Readers’ Responses to Our Question (244)

I do not pray. I Think is useless because everybody is asking God the same things. Fortune,Protection, Happyness,Health etc... and the world is full of the otherwise.

I haven't prayed since I was a little kid. I don't pray anymore because no one is listening. God to me is an absentee landlord, if He/It exists at all. Anything that can happen in this world does, and I see no evidence of God intervening to save or help anyone. Floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and all the other natural phenomena that kill people every year occur without any direction or salvation from God. So who are we fooling by praying? It's the biggest fantasy out there that someone is actually listening on the other end of things. It's a fairy tale for little kids, like Santa Claus.

MY name is Joe Cuneo, and I go to St. John's. Prayer is when someone tries to communicate their feelings with God. Some people say prayers such as "Our Father", but people can pray in ways in which they just talk to God.People do this to vent out there emotions and what they are feeling enternaly. People pray to God and loved one's who have passed. I do not pray on a regular basis. Occasionally I will pray just in a way to share my thoughts with some of my passed loved ones. I know that no one will talk back to me, but it is the purpose behind the prayer that matters. Besides those rare occasions I do not pray. I do not pray because I like to keep my thoughts to myself, and when I meet God I will share my feelings with him then.

MY name is Joe Cuneo, and I go to St. John's. Prayer is when someone tries to communicate their feelings with God. Some people say prayers such as "Our Father", but people can pray in ways in which they just talk to God.People do this to vent out there emotions and what they are feeling enternaly. People pray to God and loved one's who have passed. I do not pray on a regular basis. Occasionally I will pray just in a way to share my thoughts with some of my passed loved ones. I know that no one will talk back to me, but it is the purpose behind the prayer that matters. Besides those rare occasions I do not pray. I do not pray because I like to keep my thoughts to myself, and when I meet God I will share my feelings with him then.

MY name is Joe Cuneo, and I go to St. John's. Prayer is when someone tries to communicate their feelings with God. Some people say prayers such as "Our Father", but people can pray in ways in which they just talk to God.People do this to vent out there emotions and what they are feeling enternaly. People pray to God and loved one's who have passed. I do not pray on a regular basis. Occasionally I will pray just in a way to share my thoughts with some of my passed loved ones. I know that no one will talk back to me, but it is the purpose behind the prayer that matters. Besides those rare occasions I do not pray. I do not pray because I like to keep my thoughts to myself, and when I meet God I will share my feelings with him then.

MY name is Joe Cuneo, and I go to St. John's. Prayer is when someone tries to communicate their feelings with God. Some people say prayers such as "Our Father", but people can pray in ways in which they just talk to God.People do this to vent out there emotions and what they are feeling enternaly. People pray to God and loved one's who have passed. I do not pray on a regular basis. Occasionally I will pray just in a way to share my thoughts with some of my passed loved ones. I know that no one will talk back to me, but it is the purpose behind the prayer that matters. Besides those rare occasions I do not pray. I do not pray because I like to keep my thoughts to myself, and when I meet God I will share my feelings with him then.

MY name is Joe Cuneo, and I go to St. John's. Prayer is when someone tries to communicate their feelings with God. Some people say prayers such as "Our Father", but people can pray in ways in which they just talk to God.People do this to vent out there emotions and what they are feeling enternaly. People pray to God and loved one's who have passed. I do not pray on a regular basis. Occasionally I will pray just in a way to share my thoughts with some of my passed loved ones. I know that no one will talk back to me, but it is the purpose behind the prayer that matters. Besides those rare occasions I do not pray. I do not pray because I like to keep my thoughts to myself, and when I meet God I will share my feelings with him then.

MY name is Joe Cuneo, and I go to St. John's. Prayer is when someone tries to communicate their feelings with God. Some people say prayers such as "Our Father", but people can pray in ways in which they just talk to God.People do this to vent out there emotions and what they are feeling enternaly. People pray to God and loved one's who have passed. I do not pray on a regular basis. Occasionally I will pray just in a way to share my thoughts with some of my passed loved ones. I know that no one will talk back to me, but it is the purpose behind the prayer that matters. Besides those rare occasions I do not pray. I do not pray because I like to keep my thoughts to myself, and when I meet God I will share my feelings with him then.

MY name is Joe Cuneo, and I go to St. John's. Prayer is when someone tries to communicate their feelings with God. Some people say prayers such as "Our Father", but people can pray in ways in which they just talk to God.People do this to vent out there emotions and what they are feeling enternaly. People pray to God and loved one's who have passed. I do not pray on a regular basis. Occasionally I will pray just in a way to share my thoughts with some of my passed loved ones. I know that no one will talk back to me, but it is the purpose behind the prayer that matters. Besides those rare occasions I do not pray. I do not pray because I like to keep my thoughts to myself, and when I meet God I will share my feelings with him then.

Great site!c646aa874360c31ad9ff5df75bc19988

Whether it's a pill or fast food, they want immediate gratification, but it also points a finger at the greater society as a whole. With all of the modern conveniences that we have we don't have the time that is necessary to address our family's needs. WBR LeoP

How do I know I am God? Because when I pray I find I am talking to myself.

If someone found a 100% reliable proof for the existence and the exact biography and whereabouts of Jesus, with all details which we could compare to our own lives, with convincing, provable new knowledge of virgin conception (maybe Jesus was cloned, after all, lol?), resurrection, miracles (maybe there is, in extreme cases, a possibility to walk on water (ice?)), the Christian belief would crumble like a house of cards. The Christian religion (OT and NT, like all other religions) can only exist on the irrational, irrealistic, nebulous, fabulous, superstition provoking uncertainties surrounding it. Faith is only faith in the absurd, never in the obvious – you don’t need faith in the obvious, provable, repeatable. Reality does make faith dispensable – which, to be sure, it does for me and other honest and open atheists.

And please don’t come up with the silly idea that atheists have no spirituality or morality – they have the same, if not even much more, respect for the miracles of nature. But nature is wonderful, completely self-sufficient in its eternal evolution – it certainly needs no “supernatural appendix” attached to it by little human, power wielding priests. Religions always have been the futile attempt of making the unmanageable manageable, adaptable to the limited human mind.

test

test

test

Good for you, Chip, you extracted a stunned look! Keep it up.

Regarding being self-employed - do you think you could lose clients if they knew about your lack of belief? What would you do in a conversation with clients where everyone mentioned what church they went to? Would you be silent, or say "I don't go to church" or perhaps take the opportunity to say that you're atheist?

I think it's important to "come out" too - if for no other reason than for people to see what atheists look like, i.e., just like them. No one knows who atheists are – they completely blend in no give-away skin color, demeanor or style. The hate toward atheists is all about perception, nothing about reality. It’s like the bogeyman. You’ve never seen him but you know he’s baaad.

“Godless atheists” -- What could be worse? What could be less defined? Some of the Christians on this forum have shown how little they understand. They ask what you believe in if you don’t believe in God, or like the Black woman on CNN, they assume you have no beliefs -- “What does an atheist believe? Nothing.” They think you have no morals and no reason to be moral, they think your lives are empty and meaningless and they think it’s OK to tell you that you’re going to hell!

At this point in the US, respecting a diversity of religions is “in” but respecting no religion is “out.” (As the Jewish woman on CNN said, “…freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion.”). I predict both of them will recant sometime soon – but not soon enough.

Last night, I watched the 1960 Spencer Tracy Movie, “Inherit the Wind” about the Scopes monkey trial in the 20’s. Tracy was the good guy – the lawyer representing the biology teacher who taught evolution. In the movie, he was often called “agnostic” and even “atheist.” The good guy. He blithely referred to bible stories as “fables.” What are the chances of something like that happening now – 47 years later?

"That's not the impression I get from the excerpts I have seen..."

I've read their books and that is not the impression I got, either. Harris in particular talks about the separation between beliefs about deity and the afterlife, and teachings and practices aimed at achieving happiness.

My point was that some believers have chips on their shoulders, and they can find plenty of things in these books that can be interpreted as seeking to "wipe out" religion. And there are other believers who aren't so defensive, but who honestly see a religion's supernatural bestiary and its teachings about happiness as inseparable. Part of the issue is that "faith" is often equated with "religion," while Harris defines "faith" narrowly as beliefs in the supernatural.

"That's not the impression I get from the excerpts I have seen..."

I've read their books and that is not the impression I got, either. Harris in particular talks about the separation between beliefs about deity and the afterlife, and teachings and practices aimed at achieving happiness.

My point was that some believers have chips on their shoulders, and they can find plenty of things in these books that can be interpreted as seeking to "wipe out" religion. And there are other believers who aren't so defensive, but who honestly see a religion's supernatural bestiary and its teachings about happiness as inseparable. Part of the issue is that "faith" is often equated with "religion," while Harris defines "faith" narrowly as beliefs in the supernatural.

Tonio, I think you're right. It's the Christian persecution complex - that belief that a prohibition against religious practice in government, public schools, and the public square, is the same thing as proselytizing atheist beliefs. When neutrality (and the very principles on which the nation was founded) becomes seen as persecution, how do you combat such an irrational and militant point of view? I'm sure it didn't even occur to those panelists on CNN that they were expressing extremely bigoted points of view. As evidenced by the "this is a Christian nation" rhetoric, they drank the koolaid, and to them, their point of view is mainstream and considered reasonable - then again, so was thinking blacks equal to 3/5th's of a white for a very long time.
Think aren't going to change for atheists until more people start being open about it with their friends, neighbors, coworkers, and community, and take their lumps for it. As long as people are allowed to live in a bubble, believing everyone around them thinks just as they do, nothing will change.

I think this kind of sums it up: http://www.bartcop.com/anti-christianBigotry.gif

I haven't actually read Dawkin's or Harris's books; do they actually say they want to "wipe out" religion? That's not the impression I get from the excerpts I have seen...

Chip, what do you suppose is the source of the animosity toward atheists? I suspect some of the believers feel defensive. Because of the popularity of Harris' and Dawkins' books, it's easy to make the mistaken assumption that all atheists seek to wipe out religion.

Tonio, yeah, it is reprehensible. I often wonder if the reason more atheists don't speak out about their treatment is that we don't consider our beliefs to be sacred so that kind of stuff, while certainly incredibly rude, just makes me feel sorry for the persecutor. Then again I'm self-employed so I've never had to worry about workplace discrimination. And my Methodist parents have always been wonderfully respectful of my beliefs.

Interesting about the pantheism. Whenever I take those "find out your religon" quizes online, Universal Pantheism always comes up as second on the list after secular humanism.

A couple of years ago I was browsing for DVD's at the local Borders books. It was back when the Newdow case about the pledge was going on. There was an elderly couple in the checkout line having a conversation with a young mother who was there with her daughter (who was about 9 or 10). They were talking about the case and atheists in general in the kind of overly loud voice you use when you assume everyone in earshot is going to agree with you. They were expressing equally reprehensible sentiments as were in that CNN panel. After about ten minutes of listening to them I walked up to them and said "Hi. I couldn't help but overhear your conversation and I have to say that as an atheist I find your comments incredbily rude and offensive." Then I looked at the young mother and said "and I'm appalled that you seem to be giving no thought to the example you're setting for your child, unless you intend to raise her as a bigot." They were dumbstruck and obviously very embarassed. I just smiled and walked away. The looks on their faces were priceless.

Chip,

I read the transcript of that panel discussion on Paula Zahn's show. I found it to be reprehensible, and I'm not even an atheist. (I consider myself an "atheist sympathizer" even though my beliefs lean toward pantheism.) Reading the transcript made me angry, and not just because Hunter and Schlussel were telling atheists to shut up. It is because Hunter and her fellow believers want to use public schools to push their beliefs on MY daughters, dammit! If it weren't for that, I might laugh at the image of a tiny atheist minority being capable of destroying the vast religion of Christianity.

(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/31/pzn.01.html)

Thanks for the tip, E. I posted a link to a video of that previous CNN panel discussion in the "Why is atheism enjoying a certain vogue" thread, and a link to the feedback form where you can complain about it. That panel discussion was one of the most ridiculous displays of bigotry I've seen in a long time. It was appalling, but also rather amusing. The story was about claims of atheist persecution, and then two of the panelists denied that any such thing exists while stating with hostility that atheists should just "shut up." Errr, thanks for demonstrating exactly what you're claiming doesn't exists? Doh!

The CNN interview with Dawkins has been rescheduled for Monday at 8 -- assuming no pre-emptive breaking news

Sorry for the bum steer -CNN at 8 was a "special"
on the sudden demise of Anna Nicole Smith

Thanks Hermit and Tonio – it’s nice to get some positive feedback after all those stunned looks.
I want to add that when Ehrman and I talked, he also separated Jesus the man from the supernatural stories that grew up around him, and told me straight out, when I asked him for evidence for Jesus, “I’m not a believer.” I don’t recall him saying that during his lecture, but it’s in the intro to his book.

As for Jesus’ teachings – they have value whether he’s mortal, divine or fictional, and even if the teachings aren’t completely original.

PS – ALERT – tonight 2/8/07 at 8 EST on CNN – Paula Zahn interviews Richard Dawkins – I think it’s in response to a recent segment on intolerance toward atheist families, which was followed by a panel discussion which included no atheists! I’m taping it.

here is something that is as scientific as it gets for me- as a muslim i pray 5 times a day actually when the sun is in certain positions so theres a natural rhythm to it-
well as far as natural rhythms go- ladies- when they are having their menstrual cycle do not pray- it has nothing to do with some bizarre uncleanliness or unworthiness or any garbage like that- there are other times when one is exempt from prayer also- and i dont care who agrees or disagrees with this-

when i am not praying- there is a discernible difference in my patience level-

well- im not an idiot- i know that there are hormonal fluctuations that occur when a woman has this physical experience- but it has no effect on the immediate difference in my sense of patience and lowered stress level that occurs when i start praying again- this is something i have noticed over the years and is real-

here is a secret fellows, that you have probably long suspected- when women get cramps and such and pms and go all psycho and mean- ITS BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTUALLY PSYCHO AND MEAN PEOPLE!!!

all women have mood swings and are chemically over emotional during their times to differing degrees-
but if there is no meaness in them- it cant come out- when i was way young i tried to give myslef that emotional and irresponsible leeway- but quickly my conscience got the better of me-

so the next time you encounter some cutting nastiness- dont be so quick to excuse it-

having said that- ive spent a bit of time with folks who are chemically altered and their bodies are dying and some are sweet and some are not sweet- (its really really hard to be sweet if your sick- there was a surgeon on my house and he told this story that he uses to "inspire" is patients about someone who was destined for a wheelchair and through prayer were miraculously healed- and i went mental on him- telling his other patients this story is irresponsibly somehow implying that they are not 'worthy' or 'praying good enough' to be healed likewise- it is kind of blaming the patient for their sickness and this mentality in the health field makes me crazy)

so that is how prayer affects me on a regular basis-
i miss it when i cant do it-
peace now

I enjoyed Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus," although I hate the book's title. E Favorite, I'm glad you had a chance to meet the man, and I loved your response to him.

I've never felt that the existence of Jesus was a critical issue. If it were proven beyond all doubt that he existed, that still wouldn't prove his divinity. His teachings would still have value whether he was mortal or divine.

E Favorite

That was an excellent answer! We are not asked to believe the same kind of detailed life stories about great historical figures that we are asked to accept without question when it comes to Jesus.

Thanks, CHIP -

I’m familiar with The Jesus Puzzle and the DVD and concur with your assessments.

Regarding evidence for Jesus, as I posted on another thread – “I went into my search for the historical Jesus with an open mind, I had assumed that Jesus existed, but I had started wondering why the media and church community hadn’t provided more information – because it would certainly be a big news story! I was surprised to find how little there was – especially after such diligent searches. It did seem to me that if the search had been for anyone other than a superstar like Jesus, it would have been called off long ago. I’m still open, but at this point very skeptical, because no further evidence has been forthcoming – just a continued assertion that “most scholars agree….”

Erhman unfortunately falls into this camp. A direct quote from him, in response to someone’s question about Jesus as myth is: “I don’t know any serious historians who think so.” Later, when we talked, he referred me to one of his least known books and another book, which I since learned, was written in 1985.

I wish the scholars and historians could just say something like, “We’ve been looking long and hard without finding any strong evidence and at this point it’s doubtful that we’ll ever find any.”

A Hermit –

When talking with me, Erhman also used the argument you mentioned, regarding the doubtful historicity of Caesar. He also mentioned Plato and Socrates, saying there was only “hearsay” evidence of them. I’d heard this kind of thing before, so was more ready with a response. I said something like, “Fine, but we have what’s most important about whoever they were - their teachings. Their life stories don’t matter and two thousand years later, the only impact is their work. The society hasn’t constructed a whole belief system around them. No one is fighting and dying over them.” This was greeted with another stunned look, followed by my stunned look. It seemed obvious that he had never thought of it that way before. I didn’t have the nerve to ask him. I guess even an agnostic religious scholar has a stake in keeping Jesus alive.

Good links there, CHip. For those of a bookish nature get thee to a library and look up the works of G. A. Wells. Interesting stuff.

I'm not persuaded by any of this that Jesus didn't exist, but the idea that there is historical evidence for Jesus on a par with that for Caesar or Alexander is questionable at best, and the idea that the stories in the Bible can be relied on as historically reliable is plainly out the window.

A Hermit

E, I'm also stunned that he was stunned, hehe. It seems that most atheists that I've spoken with on the subject of Jesus believe that he existed, but I always get the impression that their point of view is more rooted in trying to hold some sort of compromise position than on any hard examination of the historical record and evidence. I personally remain unconvinced so I guess I'd call myself an agnostic on that issue.

Here's an site I came across a year or so ago that you might find interesting. I've only skimmed most of it, and the author seems to have a bit of an axe to grind, but I found it pretty interesting anyway. http://jesuspuzzle.org/

I also really enjoyed the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" which I picked up on DVD a while back. It also has an axe to grind and the style is a bit too Michael Moore for its own good, but it presents a pretty compelling argument. You can find it here: http://www.thegodmovie.com/

I was actually hoping someone else has had these experiences in their prayer life- i posted earlier about prayerful intention to accomplish some end such as service to humankind- whatever that may be- for instance seeing a need and attempting to fill it- such as starting a program to feed people that need it- when embarked on with the selfless intention of service i have personally experienced that unusual coincidences start to happen- other people wo are 'on the same wavelength' find their ways into my life and vice versa-

its not the same as a personal petition prayer- it is just something that seems to happen with regularity- i called it "praydar" because its a tangible phenomena to me- it does involve faith- that what is needed to enact a certain goal- such as finding housing for abused women- or facilities for distributing a windfall of one donation or another (wool balnkets in winter for instance) there always seem to come out of nowhere the right person to help facilitate good intentions-

no one to my knowledge has done a study of this- nor would i really want to bother chronicling my busy life- the need that some may have to substantiate the efficacy of prayer with science seems to me that they expect the prayerful to do their spiritual work for them-
if you want to knwo if you can swim you dont do a study on swimming- you just get in the water-
if people want to find out if there is efficacy in prayer- doing it seems the most direct and plausibly efficient way to determine it for oneself... when i say prayer- petitions for something- is at the bottom of the list- there is also prayer to deepen your prayer! payer for personal awareness to be able to reacognize it when it answered- thats a start i think.

i dont know much and it never occurred to me to talk about this subject- but its one subject ive practiced alot...
peace

Tonio -

Right on about “by attempting to show a scientific basis for their beliefs, some evangelists hope that others will be convinced to convert.” I would say it applies to more than just evangelicals, considering the centuries long “quest for the historical Jesus” and the occasional hoopla of the discovery of relics that always turn out to be fake.

The research referenced above was funded mainly by the John Templeton Foundation – a pro-religion group, that was hoping the study would come out differently. If it had, you can bet we’d all be hearing about “scientific proof” of the power of prayer. So much for faith.

Here’s the final thought from that article:

Bob Barth, the spiritual director of Silent Unity, the Missouri prayer ministry, said the findings would not affect the ministry's mission.

"A person of faith would say that this study is interesting," Mr. Barth said, "but we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started."

"I have never understood the whole concept of trying to scientifically verify the efficacy of prayer."

I do. It's an evangelical approach, much like intelligent design. By attempting to show a scientific basis for their beliefs, some evangelists hope that others will be convinced to convert.

Chip -

"from that bit at the end he still sounds like an apologist"

And Erhman is not a believer. But he is an author of Jesus books --- hmmm. I popped over to the book signing table as the last person was leaving. He spoke to me about 5 minutes. He is a nice guy.

I asked for other evidence of the historical Jesus. He recommended a book of his – “apocalyptic Jesus, something, something” I had checked it out in the lobby display - the drabbest of his books, faded cover, tiny print. Hard to imagine it could be a treasure trove of Historical Jesus info. I asked for another reference. (There should be many, right?) He suggested “Evidence for Jesus,” by James, G. D. Dunn. I never heard of it and I have spent a lot of time in the religion section of bookstores and libraries. I asked for another reference (You'd think a lot of scholars would get on the bandwagon). He said they'd be in the index. I ordered it from Amazon today ($13 new). I’m not hopeful.

I mentioned to Ehrman that Paul, great salesman that he was, seemed just like the kind of guy to say, “Oh sure, I knew his brother.” He seemed stunned. I was stunned that he was stunned. I didn’t have the nerve to press him further. It happens to me frequently in this type of situation.

E Favorite, thanks for the recap. I'm sorry I didn't make it, but from that bit at the end he still sounds like an apologist -

"Another point – someone asked him about Jesus being mythological rather than historical. He answered that he thought he existed, based on the fact that Paul said he knew James, his brother and Peter, the main apostle. Erhmann conceded that Paul “could be lying” but he didn’t think he would. It seemed like a weak response"

It's an incredibly weak response. Hearsay isn't exactly valid evidence for proving the historicity of anything, let along hearsay from someone with such an obvious agenda.

E Favorite :
“The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood. Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the reach of science.”

I have never understood the whole concept of trying to scientifically verify the efficacy of prayer. From a strictly scientific perspective, how do you control the experiment?
-How would you know if the prayers were said?
-How fervently the prayers were said?
-Were all the patients equally sick?
-Were all the patients of equal belief?
-Were all the prayers of equal belief?
-Was the unbelief of the doctors and/or nurses a factor?

I could go on and on and on. You get the idea. I’m afraid I’d have to relegate this whole question to the category of 'uninteresting ideas'. Which I would suggest is the most condemning thing you can say about any idea.

Here are the first couple of paragraphs on the results from a recent study on the efficacy of prayer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ei=5070&en=cb0fe9f53c7ffce2&ex=1165986000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1165864334-KRmgh2nqkN2yncvWfQY0WA

March 31, 2006 New York Times

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

By BENEDICT CAREY

Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.

Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.

The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood. Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the reach of science.

Victoria :
"when we pray we do not just strive to be connected to god- but we are also consciously connecting to others whose intentions match our own- and somehow we find each other"

As to your comments above, I posted something similar yesterday:

One aspect of prayer that I’ve not heard discussed thus far on this forum, is that prayer is very frequently offered by and for those who are expecting a prayer to be prayed on their behalf. Many people who pray pray for their loved ones, who they know believe in the power of prayer. For an injured relative or sick friend or a soldier in the quagmire of Iraq, the knowledge that there are others praying for them is likely a source of great comfort and encouragement. It may even be the thread they hold onto, and that ultimately gets them through their time of tribulation. In these instances the efficacy of the prayers offered are fulfilled in the believers knowing that prayers are being said on their behalf.

February 6, 2007 5:03 PM

Thanks for your thoughts and comments.

Hello Chip –

the Bart Erhman “Misquoting Jesus” talk last night was very good and well attended.

I don’t know if too many people are still coming to this thread – I had a hard time finding it, now that the question has changed, so I won’t go on too long unless more interest is expressed.

One point – he mentioned that at the beginning of his classes (North Carolina U at chapel Hill) he asks students how many think the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Many hands shoot up. Then he asks if they’ve read the Da Vinci Code – many hands shoot up. Then he asks if they’ve read the bible from cover to cover. Just a smattering of hands go up. Then he asks, if they think God wrote it, why haven’t they taken the time to read the whol thing? Laughter.

Another point – someone asked him about Jesus being mythological rather than historical. He answered that he thought he existed, based on the fact that Paul said he knew James, his brother and Peter, the main apostle. Erhmann conceded that Paul “could be lying” but he didn’t think he would. It seemed like a weak response - I think anyone who claimed to see Jesus in a vision, could just as easily claim to know his brother and his best friend – I would hope he’d have more evidence than that for his determination.

EMM:

Sounds like we've followed similar paths. I've examined a lot of alternatives over the years. I found some Eastern ideas appealing, but like you I would never claim to fully appreciate them.

An Indian born, Oxford educated professor of mine used to comment about what he called "Coca-Cola Hinduism"; the kind of Westernized versions of Eastern beliefs he saw many people practicing. He convinced me I didn't want to be one of them.

I don't disagree with anything in your last comment, (I don't doubt that much of my own ethical stance is based firmly in my Mennonite upbringing) but the fact that those beliefs had so much in common with people from other faiths or no faith led me to first question whether the source of those ethical beliefs was divine or human.

It seems to me that attaching a divine origin to unexamined beliefs renders them less amenable to revision. If we want people to examine and question and "grapple with the consequences" of their beliefs the first one we need to challenge is the idea that such beliefs are "the Word of God". Pretty hard to argue with God...;-)

Regards

A Hermit

emm-there are happily exceptions to every rule- my decision was a labored and conscious one spiritually- and continues to be-
thats why im here on these boards also-

feeling strongly and having faith doesnt necessarily mean an malleable mentality-cor an inflexible dogma ridden one either-

i am trying to find a balance in my life and that includes not judging the other humans and likewise- rebelling against judgements placed on me-

this is a question about prayer and with prayer comes constant reflection- and re-evaluating and keeping my cosmic debts in balance- hopefully leaning towards the giving side of the equation-

one thing i was thinking about- i was writing on another panelist post about service to humanity and the role of prayer in my liofe- and one thing that seems not mentioned is the fact that when we pray we do not just strive to be connected to god- but we are also consciously connecting to others whose intentions match our own- and somehow we find each other- maybe we send out soem ehtereal vibrations that find resonance in others of similar vibe levels- i dont know but i know that there is a force that allows us to come together and there are incredible coincidences that happen all the time- and events that seem meaningless that later in the light of hindsight become relevant-

far from dependence on empirical data (im a left-handed right brained specimen) i see patterns in my own life and those i encounter- and interconnectedness and mutual purposes that really seem to transcend 'normal activities' of life-

maybe we have something like homosexuals that have
"gaydar" instead ill name it "praydar"

peace

A Hermit :
“I guess what I'm disagreeing with is the idea implied in your comment that people are going to behave better just because they believe in some form of deity. That has not been my experience. People are people and the detail of their belief or non-belief doesn't appear to me to have much bearing on whether they will be kind or cruel. They may use faith to explain their kindness or justify their cruelty but they are what they are whether they believe or not.”

Perhaps there is less distance between us that I thought. However, I would say that if I’m fearful of anything, it is in our underestimating how grounded we all are within the cultures in which we were born and raised. For example, my personal beliefs are a distillation from years of reading and studying philosophy, theology and psychology, as well as the world religions and many of the great mystics of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist traditions. But as much study as I have devoted to the Eastern traditions, I would never suggest to anyone that I know how Easterners think or believe. My Western roots and my childhood Catholicism pop up so regularly that I’m quite aware that when it comes to matters of religion few of us appreciate the depth of our ‘indoctrination’, which might be better described as more organic than intellectual. I am at best a Western man trying to comprehend Eastern culture. Again, without wanting to imply anything judgmental, I’d be surprised if many of the contributors to this forum have truly examined the origins of their beliefs, regardless of their perspective. Just based upon my personal life’s work, I know how hard this all is. And my intuition is that the vast majority of people on the planet aren’t even asking the questions, let alone grappling with the consequences of the answers. Again, I pretend no empirical data, these are just my thoughts based upon my own experiences.

I pray that one day soon there will be no religions.

Emm says:

"n my experience there are few people that consciously choose their religion. They may well ‘cherry pick’ which elements of their religious heritage they are going to adhere to, but for the vast majority there is no desire to delve into the depths of their religious convictions."

Well, that's exactly the point I was making; people "cherry pick" as you say, and use their religion to justify there pre-exisiting moral beliefs. In effect they are already making up their own rules, as you said in the comment I was replying to.

I guess what I'm disagreeing with is the idea implied in your comment that people are going to behave better just because they believe in some form of deity. That has not been my experience. People are people and the detail of their belief or non-belief doesn't appear to me to have much bearing on whether they will be kind or cruel. They may use faith to explain their kindness or justify their cruelty but they are what they are whether they believe or not.

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit :
“Seems to me that's more or less how it works anyway; people tend to choose their religion, and their interpretation of religion, in a way that fits their predispositions.’

In my experience there are few people that consciously choose their religion. They may well ‘cherry pick’ which elements of their religious heritage they are going to adhere to, but for the vast majority there is no desire to delve into the depths of their religious convictions. And I’d suggest that this is and/or will be true for most of those that have been or will be raised as atheists, agnostics and ‘secular humanist’ I’ll admit that my experience hardly qualifies as hard empirical data, but I’ve been actively engaging people on these matters for over forty years. In this time I have encountered only a handful of folks that think deeply about moral and ethical issues. Most either seem to have no real interest or they rather blindly accept the traditions they were brought up in. And I do not mean this as a judgment either, it is simply an observation based upon my personal encounters. People seem to live on autopilot when it comes to certain issues; politics and religion are prominent among them.

I think some evidence of this could be found by simply asking a few people you know to explain how our culture in the USA has been influenced by the grand sweep of Western philosophy, theology and religion. My guess is that you would get few well reasoned responses. I don’t mean to sound cynical, but most people struggle to just get through their days. Making a living, raising kids, grieving for lost loved ones, watching the tube, surfing the net, and shopping for stuff take up virtually every moment of the average person’s day. Folks that are inclined to exchange views on forums such as On Faith are, in my experience, exceptions by definition. And I think it is fair to say that many contributors to this forum could be characterized as having little more than a cursory understanding of the subject matter at hand.

As to folks like Falwell and Dobson, I agree with you. In my opinion they are an unhealthy influence on our culture. I would, however, be willing to bet that neither of these guys would ever admit that their 'religious convictions' are as strongly rooted in their nationalism and their capitalism as it in their professed Chritianity.

Dear Sally and Jon,
Thank you for your Blessed efforts to provide this wide ranging Global Forum. It just occured to me that diplomatic understanding is based upon mutual understanding of the Universal Truths, and Laws based upon said Truths. I feel so very Blessed to share these times with you. ..."Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Words to live by, but only if there are Shepherds around to watch for the takers. Some of us have the profoundly taxing duty to deal with the takers most of our waking hours and probably beyond. We all get jaded sometimes, and we forget that we are dealing with individuals, not groups. All is forgiven on my part, I still do not know if he forgives me, but that is up to him. The thing that bothers me is that mindset is the kind of thing that recently lead to the black woman stopped for a traffic violation in Kansas. You know the case to which I refer? Three Officers, two male, and one female could not see beyond "group think" and get this black woman to emergency care providers. Her premature baby was not delivered until someone with some human sense came on duty, and got her OUT OF JAIL! Bad enough, okay? Who do I talk to about Tookie? With all due respect and love for his better half, I would not waste the time of day talking to the Governator. How *is* the first Lady of California doing by the way? Is she happy? I would hate to do a SNL on Arnold and PUMP "SLAP" HIM UP!!! What is done is done. Ask the Governor if he ever saw a Movie called The Green Mile. If not, that is my assignment for him. You know, in between comic books, cigars and bubble gum. Good Stuff. ....well not the cigars...at least not as a habit...and not good for you in any case...but nothing is in excess. NONE FOR ME THANKS, I'll put it that way and leave it there. [He'll be ready for a run at the Oval Office in no time. Ronnie was the Alpha, and He'll be the Omega of times. The true terminator. See, Lucifer does not play. A true artist. Give the Devil His Due] God Bless you and yours always. I'll be a little busy, but I will contribute where and when I can. I think you two are off to a marvelous start. Please keep up the Blessed work. amem to that brother and sister....amen to that.

Mr. Colson, I broke my promise to you and I am sorry. I ask for your forgiveness and can only point out to you that which you know too well, there is not enough time in the day to deal with all there is to deal with. Perhaps that is one of the reasons I get short with mindless argument sometimes.

As for your lesson, Thief 1=Cain, Thief 2=Able?
The taker and the giver?

Please forgive my sins of omission. I am trying to do everything and I am not getting it done.

God Bless you and yours. amen.

Daniel,

My issue is with the term "the good of society." Who defines what that is? In my experience, people usually define that term with some sort of personal agenda. Human history is full of examples of tyrants and ordinary people who have committed atrocities in the name of "the good of society."

Again, being aware of our being "merely a species" doesn't have to mean Godlessness. It only means doing away with the old image of deities as vengeful and controlling. I believe that early human societies created that image out of fear. Early humans knew very little about the world or the universe, and that terrified them. It was even more terrifying to imagine that bad things happened for no reason, so they created reasons, namely gods who were vengeful and controlling and who demanded human sacrifices to appease them. Such horrid practices had little to do with "the good of society" and had much to do with giving humans a false sense of control over the world. As humans learned more about the world, their gods became more humane as well. Scholars of Greek mythology have chronicled this evolution. While science denies such notions as deities sending plagues or earthquakes or floods to punish sinners, it does not do away with the divine in general. Any reading of science that way is a matter of personal interpretation and is not inherent in science.

In some ways, 21st century society is still shackled to the old image of deity, with some people attributing AIDS and hurricanes on a vengeful deity. Even if humans were to learn everything about the mechanics of the universe, we would still most likely have a concept of the divine, but I don't know what such a divine would resemble.

Your term "celebrations of human individuality" misses the point, in my view. I believe healthy, mature societies balance the individual with society. One could argue that defining right or wrong as actions that help or hurt others helps ensure society's survival. But this definition also values the individual's welfare and personal boundaries.

To Chip and Tonio, sorry for sloppy last post. Sentence construction left much to be desired. I have an erratic intellect. If I could put what I mean as simply as possible, what I am trying to say is that you two rightly are against the authoritarianism, irrationality of religion, etc. but what you overlook is that science has put us more and more into a world in which we have the overwhelming consciousness of being merely a species in a Godless world and therefore more and more for all celebrations of human individuality (and we really must celebrate it to the point of getting genetics online toward the regular creation of geniuses) the human race not only cannot get away from a subordination of the individual for "the good of society", this pressure will only increase as it becomes apparent we must gear ourselves for the long haul of consciously propogating ourselves down through the centuries as a species. The problem I have with you two in a proverbial nutshell is that you seem to have a morality and political outlook as if freedom is easily at hand--that all authoritarianism has been dispensed with and religion in total must be dispensed with--but the fact is an awful responsibility looms before the human race which will take the political dimension of all of us having to subordinate ourselves for the good of the species no matter how we celebrate individuality. Our science and consciousness itself is driving us more and more to a contemplation of our actions as never before, and this will probably be as difficult if not more so than any authoritarianism or morality from religion precisely because it will not come from any particular individual or God but we ourselves in all our conscious realization...This is all I am trying to say. Please reflect on it a moment....

Two too many posts on my part, too!

Apologies.

Too two many posts on my part, too!

Apologies.

We are coming to the end of the thread, I guess. I tried to respond to this poster (Oh My!) on the Colson but it had been closed.

Oh My! wrote:

"Fact: Using the term "straw man" (its 2 words actually, not 1 word, its[two spelling errors here on OM!'s part] not like snowman!! Heheheh) does not make you more intellectual. Fix your spelling first and then you may have a chance.

Oh my!

Can you see what OM! is doing? First OM! makes his own assumption (conclusion?) that his respondent is trying to be 'intellectual' rather than trying to defeat OM!'s fallacious argument. He is trying to make his opponent angry ("Heheheh")and attempts to distract his opponent into a false detour ("Fix your spelling first").
[ Shouldn't OM! should fix his punctuation first?]

But a spelling error does not invalidate a logical argument. Only a *logical* error can do so.

Too many cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance your argument, OM!. Must improve your form.

We are coming to the end of the thread, I guess. I tried to respond to this poster (Oh My!) on the Colson but it had been closed.

Oh My! wrote:

"Fact: Using the term "straw man" (its 2 words actually, not 1 word, its[two spelling errors here on OM!'s part] not like snowman!! Heheheh) does not make you more intellectual. Fix your spelling first and then you may have a chance.

Oh my!

Can you see what OM! is doing? First OM! makes his own assumption (conclusion?) that his respondent is trying to be 'intellectual' rather than trying to defeat OM!'s fallacious argument. He is trying to make his opponent angry ("Heheheh")and attempts to distract his opponent into a false detour ("Fix your spelling first").
[ Shouldn't OM! should fix his punctuation first?]

But a spelling error does not invalidate a logical argument. Only a *logical* error can do so.

Too many cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance your argument, OM!. Must improve your form.

We are coming to the end of the thread, I guess. I tried to respond to this poster (Oh My!) on the Colson but it had been closed.

Oh My! wrote:

"Fact: Using the term "straw man" (its 2 words actually, not 1 word, its[two spelling errors here on OM!'s part] not like snowman!! Heheheh) does not make you more intellectual. Fix your spelling first and then you may have a chance.

Oh my!

Can you see what OM! is doing? First OM! makes his own assumption (conclusion?) that his respondent is trying to be 'intellectual' rather than trying to defeat OM!'s fallacious argument. He is trying to make his opponent angry ("Heheheh")and attempts to distract his opponent into a false detour ("Fix your spelling first").
[ Shouldn't OM! should fix his punctuation first?]

But a spelling error does not invalidate a logical argument. Only a *logical* error can do so.

Too many cheap rhetorical tricks used to advance your argument, OM!. Must improve your form.

Do I regularly communicate with my Father? Yes, I pray.

Mo,

Not quite Haggard, Swaggart and the Baker "Twins" but close with a "sect" of Buddha thrown in.

body and soul
which carry which?body carry soul or soul carry body?certainly soul carry the body,clear and manifest to every body ,when the soul is taken,body drop dead seizing and frezing.soul is the command control of the body.no body seen the soul but you can see man,s action.man can take his body to the scientific lab,to the logic and reason lab.,man,s mentation is limited to his body domain.his soul not in his hand,he doesnot have any knoweldge whatsoever about,its in the knoweldge of the all knowing creator lord.that,s why we need the divine revelation ,mercey to soul and body.refination of the soul is in the hand of the creator of the soul.
people are divided to 2 major sects,1- those who connect their soul to the creator of the soul.
2-those who they -dis-their soul in their body earthly domain,what is sad whether they dis their soul or not, still, their soul could be taken from them willingly or unwillingly,by the creator of body and soul.

Salvationisnear,

Hmmm, "me thinks" you sound too much like Haggard, Swaggart and the Baker "Twins"!!!!!

Hopefully my cat won't be stuck with SALVATIONISNEAR when Judgement Day comes. What a bum trip that Heaven would be!

("Kitty, Kitty, please stop praying for Fancy Feast; you don't want to be stuck in Heaven with nutjobs!")

You sinners bring tears to my eyes, for you will burn in hell.

I cry for you all. You do not comprehend the pain you shall endure for eternity. This pain ... will be the burning of shame! That is what hell is. When we die, our consciousness remains but all the pretense, the greed, the fear, the hate, all the blinders in our lives will drop. And we see ourselves as we truly are.

And who is the sinner? Is it the atheist? The person who prays to Christ? The Muslim who prays 5 times a day? It's all of you ... if your thoughts and deeds are evil. If you blow up innocent people, if you incite a mob with dangerous rhetoric, if you persist with your arrogance and intolerance throughout your lives ...

You know who you are. And know that Judgement Day is coming.

"Do you pray?"

No, but I'm pretty sure my cat does. And, miracle of miracles, every evening at 6:00 s