left homeless, thousands dead, no food, shelter, security, no communications, no health care, no transportation, no clothing, and must of all the lost of hope. I asked myself the question could what happen to them happen to my community, to my family and friends. No one ever imagine what was about to take place. What about you? It is not just a hurricane we have to be concerned with. There are plenty of other acts of God and man that could happen at any time. Such as a tsunami, earthquake, wild fires, floods, nuclear terrorists attack or an accident, large meteor impact, a massive change in our weather: drought, extreme cold or heat, disease epidemics, tornados, snowstorms, lost of electrical power for a long time, break down of law and order when one or more of these events happen on a large scale, chemical or biological attack or accident, collapse of the stock market, hyper inflation, food shortage, the list goes on and on. Not to mention the events of the Book of Revelations. I am not talking about minor mishaps, these the local government or church can handle. My concern is about those events that go beyond the ability of the local, state or federal government to handle, it can happen. The question is how the Christian community can respond to such an event.
Please stop and seriously and spiritually consider the responsibility of your faith. Are we as Christian just to set back and wait? God forbid that is all you do. You may ask yourself what can I do. Plenty needs to be done. In preparation for such an event, the Christian community needs to organize itself. Let every born again believer that understands or seeks to understand what needs to be done meet with fellow believers in one accord. We can accomplish this by first by seeking out those that believe like wise and form a consensus of common beliefs and responsibilities. This is not a club or an effort to form a church. Although I think that each local church should organize its own community action team. There is no application to fill out, no fees, no selling of anything. To join together you must be a born again Christian of any denomination or affiliation, be part of the body of Christ, be of good character and be interested in expanding God’s knowledge through actions and His teachings. You must be loyal to the United States, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against foreign or domestic enemies.
Please pray about this and seek the Lord on your part in all of this. If this work is of man, it shall fail but if it is of the Lord, it shall flourish. Until we speak again may our Lord Jesus Christ enable His servants to speak His word boldly, Maranatha.
Yours In Christ Service, Van
People whether believers or unbelievers can be condescending.
There are religious people who believe that atheism is a virus as much as there are atheists that believe religion is a contagious meme.
For a discussion of memes you might try www.zompist.com.
all your questions about religion and faith can be answered by this amazing guy at www.truthcaster.com he is eliseo soriano.
I haven't seen a preacher who makes sense until i watched mr. soriano. he's not like other preachers or televangelists who only know to teach tithes and offerings. and also, he debates! he is not afraid to face other preachers in a discussion and prove that their doctrine's are bogus. they have files of his debates on the website. this guy will be the end of all false religions.
Dear Rev. Edelmann,
First, thank you for your service to our country and thank you for my freedom.
Now I'd like some basic information here so that I know who and what I'm dealing with:
1.)In what sect of the protestant church are you ordained?
2.)Where did you go to undergraduate school and what is your undergraduate degree in?
3.)What accredited graduate school of Divinity or Theology...i.e. Seminary did you graduate from?
4.) What is your graduate degree? Master of Divinity? Master of Theology? Master of Biblical Letters?
I had just made my peace with "Believer" and here you go implying the urban myths.
For starters, there is zero documented historical evidence that our country was founded on the Bible. A document which you might recall is made up of TWO Testiments. The Old and the New. As the first part of the Koran is made up entirely from the Old Testament, I'd say that it is not without merit as basis for a lot of shared Judeo-Christian principals.
Secondly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, Our Constitution forbids ANYBODY'S FAITH from being "intermingled in our governing system"...You have once again displayed the arrogant assumption that ONLY CHRISTIANS have a RIGHT to contribute to the culture of the U.S.A. Further, that ALL OTHER religions are inferior to and unwothry of equality when compared to Christianity.
Here's another thought for you Rev. Jesus, IS NOT GOD!...GOD IS GOD! Jesus is the prophet of Christianity in the same sense that Mohammed is the prophet of Islam and Moses is a prophet of Judiasm. In about two paragraphs you have just undone what many Christians in this dialogue have tried to overcome...The overwhelming impression that evangelical Christains are arrogant, intolerant, zealots that truly do want the U.S. to be a theocrasy. Not only that, they want it to be their biggoted brand of evangelism as the national religion. Regardless of your obvious lack of enlightenment, I too sir am a Christian entitled to the designation of Rev. and you will have to pry the constitutional wall separating government and religion from my cold dead hands. Because, I, as a vetern, remember as you have so obviously forgotten that when you were sworn into the military service of this great nation you took an oath to: "protect and defend the constitution of the Unted States from ALL enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC"... with your life...So help you GOD!...NOT Jesus, NOT Moses, NOT Budda, NOT Mohammed...BUT GOD! The same one true God that all faiths worship. Come on up and have a big gulp of reality Rev.
I am unclear why this is an issue. If I believe there is only one truth, that being through the realization that Jesus a sinless man who was also God, paid the price of my sin, why do you who do not believe this take issue?
You (the many truth believers) should not be worried about me. Obviously you feel any way is the way to heaven so why worry about us narrow minded egostitical bigots? Could it be that you are not sure of your "truth"? Where did you find your truth? Was it because it was convenient to you so that is truth because you say so? How does that work?
I know that Jesus is the only way to God because he is God and he said so. I did not make up this Gospel, it came from those who walked with Jesus or had heard from God. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Your truth may have come from your own thoughts. I do not agree with it and I certainly do not want to follow your "Truth". I keep wondering, how can one create their own truth? Can you really twist God's arm and say this is the way it is? If you say there is no God, can you make God leave you alone because you believe He does not exist? How does that work?
So if your truth covers you as you want then fine, press on. You do not like me preaching my truth so do not preach yours to me. I will still pray for the lost and let God take care of the unblievers. I will share my faith when an opportunity presents itself but will not arrogantly thump you with my Bible. I once was lost as well.
I have made many mistakes in my life and have not always been a good representative of my faith. Have those with any truth ever made a mistake? I apologize for not being the man I should. Do not look to me or to other followers or churches. Look at Jesus. Read about Jesus. Understand who he is.
It seems to me that religion is HUGE business.
From the real estate involved to the minister/clergy/leader salaries, it is gigantic.
Probably not what religion founders had in mind.
Add to that the televangelism empires God is "leading" new ministers to build and it goes on and on and on.
Jesus would probably look around at this and say "what are you doing here?"
Believer:
The approach I have taken where evidence for God is concerned I believe is the definitive question which needs to be addressed. Faith is a philosophy and can be produced through any means. God, if there is one, trumps all philosophies and faith because if ones faith says that God wears robes but actually wears a suit and tie your faith is faulty. God may indeed wear some sort of a garment if he has a body but not the garment you thought he wore. Some will then declare that their depiction of his dress was close enough and didn't matter anyway.
Religion is in such a quagmire because not only institutions but people in general have determined privately or in conjuction with others what they do or do not believe based on individual or collective thought. Who out there can authoritatively say "thus saith the Lord"
This is where the investigation into truth has to start. Ones personal faith has no baring or validity on anything. The fact that I say I love Jesus has no meaning unless I can show a preponderance of evidence that Jesus was and is real, otherwise the love I have for my dog who is sitting at my feet this very moment makes blind faith or belief in a God worthless. If one can't know what a true and living God wants us to know provided there is one, what will faith do for us that harmonious but atheistic beliefs might also accomplish for those so inclined.
The next question is does a living God want us to know Him and live by his teachings? Then I would also have to say "Show me the evidence", otherwise any of us can talk till were blue in the face expressing our beliefs and faith but no facts to back them up.
The New Testament manuscripts, none of which are original or directly from the hand of the original author, prove nothing about the miracles Jesus supposedly performed or the resurrection etc. Some sort of witness needs to be produced to lend weight to such writings.
If there are witnesses and evidences then we need to look for them and stop potificating on our personal prejudices.
This forum is starting to scare the Bejezus out of me.
Sharon said:
"Wow - I am amazed at the confusion in this blog. I can put it simply and this is not belief, it is KNOWING!
1) there is a God, and his son is Jesus Christ
2) WE (all of us) are his children
3) we have come to Earth to be tested and make choices
4) there is an eternal plan, called "The Plan of Salavation" of which the earth part is a small part of (there is lots more)
5) loving our fellow man, serving each other and giving support and charity are key elements to our development
6) we can and will be with our families in the eternities
and finally
7) there is JOY and BLESSINGS and HAPPINESS so far beyond our current comprehension available if we just do what he instructs us to."
. . . . . . . .
Will said:
"I know that Jesus is the only way to God because he is God and he said so"
. . . . . . . .
Tammy said :
"To all who have posted comments and to ones who will be reading them as well, religion will not get anyone to heaven, being the nicest, caring, loyal person will not get anyone there either the only way a person will get to heaven is accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and ask for forgiveness of your sins"
. . . . . . . .
See, that's precisely why people hate religion.
And I fear that (as others have noted) this comment thread is demonstrating pretty clearly that the answer to the question is NO -- NO conversation is possible, and NO common ground (with the True Believer, that is).
Unfortunately I naively have too much faith in human beings to accept this. So for now I'm going to be cautiously pessimistic about this forum . . . Who knows, maybe Reason will rear its ugly head . . .
Addendum:
Actually, it was rapturous rantings of "VAN" that really sent me over the edge here.
One of the problems with conducting a true dialog, is that we don't come to the table with equal education, and I think this is why the atheists sometimes come off as arrogant.
Most of us who now abjure religion were raised by religious parents, attended some church, and grew up surrounded by believers. Many of us have read the bible. We have come to our repudiation of what we see as mere superstition through our education, our reading of scientific theory, and our own rationality.
I find very few strong believers (particularly among those who believe that the bible is literally true), who have read or studied any science at all. Most who rail against Darwin have never read The Origin of Species, nor do they know anything about the man himself, or how he came to his conclusions. Still fewer have read authors such as Stephen Jay Gould, or Richard Dawkins. Churches have always condemned such reading (sometimes to the point of burning books) because they are (possibly rightly) afraid that it will shake the faith of their followers.
If there is one thing I would wish for my fellow humans, it is that they would read both sides, and then consider what they truly believe. At least, if they then opted to continue with religion, they could honestly say that they do so from a position of educated opinion.
Whether it's politics or religion, read and truly consider both sides of the argument. Don't just listen to those who speak about what you already believe. Sift out the good ideas. Then decide what you believe for yourself.
The question itself is problematic as stated and does not lend itself to the very productive conversation it asks about. The question hints at an assumption that objective truth does not exist. Relativism is assumed. Therefore anyone proclaiming absolute truth is viewed as tyranical.
What if absolute truth does exist? What if some moral and religious truths were as objective as the law of gravity, meaning, disregard them at your own risk? Would you still refuse to believe? What if you had to sacrifice doing your every whim and be subjected to this absolute truth - would you listen and obey? What would the consequences be of ignoring it? What are the benefits of obeying it?
The advocates of absolute truth don't claim to have invented it. They only claim to have a clue as to what it is. (it's called natural law and has been recognized by many cultures for centuries). And to some degree we all believe in absolutes. For instance, is cold blooded murder ok? Of course not. But what about someone who "believes its ok"? Or they did it because someone "deserved" it (according to their moral compass). Does that belief make it ok for him? Should we not "enforce our beliefs" on that person and stop him from doing it again? Extreme example but just to make the point that at our core, no one really believes in total relativism. Examples on lighter issues make the same point.
The question should start with asking if truth does exist at all in an objective form. Assuming relativism is in itself the only objective norm is what actually creates the impossible environment for reasonable conversation.
Kishor Trivedi wrote: “All of us approach one God by various names, such as Isvara, Rama, Krishna, Jehovah, Allah, God, and so on. The Allah of Islam is the same as the God of Christians and the Isvara of Hindus. The God of Gandhi cannot be different from the God of Mother Theresa [sic].”
This has been the universal fallback position of True Believers ever since humans, for the most part, stopped killing each other because of their differing religions. Killing people because of their strange religions was the initial reaction when humans first began to spread out geographically and bump into each other. Over the centuries it seemed that the religious killings were fading away. Alas, today it is as bad as it’s ever been. Why? Because we now bump into each other not at the speed of a horse-drawn cart, but at the speed of a 747. The Internet has sped up that process even further.
Unless and until zealous religions fade away, the killing can never stop. Why? Because the religions themselves, if you are orthodox and fundamentalist about them, demand it. There can be no room for infidels in the perfect world of a religious fundamentalist.
The God of Gandhi is indeed different from the God of Mother Teresa. The two could never have been worshipping the same God for the simple reason that one of them worshipped a God who sent a Savior named Jesus and one did not. Nothing complicated about it. The One True God either sent Jesus or he did not. There is no room for a middle position. This same kind of yes/no proposition can be applied to all religions in all times. There IS no universal solution to this dilemma unless all dogmatic religions are abolished. And we should all be so lucky.
Read again the question: "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"
Jeez, I wonder what answer we're supposed to come up with. This question presents, albeit slyly, the basic presumption of demi-intellectuals everywhere (and always, too): that people who believe they know anything, particularly something about God, are hopelessly close-minded. Thus the predictable torrent of joyful responses from sophomoric atheists, whose faith in the lack of faith is so vast, so blind, and so dogmatic.
I agree with many of the comments that fanaticism in religion can cause many problems. But so can wrong actions in the name of any political,economic,social or philisophical entity. I shudder to think what society would be like today in absence of the restraining influence of religion, especially Christianity. Many of our hospitals, schools and charities were founded by people not as a matter of practicality but because good people were following the biblical injunction to do good to the less fortunate among us. Getting rid of religion, as Richard Dawkins and Elton John have recently suggested, is not the answer. We must respect each other as human beings regardless of our different beliefs and try to find common ground to work together for a better society. This does mean that I give up my beliefs or principles to satisfy you or vice versa. This will not be easy.
My two cents: The central point to any domestic friction around faith is NOT around understanding others' perspectives, but accepting they exist as we have for well over 200 years.
This is the root of existance, religious tolerance.
The friction today comes from those whom desire to cross the church and state divide and legislate their beliefs.
Focusing this discussion, website, media's mindset on religious tolerance is, in my opinion, a mis-directed and dangerous approach.
Having us debate our long standing acceptance of Freedom of Religion only gives a few a platform that will only serve to create confusion and muddling of the issue.
One belief system cannot dictate our laws. That is what separates our Melting Pot from the Taliban.
Hey... I love you and wish you all a long and happy ‘life’. (:))
First, many people have faith in God not because of brainwashing but because of experience. I believe and serve God because of what I've seen the wonders in people's lives as well as my own. I have faith because I've seen God at work, not because I'm some lemming who believes whatever I'm told, as some assert.
We ALL try to corner truth. People of faith believe their faith is it. Disbelievers believe THEY know the way. Most everybody has a stance. Atheists are just as adamant in their beliefs as anyone else.
To say religious people or people of faith try to corner the market on truth is short-sighted and unfair. We all have beliefs. Some in God, some in something else.
The difficulty of this question seem obvious. And it's probably the reason why there is little common ground.
Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Born Agains, call them whatever you like, believe that the Bible is divine. It's not. And it doesn't take long to definitively prove it. Case in point -- John 19:14 - 19:42. In the John's gospel, Jesus dies on Thursday, not Friday. "It was the day of Preparation of Passover, about the sixth hour." That's Thursday. It's been Thursday for 2700 years and if George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden don't get us all blown up, it will be Thursday for another 2700 years.
Why Thursday? Because that's the theology of the Gospel of John. Jesus doesn't partake in the sacrificial Passover lamb -- He IS the sacrificial Passover lamb!
Does Jesus dying on Thursday change anything? No.
The manuscripts of the New Testament were written 1900 years ago by 1st century diaspora Jews living in Roman-occupied Asia Minor, or their 1st century diaspora Greco-Roman-pagan convert counterparts. It was not written by 21st century Americans living in virtual freedom. So to interpret them from the point of view of a 21st century American is improper and dishonest.
It means what it meant to its original authors (and that isn't 21st century Americans) and to its original audience (and that isn't 21st century Evangelicals).
When the New Testament manuscripts are kept in their historical context, the number of interpretations they can have diminishes significantly. If, to the John of Revelations, "the beast" is the Roman Empire, then guess what? It's still the Roman Empire. That identity does not change because you want it to be something else. It is now what it was then.
If or until modern day Christians start to learn the actual history of their own religion, there will continue to be very little common ground.
And isn't that a sad statement?
In response to Will and others. I do not object to or question your belief. What I object to is any time any one uses THEIR religious belief to justify a position on OUR civil law. Many lawmakers in at all levels of government do this.
Abortion is just one example. Do I think society should discourage abortions and provide other options yes. Do I think society should make the procedure illegal. No. Because 'life begins at conception' is an opinion typically based on religious faith, not an objective fact. Same for stem cell research.
Currently marriage confers certain government financial benefits. If we are to truly guarantee 'equal protection under the law', denying some people who choose to establish a family other than 'one man, one woman' doesn't wash. Again, the fact the some religions consider homosexuality a sin doesn't justify it being OUR law. Perhaps the state should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all and leave that to religions. The state can stick to providing financial benefits based on domestic partnership.
We don't need to have religious dialog. The constitution is intended to protect us from that. We need to reestablish civil dialog.
In response to Will and others. I do not object to or question your belief. What I object to is any time any one uses THEIR religious belief to justify a position on OUR civil law. Many lawmakers in at all levels of government do this.
Abortion is just one example. Do I think society should discourage abortions and provide other options? Yes. Do I think society should make the procedure illegal. No. Because 'life begins at conception' is an opinion typically based on religious faith, not an objective fact. Same for stem cell research.
Currently marriage confers certain government financial benefits. If we are to truly guarantee 'equal protection under the law', denying those benefits to people who choose to establish a family other than 'one man, one woman' doesn't wash. Again, the fact the some religions consider homosexuality a sin doesn't justify it being OUR law. Perhaps the state should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all and leave that to religions. The state can stick to providing financial benefits based on domestic partnership.
We don't need to have religious dialog. The constitution is intended to protect us from that. We need to reestablish civil dialog.
And by the way, Sharon, 'Knowing' without demonstrable supporting evidence is a pretty good working definition of believing.
Where is hell? or paradise? I think that people have the right to believe whatever it is that makes them feel safe and good. Just don't try to tell me that there is a life after death. The definition of death is the end. The end means the end of existance period.
I just finished reading Letter to a Christian Nation, and am now reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. It's amazing how much we are still so much like the folks that first wondered about fire, wind, death, etc., that we still have such rediculous notions about faith, or that we even feel we need it. I think we do, but 99% of all man-made organized religion is total B.S. God is really just the unknown and unprovable in all its forms. Let's use our "God-given" instincts and be intellectually honest, please.
I find it humorous that athiests can be caught saying things like "Oh My God" or "Jesus Christ" under their breath without evening realizing what they just said or where it came from. They deny their ancestors and the roots of our civilization -- thinking mankind will succeed worshipping our ourselves. Big mistake, our ego's will be our downfall.
I find it humorous that athiests can be caught saying things like "Oh My God" and "Jesus Christ" under their breath -- automatically. They don't realize that it is their ancestors they learned this from and wish to shirk their responsibility to God because their ego's and selfishness tell them that they are superior worthy of self worship.
The roots of western civilization is Christianity and they do not want to be held responsible for their actions, so they deny God and deny their ancestors.
Interesting......cutting ones roots is dangerous for the psyche and spirit....take it from an immigrant who lost thier country.
CLASSIC WOMAN said:
"The roots of western civilization is Christianity"
Oh my God. Jesus Christ, that is an unfounded statement. What the Hell are you talking about?
Oops -- I guess I must believe in God. Since, you know, I just said the word "God." Oh no! I did it again! Now I believe in TWO gods!
Hey Kris Denton,
You rock. Could not have said it better. Great stuff.
Peace baby!
The only common ground is that all religions are myths. They are centralized attempts to control others through threats and promises. The imperative step to getting to common ground and civilized coexistence is getting to disbelief as righteousness.
Now if we are going to answer this question, we must first ask a question: "What is a 'religious person'"? You see, it is very important that we ask this question, because if we allow your question to stand as it is, if we allow ourselves to answer it in the same terms, we may lump together things that are very different. Many call Osama Bin Laden a 'religious person.' Others call the Dalai Lama a 'religious person.' You might call yourself or a friend a 'religious person.' Perhaps, if we would like to go into it, we might ask, quite simply: "What is this thing, this movement, these acts that we call religion?" Is it that which allows, through the loudspeakers, the televisions, the circulars and etc., people to be hypnotized with a repetition of words and images that drives them toward acting in accordance with the will of a single man? Is it something personal? Is it that which helps an individual human being destroy this feeling of loss or that feeling of anger or this feeling of loneliness and/or complete frustration? Is it something that helps an individual human being improve his or her quality of life? Is it the quality of life itself? Or is religion a symbol? Is it the cross? Is it a crescent moon? Is it a statue? Or does it come from a book? From the Bible? From the Koran? Is it something beyond these physical things? Is it bowing to the Buddha? Is it bringing your hands together in prayer? Or are all these things that which helps the individual human being tap into something that is far more powerful? Perhaps we can ask what the individual human being, that is, each one of us ourselves, can do with the power that is religion? Where would a question like that take us?
Why do people argue over what someone believes. If you don't believe what I believe than why does it bother you. You have every right not to hear what I have to say. We have free will. You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. What I believe is that everyone will not accept you for who you are because man is inheritly evil. Why else will a man hate his brother. People kill because of skin color, because of being from the wrong side of town, because someone cut them off on the road, because he owed me 2 bucks, because he step on my shoes, etc.etc. Christianity (followers of Jesus The Christ) is not a religion, its a way of life that people do not always or chose not to follow. As a matter of fact we should called Followers of Christ "People of the Way." Not to be confuse with people who hijack the way.
James Hayes, you have a valid point about the lack of common ground. I think the real problem is that people are out to convert others to Christianity or atheism or some other belief system. I don't see my posts here as attempts to convert others to my religious beliefs. My posts here are simply attempts to defend my right to even have my own religious beliefs. As you can probably tell, I feel VERY defensive about that right, regardless of my beliefs. (Which, by the way, are a combination of pantheism, universalism, and beliefs that I didn't realize were Buddhist until someone noticed the similarity.) Why should I feel defensive? As I said originally, when religious evangelists give up their desire to convert others, then it may be possible to find common ground.
The common sin of many religions (especially Western religions) is to believe they have a monopoly on truth. Therefore, all ecumenical efforts are superficial and worthless attempts to create common grounds for a better world. In my book "Ercian Testament" (published free online, see www.ercian.org) I have set forth four logical proofs regarding the nature of the "Ultimate God." ERC, as I have named the Ultimate God is NOT a conscious being. Therefore, NO RELIGION HAS THE WORD OF (the Ultimate) GOD. Although in my book I leave room and provide evidence for the possible existence of a "conscious personal" God evolved from ERC (I have named that possible God ELLAEL - Spanish for "SHEHE"), I also state that no one, including myself, can prove to be the recipient of "revelations" from that God. Read Chapter 19 of "Ercian Testament" titled "Peace Among Religions." Showing that no one has "the Word of God," as I believe to have done, is the only way to bring about that peace, and to do away with all the false positioning we find today.
The word religion comes from the Latin word religio, which means to bind together or unite. To find the point of unity, the common thread that runs through all religions we must turn our hearts and our minds to the words of the Divine Messengers of God: Such as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and Baha'u'llah. "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth" then I suggest to them that they have misinterpreted their own Holy Book and have attached themselves, blindly, to those misinterpretations. When Christ said he was the way and the light, this is true but He also said "I have so much to tell you but ye cannot bare it now, how be it, when He who is the spirit of Truth shall come He will lead you to all truth." The Jews set an extra place on Passover for the Messiah at the table, yet this has been reduced only to a tradition, for if the Messiah were to walk through the door and sat Himself down in the seat of honor and proclaim Himself to be the awaited Messiah He would be instantly rejected. The Muslims are awaiting the Qiam or the 12th Imam but they, like the Jews and Christians have attached themselves to their own religious traditions and misinterpretations. However, if these Divine Messengers were to occupy the earth at the same time they would surely recognize each Others Divinity and see the oneness and the unity in each Others teachings. In the sight of God and in the realm of heaven These Divine Instruments of God are equal. The differences that lie between Them are only as different as those teaching that lie between a fifth grade teacher and a 7th grade teacher. Christ, like Moses or Muhammad or Baha'u'llah were sent to earth, by the same Creator, with a specific message,very specific teachings and at a specific time in the maturation of humanity. Within all religions there exists a duality in religious teachings; There are two sets of religious laws and ordinances; one set of teachings are relative, these are social teachings that change from age to age, as humanity changes. The second aspect of religion deals with teachings that are eternal, they are everlasting, these are the spiritual teachings of God. For example, some social teachings, within religion, deals with marriage and dietary laws while the spiritual teachings increase our capacity to show love and forgiveness, to show compassion and generosity; these teaching are eternal while the social teaching are relative to the age. Christ never changed the spiritual teachings of Moses, he renewed them: but He did change the social teaching, the laws that govern physical society. As the child matures the parent changes the laws, within the home, that govern that child: some laws are removed altogether, some are merely altered while new ones are implemented. These are the differences in religion.
The benefit in consulting and talking to others of different faiths is important but only if we can listen with an open heart and an open mind. If our motive is to convert another to our faith then the motive is not pure and we will not be able to see our great similarities. The sun of Tuesday is the same sun of Wednesday, but each day possesses its own unique qualities. Moses, Christ, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah are all Suns of Truth yet They have appeared at different times in the history of mankind. Like the days of the week They have possessed unique and different qualities which were designed for the age in which They appeared. The downside when talking about religion is that attachment to our own Truth can surface and manifest itself in a most un-spiritual like fashion. We must embrace the truth in all Faiths and come to realize that another religion poses no threat to our own. To recognize the beauty in another's faith does not diminish the Truth in our own.
Most religions believe in Love, Peace, and Harmony besides other principles; also believe in judgment at the end of life to assign reward or punishment for all eternity. People CONFORM to religious, societal, cultural, and economic existence never examining their life fully; to a certain extent never questioning why they think or behave as they do. In fact, the majority of people never reach total autonomy, never searching for their own path or breaking new ground other than the life introduce so long ago. Yet, to be punished or rewarded for all eternity, to what end?
After only one life-time, does this seem fair? How is it possible that people really believe this crap? Can we all accept the fact that we all came into this world not knowing a whole lot and your parents and everyone else before you found themselves in a similar circumstance and yes even your religious leaders? All generations fell into place fulfilling this machine we call society and civilization with all its mechanisms such as education, productivity, monetary systems and ideologies; all to acquire status, caste, and security; again, to what end?
It begs the question, what kind of Creator would set a system like that? Well, I think its man’s structure and not the creator’s; I mean religions must have been imagined and designed to control the masses. I have never met anyone professing of being a Christian to be “Christ-like” and this is including the entire priests and ministers I have known; of course they always say, we’re only human and not perfect. Plus they also add that “The Devil” made me do this or that; never having to be accountable for their own actions. In addition, if you try to raise the fact that they might be a bit off on their logic, they quickly scream “persecution”.
I see a need for a global paradigm shift and what could help is taking and living by the lyrics from the song “Imagine” by John Lennon. I know it sounds a bit of stretch to have such hope for this world.
But why does it take so long for evolution to take the next step is it a child? Can we the World give it strength to hold it self up so it can start marching right along even run; isn’t the World getting a little tired of this human disjointed stage? I’m concern that if something like a cathartic event doesn’t awake the human race we are doom to fail its Creator. Yes, all of us would be responsible and we would have no one to blame but ourselves. Could it be that religion is holding us back?
Most of the "Great and Important" questions about our existence on this big ball floating around the sun, in the vastness of space cannot be answered. Why are people feel so fearful of making a statement such as "I don't know, but I'm open to discussion"
Because of our intelligence as human beings we have a fundamental need to think about where we came from and where we might be going. To me, the question itself is interesting and exciting. I have no problem with this question remaining unanswered. In fact, my problem is with people who think they have an answer. I guess you can either call me a "Unitarian Universalist"... or maybe even a "Wicken"..or whatever. I am a spiritual person, and I think there is a manifestation of a "central theme" or "God" or whatever word you care to use, in all things. I prefer to look at the majesty of life around me on this big ball. I prefer to look at it in awe, and not expect an answer. Maybe, in another dimension, or another life......but not in this one.
Posted by: schreibe | November 17, 2006 7:05 AM
"Case in point -- John 19:14 - 19:42. In the John's gospel, Jesus dies on Thursday, not Friday. "It was the day of Preparation of Passover, about the sixth hour." That's Thursday. It's been Thursday for 2700 years and if George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden don't get us all blown up, it will be Thursday for another 2700 years.
Why Thursday? Because that's the theology of the Gospel of John. Jesus doesn't partake in the sacrificial Passover lamb -- He IS the sacrificial Passover lamb!
Does Jesus dying on Thursday change anything? No."
This is the sort of conspiracy theory approach to biblical criticism that drives thoughtful believers nuts. We're talking about calendrical niceties over a period of 2000 years and multiple cultures. Just as modern day Christian groups calculate the date of Easter slightly differently, not all first century Jews used the same calendar calculations. If you take all the Gospel accounts together, there's also some ambiguity over which day Jesus was crucified on. We know all this - and when someone says "gotcha - it was Thursday" we tend to react the same way a fireman does when a conspiracy theorist says "but hey, they never found the engines from the plane you CLAIM hit the Pentagon."
"This is the sort of conspiracy theory approach to biblical criticism that drives thoughtful believers nuts."
If you think that's bad imagine being a rational thinking person and having the believers tell you the Bible is the absolute truth, the word of God, that drives us nuts.
"Sorry terrible example, how about a poor man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family? nice and simple."
Another excellent question. Clearly, some things are situational. Sexual relations with my wife are morally good; sexual relations with my next door neighbor's wife would be adultery, and morally wrong. The question then becomes "are all moral questions situational, or are there some acts that are, by their very nature, always morally wrong."
Without going too deeply into moral philosopy or theology, I do believe you need to define the acts you're talking about carefully. So, for instance, "murder" might be the unlawful taking of innocent life. (You could probably find holes in that definition, and come up with a better one, but my intent is to say that we would need a definition that would exclude, for instance, killing in the case of legitimate self-defense and judicial sentences imposed by lawfully constituted courts working within their appropriate jurisdiction.) In those terms, not all killing would be murder. But I would claim that it is morally wrong, in any circumstances, to intentionally take the life of another who is innocent. Again, their are grey areas - what if the intent is not to kill but to do something honorable, like demolish a building to create a firebreak to save a city, but you know that there may be someone in the building who may be harmed? Those are the questions that keep rabbi's, mullah's, theologians and moral philosphers up at night. I do not think they undermine the universal principle that murder is wrong - they just make it more of a challenge to properly define "murder" in a complex world.
Theft is a difficult one for me, but yes, I'm forced to say that it is more honorable to beg than to steal. Life generally doesn't present us with only one option (though it may often seem that way). Now, if you want to talk grey areas, what about situations like New Orleans after the floods, when civil order has broken down and property such as food and medicine that people desperately need as been abandoned by the owners? My personal judgement in that case (and I can't claim to know the final answer) is that it is acceptable to take food or medicine to preserve life, but not to take more than you need or cause any unnecessary damage to property, and that you should make every reasonable attempt to make restitution afterwards.
But just like modern physics - just because we don't always have the insight to see the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.
"Well believer, sorry you were doing so well, you seem like a nice guy, then the Rev decided to help out, it's that kind of rhetoric that scares me, and probably a few others, the limit of freedom due to religious belief, religion must be kept seperate from politics."
That's the problem with rhetoric - if the rhetoric on the side of non-believers heats up, so will the rhetoric on the side of believers (and soon we're just shouting at each other).
I suspect the Rev is convinced, for reasons he thinks are adequate, that the claims of Christianity are true. He takes them seriously - meaning that he is convinced that religious claims can be either true or false - and just like a biologist isn't willing to say "well, evolution is true for me but perhaps not for you, so let's not argue about it," he's not willing to say "well, the idea that Jesus rose from from the dead around A.D. 30'ish is true for me but perhaps not for you, so let's not argue about it."
Bottom line - he thinks it's true, and that given time he can prove it to someone who's open minded enough to honestly look at the evidence. He's not saying it well, and as a result, isn't helping his cause much. Gotta admit, though - I haven't seen any side that's come off particularly well in this discussion.
"But on that topic, I'll start by simply stating this: I have more respect for an adulterer who has thought about it and concluded that adultery is o.k., than I do for a chaste husband who doesn't cheat on his wife simply because it happens to be written on a rock."
Perhaps so - there is moral blame to be attached to someone who knowingly does what they believe to be wrong (even if they are mistaken, and the act itself is not inherently wrong), and it is a mitigating factor if someone commits an evil act because they do not understand that it is morally wrong. Our legal system may provide a useful analogy. A key precept is that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" - an unlawful act is still an unlawful act. Courts do, however, take into account as exacerbating or mitigating factors the knowledge and intent of accused individuals.
I would argue that an individual who convinces himself that adultery is o.k. is still morally culpable when he sleeps with his mistress, but less culpable than the man who says "yeah, I know this is wrong but I just don't care." Test how comfortable you are with moral relativism by thinking about how comfortable you'd be with the analogy if it involved murder, dumping untreated toxic waste into a river, or selling tobacco to kids.
I have to object to the analogy of a man who's chaste "simply because it happens to be written on a rock." That's an injustice to the origins of any of the major world religions.
"Even something as abhorrent as suicide bombing: in the name of fighting a grave injustice (hypothetical: Jews in Warsaw blow themselves up trying to drive out the Nazis), there is some moral weight (some "grey area"); but if you're doing it simply because your interpretation of some word in some book supposedly written by your invisible deity tells you to, you have my complete and unequivocal condemnation, obviously."
We could talk all day about pacifism vs. non-pacifism, and what is appropriate in wartime. I would suggest that intention matters here - in my mind, Jews willing to die to attack Nazi troops would be one thing, but Jews purposefully attacking civilians would be another. And yes, I apply the same reasoning to Iraqi's, Palestinians and Israeli's, and yes, it can be difficult to sort out the niceties of what's intentional and what's inadvertant, and what's negligent. But again, I believe that the same principles apply to everyone, everywhere.
"but if you're doing it simply because your interpretation of some word in some book supposedly written by your invisible deity tells you to, you have my complete and unequivocal condemnation, obviously."
Again, all of the Abrahamic religions depend on individuals being convinced that there is good and sufficient evidence that the books represent the word of God. And frankly - how do you feel about people fighting because they believe their political system is better than someone else's?
To the person who asked; "WHO created God?:
God may not have been created at all. There may be no beginning, middle or end to God’s existence. The realm of godliness is beyond human comprehension, just as Carl Sagan's flatlanders cannot conceive of 3 dimensional beings or a 3 dimensional world, but can see traces of their existence, leading them to believe that there is something beyond their interpretation of reality.
As many before have said, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Unfortunately, for those of us who really like proof.
"One of the problems with conducting a true dialog, is that we don't come to the table with equal education, and I think this is why the atheists sometimes come off as arrogant."
Oh man - it's blanket assumptions like this that make us think atheists are arrogant. What a way to win a debate: "well heck, of course you don't get it - you're not as educated as we are!"
Dear Believer,
"Sure, there are grey areas - when does interest become exhorbitant and immoral? But theft is wrong in all times and in all places. If it's wrong for me to steal, it's wrong for you to steal, and it's wrong for a man in Afghanistan to steal - this isn't a conventional choice along the lines of "which side of the road will we drive on here in Great Britain."
Have you softened your stance as to theft? Have we found some 'wiggle' space?
Oh man - it's blanket assumptions like this that make us think atheists are arrogant. What a way to win a debate: "well heck, of course you don't get it - you're not as educated as we are!"
Atheists don't claim to know the absolute truth, and we get called arrogant? What about the people who get all their wordly knowledge from one book and then claim divine knowledge?
Question: If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?
First of all, H U G E kudos to Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham for starting this discussion On Faith.
The wonderful (IMHO) author, Neale Donald Walsh ("Conversations With God," etc.) teaches us that "...in the absence of That Which Is Not, That Which Is is not." Confused?
Let's assume I am wearing a red shirt. I know my shirt is red because there are many things around me which are 'not red' -- my pants are blue, my shoes are black, my skin is white with little brown freckles, etc.
Pretend for a minute that EVERYthing was red -- not only red, but the same shade of red. My shirt, my pants, my shoes, my skin, my freckles, this keyboard, etc.
Red (That Which Is) would be meaningless; it could be debated that it does not even exist (or does anything else since we can not distinguish one from another).
In the absence of That Which Is Not Red, That Which Is Red is not (red).
Bottom line, I think that there is a good bit of common ground between religions AND there is a good bit which is different and BOTH of these are needed.
I believe that we should rejoice in what is similar and celebrate that which is different and On Faith is a wonderful start.
Peacefully yours.
"The New Testament manuscripts, none of which are original or directly from the hand of the original author, prove nothing about the miracles Jesus supposedly performed or the resurrection etc. Some sort of witness needs to be produced to lend weight to such writings.
If there are witnesses and evidences then we need to look for them and stop potificating on our personal prejudices."
This gets to the heart of the matter. Of course, we don't have the first copy, from the hand of the author, of any of the books of the New Testament. We also don't have an original, hand-written-by-the-author copy of any of the works of Aristophances, Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Plautus, Tacitus, Livy, Seutonius . . . or from any other author of classical times. We do in fact have more early manuscripts of the New Testament books than we do of any of the classical authors I mentioned. This is due to the importance the church placed on the works, and the large number of copies that were made.
Textual analysis of the New Testament is a huge field of study. Scholars spend their lives studying how "slips of the pen" made by a scribe were replicated and passed on by other copyists. We've benefited by those efforts, which have helped clean up and restore the greek text. Modern English translations reflect those changes.
Reasonable people have looked at the accounts and said "I just can't buy that." Fine - you have to actually believe it for faith to be meaningful (I really do part company with folks who want to treat Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism like Santa Claus - "Of course it isn't true, but acting like it was sure makes Christmas more meaningful"). But I do think it's reasonable to assert that the New Testament works were written in the late 1st century (and perhaps into the early 2nd century), and that the text we have is materially the same as that which was current at that time. Then we have to ask ourselves if the people involved 1) believed what they said, 2) were in a position what they were talking about, and 3) whether we find their accounts to be trustworthy. That becomes much more subjective ("I think this witness is lying, your honor;" "no, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the witnes has no reason to lie - she's the real victim here").
If you really want to dig into it, I'd suggest you read Livy, Seutonius or Tacitus first - one of the histories of Rome. Then read the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. They are the two books that are most similar to the Roman histories in genre. Then compare and contrast.
believer said, "But just like modern physics - just because we don't always have the insight to see the answer doesn't mean there isn't one."
within the context of reality, physics exists. the one true test of a truth is to compare written tenets of a belief based system to the truth,
reality.
The physicists don't just make up a story and try to verify it by reinterpreting reality....just like mathematics are short hand for the way things work, so is physics nothing more than a description of likelihoods....
Physics does not base itself on a book and try to prove the world a lie.
Christianity, is a stolen religion. It was stolen from the early christians by a Roman emporer. Who along with a panel of Roman experts, determined what Christianity would look like....and established a lineage.......
Protestants, are those who have moved outside of this singular interpretation of dogmatic documents, but are still trapped within the lineage.....
saints exist within all groups....healings by touch, miracles, exist in other cultures that have no knowledge of christianity, and are not given equal credence because of the greed and fear of church purveyors.........
"If you think that's bad imagine being a rational thinking person and having the believers tell you the Bible is the absolute truth, the word of God, that drives us nuts."
Most believers are, in fact, rational thinking people - they couldn't keep their day jobs if they weren't. My college philosophy professor said something that's stuck with me ever sense (well over 25 years). "Always read philosphy sympathetically. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with what the particular philospher says, but you do need to ask yourself 'why would he think that?'" Rather than going nuts because you don't agree with believers, sit down and ask "why would a rational thinking person believe that?"
At the end of the day, you may still be convinced that they're dead wrong. But I think you'll be surprised to learn that all of the issues that have come up in this blog discussion (e.g., whether modern people can believe accounts of miracles; what relevance miracles have on modern faith; the reliability of our texts of the various sacred scriptures; the relionship between the various world faiths; just what, precisely, "inspiration" of scripture means; which teachings may have been culturally coniditioned, how much, and how can we tell; whether our religious beliefs need to be reconsidered in light of modern scientific theories, and how that reconsideration might change them) are actively being discussed by religious thinkers in all the major world faiths. There is active disagreement in each of those faiths on pretty much every one of these issues - and thoughtful, careful men and women among those who reaffirm largely traditional understandings, as well as among those who are trying to radically redefine their faith.
If my philosophy professor at a Christian university could tell me that I needed to read Nietzsche, Sarte and Foucault sympathetically, I'm very comfortable suggesting that you think about reading some of the more thoughtful religious apologists sympathetically. Do I agree with Nietzsche on much of anything? Heck no. Is it useful to try and understand what might cause him to think about the world the way he did? Yeah. Is it hard? You bet.
As an aside, it can be useful to read some of the existentialists (especially, of course, Kirkegarde)to understand how many modern believers think about things. I tend to have a more classical point of view - convincing myself that the New Testament text has been reliably transmitted from c. 100 A.D. is, in my mind, fundamentally important evidence. Others, with a more existentialist bent, are more persuaded by experiential evidence - you see people in many faiths, western and eastern, focusing on a person experience of the divine, etc.
believer said, "But just like modern physics - just because we don't always have the insight to see the answer doesn't mean there isn't one."
within the context of reality, physics exists. the one true test of a truth is to compare written tenets of a belief based system to the truth,
reality.
The physicists don't just make up a story and try to verify it by reinterpreting reality....just like mathematics are short hand for the way things work, so is physics nothing more than a description of likelihoods....
Physics does not base itself on a book and try to prove the world a lie.
Christianity, is a stolen religion. It was stolen from the early christians by a Roman emporer. Who along with a panel of Roman experts, determined what Christianity would look like....and established a lineage.......
Protestants, are those who have moved outside of this singular interpretation of dogmatic documents, but are still trapped within the lineage.....
saints exist within all groups....healings by touch, miracles, exist in other cultures that have no knowledge of christianity, and are not given equal credence because of the greed and fear of church purveyors.........
truth within the christian church, just that it _is_ meant to be avehicle for exclusion, and ownership as a way of saying if it aint Roman it aint the truth, and you can be killed for saying otherwise.
Spainish Inquisition, Joan of Arc.
Rather than going nuts because you don't agree with believers, sit down and ask "why would a rational thinking person believe that?"
I try to, but mostly the answer given is 'it says so in the Bible so it must be true.'
I must admit thought Believer that you are the first, to discuss the subject without resorting to ranting and telling me I'll burn in Hell. For which it is appreciated.
"Have you softened your stance as to theft? Have we found some 'wiggle' space?"
I didn't intend to. I have to admit, though, that there are some moral questions that are very difficult - and discussions like this inevitably tend to gravitate towards them. I'm absolutely comfortable saying living by theft is as wrong in Germany as it is in Canada, and as wrong in Sudan as it is in Saudi Arabia. I'm also absolutely comfortable saying that living by theft was as wrong in ancient Greece as it is in modern Los Angeles.
Does that mean I can answer the "well, what if there's this really bad guy who got wealthy by cheating on government contracts, and your little girl is starving, and the only food in the area is in his house, and you've asked but he said 'No - I like to see children die' and she's really gonna die and what if you break in and take just enough to feed her and don't eat any yourself - is that wrong" questions? Nope - I'm not that smart or that wise.
Sometimes you can be too honest for your own good. (But yes, I think it's a moral invariant that you still gotta be honest.)
If space has a temperature of absolute zero, or 400+degrees below zero, and is supposed to be nothing, how can it be measured, and have a temperature? Speaking of Physics and common ground for discussion that is. Do we all believe there is no such thing as nothing?
"within the context of reality, physics exists. the one true test of a truth is to compare written tenets of a belief based system to the truth, reality. The physicists don't just make up a story and try to verify it by reinterpreting reality....just like mathematics are short hand for the way things work, so is physics nothing more than a description of likelihoods...."
We actually are in much closer philosophical agreement than you might - dare I say it - believe.
My concept of truth depends on the existance of an external, objective reality. By that, I mean a reality that has independent existance from us (we're not somehow dreaming it) and is the same for all of us (if gravity follows an inverse square law for one of us, it must for all of us). A statement is "true" to the extent that it corresponds to that external, objective reality.
I also believe that the important, existential questions asked by philosophers and theologians are meaningful. For instance, "does God exist" is a meaningful question about reality (just like "does dark matter exist"). There either is one, or there isn't. If I say that the God of Jesus of Nazareth exists, the statement is true only so far as it corresponds to reality - in other words, there he's gotta be out there somewhere for it to be true. I may be misinformed, and believe it to be true when it is not (or you may be misinformed and believe it to be false when it is not), but either way, it is either true or false regardless of our personal understanding.
If there's agreement on this much, then people can usefully debate whether we have enough evidence to reasonably support either assertion. But most traditional faiths start here.
"I try to, but mostly the answer given is 'it says so in the Bible so it must be true.'"
Davin, that's truly unfortunate. People get terribly defensive sometimes. It might help to step back one level and talk to them about why they think the Bible is inspired and reliable. My guess is you'll get some "inside baseball" arguements that won't make any sense to you (e.g., well, there's this verse that says "all scripture is inspired"), some that make more sense but you may question (e.g., "well, there's this remarkable consistency of thought and belief across all these documents written over a period of a millenium by a variety of authors in different places and cultures), and some that may intrigue you ("let's talk about what we know about when it was written, the people who wrote it, and how we know that the text has been transmitted accurately").
The debate over Christian evidences has created an incredibly broad literature. Unfortunately, not all Christians have taken the time to think through the foundations of their faith as carefully as they really should. (Of course, people who take politics seriously would also shudder at some of the responses they'd get if they went around asking, "so, why are you a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Green?")
I will say, though, that the response you get is based on the conviction that the Bible is inspired. If it is, then paying attention to what it says makes sense. If not, then all bets are off. The believers you talk to have, based on something, been convinced that the Bible is the word of God. To understand their faith, you have to understand what it was that convinced them. And yes - some people are more easily convinced than others. It's more fun (and profitable) to talk to the ones that took a lot of convincing.
"Atheists don't claim to know the absolute truth, and we get called arrogant?"
I thought it was AGNOSTICS who don't claim to know the absolute truth
;-)
Believer:
I don't believe the factual transmission of the Bible is the Question. Many people I have talked with either accuse it of being partly or totallly fiction Or ask what is its relativity for modern man.
The proposition I purpose is, is it genuine in its own characterization of itself? That Characterization declares that God spoke to certain individuals who reported what He told them. It was then transmitted to others by what ever means they chose [writing, preaching etc.].
The problem then becomes what happened with those God given dictates when they were passed along to man and what can be learned about the justification man has used to interpret those doctrines with so many opposing views as is so common in all religions.
As a liberal Muslim I believe that all those people who believe in the God of Abraham should arrive at common ground. The holy Quran explicitly says in 003.064 : Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)."
Gordon,
I agree that those are absolutely vital questions. I do think that you have to be, at base, convinced that the New Testament originated with the first associates and followers of Jesus of Nazareth, and that it has been reliably transmitted, or the other issues are moot. If, for instance, the New Testament text were drafted in 270 A.D. to support one side in some sort of intra-mural church dispute, it would be pretty much worthless for supporting the foundations of Christianity (which, as an aside, is the problem I have with many of the Gnostic writtings that are receiving so much attention these days).
But you're right - the next great question is "so these guys claim to have a message from God; why should we believe them?" That's one reason people argue so much about miracles and whether the resurrection of Jesus is believable or not. If someone were convinced that the Gospels, for instance, provide credible enough accounts that they became convinced that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then they would also tend to be convinced that what he said about God was correct.
As for multiple interpretations - the big problem with churches is people. We all tend to see things through our own prejudices, preferences and self-interest. Traditions are held long past the time when the justification for them has been forgotten. Any honest believer struggles with this. (Just as in politics, we ask "who are the REAL Democrats").
I once had an epiphany. I was on the 9th green at the Albuquerque Country Club and had just completed the hole with a par and my second scotch. All of a sudden God appeared before me on the green.
She was an Indian woman and man was she pissed!That was my last scotch of the day.
...PS: She also hates golf courses. ( Did I mention it was a Sunday!)
Davin,
No one can tell you what to believe -- you have to find it for yourself. And do with it what you will.
I have such respect for all the religions of the world -- they all have "pieces" of truth. People operate the best the can with what information they have been given.
We should organize ourselves in this forum to have a "summit" if you will. Davin, you could be the "atheist" representative. I would be the "Latter Day Saint" representative. Anyone else what to "put themselves out there"?
I challenge you. We can blog privately, and find common ground. No contention permitted :)
i didn't propose to tell anyone how to live their lives. my beliefs are just that, my beliefs. do i think the Gold Rule would work? sure i do. but the difference between me and the religios right, is i'm not trying to get laws passed through congress to force people to follow my beliefs. i don't use fearmongering, or advocate violence to push my agenda. i believe in the total freedom of the individual to find God in his own way, if he chooses and to live his life however he chooses as long as he does no harm.
it's been said in this discussion that we cannot find a common ground. we can't. but, we can. we, anyone of us here, everyone in the world has the ability to make a decision on how to live. I Choose to live without a heart filled with hate. i Choose to let my neighbors live in peace without fear from reprisals by me. I'm not unique. we all have a choice. people Choose to hate, to fear, to follow the modern Pharisees.
it's hard to choose to be kind. it's isn't popular. the idea of a common enemy bringing people together is as old as time and the modern Pharisees use that tactic. the Islamic extremists use America as their enemy. the religious right uses gays. Hitler used the Jews. (i know i might get smacked for that one, but the truth hurts) we need to stop seeing anyone who doesn't follow us as an enemy. it's just a suggestion, not a commandment.
Only the creator of the created has a monopoly of truth. Conversations and common ground are always possible between the created.
The difficulties lie in one group or the other believing they are better than any human being. Since humans are all the decendents of one human male and female we are all very much the same.
The solution is that we have to first love all humans equally. Out of that love will come a dialog of truth, one in which care is used to bring people to a higher spiritual state. Until we shed all of the hatred in our hearts there will be a slow movment back to love and understanding of our fellow human.
"To save Mankind I suggest the world adopt what I would call The Universal Commandment: KEEP YOUR GOD TO YOURSELF"
Interesting. Who or what would you propose as the authority for issuing this particular "commandment" - and how would you propose getting everyone to agree on the right of this entity to issue such a command?
1. Common ground = No conversation stoppers
2. There is always common ground
3. Therefore, there are no conversation stoppers
I am only going to argue for premise 2 becuase 1 would require too much space to cover all the possibilities (i.e. what kind of conversation, are we trying to persuade, are we conversing out of duty even though we know we won't persuade, are we aimed at intelligent conversation, is there violence involved, etc.)
There is always common ground. Even someone who beleives there is no knowledge at all will atleast have to assume that he believes that there is no knowledge, which is at least a belief. The common ground here is that there are beliefs though they may disagree as to if those beliefs are true or constitute knowledge.
If one person wants to talk about truth and another wants to talk about the truth that there is no truth, the common ground is that they believe there is some truth though the later only believes that there is one truth, that being there are no other truths.
If one person wants to talk about God and his authority and control over all creation and the other person wants to talk about evolution and natural selection, the common ground is that there is a universe of which either God or evolution controls.
If one person is agnostic about everything including his own agnosticism, and another holds that there is absolute truth, the common ground is that the agnostic is agnostic about his agnosticism, unless of course, the agnostic was also agnostic about that, but the person holding to absolute truth could match the agnostic on any level of his agnosticism ad infinitum, so there would always be common ground.
If one person wants to talk about how abortion is wrong and another wants to talk about how abortion is right, the common ground is that there is abortion and that it can be described in moral terms (that it is a moral issue).
If one person wants to advocate gay rights and another limit them, the common ground is that there are people who are gay and that it is a moral issue (you can use the terms should and should not).
If one person wants to talk about evidences against Christianity and another about how Christian belief is warranted in the absence of any evidence at all, the common ground is that people hold Christianity to be true.
If one person wants to talk about de jure objections to Christian belief, and another insists that there are no de jure obejections that do not assume a de facto objection, the common ground is what a de jure and de facto objection is and that there are people who hold Christianity to be true.
Counterexamples??? Remember, that I only argued for premise 2, that there is always common ground.
But just to defeat almost all objections to premise 1 I will say this:
A person may want to have a conversation with a person even though he knows that he will not persuade the person. Perhaps he has a duty to have the conversation regardless of whether he persuades or not. But this gets into coversing for practical purposes. Is a practical purpose only one in which persuasion is possible? Is a conversation stopper only something that prevents persuasion?
Many people would argue that there is no point in talking to someone who he knows will never change his mind, but what if you had a duty to do so? Do you?
"Therefore, there are no conversation stoppers"
I would suggest as a counter-example, one statement that has been made on various occassions in the past by both religious and non-religious extremists:
"Agree or die"
I must admit I’m rather disturbed (but not surprised) by what I’m seeing as dominating discussions in response to all panelists posting to date on the question of the possibility of dialogue, the difficulties and potential benefits. The difficulties become immediately apparent. There are certainly strong indications that Panelist Sherman Jackson is correct: “we often speak of ‘conversation’ when what we really mean is ‘conquest.’ ” It seems a very large percentage of conversations here are devoted to convincing others that view A is correct and all others are not (or have some very serious hell-bound consequences)..
Aside from the ‘evidence’ of the difficulties in the collective posts themselves, there also seems to be a good deal of time devoted to why it is difficult/impossible to have meaningful, useful dialogue. I agree it is/can be difficult; sometimes it may even be impossible. And understanding the challenges and barriers can be helpful in finding ways to ameliorate them. Great. It’s one place to start. In tandem with respect, genuine commitment to listening and understanding, and an interest in finding ways to work more harmoniously together for our collective well-being, I think the ‘difficulties’ are pretty much a no-brainer; the ‘impossible’ will just take a little longer. ;)
All that said, my particular interest in the question posed by the moderators, is more focussed on the potential *benefits* of our exchanges; benefits that extend beyond uniquely individual interests. Panelist Rabbi Cowan speaks of “inner life.” It’s personal. What can we learn about how individuals’ beliefs, articles of ‘faith’/non-faith, etc. manifest in practice? What is it about our beliefs, values, faith(s), spirituality or what-have-you, that motivates us to service and positive change? What can we draw from these to facilitate our collective movement towards a more peaceful, just and sustainable world? What commitment to shared action might we make together?
Just wondering if these latter questions are of interest to anyone else out there.
FSC
Dear Sharon,
No problem with a 'summit', but am a bit hesitant to be the atheists' representative as the are more 'better', more intelligent and more articulate candidates out there, I don't feel that I would do the atheists' cause justice. But don't mind taking part, after all it's all about learning and understanding.
Dear Believer,
I do feel that the Bible can teach some important lessons on morality, but that is on par with fables, and there are so many outlandish claims made about the origin of the universe (Genesis) it's pretty hard to take seriously, as discussed before I have a problem with anything that proports to be the absolute truth.
I label myself as atheist merely because it closest to what I believe, ie no God, but I accept I may be wrong, but closer to atheist than agnostic.
" It seems a very large percentage of conversations here are devoted to convincing others that view A is correct and all others are not (or have some very serious hell-bound consequences)."
Yes - but we're also seeing some people who're genuinely interested in understanding how other people think, and why they believe what they believe. I don't think that an honest, respectful presentation of "here's how thoughtful believers think about the question of whether or not their faith is intellectually defensible" should be construed as an attempt at "conquest."
I do think there's value in helping people see why it's important to understand each other. I'm also very interested, though, in taking the questions of faith seriously enough to discuss whether religion can be a way to seek genuine truth. In other words, I'm interested in more than just the social effects of religious faith - I care whether my co-religionists and I are just whistling through the graveyard, or talking about something real. I'm a Christian, not a Muslim, but I give Islam much more credit than does someone who sees all religion as relative - I give Muslims credit for talking about reality in a way that's more than just aesthetically pleasing - it's meaningful enough that it can be either true or false.
"I do feel that the Bible can teach some important lessons on morality, but that is on par with fables, and there are so many outlandish claims made about the origin of the universe (Genesis) it's pretty hard to take seriously, as discussed before I have a problem with anything that proports to be the absolute truth."
I can understand that. Part of the problem is that the Genesis account has been pretty badly characatured by many people. One thing we often forget is just how old the early parts of the Hebrew scriptures are. Scholars vigorously debate when they were edited into their earliest forms, but they clearly incorporate elements that are very, very ancient. The Genesis account of creation is, to put it into perspective, quite possibly older than the Iliad.
If we take it seriously, I think we have to view it as "literal" in the sense that the author had a specific, comprehensible message that he intended to communicate using normal human language and the literary conventions of the time. We can't necessarily assume that it had anything to do with our current concerns and controversies (although it may turn out to be relevant to our lives). So for instance - I personally believe it has more to do with the paganism of the time than the question of the age of the universe. Think about it - most of the things that people made personified and worshipped (sun, moon, stars, seasons, earth, sea, sky, various critters, etc.), it carefully goes through one by one and says "nope, that's not divine - God made that." In any event, it's very difficult to throw our minds back over almost three millenia to put ourselves in the place of the original readers, and understand what it's really talking about.
I find, in general, that the more recent scriptures are less of a challenge to interpret (with the one exception of the Revelation of St. John - that one's a real challenge, because the literary style is so heavily figurative). I also find that the historical works are easier to handle than the more poetical portions. So I find I & II Kings easier to interpret than Ezekial. I find the New Testament easier to understand than the Hebrew Scriptures. Frankly, they are closer to my background and experience. The others are useful, but much more of a challenge to me.
Look, I have no interest in tricking or forcing you to buy into anything. Religion isn't real unless you're genuinely convinced. I do think it's useful for people to understand how an intelligent, thoughtful person could honestly end up in "the opposit camp."
On one last note, I do believe in the unity of truth. In other words, there aren't two entirely separate realities: a scientific universe and a religious universe (e.g., I can't believer, at the same time, that the world is round and orbits the sun, and that it's a flat disk supported on the backs of gargantuan elephants).
For people who believe in a divinely inspired scripture, the challenge comes when there's an apparant contradiction between the evidence of the physical world and the evidence from scripture. In that case, for the believer there are three possibilities:
1) We've misunderstood the science (the first assumption of most preachers)
2) We've misunderstood the scripture (the first assumption of most scientists) or
3) We've misunderstood both (my personal favorite, and a possibility that I believe is far too often overlooked).
In my experience, when preachers talk about science they inevitably make a total hash of it.
When scientists talk about religion, they inevitably make a total hash out of it (I loved the scientist who, with a straight face, tried to explain how the author of Genesis, over 2,500 years ago, was really trying to describe the Big Bang).
It's enough to make a thinking man weep.
P.S.
Thank you very much for a very enjoyable, educational discussion.
As is apparent throughout this blog, religious people, by definition, believe they have a monopoly on truth. This is an obvious irrational state of mind. There is nothing to be gained by discussing their truths at all. They will not influence you with their irrationalism; and you will not influence them away from their irrationality. So what is the point to such discussion?
It is, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, far more important to assure a nation's legal system is strong enough and rational enough to protect its citizens from people who believe they have a monopoly on truth, than it is to enter into any dialogue with them.
If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?
Dear Bob,
A conversation implies communication, an exchange of ideas, hopefully some learning, much better than the alternative as history as shown. The benefit to be gain is the conversation itself.
I wrote:
One of the problems with conducting a true dialog, is that we don't come to the table with equal education, and I think this is why the atheists sometimes come off as arrogant.
: wrote:
"Oh man - it's blanket assumptions like this that make us think atheists are arrogant."
Well, duh - that's what I said, isn't it?
: wrote:
"What a way
The people who believe they have a monopoly on truth are committed to exploiting their followers.
The unwillingness of the Religious leaders to show any acceptance of other ideas is founded in their need to control the follower’s opinions by exploiting the blind trust required for a follower to believe.
It's funny to me how people would rather accept an easy answer for questions about our existence. I think it's kind of lazy and self-righteous, but more and more these days I see people wanting the easy answers for everything.
I believe in God but I do not try and assume I know what it is. If I DID except a man made version of what God is, then I would feel I am lending myself to ignorance.
Even our holidays like Christmas; our children connect the giving of presents to the birth of Jesus. At a time when their minds are most susceptible to influence, we tell them, the reason they get what they want is because of Jesus. My mom celebrated Christmas every year with tree and lights, but never connected the events to something chimerical. For her, GOD is LOVE and the best she could do was give LOVE to us so when we went out into the world we could understand it and pass it on.
Religions are the political systems of the past.
Just like TIME, GOD is man made.
Deep down in every one of us IS a philosopher. Being philosophers is the source for our humanity. We can predict our own deaths and we hope to predict what happens afterward.
November 15, 2006 1:31 PM