Questioning Faith

Is it not the course of wisdom to make sure that what you believe actually is true and not simply what you want to believe? (Proverbs 1:5)
"I have my own beliefs, and I am happy with them," is the commonly expressed view. Many feel that even mistaken beliefs cause little harm to anyone. Someone who believes that the earth is flat, for example, is not likely to hurt himself or anyone else. "We should just agree to differ," some say. Is that always wise?
When it comes to religion, mistaken beliefs have historically caused great harm. Think of the horrors that resulted when religious leaders "inspired Christian zealots to pitiless violence" during the so-called Holy Crusades of the Middle Ages. Or think of the modern-day "Christian" gunmen in a recent civil war who, "just like medieval warriors who had saints' names on their sword hilts, taped pictures of the Virgin to their rifle butts." All these zealots believed that they were right. Yet, obviously in these and other religious struggles and fights, something was terribly wrong.
The Bible tells us why there's so much confusion and conflict. Satan the Devil is "misleading the entire inhabited earth." (Revelation 12:9; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:3) The apostle Paul warned that many religious people would, sadly, be "doomed to perish" because they would be deceived by Satan, who would "produce miracles and wonders calculated to deceive." Such ones, said Paul, would "shut their minds to the love of truth which could have saved them" and would thus be 'deluded into believing what is a lie.' (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, The New Testament, by William Barclay)
Unthinking adherence to what previous generations believed and did can, in fact, be dangerous.—Psalm 78:8; Amos 2:4.
A Samaritan woman who met Jesus Christ had been brought up to believe in her Samaritan religion. (John 4:20) Jesus respected her freedom to choose what she wanted to believe, but he also pointed out to her: "You worship what you do not know." Many of her religious beliefs were, in fact, mistaken, and he told her that she would have to make changes in her beliefs if she was going to worship God acceptably—"with spirit and truth." Rather than cling to what were no doubt cherished beliefs, she and others like her would, in time, have to become "obedient to the faith" revealed through Jesus Christ.—John 4:21-24, 39-41; Acts 6:7.
Many teachers and authorities in specialized fields of knowledge deserve great respect. Yet, history is littered with examples of renowned teachers who were absolutely wrong. For example, regarding two books on scientific matters written by Greek philosopher Aristotle, historian Bertrand Russell stated that "hardly a sentence in either can be accepted in the light of modern science." Even modern-day authorities often get things drastically wrong. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," was the confident assertion of British scientist Lord Kelvin in 1895. A wise person, therefore, does not blindly believe that something is true simply because some authoritative teacher says it is.—Psalm 146:3.
The same caution is needed when it comes to religious education. The apostle Paul was well-educated by his religious teachers and was extremely "zealous for the traditions of [his] fathers." His zeal for the traditional beliefs of his ancestors, however, actually created problems for him. It led to his "persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it." (Galatians 1:13, 14; John 16:2, 3) Worse still, for a long time, Paul kept "kicking against the goads," resisting the influences that should have led him to believe in Jesus Christ. It required a dramatic intervention by Jesus himself to move Paul to adjust his beliefs.—Acts 9:1-6; 26:14.
Building on the ideas and philosophies of men is like building on sand. (Matthew 7:26; 1 Corinthians 1:19, 20) On what, then, can you confidently base your beliefs? Since God has given you intellectual capacity to investigate the world around you and to ask questions concerning spiritual matters, does it not make sense that he would also provide the means to get accurate answers to your questions? (1 John 5:20) How, though, can you establish what is true, genuine, or real in matters of worship? God's Word, the Bible, provides the only basis for doing this.—John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
"But wait," someone will say, "is it not the very ones who have the Bible who have caused the most conflict and confusion in world affairs?" Well, it is true that religious leaders who claim to follow the Bible have produced many confusing and conflicting ideas. This is because they have not, in fact, based their beliefs on the Bible. The apostle Peter describes them as "false prophets" and "false teachers" who would create "destructive sects." As a consequence of their activities, says Peter, "the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively." (2 Peter 2:1, 2) Still, writes Peter, "we have the prophetic word made more sure; and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place."—2 Peter 1:19; Psalm 119:105.
The Bible encourages us to check our beliefs against what it teaches. (1 John 4:1) The noble-minded Beroeans 'carefully examined the Scriptures daily' before deciding what to believe. (Acts 17:11) It is the course of wisdom to make sure that your beliefs are shaped, not by human wisdom and desires, but, rather, by God's revealed Word of truth.—1 Thessalonians 2:13; 5:21.

Lepidopteryx--

Thank you for the kind comment. I hope others noticed that we two of very different beliefs could agree, even civilly, on something!

Perry: **In my experience, no one lives entirely in one of the two remote camps; everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense", and all have faith that the sun will rise each day, just as the great preponderance of evidence suggests it should.

Questioning faith causes us to examine the supports on which it rests, and the reasons why we accept or reject a belief. It can lead to strengthening or abandonment of a given belief, and as such is merely an intellectual tool, and so should be treated as such--it is not an end in itself.**

Nicely put. I would add just three words.
You say "...everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense"...I would say that everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense" to someone else. For example, what you beleive regarding bodily resurrection makes sense to you, but not to me. What I believe regarding reincarnation makes sense to me, but not to you.

Namaste.

It seems that one point of contention herein stems from the notion of just what faith is.

I suggest that we consider faith as being of (at least) two varieties. One is faith supported, often lazily, by experience and evidence. That is the sort of faith referred to herein when people speak of having faith that a chair will support them. Another is a faith, often denigrated as "blind", that believes something despite a lack of the sort of evidence rational thought demands in order to function.

Opinions of course vary as to the value and goodness of the two varieties of faith, as one can see here. Making the issue even more problematic is the fact that the two described strains of faith intermix frequently, producing new hybrids of faith that have more or less substantive supporting evidence than one or the other of the "parents". This leads to the problem of deciding, for those who refuse to consort with "blind faith", just how much evidence is enough, and for those claiming that faith based on overwhelming evidence is no faith at all, how much willingness to trust, without evidence, is required for faith to be of value as such.

In my experience, no one lives entirely in one of the two remote camps; everyone believes something that on examination doesn't "make sense", and all have faith that the sun will rise each day, just as the great preponderance of evidence suggests it should.

Questioning faith causes us to examine the supports on which it rests, and the reasons why we accept or reject a belief. It can lead to strengthening or abandonment of a given belief, and as such is merely an intellectual tool, and so should be treated as such--it is not an end in itself.

A Hermit-

"Anonymous, perhaps you missed my point."

No I got your point. I don't agree. However you are moving closer to getting my point.

Try another viewing of TROTD and you will see -to support your arguments you will have to find another movie.

"The United States does not want war anymore than you do. On the other hand, neither would we care for peace at any price.."

And yes, you are right:

"We must learn the lessons of history, but they must be the right lessons..."

Christopher Hitchens speaks in support of
Sir Salman Rushdie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFicdesgXtw

Also Sir Salman Rushdie reads from
The Satanic Verses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVD_B7sBwu4

Listen and be informed..

Questioning faith? If you don't question your faith, how do you know if it's valid. We use faith everyday of our lives and yet it isn't until someone questions a part of it, that revelations and inventions are discovered. The real question should not be of questioning your faith, but questioning yourself against your faith. I mean, do you simply sit on a chair because it has four legs? Most of us glace to see what is on it, is it sturdy, etc. We don't question the chair, but our faith in if it can hold us comfortably. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that faith is all about relationship and when we take that aspect out, we are left asking foolish questions that profit us not.

There is a word being used here that I do not understand the meaning of. That word is God. Can you explain it to me?

There is no battle between science and religion. there is only a battle between the science of 2000 BC and the science of 2000 AD.

Jesus said the "Father and I are one" and you crucified him. Nine hundred years later Hijb said the" Father and I are one." and you crucified him too. What frightens you so?

There is a word being used here that I do not understand the meaning of. That word is God. Can you explain it to me?

There is no battle between science and religion. there is only a battle between the science of 2000 BC and the science of 2000 AD.

Jesus said the "Father and I are one" and you crucified him. Nine hundred years later Hijb said the" Father and I are one." and you crucified him too. What frightens you so?

Garyd,

I thought that we were talking about nations fighting against others to make their particular god...the Only True God.

Now there certainly has been people that sacrificed to their gods, even your's. Some Pagans would sacrifice animals or people to their gods...some times it was law breakers some times others... you believe in the death penalty? How many Pagans died in sacrifice to your One God?

But as a rule we do not care what god you call on...just let us worship as we see fit.

terra

Athena,
Everyopne paid taxes to Rome, jews included.
Nero was insane, not just a bad ruler...kind of like Bush.

Garyd,
Pagan is a proper name...treat it accordingly..thank you.

And exactly what was pre Roman Paganism? Mesopotamia? Eygpt? They did not fight because of their gods...well except when Akhenaten was Pharaoh. He tried to make Eygpt monotheist...people were killed that did not want to give up their old Gods...as soon as Akhenaten died, so did monotheism.

There is a connection between the fourth-century Christian extremists who destroyed the Serapeum, the most beautiful Pagan temple in Alexandria, and the 20th-century Muslim extremists who blew up irreplaceable Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

Polytheism, however, being essentially pluralistic, grants that god--or goddess--can take different forms; hence the deity worshiped by a neighbor could be as powerful as one's own. Though Polytheists do have persecutions in their past...but not for any god, but for breaking laws.
Please quote me where any Pagan society made war because of them wanting to force people to their god.

To do that the Pagan would have to believe their god was the better one...then it would not be polytheist but Monotheist.

terra

Terra,

You're not going back far enough. A good many pagan nations prior to Rome carried tokens of their Gods into battle and forced those they conquered to convert to their particular Pantheon. And no few have cheerfully sacrificed captives to their Gods and others.

Terra,

You're not going back far enough. A good many pagan nations prior to Rome carried tokens of their Gods into battle and forced those they conquered to convert to their particular Pantheon. And no few have cheerfully sacrificed captives to their Gods and others.

INDEPENDENT THINKER--

Please think again. The Bible does not, as you claim, "state that the mathematical constant pi is equal to 3". The verses typically referenced to substantiate such an argument give dimensions not only in whole numbers, but in multiples of five and ten. The entire context suggests that the text be read not as any statement as to what might (or might not) constitute pi, but rather as a description of the grandiosity of the furnishings of the Temple of Solomon. It could be compared to a person describing something--say, a house--by saying that "It's on a lot of ten meters by 30 meters." Such a statement accurately enough describes the thing in question, without getting caught up in the fact that it's really "9.93 meters by 31.16 meters". If I'm buying the house, and it's really, really important to me that I know the dimensions of the lot, I'm not likely to settle for the measurements listed in the brochure describing how grand the house is.

Anonymous, perhaps you missed my point. You're right about the structure of the movie, but wrong in it's application to the current political situation.

It's not I who am like the butler; I certainly recognize the dangers of Islamist extremism and support realistic efforts to combat it. Read my last comment again if you are still confused about this. But the real parallel, as I see it, is with the Yes-men who blithely went along with the Bush administration's reckless foreign policy, and the associated assault on constitutional principles.

It's the right wing fanatics who put their Party's political interests ahead of American principles who are like those German officer's measuring the drapes.

We must learn the lessons of history, but they must be the right lessons...

Regards

A Hermit

David, you stated that "1.) 40 different authors all from different backgrounds over a 1500 year span of time and not one contradiction."

You are wrong! In the 12th Century, Peter Abelard, a lecturer at the University of Paris, combed through the Bible and found over 1,300 contradictions in the Bible. He took his list to the Church authorities and said - hey, what about this? You know what they did? They Excommunicated him almost immediately and he lost his job lecturing!

The Bible has more contradictions in it than any politician's speech. Just the fact that the Bible states the mathematical constant PI is equal to 3 shows that it could not have been from an all-knowing "god".

Furthermore, the Bible wasn't written by "God", it was *inspired* - and inspired does NOT MEAN DICTATED.

Excerpt from today's WaPo:

More evidence of a "moderate" and "tolerant" islam or shall we say "mohammedanism". Some tolerance... and people claim it to be a peceful religion? peaceful shmeasful!!!

"Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan's religious affairs minister, said Monday of (Salman) Rushdie's knighting that: "The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title. Ul-Haq insisted Tuesday that he meant only that the award could be used as a justification for suicide attacks...() Pakistan's foreign minister told The Associated Press that Britain should not be surprised by the reaction."

"Teriffic movie. Seen it twice."

"Facile comparisons between Islamist terrorism and the rise of Fascist tyranny in Europe.. are simply laughable to anyone with a passing knowledge of history."

Maybe your memory is not that good. Or maybe you are in denial.

Don't you remember the house-party scene where Lord Darlington (Nazi sympathizer) lavishly entertains some of the German top brass, and behind his back they are quietly making note of all his fine arts, for when they finally get to commandeer his house!?

The parallels between the total surrender of will of the perfect butler to his employer and the total surrender of will of the Nazis to their Fuehrer are left implicit, but I believe they are the intellectual substructure of The Remains of the Day.

And if you can see no comparisons -keep laughing as history plays out.

Anonymous : "The Remains of the Day" is a brilliant character study, and an important cautionary tale about remaining silent in the face of the gathering storm, but the parallels are not what you suggest.

Facile comparisons between Islamist terrorism and the rise of Fascist tyranny in Europe or the challenges of the Cold War are simply laughable to anyone with a passing knowledge of history.

If there is a parallel here it is between Hopkin's too passive butler and the politicians and pundits who lay supine before the warmongering juggernaut and did nothing to oppose what has inevitably turned into a strategic disaster for the United States in Iraq. Saddam was no Hitler and the situation in 2003 was in no way analogous to Europe in the 1930's.

For the record, I fully supported the action in Afghanistan (which sadly has been for naught because of the Bush administration's lack of attention span and failure to appreciate the situation) and going after terrorist organizations. But that's not a job for an army designed to fight the Soviets in Europe, it's a job for intelligence organizations, police forces and occasionally special force commandos.

So you're off the mark in every sense with that little jab. Nice try though....;-)

Regards

A Hermit

What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?

About questioning tenets or traditions ...
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

About questioning, asking questions is encouraged by the bible as well, as it is written...

Hag 2:11 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests [concerning] the law...

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Even Apostles ask questions to our Lord Jesus Christ...

"The Remains of the Day" is

"an extremely rare example of sanity when dealing with the subject of war. Most war films concentrate on the futility and the bottom line cost in humanity, which for heightened drama is to be expected. However, it's most often an incomplete and wildly immature handling of the topic. This film addresses the folly of avoiding war thru appeasement and hammers home what might have been avoided if the British had called Hitler to the carpet early on -instead of playing chess with him. The main story is that of the butler, Stevens, an ostensibly simple character played with unimaginable complexity by Anthony Hopkins. The fascinating examination of one man's sense of duty, a devotion that transcends all other obligations and aspirations in his life has never been so poignantly or expertly presented to an audience. Everything about the film is a rousing triumph. I cannot overly recommend this."

That, and Nero needing a group to scapegoat for his own incredibly inept rulership that was bankrupting the Empire.

To be honest with you, I've never heard that before.

To The Chap - the way I heard it, early Christians were asked to pay a tax to Caesar (thus paying homage), which they hadn't been asked to pay before, because they were considered Jews and Jews were exempt because the romans respected their ancient religion.

Christians who paid the tax - and many did - were not harmed. Only Christians who refused were persecuted. They were sure they would go straight to heaven as martyrs.

Sound familiar?

Terra~
Actually, Christians were killed because of their faith. They refused to bow down to Caesar, who was viewed to be a god himself.

I agree with you that they were viewed to be planning insurrection, but it was because of their faith. They rejected the pluralistic religious views of the day and claimed a monotheistic religion -- almost unheard of by anyone but the Jews. Because they refused to view Caesar as a god, they were persecuted. Also, because they were disliked by much of the Roman Empire in the time of Nero's reign, they made for an easy escape-goat for things such as the fires in Rome. They were alienated because of their faith in a single God.

A

Glad you enjoyed it. What is it about?

Garyd,

"Dos the fact that Pagans did a remarkably fine Job of slaughtering each other long before anyone heard of Christianity".

I am not sure how this sentence was supposed to end but I guess it is a statement.
I can say that, yes, Pagans did a fine job of killing and raising havoc with others. But it was never about whose God was the correct one...no one cared. The Romans did not kill because a people prayed to a different God...the Romans put those people under Roman rule and took on that God also. They might have changed the name but the conquered people kept their Gods and ways of worship.

The Romans were the original Unitarians.

Pagans fought for land and plunder...not about Gods.

The reason Rome started killing Christians did not have a thing to do with any God...but that the Christians were trouble makers and were brewing insurrection.

BB
terra

"You might want to watch James Ivory's"

Teriffic movie. Seen it twice. what's your point?

a hermit:

You might want to watch James Ivory's

"The Remains of the Day".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ42CMK2TIA

And remember to keep that open and questioning mind you speak of in your post.

Cheers.

It is only on the shoulders of our ancesters that we can see and progress further.

Yet history would suggest that prior to Christianity what passed for morality was very much different than it is today.

The interesting thing is that if one looks at what was going on in the world at large and compares it with what the Bible offers up contemporaneously the Bible is generally far more liberal than what its contemporaries are. And please note I am not refering to what passes for liberalism in the late 20th and early 21st century which in reality is statism

CCNL:**Again, I thought the filth of Nazism and Aryanism was buried in WWII.**

Unfortunately, there will likely always be people who hate based on religion, or race, or affectional orientation, or some other ridiculous reason.

Again, I thought the filth of Nazism and Aryanism was buried in WWII. Apparently not, as an occasional Nazi troll rises from his putrid grave to make anti-Semitic comments.

See http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/jc/Talmud.html

Oops, that anonymous comment was me, of course.

GAryd says:

"Problem with the atheistic notion that Religion is the root of all evil lies in the fact if their is indeed no God then religion becomes just another tool and like all tools is morally neutral."

Actually, this atheist would agree with you absolutely here. Religion isn't the root of evil, just too often a tool for evil people. I think religion is people's way of trying to understand and make sense of the world and is no better or worse in its influence than the people practicing it.

This topic of questioning is an important one in light of that view of religion. So long as believers are open minded enough to continually question and re-evaluate their beliefs and to accept that the beliefs of others may also have value we can all learn from each other even if, in the end, we don;t always agree.

Regards

A Hermit

halozcel says:

"what you write can not be an 'excuse' for the present Cult violence all over the world."

I think I've made it quite clear on a number of occassions that it is not my intention to defend the terrorists, their sympathizers or even the religion of Islam.

My point has consistently been to point out that we should not fall into the trap of condemning all members of any group for the behaviour of some subset of that group, whether they be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs or whatever.

When well meaning, thoughtful Muslims post comments on this forum they are all too often greeted with a host of comments listing atrocities committed by Muslims and ignorantly quoting isolated snippets of scripture or remarks by the worst extremists instead of replying to the individual. I find this to be offensive and, frankly, dangerously stupid since such knee-jerk reactions just prevent the kind of dialogue we need to build relationships, tear down the walls between us and build a more peaceful world.

The bigots who post such comments are just part of the problem, in my view. I would hope we could all try instead to part of the solution.

Regards

A Hermit

GaryD - I completely agree with your comments: "the problem isn't religion per se but human beings."

"When we quit making excuses for people who do wrong and hold them accountable for their wrong doing I suspect there will be less wrong doing of whatever sort."

Sounds like you're saying morality is not a product of religion - but inherent in humans. I agree!

Same goes for Stalin and Mao. It wasn't atheism or communism that caused the evil, but the leaders themselves. By the way, it bears repeating that their ideology was communism. Atheism is not an ideology; it's the absence of belief.

Sick and Insane Teachings of the TALMUD (MODERN JUDAHISM, NO WONDER RABBI's ARE ALL SECRET CHILD MOLESTORS):

Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

A Hermit,

Hahahha! That is why I buy mostly Canadian. At least you guys haven't lost the brewing code altogether.

http://raptureready.com/soap/recall.html

Problem with the atheistic notion that Religion is the root of all evil lies in the fact if their is indeed no God then religion becomes just another tool and like all tools is morally neutral.

The problem then becomes not religion but the one using it badly. IN other words the problem isn't religion per se but human beings.

When we quit making excuses for people who do wrong and hold them accountable for their wrong doing I suspect there will be less wrong doing of whatever sort.

Does the phrase pretenders to the throne mean anything to you?

Dos the fact that Pagans did a remarkably fine Job of slaughtering each other long before anyone heard of Christianity.

Between them Mao tse Tong and Joeseph Stalin both self procalimed Atheists killed more people during their vile reigns that even the Roman Catholics managed in their entire history.

Pranked Collins/A.Hermit,

You have forgotten the war between Catholics and Orthodox for only one word 'filioque' that means
Holy Spirit...who proceeds from Father or from Father and The Son,and of course,because of political,cultural differences.It had lasted from 1054 to mongolian invasion.

And you are right,some christian groups spoiled a little after the collepse of communism.

However,what you write can not be an 'excuse' for the present Cult violence all over the world.
Problem is not 'I did so,you did so'.
Problem is 'living in civilized and contemporary manner'
Problem is 'how can we eliminate Cult of Violence'
Problem is 'how can we bring those who live in Medieval,even stone age to twentyfirst century'

Why present egyptian is more bacward then the egyptian who lived 5000 years ago?
Why all 'total islamic countries GDP value' is less then one quarter of USA where was the 'land of apachi' 200 years ago.
Please,write the 'cause' of this situation(if you know).
Please,try to understand 'cause' and wtite 'solution'

I thank you to read my post.

Anonymous writes:

"Mr. Mark --We all assume, I hope, that murder, and more specifically, mass murder is absolutely unacceptable. Would you be willing to become a mass murderer, if through your questioning, you ´rationally' came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do, even though it reverses everything you believe in?"

Your question isn't germaine to this discussion, is it? We're talking about things that CAN be questioned, specifically in the context of one's religious beliefs.

As a species, we have evolved a moral code that finds murder to be wrong and mass murder to being beyond comprehension. This stands is contrast to killing and mass killing that we find to be justified...like killing an armed intruder in your home or carpet bombing during war with incendiary devices, a la Dresden in WWII.

So I would say, yes - a priori - the subject of murder warrants no questioning because the act of murder by its very societal definition is a wrongful act. To determine that murder or mass murder was the "right thing to do" would involve redfining the word murder. We can't function in a world where black is white and up is down...unless we're Alice...or the Bush administration!

And that's why your "gotcha" question has no place here. This discussion is about people questioning within the context of their faith. The very premise allows questions to be asked, whereas your question about murder doesn't. It requires a redefinition of the word murder, so your argument becomes null.

If you say that there is no room - a priori - to question your faith, then today's faith question is moot. However, if you allow for questioning faith, then that questioning needs to allow for your finding that faith to be false, at least if we require religious questioning to be as honest and open to discovery and falsification as does scientific questioning. Limit the questioning of religious faith to, say, disallow for falsification, and you're positing an extremely lowered standard for questioning than does the scientific method. Once you've done that, you may as well make all possible answers valid - which means you're willing to accept any old opinion, not fact, as a valid answer to your questioning.

Which means that you are, in effect, engaging in a delusional act of non-questioning, gussied up in the trappings of true questioning.

Is it a religion just because someone says it is?
would anyone deny that the promotion of any group or organization, even if it calls itself a religion, or a political party, is vile and offensive - if the stated goals of that group consists of hating any specific group or religion,
to kidnap them,
torture them,
hold them for ransom,
cut off body parts,
rape them,
put them into slavery,
murder them if they do not convert to become a member of this group or club and
murder them if they dont want to stay in the club.
you see the people they hate are jews, muslimss, hindus, anynone not part of their group. so in a way they are like nazi, except this group hats many more people than the nazis ever hated.

can you guess who this group is? here is a hint.

here is what a leading Christian preacher recently wrote:

"If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious." Pat Robertson

or this:

"If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the sun or moon or any of the hosts of heaven which I have not commanded you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and stone to death that man or woman with stones." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:13)

The following is just a fraction of the repulsive behavior the Christians have been involved with over the centuries. Have a look on other Internet sites for the details of how they tortured their victims during the inquisition or a description of a witch burning (or just leave it to your imagination)...

The early years: As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire pagan priests were killed. Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain and their temples destroyed. Participation in pagan services were punishable by death in 356 (and this included children).

Murdering intellectuals: Hypatia, a famous female philosopher was torn to pieces by a hysterical Christian mob using glass fragments in a church in 415. In 1538 a university professor, B. Hubmaier, was burned at the stake in Vienna.

The Crusades: During the First (1096) and Second (1147) Crusade thousands of Jews were slaughtered. During the Third Crusade (1189-1190) English Jewish communities were sacked. In 1099, Jerusalem was conquered at the cost of more than 60,000 men, women, and children. In the words of one witness: "there was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude." The total number of victims of the Crusades is likely to be around 20 million. During the Crusades against Hussites in the 15th century, thousands were slain.

Exterminating Jews: In the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned and Jews killed by Christians. In 1348 about 20,000 Jews in Basel were burned by Christians, the next year all the Jews in hundreds of towns were killed (mostly burned). In Poland in 1648, during the Chmielnitzki massacres, 200,000 Jews were slain. Not only did the Nazis (lead by a Christian) exterminate millions of Jews but other Christians set up death camps, independently of the Nazis, and murdered about half a million victims of various backgrounds. They were even efficient enough to have a camp specifically for children.

The slaughter of Jews by Christians is particularly repulsive. I thought they both believed in the same god. One good thing about Christians is they don't have favourites - they'll torture and murder anyone or any group if it will help them gain or maintain power.

The Spanish Inquisition: In 1568 the Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in the Netherlands. Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, was responsible for over 10,000.

Witch Hunting: In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand witches (about 80% female) were burned at the stake or hanged. During the 16th century accusations of witchcraft were widespread: English Catholics were murdered by Protestants (30,000 were burned at the stake), in Germany 100,000 witches were killed. Similar behavior occurred in other Christian countries.

Christian Wars: In the 17th century, Catholics sacked the city of Magdeburg killing about 30,000 Protestants. In one single church fifty women were found beheaded, and infants were still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers. During the 30 Years' War, involving Catholics and Protestants at least 40% of population was decimated.

And its still happening: A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994.

can anyone guess the name of this terrorist organization?

--------------

See Frank; anyone can play this stupid cut and paste game of yours. Now please shut up so the grown ups can have a conversation.

Gaby, we have a saying around here; 'American beer is like sex in a canoe...They're both f***ing near water!"

By the way, Lepi, I can't wait until Starhawk comes back form her tour. I miss her insight!

Lepi,

Being used to German beer, I have to admit that the American (Pee beer) is nothing but water and a little alcohol.

When I get your way, I'll bring some REAL beer with me. Schmatz!!!!! ;O)

Gaby:

Budweiser? Ick.

My one rule regarding beer is that light must not be able to pass through it. Come over to the dark side and have a Guiness with me.

AWWW, Lepi, my friend, thank you!

I'll write back to you soon! Need to get my noodle out of the Budweiser before I do! <:o)

Gaby,

Don't mind UWG. Your English is quite good, and I seriously doubt that anyone here has difficulty understanding the meaning of your posts. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the rent that, had you not said anything about it, no one here would have known that English was not your native language.
Your written English is a damned sight better than my written French or Spanish. In fact, it's a damned sight better than some folks for whom English IS their native language.

Bye the way, Uptight:

"What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Your very bright Mr. Meacham and Ms. Quinn couldn't even phrase the THESIS correctly.

I should have said: "What is the place of questioning in RELIGION? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?

Tenets and traditons have nothing to do with faith, they have to do religous dogma!

Uptight White Guy :

"I am here Gaby to see if anyone has anything to contribute to the thesis addressed by the panelists. Unfortunately, few bloggers seem to stick to the confines of the topic, rather they quickly derail into some well-worn rant.

On a personal note I am here to stand up against the likes of you who pollute the string with sentence fragments, end other sentences with prepositions, and utterly ignore the adverb!"

First, Uptight, you chose your name well, if you don't like it here, you are welcome to leave.

Second, the likes of me do not have to answer to the Grammar Police.

English is not my native language. How many languages do you speak, Adverb Man?

Dear Anonymous -

Re: mass murderers.

Come up with a screen name for yourself. I don't generally answer to anonymous posts.

Thanks.

Mr. Mark --We all assume, I hope, that murder, and more specifically, mass murder is absolutely unacceptable. Would you be willing to become a mass murderer, if through your questioning, you ´rationally' came to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do, even though it reverses everything you believe in?

Or is that conclusion unreachable by you, a priori?

the saharia,s buster and the moon shutlers.
a beduin in the sahara desert was asked long time ago a question,how do you know that the creator exist?
the beduin said when i see camel manor i know that camel exist ,when i see the sun i know that the maker exist.
people in 2007 who made it to the moon ,so advanced in science and technolgy ,were asked the same question ,their answer was the big bang .
1-who have better sense in the above 2 pictures?
2-who is so delusional?
3-where human kind can buy common sense provided that they will have space shutles to aid?
4-can any human kind in his right mind digest the big case of gas of the big bang?
the big bang and those who revolve around the big bang are bringing to mankind no more no less than a big bang of horse manor.,the camel have better benefits.

Frank: "can anyone guess the name of this terrorist organization?"

Multinational corporate agribusiness?

Faith, n.: belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel. --Ambrose Bierce

Now, who could possibly question such a perfectly preposterous system of thought?

E Favorite,

Both you and Mr. Mark will receive this week's award for best topic line, i.e. your own set of "pretty wingies". I failed to see Mr. Mark's original comments.

And I wonder is it "faith in working" or "working in faith"? I believe I saw that on another thread recently.

Thank you, Concerned, I’m thrilled to accept your award for best line. And like any grateful prize winner, I want to credit those who inspired me. That would be Mr Mark, who said this earlier in the thread:

“Any questioning that does not allow for one's beliefs to be totally reversed is no questioning at all. It is a charade…. In practice, religious questioning is nothing of the sort. It's actually an exercise in self-delusion and delusional reinforcement.”

MO, Your answer will be criticize by many but none will be able to prove your faith wrong. That is the nature of faith. When people begin to warp faith into proof, that is where anger, war and other faith based hatreds start. What few will ask is how your faith is making you and the world a better place. So I will ask: how does belief in the 'Moon Deity of bedouin' make your life better and make you a better person? After all, that is what we should be asking of any religion, not whether it is the one true religion or not because that can never be proved. If it ever were proved it would stop being a faith.

MO,
''Who created life and death,who created heavens and earth''
Very simple.'Moon Deity of bedouin' created all of them.
Yes,there is one Creator who created trillion multiply trillion planets and this universe and who stays at wooden shanty in the middle of desert.

Mickster the answer is of course obvious. They wish to do so further it is there dime and they in this country get to do what they want with it unless of course we elect enough democrats next time around to really mess things up.

Explain to me why there needs to be a discussion of faith in a major news publication. I am able to listen to at least 4 24/7 cable televangelists networks and at least that many radio programs locally here in the pacNw.
Whats newsworthy about peoples attitudes about faith? Why dedicate talent and webspace, to opinions beliefs about faith? I don't get this? Why not just publish an podcast and focus on news that people need to make import decisions about war, taxes, etc.
Is this a demand placed upon you by readership? or what?

Regards,

mickster

daily meditation.
who created life and death,who created heavens and earth,what is the purpose of life and what is the purpose of death?is life a horse stable?what is the difference between the horse who work his ass all day long ,eat and die and the civil man who work his ass all day long,eat use hi tec toilet and die?.
in (jeudo-chris-scentific-humanistic)man made culture the concept of god is so mised up,let the highest priest or the highest scholar in jeudo chris cult define what god is?useing the nt
and ot will never land on defintion ,no wonder people in jeud-chris cult are so obssesed with doubt,too much dout lead to bipolarism,bipolarism,lead to paranoiaism.
again all certanity goes to the creator of this universe.know your creator.there is one creator and there is one faith.

I am here Gaby to see if anyone has anything to contribute to the thesis addressed by the panelists. Unfortunately, few bloggers seem to stick to the confines of the topic, rather they quickly derail into some well-worn rant.

On a personal note I am here to stand up against the likes of you who pollute the string with sentence fragments, end other sentences with prepositions, and utterly ignore the adverb!

Well all the religions are pretty much obsolete now arent they? I mean this is a new age we're in, not that the religions arent true. Yes Jesus was the son of God absolutely true... I totally see myself in the Christian tradition, I'm a believer, (it's not that hard to believe it!) but we're not in the middle ages anymore are we? Maybe he's back and he's trying to get the world prepared for the future
it's like a child growing up and we're just becoming teenagers about now and have to do more for ourselves...Religion goes deep in ones upbringing thats for sure but we might have to break free from all of it to make something new... something fantastic! Imagine as John Lennon once said.
There is work to be done. These are interesting times if you haven't noticed...

E Favorite,

You win "Best Line of the Thread" for this one.

DaveB, you say, "I thought the very definition of "faith" meant that you do not question it."

""From what I've gathered, it means even though you questioned your faith and didn't get a good answer, you've decided to keep your faith anyhow.""

Most Excellent!!!

"Is it possible to reconcile the idea of faith with the principle of empiricism?" you ask.

Seems to me: It would be EASILY reconcilable if faith were true.

At a minimum, one would expect the faithful to statistically have better insight than the nonfaithful on matters -- take politicians for instance.

The opposite was true -- with the example of GW Bush -- a larger % of the faithful more gullible (and in the process harming the world -- eg global warming, Iraq War, tax policies for wealthy) than the nonfaithful. .

There is evidence that with Dubya: The MORE faithful one was the MORE likely they were to succumb to his lies!

We should see -- the opposite -- if faith had any truth behind it

"What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Two quotes from Christian believers:

“When we get our spiritual house in order, we’ll be dead. This goes on. You arrive at enough certainty to be able to make your way, but it is making it in the darkness. Don’t expect faith to clear things up for you. It is trust, not certainty.” -Emily Dickinson

and

“If knowing answers to life’s questions is absolutely necessary to you, then forget the journey. You will never make it, for this is a journey of unknowables—of unanswered questions, enigmas, incomprehensibles, and most of all, things unfair.” -Madame Jeanne Guyon

DaveB, you say, "I thought the very definition of "faith" meant that you do not question it."

From what I've gathered, it means even though you questioned your faith and didn't get a good answer, you've decided to keep your faith anyhow.

(Bored) Uptight White Guy :

Then why are you here? Do you have something to say?

Mr. Katz(e) (German for Cat)

I am rearely cynical. I just observed. <:o)

I am very rarely cynical. I just observed. <:o)

How profound. You guys are a regular bunch of Thomas Aquinaseseseses. Keep going and you will solve the infinite questions for all of us. Snore.

Gaby, is that cynicism coming from your fingertips? I didn't think so, not from someone as truly open minded as you. You wouldn't stereotype based on outdated presumptions would you?

Yup, R.Katz, I believe that in a heartbeat.

Gaby, no problem. You should check out where was heading for the last fifteen to twenty years of his life. He called it "S.M.I.I.L.E."

I thought the very definition of "faith" meant that you do not question it. I questioned mine when I was twelve years old, and it went "poof" in a puff of logic, never to return. Anyone who questions their faith and does not lose it just isn't doing it right.

David,

How could I possibly believe that the book was inspired, when it is so evil.

Now just imagine, you are a father and your child did something against your will, are you going to kill him/her.

Would you ask your best friend to kill his son just to show you he is loyal to you? Can you imagine the anguish you cause him?

Would you flood an entire globe and just let one human family live because you are pissed off?

Your God is everything but love and kindness. He even said so himself. He is a jealous God and smite you to smithereens if you don't obey.

Would you rape a virgin, just so you can gain human form. If you are all powerful you could do it on your on without human help.

Would you speak only in parables so that what you say is open to interpretation? I, for one, like things clearly laid out, and your bible does everything but that.

If the bible were to be inspired, you would not have a multitude of christian denominations, all of whom interpret the bible differently.

So, no, I think it was a book written to reign in the masses originally and then expanded by some disillusioned Jews to start christianity.

Just my opinion, and as you know, everbody has one! :)

R.Katz,

So sorry, that was me who posted in your name.

It was in response to your post.

I inadvertantly put your name in the box where mine should have gone!

For the love of crumbcake! Can everyone please remember to kindly use the adverb! I have learned to forgive those who end their sentences with prepositions but how hard is it to slap an "ly" on the end of a verb modifier? Let's get it together people!

Whoever just posted using my name, at least have the decency to try and copy my beliefs.

Perry:

I never perceived you as rude or unpleasant, quite the opposite.

I understand that you can not follow my line of thinking.

You believe you were created and then Adam and Eve ate that darn apple, and they came to know good and evil.

I believe we are not created but actually part of IT (God), we have always known good and evil.

You believe Satan is the essence of evil, I say if your God was only love, he could have never created an evil being. You can only give what you yourself have. Your free will is actually what is both, good and evil.

I also never tried to persuade you into believing what I believe, just giving people a differing opinion on faith.

I have faith, that I am right. But I will never, ever try to convince anyone else of it. That's the other neat thing about free will, you can study it, examine it, and if you like it you can adopt it. If not, well so be it!

Topic,tenets or traditions?

5000 years ago,there was Civilization in Egypt.
Today,2007 AD ,an egyptian is more backward then the egyptian who had lived 5000 years ago.
What is the Reason? Who knows the difference?
Why present egyptian is more backward then ancient egyptian?

Only one word...only one word...Yes.Yes.

A Hermit,

As per my Angel Reality again:

Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?

Hahahah! If I recall right, Timothy Leary used a lot of things!

Professional Hermit,
First of all,professional ones dont be angry easely.

'honest criticism' you say,but another contradiction,if you dont like it is 'basher'
Is it your 'logic'?

And third contradiction,do you advocate Secularism or cult of bedouin? or both of them?

As I wrote in my first post,christians(especially protestants) have already overcome the examples given by you from Bible,but muslims couldnt correct their logic yet.
This is the difference.Try to understand,improve yourself.

USA founded in 1774 and went to moon within 200 years.
Iran,5000 years old country,women couldnt go to stadium.
Try to understand the reason this situation,dont do empty word demagogism...

Instead of empty and silly demagogism,you should better to address my issues(if you can).

From your first sentence,I of course understand you are a muslim.

Is there any islamic country where the civilized values flourish?? Of course not.Why? Why? Why? Because Cult kills civilization.
This is The Core problem.
If you are interested in dealing with real people,dont write 'unreal tale'.
Tell me,Tell me 'how muslims shall(or must) come to twentyfirst century,if you have any professional idea and solution???

An aside to Gaby: Timothy Leary used SHe which I think works also.

Sorry, last post was mine. Forgot to leave name.

But this gives me the opportunity to add that a truly beneficent God(dess) wouldn't really care to much how one lived her/his life (within reason)

May Goddess be with you
Hail Reis

GABY--

Not to be abrupt, but: No. Light goes to light, darkness to darkness? IT chose light? but you say that IT is both, darkness and light. If I understand correctly, IT is the source of both as well. How then can IT "choose" light?

What you're describing is hardly the omniscient, omnipotent God with whom I am familiar. That God is one that created all things good and lovely and true; in creating man, He created in us also the thing called free will, endowing us with the ability to choose whether or not to follow.

Satan, it seems, originated the actual existence of evil, and cultivated its germination and growth in humans as the opportunities presented.

Although you've posited the existence of Reason within ourselves and IT as why we (and IT) can choose good or evil, light or darkness, the structure you describe seems too often self-contradictory.

So, in a nutshell, no, I don't understand it as you seem to. That or I understand but am unpersuaded that what you describe has any value for me.

Again, I hope you understand that I do not intend to be derisive or derogatory; I am merely questioning and trying to understand. If I have come across as unpleasant or rude, I apologize.

GABY--

Not to be abrupt, but: No. Light goes to light, darkness to darkness? IT chose light? but you say that IT is both, darkness and light. If I understand correctly, IT is the source of both as well. How then can IT "choose" light?

What you're describing is hardly the omniscient, omnipotent God with whom I am familiar. That God is one that created all things good and lovely and true; in creating man, He created in us also the thing called free will, endowing us with the ability to choose whether or not to follow.

Satan, it seems, originated the actual existence of evil, and cultivated its germination and growth in humans as the opportunities presented.

Although you've posited the existence of Reason within ourselves and IT as why we (and IT) can choose good or evil, light or darkness, the structure you describe seems too often self-contradictory.

So, in a nutshell, no, I don't understand it as you seem to. That or I understand but am unpersuaded that what you describe has any value for me.

Again, I hope you understand that I do not intend to be derisive or derogatory; I am merely questioning and trying to understand. If I have come across as unpleasant or rude, I apologize.

David, CC and all like minded, I have one question/contradiction that someone can clarify: if your God is such a loving God why would He "set the bar so high" in that (i'm not sure of the exact quote but) "You cannot get to the Father except through Me"? Does Baptism REALLY change who you are?

My parents were what was called "2 day a year Jews" - went to Temple twice a year. I'm sure there are "2 day a year Catholics" - Christmas Eve/Day and Easter Sunday. My point is, is your baptized 2 day a year person getting into Heaven (assuming the person has time to make a final confession), even though they would have a hard time explaining even fundamental tenets of Christianity? Why wouldn't the Wiccan who followed the teachings of the christ even though she/he define it differently? How do you know that Roman Catholisism, Greek Orthodox, Protestantism... is the right branch of Christianity?

No, it seems to me that a truly beneficent God would prefer someone who lived Her/His words rather than just got wet and paid mouth service to Religion.

(OT I'm new here and I do have to say how nice to be in a civil discussion instead of the general boards.)

May Goddess be with you
Hail Eris

Witch doctors.

Gaby,

Thanks for your response.

I'm just curious as to why you don't believe any of the writings from the OT or NT were inspired by God?

I'm a lot further along in here since my last posts and I still see people confusing religion with faith. Faith is by nature totally individualistic. My doubts can never exactly coincide with yours so what I need faith in is different than what you need faith in. Religion is really nothing more than a group with similar beliefs (and doubts that are close) who come together for "mutual protection" or comfort. Religion is an amalgam(sp?) of different ideas from that group that "answers" their doubts.

What you believe in and have faith in and the acts that portray your inner self defines who you are, not a religious title.

May the Goddess be with you
Blessed Be
Go with Christ
May Allah watch over you
Hail Eris
________________(fill in the blank)

When one questions one's "faith," it wholly negates that faith. Faith in its most essential nature is the UNQUESTIONING acceptance of some assumption or axiom irrespective of any evidence, event, reason or fact. One cannot question it without consulting some kind of evidence, and as soon as the question arises, the faith is gone.

This is why religion, ANY religion, when taken literally is so patently absurd, and why it must rely on such severe discipline and whimsical superstition, plus an imposed inculcation from birth to its followers, in order to thrive.

When humans sentience developed self-awareness a few million years ago it necessitated the creation of religion, a necessity that arose from our brain's incapacity to conceive of its own nonexistence. We invented the concepts of the afterlife and the soul to accommodate this inability to comprehend our own ending, and in doing so we gave rise to this whole edifice of anthromorphic deities, miraculous superstitious and hallucinatory edifices of irrationality that have comprisea all religions from the beginnings of our thought processes right up through the present.

For myself, I believe in the real world.

Our shared myths tell us something about common needs and fears within ourselves - most religions take that and try to tranfer it onto some external entity, usually God, but sometimes earthly authorities like popes and kings.

Myth and religion are born from questioning, and that has always originated from within the individual. To consider every question answered and never try to improve your understanding is to give up on discovery and to halt your inward growth. It also leads to ignorance and intolerance.

And now' I'll immediately apologize to Halozcel for that last bit; I just got through replying to Frank Collins in another thread and let some of that spill over here. You're certainly not guilty of the same kind of excess as old Frank, Halo, and I shouldn't have implied that you were.

And it's not like I think Islam is beyond reproach or should exempt from criticism; it's just that so much of the criticism around here is in the form of these off topic, cut and paste comments, denunciations of all things Islamic as evil and dangerous and the assumption that any Muslim who dares show their face around here must first apologize for the Taliban. I find that kind of ignorance very frustrating to deal with, and I apologize if I went a little overboard on you myself.

Regards

A Hermit

halozcel : There is no contradiction in what I said. Secularism does not mean no one ever criticizes anyone else's assertions, it just means that no-one's assertion are given special rights because they claim to come from God. Part of the health of a pluralistic, secular society is the very presence of open, honest criticism and dissent. Claims of divine blessings on one's political opinions tends to stifle the conversation...

But open honest criticism is not what the Muslim bashers in the On Faith forum are practicing. I could produce long lists of historical (and recent) Christian atrocities, Biblical passages mandating death to unbelievers, advocating the oppression of women and sanctioning slavery and speeches and sermons by everyone from Martin Luther to Torquemada to Ian Paisley or Fred Phelps calling for violence against the Jews, Witches, Muslims, unbelievers and the "wrong" sort of Christians. So what? The Christians I meet here and in my daily life generally don't embrace such attitudes, and likewise neither do the Muslims I meet.

For example; in your comment you claim the Quran says two women equal one man and that may be so, but here's the JudeoChristian Bible:

"And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver.... And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels." -- Leviticus 27:3-7

And for good measure, here's the revered Confucious on the value of women: ""One hundred women are not worth a single testicle."

Bad attitudes toward women are not unique to Islam, nor are they taken to same extreme by all, or even most, Muslims any more than the JudeoChristian or Confucian examples are by all, or even most, Christians or Confucianists.

-----------

Trust me when I tell you this, you don't want to get into a cut and paste pissing match with me, halozcel, you're clearly an amateur and I'd bury you. But don't worry, I'm not interested in playing those silly, childish games here. I'm interested in dealing with real people and what they actually say, not with stereotypes dredged up by fearful; ignorant people. You should try it sometime, instead of letting your knee jerk and spitting out a pointless, off topic list of cut and paste examples of other people's past sins in response to a thoughtful post just because the author happens to be Muslim. Who knows, you might learn something.

Regards

A Hermit

David,

No, my IT is not derived from the bible.

I just used the website to illustrate that the bible agrees that the Jewish or Christian god also does not have a name. The names Jehovah and Yaweh (YHWH) are nothin but the English translation of יהוה (the "Tetragrammaton"), which again means "I am who I am". So that is all the biblical god ever called himself.

I can not believe in the OT or NT, because I do not believe that any of the writings were inspired by god. Everything about the Abrahamic religions is man-made.

And yet The Enlightenment was one of the most Militarily violent times in recorded history.

Gaby,

I looked at the wikipedia site you posted. So your "IT" is derived from the Bible, am I correct? Meaning "I am". I'm a little lost on your point of view. But I guess I'm assuming that you get your "IT" from the Biblical accounts of God calling Himself "I am". But I'm assuming that the only difference between you and I are that the One who says "I am" also calls Himself "Jehovah" or what the OT Hebrews refer to Him as "Elohim" as well. So, I guess you just would rather stick with "IT" stemming from the Bible for "I am" than to say that "IT" actually calls Himself "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"?

I guess you can say that I'm lost on this one. Is it same to assume that you are choosing to accept the God of the OT, but only if it meets your criteria? I may be totally wrong, but this is what it seems. Please enlighten me on your thinking. Thanks

God bless

David (timestamp June 13, 2007 1:53 PM):

How about this quote:
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I find it always coincides with their own desires."
Susan B Anthony

I will not say anything re higher power v science since you are expressing your belief, and you have faith in it. I think differently from both concepts, a blend of all I've read and seen and experienced create my belief system. This is evolving as I feel I learn more and can add another piece to the jigsaw puzzle. The trick to surviving in whichever system you believe in is to not let the dogma bite you.

A.Hermit,
There is absolutely contradiction between your two posts.You say 'Secularism is necessary for the healt of any pluralistic society' that is completely correct,but on the other hand,you critisize those who critisize The Cult that rejects secularism and pluralism.

Besides,'blame the individual(terrorist) not faith' is not realistical approach.

Islam is NOT compatible with the contemporary values,human rights and civilization.
This is the Core of problem.

'The same can be said for Bible' Yes,you are right,but this is not accurate reply.Let me give you an example.Bible sharply forbids the divorce Mat.19.6 and Mark 10.9,but protestants have already overcome,although catholics should get special permission from rhe infallible man till resent years.

Muslims couldnt solve anything.
Is there any islamic country where the civilized values flourish?
Man can scourge woman 4.34,two women equal one man 2.282,man can take four women 4.3,islam curses christian values 5.72-73,islam hates from non-muslims 8.12
Are these Pluralism and Secularism?
Islamic Threat to Civilization is not 'irrational fear'.

Correction to my last post: 2nd paragraph, "conquered" is the wrong word, nor would defeat be correct. The Cathars were pacifist (many were vegetarian) and did not fight in their own behalf. The citizens of the region supported the Cathars, and it's been said that their staunchest supporters were the Knights Templar.

Perry Clark,

Here is my attempt to anwer you questions:

First, I call it “IT” because IT is neither male nor female nor does IT have a name. Even the Bible and Torah concur with that. Please see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am

IT is both, light (love) and darkness (evil), the all-knowing, conscious presence. IT has reason within itself, therefore we have reason within ourselves. All of us are both, good and evil, and because we have reason we are able to choose the light or the darkness. To deny that fact is lying to yourself.

There is no sin in and of itself in the sense that we all were born with the ability to do both, good and/or evil (man-made morality codes created sin).

Animal species have instinct on which they act, as do we to some decree, but not reason. Therefore, they are incapable of evil as such.

So, IT and us know goodness (light) and darkness (evil) and we must choose. IT chose light, because there is not life in darkness, therefore it stands to reason that we must choose light if we want to live. So light goes to light and darkness goes to darkness, both of which are part of IT.

Does that make any sense to you at all?

Stan B: Are you mixing up faith and religion by chance? Faith is internalized while religion is external. People kill, maim, hunt, and hurt others in the name of their religion, and I would wager that many of the "soldiers of god" have little faith in anything (including themselves). Having Faith in something greater requires standing up for your beliefs no matter what.

At the end of The Albigensian Crusade, when the Christian Franks conquered the Cathar Languedocians one side showed religion, the other Faith. The Franks burned "the heretics" in the name of their GOD, and the Cathars went willingly based on their Faith in their beliefs.

correction:

I meant to say "...The radical American idea that Church and State should be separate is "a product" of this..."

"A.Hermit, ever studied any history? "

Quite a lot, actually, and it appears to me that the role of religion has been too often to divide even people whose common, merely human, interests should have drawn them together. I'm certainly not suggesting that human beings don't have differences other than religion, or that conflict can be done away with in some humanist utopia, but it seems to me that if we are looking for that which can serve as a basis for understanding, compassion and cooperation we have to look to our basic humanity first, and not to theology.

I would disagree, by the way, that it was through Christianity that "the notion of 'humaness'...was extended outside the bounds of one's immediate kin." Religion, including Christian religion, is a key element in tribalism and nationalism (think Catholics vs Orthodox Christians in Yugoslavia, or Catholics and Protestants in Ireland for two glaringly obvious examples.)

It was, in fact, the secularizing influence of the Enlightenment (informed in large part by a return to the Greeks) which is responsible for the reduction in such tensions in what used to be called the "Christian" world. The radical American idea that Church and State should be separate is proof of this. It has been the search for this common humanity, rather than appeals to ineffable divinities, which has given rise to what little progress we have made toward universal human rights.

Regards

A Hermit

"Religion" and "Faith" are not interchangeable terms. Religion is an organized dogma, "This is what we believe, and if you don't agree you are welcome to leave", while Faith is individualised. We can have faith in a higher intellegence without participating in an organized religion, or even a belief in "God" per se. Does a Wiccan have any less faith than a Catholic? How about a Gnostic compared to someone "Jewish"? Faith is internalized and cannot be fully expressed to someone else any more than your definition of "Yellow" can be.

"Religion" and "Faith" are not interchangeable terms. Religion is an organized dogma, "This is what we believe, and if you don't agree you are welcome to leave", while Faith is individualised. We can have faith in a higher intellegence without participating in an organized religion, or even a belief in "God" per se. Does a Wiccan have any less faith than a Catholic? How about a Gnostic compared to someone "Jewish"? Faith is internalized and cannot be fully expressed to someone else any more than your definition of "Yellow" can be.

"Religion" and "Faith" are not interchangeable terms. Religion is an organized dogma, "This is what we believe, and if you don't agree you are welcome to leave", while Faith is individualised. We can have faith in a higher intellegence without participating in an organized religion, or even a belief in "God" per se. Does a Wiccan have any less faith than a Catholic? How about a Gnostic compared to someone "Jewish"? Faith is internalized and cannot be fully expressed to someone else any more than your definition of "Yellow" can be.

A.Hermit, ever studied any history? Our Humanity does not appear to be all that common and it has only be relatively recently and almost entirely at the insistance of Christian philosophers that the notion of 'humaness' -for want of a better term was extended outside the bounds of one's immediate kin.

Perry Clark et al;

Why does the "IT" that we all can get behind have to be something external to us? Why is our common humanity not enough to unite us?

Gaby,

So I can see that you believe in some kind of higher power. You just don't know what "IT" is. So you call it "IT". Wouldn't it be easier to just say your agnostic?

you said,

You believe you are created, I believe I am part of the greater whole. There is a big difference. Being part of the greater whole forbids me to do harm to anything and anyhone, and I would not call that blind faith

So what is this "greater whole" and in what way does it "forbid" you to do any harm to anything or anyone. If you don't even know what "IT" is then how can it forbid you to do anything?

Trust me Gaby, I want world peace too. But I'm not running for Ms. America, so I guess I should keep it real and say there probably will never be world peace. Has there ever been?

"If I am right, whenI die I will reunite with IT and become part of the whole, if you are right you get to sit next to it."

If I am right, then you have denied Jesus, and we all know what happens then....

So, I think what your getting at is that you can become part of this "IT". This "IT" being your God. So in other words, you can become God. Well, I don't want to be God or become a god. I'll be perfectly happy with sitting right next to Him. And you know what's great about that? I got to know Him first before going to Him. I think I prefer knowing where I'm going instead of just showing up hoping that "IT" will accept me. I know when I knock on my father's door he will let me in because he knows me. How can I expect to go to some strangers house and just try to walk in? They've never seen me before and I'll probably get shot in the head for trespassing or breaking in and entering. Yep, I do think I like my version better. Bullet to the head, or in the company of friends and loved ones and the one true God who I got to know while here on earth. I think I'll pick the latter.

GABY--

You have again described a desire for universal harmony, everyone and everything living in peace. Your description of IT, as I understand, is that of some really big, all-love, all-peace, all-harmony being.

So far it (oops, sorry, IT) sounds quite nice. It's strikingly incomplete, however, as any explanation of where we all come from, since you seem to think we are all merely part of a "greater whole", this IT, which is all-wonderful, etc, leaving us with no explanation for the ugliness, hate, sin, and evil in the world. Are all these, too, part of IT? If not, from whence do they come? If so, how do they fit into any plan for universal harmony? Have we (humans) corrupted this corner of IT? How and why did it come about that our particular species and only ours was able to corrupt things? Or are all species able to do so? If the deciding factor in allowing humans to foul things up is our ability to think, reason, and communicate so much more effectively than other animals, does this mean that Reason itself isn't all good, but is itself corrupt?

Your desire for universal harmony reminds me of Rodney King's plea, "Can't we all just get along?" The answer to which, obviously, is "No, we can't." The more interesting question then becomes, "Why not? What is it about us and our predicament that makes that impossible?" Or, should one wish to say that the answer to King's query is "Yes, we can," then I must admit to being mystified as to why we don't, never have, and seem highly unlikely to ever do so. Why is that?

I am genuinely interested in your answers, should you wish to share them.

Thank you.

How So? It was only meant as but one example of the inumerable ways in which the true message of Christ - namely put God first everyone else second and your self last - was detestable to a world that is now and always has been primarily about self aggrandizement.

Garyd,

You lost me with"every illicit sexual encounter".

Uh Gaby the real significance here lies in what Christ knew would happen the sword in question came not because God/Jesus wished it because the world all caught up in itself would insist on it.

Christ said let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. this in and of itself was anathema to a world in which virtually every illicit sexual encounter begins with a lie of one sort or the other and goes down hill from there.

David said:

"I have not come to bring peace, but the sword". Jesus knew that His words would seperate people, and they have.

Yeah if we all just called Him "IT" then we could have a God without definition. But then wouldn't that be such a BLIND faith."

Well, David, I don't have any use for people or gods with swords. I would rather have harmony and love abound around the globe and the universe than argue whose god is the better god. That is my big problem with Christiany and Islam. Neither faith is forgiving, each holding on to the old man-made sacraments of yore.

You believe you are created, I believe I am part of the greater whole. There is a big difference. Being part of the greater whole forbids me to do harm to anything and anyhone, and I would not call that blind faith.

Wanting harmony in the world, versus believing in sword-wielding gods, is also not blind faith. It's called peace.

If I am right, whenI die I will reunite with IT and become part of the whole, if you are right you get to sit next to it.

I prefer my version any time of day!

Blessed be!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated Says:

"It is not individual Muslims that many of us have problems with unless they are professed terrorists."

Yet you tend to jump all over any Muslim who posts a comment here with demands that they immediately answer for the terrorists. Why is that?

You go on to say; "The problem is with their operating manual. Eliminate the milataristic and anti-female passages and insert passages supporting global freedom of religion in the Koran and most of the problems with Islam would be solved."

The same can be said for your Bible; in fact,as you yourself admit that's what Crossan and others are doing. So again I have to ask you, why is it that even moderate Muslims who take that approach to their scriptures attract such angry, hateful response from you? Admittedly I haven''t read every comment you've made in this forum (I don't have time to peruse them all), but it's a pattern I've noticed with you.

Don't you think there might be a big plank in your eye which is preventing you from getting to know Muslims who actually see their faith much like you see yours? I think you may missing out on some fruitful connections with like-minded people here because of an irrational fear.

Just think about it.

Regards

A Hermit

Ms Cunningham:

I'd be happy to briefly outline my personal philosophy; but first I'll just disabuse you of a misconception here.

You present us with a list of "ists" or "isms" which you refer to as "the tenets of their (atheists) belief system" But atheism is not a monolithic practice (certainly not any more than religion is), there are no tenets of atheism, no atheist "belief system." Atheism is a belief system in the same way that bald is a hair colour, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. (I have no hair and collect guitars, so I know this distinction is valid...)

But, you wanted some thoughts on the following:

humanist
materialist
scientist
secular
atheist
nihilist
relativist

For myself; I am a Humanist because it seems to me that our best hope as a species is to discover those things which we have in common; our common hopes, dreams, desires, fears and frustrations and to look for ways to help each other become the best we can be. "No man is an island" as the saying goes, so we need to learn to lean on each other, and the better we understand one another the easier it becomes to do so. I am informed in this opinion not only by my own experience in life, but by some (admittedly incomplete) study of human nature through the disciplines of history, sociology, psychology and (last bit far from least) art and literature. Other atheists may disagree; not all atheists are Humanists (just the smart ones...) nor are all Humanists necessarily atheists.

As for science,it is the method which has provided the most reliable measure of the physical world. And as a method for objectively examining the material world materialism must remain at its heart (until someone comes up with a way to objectively measure the immaterial, I suppose.) If I'm going up in an airplane or driving over a bridge or getting medical treatment I want those things to be designed by the best, objective science available, not by unverifiable faith. This also in some ways informs my opinions on the next of your "isms"...

Secularism is necessary for the health of any pluralistic society, since we must rely on measures which can be objectively examined and weighed on merits which are available to all members of that society. Since religious truths cannot be objectively determined and agreed upon they cannot form the basis of public policy. First of all because the imposition of unverifiable dogmas is inherently tyrannical, but also because, since public policy must be subject to dissent, challenge and change to base it on faith would subject faith to public dissent, challenge and change. I doubt very much that any religious person wants to see the validity of their beliefs subjected to public referendum. Secularism is, in fact, protective of religious liberty since it precludes any one sect from using the power of the state to impose its doctrine on those who may believe differently.

Atheism? I'm not so sure this an "attractive" position, in fact there are plenty of disincentives in most places to any open declaration of atheism. For me it's just a necessity; I came to a place in my life where if I was to be honest with myself I had to admit I just didn't believe in God anymore. It wasn't a sudden decision or a revelation or the result of some dramatic event but rather the result of a long process of searching, thinking, learning and growing. I can no more believe in the Christian God than in Mithra, or Odin or Zeus. Faith, for me, was a barrier, a blockage, more a source of confusion and guilt than of comfort or wisdom and gradually just became so irrelevant it became necessary to let it go entirely. I am, I believe, a much better person as a result.

Nihilism I don't find attractive at all. Why do you think I should?

And relativism; well I'd like to know how you define the term. If you mean a belief that there are no universal moral principles, I don't find that kind of relativism attractive at all. On the other hand, the way "relativism" tends to be used in these internet discussions in my experience is in the sense of situational ethics, but if believers are honest I think they have to admit that we all practice that form of relativism. I have yet to see anyone identify a moral principle which they would not modify if the circumstances warrant. Is lying wrong? Of course, but if a lie would save a life, wouldn't you lie? Killing is wrong, but if you had to kill to defend your family (or even yourself) no court would convict you. Even your Pope recognizes the concept of "just war" and there can be no war without killing, so "thou shalt not kill" is not an absolute even in Catholic theology.

That's not to say that there are not important, universal moral principles to which we should aspire, but the idea that relativism, in the latter sense, is something practiced only by atheists is a gross misrepresentation. I do have some pretty clear moral principles, many of which admittedly have roots in my Mennonite upbringing but which are also firmly grounded in natural human empathy.

On the whole, the term "relativism" in these discussions tends to be used too broadly, often as a weapon to paint the unbeliever as amoral, or even immoral and the believer as firmly grounded in absolute, inflexible standards of behaviour. Neither caricature is valid, in my view.

That's an all too brief an wholly inadequate response to your request, I know, but the best I can toss off in this format at this time. I hope I have at least given you some food for thought. Just remember, these are my own personal opinions, and not an atheist creed. I don't speak for all atheists, and Sam Harris doesn't speak for me. Please remember that.

Regards

A Hermit

Recent post to Perry Clark and Mary Cunningham is mine. last line should read "Therefore,
atheists don’t HAVE “tenets in their belief system” to examine.

May God comfort and give strength to Billy Graham as he deals with his wife's passing. Ruth Graham was every bit an equal to her husband; a light with rare beauty has left this world..

Perry Clark – your further explanation helps. I think I was inadvertently trying to fit your perception into mine, with the difference being that you look back to God whereas I just stopped thinking about whatever I was questioning. That is what you do, I think, but your looking back is more complex than my cessation of thought.

Mary Cunningham – Atheism is not a belief system. It is the absence of belief. Therefore,
atheists don’t “tenets in their belief system” to examine.

A Hermit,

To finish answering your questions:

It is not individual Muslims that many of us have problems with unless they are professed terrorists. The problem is with their operating manual. Eliminate the milataristic and anti-female passages and insert passages supporting global freedom of religion in the Koran and most of the problems with Islam would be solved.

Many contemporary NT scholars to include On Faith Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen have "cleaned" up the NT removing the embellishments and fiction.

And the OT has basically been thrown on the myth pile. Fictional accounts, however, still have important moral/life messages e.g. The Red Badge of Courage.

David,
I apologize if my "name" post sounded hostile to you. I was not intended that way.

While I freely admit that I still have some issues with Christianity as a religious entity because of the emotional harm it did to me, I do not hold every Christian responsible for that harm, any more than I hold every man responsible for the physical harm done to me by my ex-husband.

The sun is coming up now and it's time for me to go commune with the Divine in my garden.

Who said anything about limiting knowlege. Certainly not I.

What I said is that we humans are not omniscient and frankly I doubt we ever will be. There will always be answers we do not have and there is nothing wrong with trying to obtain them. It has been my experience in the study of science and I have studied a lot of science - in excess of 40 hours of college level science courses and I didn't stop there - that every time I have obtained one answer I have immediately acquired somewhere between one and a dozen more questions.

Perry Clark,

I think believers can say that it is reasonable to claim there is a God, and to claim that Jesus Christ was who he said he was (G*D) and walked the earth.

However, I do wish atheists would pause and examine the tenets of their belief system:

humanist
materialist
scientist
secular
atheist
nihilist
relativist

and write why they are attractive.

I had real problems with the question.

They might mean what is the place of questioning in *religion*. However faith is different from religion. Do Ms Quinn and Mr Meacham hold 'faith' and 'religion' interchangeable? They are not.

Faith is like love. It must involve factual knowledge but it is not reducible to it. For example, I love a certain red-headed little girl but for my claim to be coherent I must be able to explain what it is about her that justifies it. (I might start with the fact she's my daughter.) And my neighbour could agree with my description of the little girl without loving her herself.

Furthermore atheists hold that 'faith' is opposed to 'reason' and/or rational analysis. But that is not what Christianity teaches. Christianity merely teaches that to claim there is a God must be reasonable, and that is not at all the same thing as faith.

E Favorite--

Thanks for the kind response. (And if I may divert from this for a moment, thank you also to A Hermit for the kind and patient response. Much appreciated. Would that more of us participating in these sorts of things approached things that way.)

Back to the query from E Favorite: The condensation of my comments, while not terrifically wide of the mark, I think still missed in a significant way.

When I encounter doubt about something in my religion, it's not so much that I "leave it to God to figure out"--I presume He's not ever in need of figuring anything out. It's more that I recognize that there are things I simply cannot understand, and also that there are things which I seem to be unable to even imagine understanding. But in neither case does it mean that the thing posited is necessarily untrue or impossible.

If it is something of importance, then I try to accept it without understanding it, admitting that the deficiency may be entirely within me--as it often is. So you see, it's not quite the same as considering it, realizing it doesn't make sense (to me), and then shrugging my shoulders and going off to do something else.

I'm not sure the distinction I wish to make is coming across well here, but I hope you can grasp what I'm trying to say.

Now, the above applies to matters of doctrine and theology. It's different when it comes to matters of will, and desire, and things like whose prayer "gets answered". (NB: I believe ALL do--though perhaps not in the way we'd like or expect.) I cannot even pretend to understand why my children do some of the things they do, or why anyone would ever pay money to watch a boxing match. But others do these things. When it comes to my fellow man, I find that sometimes I am able simply to shrug my shoulders and move on; with God's will, and why things happen the way they do in the context of His dominion and creation, instead of a shrug, I sometimes shake my head in acknowledgment of my own inability to comprehend, but knowing that, should it be important and good for me to understand, that one day I will.

There. I think I've said enough for the moment. I hope it makes sense. At least maybe in some "kinda sorta" way.

I would like to share a quote with you all.

"I worship Gods and Buddhas, but never think of depending on them."
~Miyamoto Musashi

My interpretation is that having faith in that we cannot explain is natural. What is unnatural is having faith that disregards things we can explain. No one will ever be able to prove that there is not a god. We cannot depend on any god for anything either. I have faith that humanity was allowed to be of a certain way that maximizes our ability to reason and learn that we might do great works. Our questioning is thus doing the work of god. The problem with having faith today is that religion tends to get in the way. While maintaining traditions is acceptable, it is all too easy to let them control you and your life. Submitting to a religion or a religious leader or even an ideology without rationalizing its presence on Earth opens yourself up to enslavement. By granting us reason and knowledge we have been set free. Never give up your freedom for some prize, even if it is heaven.

Perry Clark - thank you very much. That is what I sought.

See if this summarizes it - something seems off to you. You think about it a lot and can't get it to make sense. You leave it to God to figure out.

Please tell me if I got it right. I've been thinking of how I handled these situations when I was a believer. Truth was I didn't think about things much. I was a lazy believer. When something came up that didn't make sense (like why my prayers were answered and someone else's much more important prayers weren't), I'd think about it a while, then just forget about it.

A Hermit,

I have posted my list of beliefs before but apparently you were not following that particular thread.

Professor Crossan and possibly his friend Professor Borg do not believe in an afterlife. See Crossan's book, Who is Jesus, for verification.

Why do I still hope for an afterlife?? Tradition!!! And it gives a lot of people a good reason to be good and in general an easier passing.

Even with all the medical diagnoses and science, there still appears to be some unexplained reason for some cures i.e. a miraculous recovery. The Singularity and prayers are not involved because of the fairness principle. Apparently there are cures by Nature that we still do not understand.

Developing the concept of a Christian *materialist* God.
1.- It is possible to accept a kind of distributed entity residing in every man and even animals or unliving things. Old Testament and Jesus of Nazareth speaks about men like a host of God.
2.- Laws and gifts of Nature are also laws and gifts of God.
3.- It was neccesary to highlight the idea of resemblance between man and God. It is also written in Genesis. In Apocalipsis Jesus establish an special relationship when judging men. *You made it to me when you did it to your neighbor.*
4.- God was specially a kind of ancestor or father. In the very begining of the universe he existed.
5.- Heaven and Hell has not any sense being external to this universe. Both ones exist inside him. It was a main reason for God to pardon men.
6.- Jesus, being Messiah or not, is the better example for reaching God. It is possible to think that God acted specially trough him.

To be continued...

Wade,

Thanks for that clarification. I actually read somewhere, can't exactly remember, that the hubble telescope can see the universe expanding at a rate of 186,000 miles per second and speeding up as well. I do remember reading that (I guess I should say) some scientists claim this to be a beginning of the creation of the universe. Of course how can anyone know for sure? It's definately not something we can put in a lab and test for confirmation. I guess that's why it's called a theory. I do have to say however, that I'm not too sure on how much scientists agree upon the singularity issue or if there existed some hot form of matter that just finally blew up. But what created that hot matter or dark matter or any matter at that. This can never be scientifically proven. And therefore gives me reason to my beliefs. Some can call it a natural event that occured billions of years ago, or a supernatural event that was created by a higher being. To be honest with you, I can see how both sides can be reasonable on the creation issue. And really it doesn't matter to me on what side anyone takes. I think my point is being that atheists cannot use creation as a means of saying they are correct. Vice-versa for believers. This is that one issue that divides believers and non, but I can see how both sides can be logical in their beliefs according to the evidence.

David,

In your response to Jon B., you reiterated some common misconceptions regarding Big Bang cosmology that I'd like to address.

First of all, Big Bang theory extrapolates back to a time when the universe was extremely hot and dense. It's debated exactly how far back we can extrapolate, but it's pretty well-agreed that we can't go all the way back to singularity. We can't say with any certainty that this was the ultimate 'beginning' or even if that question has any physical meaning. It is certainly possible that the universe existed in some other state for an indeterminate amount of time, or that the concept of time has no prior meaning. It is not correct ot say the Big Bang claims the universe 'had a beginning' in the sense you mean it.

It's also misleading to say that the Big Bang happened at some particular point in space. The
Big Bang encompasses the expansion of space, which was itself extremely compact. The Big Bang happened everywhere, as evidenced by the cosmic microwave background.

Nothing in the theory states that the Big Bang 'happened out of nothing'. We have no data that can tell us about the nature of the very early universe. The only honest answer is to say that we don't know what happened at the very beginning or where everything came from. Without data, claiming that 'it came from nothing' or that a divine being was the cause of it all are both unwarranted and unsupportable.

Lepid,

What's your point? Your rambling on about names. I merely said my faith is in Jesus. If Gaby wants to place her faith in "IT", hey free country buddy! You want to be atheists? Go ahead. I never said I was a better person than you. What's with all the animosity? I was simply clarifying to Gaby that I don't have a faith in just an "IT", but wanted her to know that I am a Christian. So what's the problem then?

Jon B,

Of course I'm gonna say God was always there. That's what I believe in right? But if the Big Bang is the most accepted theory, which I think it is, among scientists, then the theory itself claims that the universe had a beginning. Not just a "has been there forever". Since the universe is ever expanding from a particular point, then it's easy to conclude that the universe started at some specific point in time. Now whether you want to believe that all of a sudden this major event happened out of nothingness, feel free. I happened to think that the only logical way it could have happened is that someone started it.

Jon, you really should change up your argument a bit. I think everyone's heard the same old crap from atheists. "I bet I know what your gonna say, God was always there!". Of course we're gonna say that. Just because you beat me to the punch doesn't mean that all of a sudden my beliefs are illogical. So if I say that God is real and what are you gonna say...."no he's not!". Well, I beat you to the punch bro, so I guess your wrong. Pretty much what your doing. I'm willing to listen to you and talk to you in a civilized manner, but c'mon man, build an argument, don't end it without hearing the other side. Then your just arguing to yourself.

God bless

Perry Clark says "I am both bemused and disappointed by the rapidity with which, once again, a forum topic becomes, by the preponderance of activity, an attack on religion, and most especially Christianity. Sad, really. It seems that the Militantly Atheist see in every topic merely another opportunity to storm the battlements of religion, hoping that this time they'll iflict the fatal wound on this thing they can't see, feel, or hear."

I'm sorry if asking questions looks like an attack, and I can understand why it might feel that way, but considering the topic today is "Questioning Faith" I don't think it's unreasonable for atheists to ask a few.

I've been on the believing side of this sort of thing in the past, and I know it's not easy. I know we unbelievers often come across as angry or aggressive even when that may not be our intent. I won't apologize for anyone else, but I hope that I take a respectful tone most of the time.

I can only ask that you try to be as patient as we unbelievers are expected to be with the constant barrage of insistent faith we are faced with every day.

And I would hope that by asking each other questions, and answering each other as honestly and respectfully as we can, that we might learn a little about each other's points of view. That's the whole idea of the On Faith forum, after all.

Regards

A Hermit

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated, thanks for the reply; I figured your beliefs were along those lines, but since you have, up until now, avoided actually laying them out explicitly I was curious.

Looks to me like you have been struggling with Catholic tradition and have, quite correctly in my opinion, recognized that mythology and symbolism have been to often promoted to the status of objective fact, (and not just by Catholics or Christians.) As a child of Mennonites I never had to deal with a lot of those ideas (purgatory, transubstantiation, canonization of saints, Papal infallibility and so on were rejected by my fore bearers hundreds of years ago) and so I may have had a head start on you here...

But you're still clinging to a number of propositions which seem to me to have no more basis in reality than the ones you reject; eg, that there is a God at all, that there is Heaven of any kind, that purgatory or Hell might be real, that miraculous cures happen...

Couple more questions for you; If "the Old Testament is so full of untruths and embellishments, its content is of little historical relevance" how can it then be "of prime spiritual importance?"

If you believe "The basic beliefs of good people that are rendered by any theology with or without historic verification makes said theology worthy of following be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc" why then have you put so much time and effort in this forum into confronting and condemning Muslim commenters, even when they, like you, appear to be at least trying to apply some realistic analysis to their mythologies? (And do you presume to know their scriptures and traditions better than they do?)

What objective, reality-based reasons do you have for believing that "Jesus' Spirit resides in Heaven with all the souls of deceased good people?" How is this kind of belief more a product of reality than the other religious beliefs you reject?

Frankly, I think we probably agree on a lot of those points, but it seems to me you are still holding out for a little more "magic" than a disciple of reality would reasonably expect to find. But keep questioning and pursuing your doubts; it's the only way to learn...

Regards

A Hermit

David: "Sorry to inform you, but my "IT" has a name. Jesus. I was just stating that the "IT" you described sounded just like my "IT" being the only difference is that my "IT" has a name and that name is Jesus. This may not bring harmony to the world, but even my "IT" Jesus said, "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword". Jesus knew that His words would seperate people, and they have.

Yeah if we all just called Him "IT" then we could have a God without definition. But then wouldn't that be such a BLIND faith."

Ok, so you call yours "Jesus" and Gaby can call hers "IT" and I can call mine "Gaia" and someone else can call theirs "Fred". Is what name we call him/her/it/them worth fighting over? My dad is fond of saying, "I don't care what you call me, as long as you call me in time for dinner." I don't think that the Numinous cares what name we use so much as how we treat each other, especially if we are claiming to act on behalf of that name.

David says:

"How can something come out of nothing?"

This is possibly the worst argument for a god possible. Why? Simple Contradiction.

Assume Something CANNOT come from nothing.
Next Question: Where does god come from then?

but, "Oh no!", you retort: "He was always there!"
How convenient! Now why can the universe not
always have been there as well?

In short, your "arguments" are not thought out because inside you know there is no real argument for god. It's irrational at best.

David says:

"How can something come out of nothing?"

This is possibly the worst argument for a god possible. Why? Simple Contradiction.

Assume Something CANNOT come from nothing.
Next Question: Where does god come from then?

but, "Oh no!", you retort: "He was always there!"
How convenient! Now why can the universe not
always have been there as well?

In short, your "arguments" are not thought out because inside you know there is no real argument for god. It's irrational at best.

David says:

"How can something come out of nothing?"

This is possibly the worst argument for a god possible. Why? Simple Contradiction.

Assume Something CANNOT come from nothing.
Next Question: Where does god come from then?

but, "Oh no!", you retort: "He was always there!"
How convenient! Now why can the universe not
always have been there as well?

In short, your "arguments" are not thought out because inside you know there is no real argument for god. It's irrational at best.

Gaby,

You responded to a statement of mine.

"Thank you, David! Now if more people were as easy as you to get along with, the world would be a much better place.

Instead of God, or Allah, or whatever, we could just call him IT and there could be some kind of harmony."

Sorry to inform you, but my "IT" has a name. Jesus. I was just stating that the "IT" you described sounded just like my "IT" being the only difference is that my "IT" has a name and that name is Jesus. This may not bring harmony to the world, but even my "IT" Jesus said, "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword". Jesus knew that His words would seperate people, and they have.

Yeah if we all just called Him "IT" then we could have a God without definition. But then wouldn't that be such a BLIND faith.

Daniel:

You put forth some ideas that are really great. I like your use of Languages in particular. I've just often wondered if we're all using different languages to describe essentially the same idea of something out there bigger than ourselves.

But what if our language or religion didn't have to discount science? Or we create a new language to think about the same things in a different way? Here's an example:

The way I see things it takes a whole lot of imagination to imagine what God/Satan/heaven/hell might look like. When we read any book, including the Bible, we get pictures in our minds, from imagination, about what's we're reading. The wars that are happening now are about whose version of imagination is the correct one- the one laid out by the folks who wrote the Bible, Koran, etc.

By this standard, might not the question be: Of what value is the imagination, used in religious life, in the current age of scientific study and life? I'd be curious to know what others think of this idea. Or how they'd answer this question.

E favorite--

I shall attempt, briefly, to fulfill your request. I am short on time, so this may not be as complete as either of us would like, but here goes.

One of the things with which I've often struggled is the notion of the general resurrection of the bodies of all believers at the Day of Judgment.

For rather obvious reasons--everything from fire to bombs, burials at sea to organ transplants--I see practical reasons not to believe this shall happen. And I failed to mention the thousands of years of decomposition and redistribution of matter that some folks' bodies would have to overcome. I suspect that Abraham's molecules are pretty evenly spread over the globe by now, and are incorporated into everything from the Eiffel Tower to the Sears store in Great Falls, Montana, and from my dog to the FTD bouquet Mom got on Mother's Day.

Clearly, I cannot even begin to explain how these obstacles might be overcome and all these bodies resurrected. But that said, I also realize it's not my duty to understand it, or direct the activity. My religion teaches it, amongst other things, and I believe in a Supremely Powerful, Omnipotent God, Who can do with the Universe and the parts thereof as He pleases. So while the resurrection of the body is a concept with which I sometimes struggle, it has not seriously eroded my faith. I happen to look upon it as something that is, I suppose, important, but less so than my believing that Christ is my savior and through Him I shall enjoy eternal communion with God.

I hope this has been what you sought.

man between the two intervalum.
man at time of ease would sit in his mental exercise and entertainment salon and start beating his chest ,philosiphyzying and theoryzing,does god exist ?how ,since when and how come and what is the proof?
on the other intervalum ,at time of balls squeezing ,at time of roughness,at time of tough cookies ,at time of drowning in the deep sea or the deep fire or about to die ,the first thing to come from his babbled mouth is oh god ,cry god.as soon as he stand on his feet(by the will of god)he will go back to his arrogance .
god allmighty gave man faith,sense,reason,and supplemented him with divine revelation in case he forget.among mankind who will drop faith and divine revelation and stick to sense and reason alone,such man will freez in the parish of his own sense and own reason,no more no less than the priest who lock himself and seclude himself to the idolism and mythoism of the son of god who never exist!
unless man read and implment the divine revelation that his creator lord sent ,man will be pouring his credintial and potential in vain,man will never ever break the shacles of his humanism square lock until he submit to his allmighty creator lord who created man from a clot and his father adam from none.all certanity goes to the creator .

GABY--

Why do you strive for harmony in the world? Is that a good thing? If you believe so, on what basis have you decided that it is good?

ALL--

I am both bemused and disappointed by the rapidity with which, once again, a forum topic becomes, by the preponderance of activity, an attack on religion, and most especially Christianity. Sad, really. It seems that the Militantly Atheist see in every topic merely another opportunity to storm the battlements of religion, hoping that this time they'll iflict the fatal wound on this thing they can't see, feel, or hear.

In answer to the question, my own thought is essentially the following: It is alright to ask questions. But it is necessary, regardless of one's beliefs (or alleged lack thereof), to recognize and accept the notion that sometimes we have no answer we can understand.

Believing only in things that can be proved is not faith. It is, or at least closely approximates, agnosticism. Faith is the believing in things unseen, or poorly (or perhaps not at all) understood.

That God can be three entities wrapped in one being, a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that have distinct qualities but one essence, is something I do not understand. There have been those who have tried to take advantage of this belief and our inability to understand to attack the faith of those who believe it. This is something that of course sounds quite clever--at least at first--but which on examination is found merely to be a simple and cheap debating tactic.

Others have said that they would "find it hard" to believe anything that reportedly came from the mouth of an angel. Does that mean that if it were reported to have come from some other supernatural being it would be more believable? I doubt it, of course. It's merely another way of saying that one finds it hard to believe anything one can't rationally explain.

In the end, believing only what can be explained takes little effort, and no faith. That's what makes faith so important, and so precious. God wishes us to believe not because we understand, but because, in effect, He said so, and all that is, He made.

We all know from our own simple lives the treasure we find in being trusted, in having someone believe, without proof, that we will do as we say, that we will respect those around us, and so on. One of the most gratifying experiences we can have is that of seeing trust in the eyes of a child. One of the most horrifying is seeing someone intentionally violate a child's trust.

We all at times perceive faith as something of immense value. That we sometimes doubt--as a child sometimes does, when in need, that Mommy really is coming back--is part of our nature. It is how we deal with doubt and the faith that it attacks that determines who and what we are.

A Hermit,

It boils down to "My angel is smarter than yours". (and far superior to Moroni, Gabriel, Michael and his brood, the "death thingies, and the "dream talkers".) His name? Reality!!!!

And what has Reality revealed?

a. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead.
b. Christ’s teachings serve the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths.
c. Heaven is a Spirit State i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies allowed.
d. The Ascension and Assumption therefore did not take place.
e. Jesus' Spirit resides in Heaven with all the souls of deceased good people of any religion or of no religion therefore there will be no second coming.
f. Adam and Eve are myths making original sin mythological and Baptism symbolic.
g. There was therefore no Immaculate Conception.
h. Happiness in Heaven is not a gradient but is dependent on the number of souls present.
i. Purgatory is possible but has no Scriptural foundation.
j. Hell is possible but would the Singularity tolerate Satan spirits and contaminated souls in his spiritual realm?
k. God does not know the future.
l. Predestination should not be a word.
m. Canonization of the likes of Pio and Juan eliminates any consideration of papal infallibility.
n. Exodus should not be a word.
o. ditto for the Christmas manger.
p. The Eucharist is a fantastic spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. Continued crucifixion of Christ is ridiculous.
q. Confirmation is only symbolic of our adult acceptance of the Jesus'/"authentic Paul's rules for humanity and our belief in God.
r. Dividing God into three parts violates the first Commandment.
s. Substituting "The Singularity" in place of any reference to the Holy Spirit or the Son of God works quite well.
t. Holy Orders (or priesthood/cleric/ayatollah) is relevant but not complete without access by females and married members.
u. Religions are slowly converging. as per James Somerville.
v. As per Somerville, “Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door” i.e. there is no religion in Heaven and good atheists have equal access.
w. Lourdes et al as per Crossan prove faith heals but Mary plays no part. Miracles are equally probable anywhere on earth but all miracles are limited in scope and limited to very few of any faith. e.g. arms and legs amputees have never been replaced.
x. As per Crossan, Westar E-discussion group, 6/14/03, message 20213, “I said that There was hardly a single miracle I was sure of as an historical event even though I was absolutely sure that Jesus was a healer.
y. An act of contrition with repentance and life style changes by anyone of any faith or even no faith should be sufficient for soul cleansing.
z. The Old Testament is so full of untruths and embellishments, its content is of little historical relevance but of prime spiritual importance.
aa. Is Jesus the Son of God? i.e. God- no, but was definitely a godly representative on earth. He was therefore the biological son of Mary and Joseph.
bb. God, in my opinion, is responsible for the Big Bang program that got the Ball rolling. He/She is unable to stop or influence it
because it is restricted by the gifts of future and free will. Good and bad, however, are part of the program. There is nothing to prevent the bad from winning as shown by historic events. Was JC an attempt at influence?? Probably not, just a Good part of the program in Run mode. One day lets hope the Good is part of everyone's Favorite list.
cc. Miracles do not happen except through a mental desire or faith to be cured since miracles violate God’s gift of natural law. If God were involved in our daily lives, cures would not be needed. You cannot have it both ways.

ee.The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was historic and important in the development of Christianity but Pilate, the Romans, Constantine, and Gentile financial support played even a greater role. For example if Pilate had simply banished Jesus to Crete where would be today?? Considering Pilate was not predestined to execute Jesus, this could have happened so should we thank Pilate and his free will and abuse of power for our religion?? Jesus on Crete could have completed his mission and wrote/dictated the needed singularity Gospel and we would not be in the "limbo" of epistles and gospels and the all the craziness of trying to figure out who said/did what and when and if they said or did it at all.

ff.From Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
gg. The basic beliefs of good people that are rendered by any theology with or without historic verification makes said theology worthy of following be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc as long as the members are aware of the foundations, fictional accounts and embellishments of said faith.

kk. Jesus died and suffered. Heracles suffered and died. What made Jesus more important than the Heracles? Jesus had a mission of love and forgiveness --- and Jesus modeled righteous living, righteous conduct. The life of Jesus is a vision that Paul is referring to when he says that "if Jesus is not risen, then all our work is in vain."
ll. Paul believed that the end of the world was approaching – Fortunately for us, he was wrong.

What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?

Last night, taking stock of my life, it occured to me how difficult it is to think, and simply judging myself I realized that my thinking has never really progressed beyond having learned my native language. In other words, it is common knowledge that a child learns a foreign language more easily than an adult, but few are willing to recognize that thinking itself rarely progresses beyond one's having learned one's native language. If one cannot apply oneself to learning a foreign language, how can one speak of being willing to think?

Most people think about as well as they are willing to apply themselves to learning a foreign language. Some probably are good at learning languages but not at thinking. Still others are probably good at thinking but not languages and are those we celebrate as thinkers and constructive disruptors of our language. And the rarest persons of all are those that both learn languages easily and can think.

But most people are not only stuck in their native language, their thinking never really progresses beyond having learned their language--and therefore trying to teach them to read or write is virtually identical to teaching them what to think rather than how to think. We like to believe that we can teach people how to think with reading and writing--that the brain thinks beyond simply having learned one's native language--but unfortunately reading and listening to most people's thoughts is identical to listening to music made by the average person--total unoriginality.

In fact is there a language of music which is not made up the music of exceptional persons? Is there really such a thing as average music? In music we do not tolerate average thoughts, average language, as we do with words, speaking, etc. Most language is equivalent to intolerable music...

Now with this preamble we come to religion...Religion is primarily a group phenomenon--a type of rootedness of thinking in a particular language. And when a religion succeeds in making its way across languages, still it roots thinking to a particular pattern. I see no great questioning in great religious traditions we are familiar with. The traditions out of India have undergone profound changes having spread across the Far East--and notably India has a strange religious tradition which is a metaphysical questioning to the point of a respectful comparison with science--but a religion such as Islam is essentially the enforcement of a particular kind of thinking in a particular language. With Islam we have virtually the demand to learn a particular language to have our thought processes reduced to a particular kind of thinking. And I suppose the most successful religion is the one which can enforce a particular kind of thinking across multiple languages.

The question is whether we can think out of our respective languages in superior fashion than religion, and I believe the modern answer to that is science. We see it in music and mathematics ("languages" made up of virtually the superior accomplishments only), and it is only a matter of time until we celebrate thinking which bursts one's native language, bursts all languages, without being a constriction of thought as religion so often has been (religion distinguished from science by being a universal language out of constriction rather than expansion of thought).

So no, to give the short answer, do I believe there is really a place for questioning in religion. And yes, I believe questioning tenets and traditions makes the both less valid.

Wade -

Thanks for your kind words about my post.

It amazes me what passes for "honest questioning" in a religious context. You're right - most of the panelists who have weighed in think questions are fine as long as they reinforce your faith. Imagine if our justice system worked that way! You're accused of a crime that you know you didn't commit, and you're told that the court is open to any and all questions or new information...as long as it confirms your guilt. It gives a whole new meaning to the Old West phrase, "you'll git a fair trial a-fore we hang ya!"

Perish the thought that questions could actually reverse the court's opinion and exonerate you. It reminds me of Reagan's AG, Ed Meese, who once opined along the lines of, "innocent people aren't arrested as suspects" in police cases.

Again, thanks for your kind words.

efavorite,

i question why when democrats have been praying for a civil war -it showed up in the wrong place.. what now?

Could someone please provide specific examples of of the types of things they question (e.g virgin birth, resurrection, original sin, the value of the ten commandments, effectiveness of prayer, apparent randomness of misfortune, etc) and then explain how they resolved the questioning, and the effect it had on their faith?

I'd very much appreciate it

The Buddha taught his disciples that nothing should be taken on face value, including anything that he himself said. He invited his followers to examine everything and see if it made sense according to what they believed. This is why Buddhism has such fascination to so many Westerners: it demands that everything is to be questioned and that nothing be taken on faith. In Buddhism, faith comes not from believing without question but from having questioned and understood.

A physicist once asked His Holiness the Dalai Lama "Buddhism says that nothing has an inherent, independent existence outside of everything else. But what if one day we discover a particle beyond which you cannot go? Wouldn't that prove that matter exists? What would Buddhism do then?" His Holiness thought about it for a minute, then said "Should that ever happen, we would probably go back to our scriptures and see how we had misinterpreted the Buddha."

Faith becomes certain when it is derived from understanding born of questioning; those who never question their faith are creating an edifice built on sand. I work with a Catholic priest who is a former Jesuit. He and I get along fine because we both have a faith that is built on an understanding born of questioning. We may have reached different conclusions, but we respect each other because we know each other's faith comes from doing the hard work of reaching those conclusions by putting our tenets and our beliefs to the test.

In an era where blind faith leads us to suicide bombers, caging lists, and Christofacism, the courage to question is what makes all the difference.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated, you're going to have to do better than a link to an anthology site; I've read much of what Wells, Doan, Borg and others on that list have written and frankly there a wide variety of opinions represented there, and while I'm no expert I'm not unfamiliar with a few of them.

But I wasn't asking about Crossan's beliefs, or Borg's, or anyone else's. Just yours.

You're pretty good at mocking other people's faith; if everyone else is so wrong why aren't you able to explain why you're right, or at least what it is you think you're right about...

Regards

A Hermit

The Buddha taught his disciples that nothing should be taken on face value, including anything that he himself said. He invited his followers to examine everything and see if it made sense according to what they believed. This is why Buddhism has such fascination to so many Westerners: it demands that everything is to be questioned and that nothing be taken on faith. In Buddhism, faith comes not from believing without question but from having questioned and understood.

A physicist once asked His Holiness the Dalai Lama "Buddhism says that nothing has an inherent, independent existence outside of everything else. But what if one day we discover a particle beyond which you cannot go? Wouldn't that prove that matter exists? What would Buddhism do then?" His Holiness thought about it for a minute, then said "Should that ever happen, we would probably go back to our scriptures and see how we had misinterpreted the Buddha."

Faith becomes certain when it is derived from understanding born of questioning; those who never question their faith are creating an edifice built on sand. I work with a Catholic priest who is a former Jesuit. He and I get along fine because we both have a faith that is built on an understanding born of questioning. We may have reached different conclusions, but we respect each other because we know each other's faith comes from doing the hard work of reaching those conclusions by putting out tenets and our beliefs to the test.

In an era where blind faith leads us to suicide bombers, caging lists, and Christofacism, the courage to question is what makes all the difference.

Vercinget,
You completely lost me in your last post. Please elucidate.

Last one. Old -and constant- materialism is based on a very evident premise. All things interacting belong to the same universe. The unique universe. Because different universes only can be thought when no interaction exist. Interacting means here that the acting things have equal rank of communication. If one thing reaches the other in a way the the other has to be able to reach the former in a similar manner. *The path upward is the same that the path downward* (Heraclitus of Efesus. 500 BC ??) Can exist any materialist God? Of course. But it couldn't be a alien universe because interaction was forbidden.

Everyone has to struggle through doubt to find their FAITH and learn the best way to express that FAITH to others.

This guy was inspired by God's words. He started his artwork upon hearing God's words of love n truth, responded with painting, expressed his worship & faith thru a God given talent, ie. painting.

God makes each of us unique with different talents. He connects with us differently. Bearing in mind His plans for each is unique, we're nobody to criticise how one connects to God esp when it differs from our own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M4_IlbaZHA&NR=1

I see a message from a phylosophical idealist. Let me put clear the other side. the PHYLOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM. It is not nothing about the present meaning. We are constantly clashing since Ionic times.

Garyd. Aswering a backward message. Yourself have said it. Man doesn't know the limits of the possible reasonable knowledge. Where to stop? When we were living in caverns? No. Knowledge is an evolved means of prediction. Prediction is a need for survival. Faith probably disappears in a death man. I think in those ones limiting knowledge at their own as people without enough faith in a God that made all us.

Mr. Mark, you said:

Mr Mark :

"Any questioning that does not allow for one's beliefs to be totally reversed is no questioning at all. It is a charade."

That was beautifully said, and spot-on. Panelist after panelist have responded to this question by essentially saying "Questioning is great! Just don't question too much or the wrong way."

The problem with On Faith is the inmates are truly running the asylum.

Wiccan: "To me, "faith" is my personal relationship with the Divine. "Religion" is the framework that helps me explore that relationship: the doctrines, holy text, sacraments; the dogma."

What a delightfully succinct way to put it! And in the context of exploration, questioning and even doubt are crucial.

Gaby-

"I think this questions should have read:

What is the place of questioning in religions? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Gaby, I agree with you. To me, "faith" is my personal relationship with the Divine. "Religion" is the framework that helps me explore that relationship: the doctrines, holy text, sacraments; the dogma.

In the early days of this forum, we were asked "What was your most transforming spiritual experience?" For me, it was the first time I tried to cast a circle by myself, and screwed it up. But when I rushed back to the altar, I felt such a feeling of loving amusement towards me that I could almost hear the laughter. What followed was a "conversation" with the Divine. When I apologized for messing up the ritual, I heard (?), "Silly, the ritual is for you, not for us."

That experience convinced me that the Lord and Lady were my loving parents, and that dogma (rituals, etc.) would never be as important to them as what was in my heart.

"What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

I think this questions should have read:

What is the place of questioning in religions? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?

That would make a lot more sense!

A Hermit,

Again, See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html and Father Raymond Brown's, An Introduction to the New Testament for the facts as we know them.

Compare and then make your faith decisions.

What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?

You don't have to question faith your faith is absolute. I always question the person's interpration of scripture no matter who it is. This does not make my faith less valid makes it stronger, because I am not putting my faith in the hands of another human being or their misinterpration of scripture.

"My religious faith revolves around the facts of history " (CCNL)

Which facts would those be? And of what faith are they evidence?

There is a hymn that is sung often at the Unitarian Church I attend. It's one of my favorites because of the last verse:
"We seek elusive answers to the questions of this life.
We seek to put an end to all the waste of human strife.
We search for truth, equality, and blessed peace of mind.
And then, we come together here, to make sense of what we find.
And we believe in life, and in the strength of love,
And we have found a need to be together
And in our search for truth, maybe we'll finally see
That to question, truly is an answer."

I may be off by a word or three, but that's the gist of it. It's that last line in particular that speaks to me. The act of questioning, of seeking answers, of relentlessly pursuing explanation and reason, and refusing to accept "Because I say so." IS an act of worship. It is the search for deeper understanding that brings us closer to the divine, however it is that perceive it (or IT, my dear Gaby).
I have taught my daughter to question all authority that seems wrong to her - whether it's parental, educational, vocational/professional, governmental, or spiritual.

Messages from supposed Angels are troubling only if the messages are inherently contradictory or there is no other support for at least some of those messages.

Revelation speaks of wars and rumors of wars to the end of time. Given human history that would seem a very safe bet.

It also spoke of plagues carrying away a fifth of the worlds population. Anyone here care to bet that at least a fifth of the worlds population didn't die of the Bubonic plague in the Middle Ages?

On the other hand the Book of Mormon has almost no support for any of its many claims lading one to conclude that Mr. Smith should have stuck wioth his first career choice as a plagiarist of bad sci fi.

A Hermit,

My religious faith revolves around the facts of history not the fiction/embellishment of much of today's contemporary religions. The fiction and embellishment of the OT and NT have been articulated in the last 200 years of biblical scholarship.

e.g. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html and Father Raymond Brown's, An Introduction to the New Testament.

These are profound questions, central to the subject of what is true faith. Paul said, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." If "faith" is based on dogmas, contrived fears, asking for blind or unquestioned obedience, then it seems to me it is not faith but a power struggle. True faith would not seek to hide behind motivations of fear or mind-control.

In order to be free-flowing, faith must be open to profound questioning. That's how great minds have found God, or found an inner peace that allows them to move through the world without fear and with love and respect for every fellow creature.

Concerned says: "If my religion depended on messages from mythical angels, I would have signficant doubts about said religion."

So what does your religion depend on, CC? From reading your comments in these threads it can't be reason...

Thank you, David! Now if more people were as easy as you to get along with, the world would be a much better place.

Instead of God, or Allah, or whatever, we could just call him IT and there could be some kind of harmony.

Actually that is what I am striving for. Harmony on the world. IT wants that badly. Be good my bother David, because that is all that is required.

I'm getting a stronger feeling each passing day that our government leaders have become so detached from reality that many of them are willing to do just about anything (including killing their own young) just to get reelected in order to maintain a power base.

This may sound extremely cynical and pessimistic, but how else can anyone explain the sagging pole numbers for all of the branches of leadership and "political" parties in Washington, D.C.?

In conclusion, I hope that all (or at least a majority) of our elected officials are inspired with true "Spirit" genius -- however, I doubt it!

Moving on to Plan B...

My take on this question can be summed up in a quote from a Sufi:

Until faith becomes rejection
And rejection becomes belief
There will be no true believer.
Abu Said (Shah 239)

I have faith/a dream that someday there will be global freedom of religion. The only wall to this faith/dream today is Islam and its koran. Note that even "liberal" Muslims like The Jihadist will not support this faith/dream. But as MLK would say , We Shall Overcome!!!!!!! I have no doubts about it.

I have faith/a dream that someday there will be global freedom of religion. The only wall to this faith/dream presently is Islam and its koran. Note how even "liberal" Muslims like The Jihadist will not support this basic human right.

If my religion depended on messages from mythical angels, I would have signficant doubts about said religion.

It turns out the angels of Mormonism ("angel" Moroni), Islam ("angel" Gabriel) and Christianity ("angels Gabriel and "no-name" dream talkers) serve as the "foundation"/conduits to God of said religions making faith in these faiths very troubling.

"What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Belief in God is faith.

But one should always question dogma and/or Shariah that is interpreted, formulated and applied by man as tenets of organized religion and to be part of faith.

Not to mention traditions sanctified and/or accepted as tenets of religion, or practices associated with tenets of religion and associated with faith.

Confusing and accepting man interpreted, formulated and applied tenets and dogmas, as well as traditional practices co-opted as religious practices, is blind faith of the highest order. And it stinks to high heaven.

Vercinget logic can take one only so far. Man's logic is liomited by man's knowlege. We don't no everything or even close to everything hince man's logic has gaping holes within because we lack sufficient knowlege to do more than guess at certain possibilities.

Was not the so called Christian End of Times no more than twisting the Christian basic beleifs? Reason is on our side.

Scopes. It is a matter of scopes. Faith asks for beleifs. Reason specially asks for logic and non-contradiction establishing strong and well-defined methods. Analysis, deduction, induction, etc. Rules on any method exist to defend their maximum objectivity. Could any God made man forgetting He gave him reason?

For the true Christian, doubt leads one to study and thence to growth. Doubt is another tool God uses to knock his children away from complacency and lead them closer to Him.

Great Gaby. Enjoy your "IT". You know what's great about my "IT" too. He doesn't require me to read or pray or go to church either. It's not a "Requirement". Simply my faith in my "IT" is sufficient to rejoin "IT" as well. I guess we have more in common than you think. :)

Well David,

I think I'm a little too old to learn Aramaic.

Also, my IT fulfills the same purpose, because IT is everything there is. Like all dimensions rolled into one. And my IT doesn't require me to pray to IT, or go to church, or read and study scripture. IT is part of me therefore IT know all there is to know about me.

Much simpler and just as valid as your religion. Plus because I am part of IT I know that I can never die. I simply will rejoin IT.

Gaby,

This is what's called the Trinity. Three distinct persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that make One God. Probably the most difficult thing to understand in Biblical theology. How can a plural be a singular? I've heard several anaolgies on how to describe this. The most rescent: God is like time. There's past, present and future, but it is still time. Three distinct differnt people, but still ONE God. The OT has three distint personalities as well. In Hebrew it's Jehovah (Jesus) Elohim (God) and the Spirit is....i think is (Ruach). All three of those words were used as names for God in the OT. And the OT has several verses that say there is only ONE God. None before Him and none after Him. Therefore, there are three persons of God, but they all make up the ONE God. Did I confuse you? So, really no contradiction there. Jesus was simply praying to the part of Himself that was greater than Him. The Father in heaven. You have to remember Jesus was 100 percent human and 100 percent divine. That human side makes Him less than the Father. Jesus Himself said that the Father is greater than Him. Jesus' human side was evident in that he cried, was tempted, felt pain, etc. These human attributes made the Son less than the Father. But without any three of those, you don't have God.

OT evidence is a verse that says "The Lord is my God".

Translated "Jehovah is my Elohim". One in the same, but different persons.

This is difficult teaching and difficult learning as well, but after much studying it makes sense to me. I do think it requires studying it in it's original language at times as well.

Hermit,

Your right about one thing. I think it's getting quite old to debate scripture on these internet forums. We can go all day...actually all year on that. No point as far as I see. I'm here just for those who have questions regarding the Bible and to give somewhat of a representation of why having faith is not illogical or meaningless. Otherwise, we choose our own path. So cool beans homie. We found our own ways.

God bless

David,

You are more than welcom to believe in whatever you want. As is everyone's perogative in our country.

I just happen not to believe the same thing.

I do have to agree with A Hermit though. I think there is planty of contradictio in the Bible.

I keep hearing that Jesus is God in the flesh. If that is so, then why on earth did he cry out: Father why hast though forsaken me?" (or something like that)?

Should he have said why on earth have I forsaken myself?

Regards

I could try to list all the contradictions in the Bible here and we could argue about them all day, but I'm frankly tired of doing that in internet forums. All I can say is if you haven't found the contradictions you haven't read your Bible very closely.

Same goes for the prophetic evidence; it's easy to write a story so that it "fits' some prophecy, or to interpret the vague, mystical language of some of those "prophecies" in whatever manner one wants to. I'm sorry David, but I never found the prophecy argument very compelling even when I was a believer, and again, the harder you look at them the less convincing they are. Again we could get into one of those endless about angels on a pinhead if you like, but I don't them productive. Let's just say I have my doubts (how's that for on topic;-)...) and my response to doubt is to suspend belief, not to invent unwarranted connections to shore up the belief.

Also, there are trillions, not just billions of stars, and the idea of God "stretching out" the heavens is nice imagery, but hardly scientific language, or a "clear indication" that God had anything to do with the beginning of the Universe. It's a clear indication that the scriptures writers were good poets (at times) but, like the alleged prophecies, not really evidence of anything.

None of this is intended to deny you your faith; just to make the point that there is much more of faith, and less of reason, at work in your argument.

But on the Creation museum you are absolutely right, and Mr. Ham and his supporters would do well to take the advice of St. Augustine, who wrote:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions."

-

Regards

A Hermit

One of the problems here is that Atheism has taken on the connotation of Anti religion. Classically, atheists just didn't believe in a supernatural being. Many of us have taken, when pressed, the label agnostic. Such a label may placate the religious who assume everyone Has to "believe" in something, but the "can't know" approach really doesn't capture it. All labels communicate more and less than intended. I have no problem with people believing what they want. But in a country that promises freedom of religion, I'd just like to be left alone religiously. The quarrels about whose beliefs are correct just don't concern or interest me. Like a two family members who are always quarreling, I'd just like to be left out of it all. Us atheists (small a) don't need to prove religion wrong, and many of us find the attempts by very visible and angry Atheists to eradicate or "disprove" religion as an embarrassment.

Court, I'm glad you were able to turn your life around. My own journey has been quite different, and it is only since I learned to let go of faith and believe in myself that my life has become truly meaningful and I have become a new, I think much better, person.

So I thank you for your prayers, but honestly, a return to, what was for me, the bondage of faith is not something I would see as a good thing.

Regards

A Hermit

Gaby,

I happened to think that "IT" revealed Himself in the divine inspiration given to man to write. I never said God picked up a No. 2 pencil and started dictating. The reason I accept the Bible as divinely inspired is for two reasons.

1.) 40 different authors all from different backgrounds over a 1500 year span of time and not one contradiction.

2.) Prophecy. 456 prophecies concerning a particular person that had to born in bethlehem, out of egypt and from nazareth. also, this person had to be before the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d which concludes that no one these days could be the Christ.

Also, even though the Bible isn't meant to be a scientific document, God put in a little science there so that no man can have an excuse. For example: the Big bang theory is mostly accepted by scientific measures. Scientists use the hubble telescope to be able to tell that the universe is actually expanding, meaning that it had to begin sometime. God speaks of not just creating the heavens, but stretching out the heavens. Pretty clear indication that God did create the universe in what we now call the Big Bang Theory.

Also, look at how God explained that Abraham's descendants would be as numerous as the stars. Early astronomers (before telescopes) counted the stars at an estimate of between 1100 and 1500. They did not assume that there were billions until Galileo came around. But God knew that Abraham's descendants would be billions, just like the stars. Not 1500.

I think the Bible agrees with science on many aspects. I haven't seen one shred of evidence that the way God said it happened didn't occur that way. I know I never will either.

One thing I want to point out too is that I wish these young earth creationists would stop giving Christianity a bad name. That creationist museum is a joke. Can you believe that there is still a Flat Earth Society? They claim to be Christian as well. Terrible.

So if you believe or not, it's your choice. I just have to make it a point that we Christians do not have to have "blind" faith. There are many evidences that give us the reasoning behind our faith. I'm not knocking your dis-belief, I'm just saying that my faith isn't illogical or without reasoning.

David - ditto what A Hermit and Gaby said, plus you didn't explain why the whole Jesus story is needed to explain creation of the universe. Why a story about a virgin birth, a son murdered by his own father, the creator of the universe,to atone for sins that the father gave to everyone ever born into his creation, then the son is resurrected and ascends into heaven?

Faith is something that has changed my life. As a college student, I was a drug and sex addict. I had extremely wealthy parents who supported me financially, spoiling me with luxury cars, purses, jewlery, and apartments. This was all great but I was still a messed up person. They didn't know that I was getting high every day with their money. I went to law school after I graduated but was too high to complete my three years.

I was seriously contemplating suicide because I my life was spinning out of control. The Lord spoke to me through an individual and told me that He was calling me out of darkness and into his marvelous light. I was scared but I had faith to believe that I could be healed and set free from my sins. After I gave my life to Christ, he totally transformed me. I haven't drank, smoked, fornicated since. I am a totally different person that who I use to be. I walked away from everything my parents gave me on faith that God would provide for me. I have prayed for jobs and God has opened doors for me. I have prayed for cars and a house even though my credit was jacked up and he approved my loans to go through. I have prayed for people to be healed from their sickness and they have come out a survivor when they should've died.

Because of my faith, God has provided for me in ways that are hard to fathom. I pray for those of you who do not know that there is a God. I pray for those who do not believe in God. I pray that you personally encounter Him because when you do, your life will never be the same.

Faith is something that has changed my life. As a college student, I was a drug and sex addict. I had extremely wealthy parents who supported me financially, spoiling me with luxury cars, purses, jewlery, and apartments. This was all great but I was still a messed up person. They didn't know that I was getting high every day with their money. I went to law school after I graduated but was too high to complete my three years.

I was seriously contemplating suicide because I my life was spinning out of control. The Lord spoke to me through an individual and told me that He was calling me out of darkness and into his marvelous light. I was scared but I had faith to believe that I could be healed and set free from my sins. After I gave my life to Christ, he totally transformed me. I haven't drank, smoked, fornicated since. I am a totally different person that who I use to be. I walked away from everything my parents gave me on faith that God would provide for me. I have prayed for jobs and God has opened doors for me. I have prayed for cars and a house even though my credit was jacked up and he approved my loans to go through. I have prayed for people to be healed from their sickness and they have come out a survivor when they should've died.

Because of my faith, God has provided for me in ways that are hard to fathom. I pray for those of you who do not know that there is a God. I pray for those who do not believe in God. I pray that you personally encounter Him because when you do, your life will never be the same.

David:

You wrote: "How can something come out of nothing? This can't be explained scientifically. That gives me my reason to have faith."

I happen to agree that the universe and all things animate and inaminate were created. But that is where it stops. I am who I am = IT. Not him or her, but IT.

You bring Jesus and the bible into the mix. You state that the Bible is God's word. I beg to differ! IT didn't write it, some long dead guys did. Let's assume Jesus is God's son, did HE write it? No, some long dead did. Let's further assume that since Jesus was a carpenter he was illiterate as most people were at the time. Could the son of god be illerate? If not, then Jesus couldn't possibly be THE son.

So, in a way you did set yourself up and I am happy to oblige. :o)

David says: "I'm ready to hear it all non-believers. Please, tell me how the universe was created without a God. I know it's coming."

I don't know how the universe was created. But then, neither do you. The difference between us is, I am wiling to admit ignorance, while you insist on inventing an explanation called "God".

There's plenty of science around about the "Big Bang" and so on which tells us some of what happened in the earliest moments of the Universe's existence, but not, I don't think, enough to say we know how it all happened. But unless you have better evidence for your God hypothesis I don't see how my "I don't know" takes more faith than your "God did it."

Regards

A Hermit

Any questioning that does not allow for one's beliefs to be totally reversed is no questioning at all. It is a charade.

The beauty of science and its method is that its questioning constantly attempts to falisfy results, to break new ground, even to change its beliefs 180º if the evidence warrants.

Religious questioning never goes that far. It only allows questioning to the extent that it bolsters and already held belief. Religion doesn't allow that questioning will lead to non-belief, at least not without a severe consequence.

In practice, religious questioning is nothing of the sort. It's actually an exercise in self-delusion and delusional reinforcement.

Unless religion is prepared to put losing one's faith on the table as a legitimate and non-penalty bearing outcome of questioning one's faith (equal to any outcome that helps to strengthen one's faith), then religious "questioning" is just another dead-ended lie.

rules have been set before any of us were here,so we need to learn the rules to play the game properly. how would you like for someone you let come in and tell you how to play your game.you would call them a fool.think about that.

rules have been set before any of us were here,so we need to learn the rules to play the game properly. how would you like for someone you let come in and tell you how to play your game.you would call them a fool.think about that.

rules have been set before any of us were here,so we need to learn the rules to play the game properly. how would you like for someone you let come in and tell you how to play your game.you would call them a fool.think about that.

rules have been set before any of us were here,so we need to learn the rules to play the game properly. how would you like for someone you let come in and tell you how to play your game.you would call them a fool.think about that.

I like this quote:

"What I believe in my heart has to make sense in my head".
Ravi Zacharias

I have faith in Jesus. Why? Because I just hope that it's the correct way and better to be safe then sorry? No. Because there is reaon involved. I think what it boils down to is the great big question. How did we get here? Some believe it just happened and that we are all just a bunch of molecules waiting to die. I think it takes greater faith in that than the belief in God. How can something come out of nothing? This can't be explained scientifically. That gives me my reason to have faith. I don't believe in blind faith. I think we all need reason to believe what we believe. I know I did and I sought that out. I couldn't just rely on someone telling me there is a God, I had to make sure of it. I find no other explanation than the way God made it and how He described it in His Word.

I know. I set myself up. I'm ready to hear it all non-believers. Please, tell me how the universe was created without a God. I know it's coming.

I question faith every day. I don't think people are honest about what they do know and what they do not know about life and existence. I was born a human being. That means that I was *summoned* into existence approximately nine months before I was born. The creatures (my parents) who summoned me here were ill-prepared to answer my disturbing questions about life and with any degree of honesty or accuracy. Instead, when I reached a degree of sentience and sapience, I found that my parents and all my fellow human beings instead of trying to solve the problems of life and existence had decided instead to wallow in superstion and ignorance.

People of faith claim that their faith inspires in them the qualities of Love, Compassion, Tolerance, and Peace. But the *real* history of faith is that **faith** has been responsible for more human misery, suffering and death than all other forms of human calamity combined throughout all of human history. This *real* history of **faith** does not speak to me of Love, Compassion, Tolerance, or Peace. If this *real* history of **faith** speaks to me of anything at all, I submit that it is the polar opposite of the qualities claimed by those who purport **faith**.

I don't know what the truth is. I don't know what this universe is, I don't know where it came from, or how it came into existence, or why. I don't know why we as human beings exist in this universe. And since all of you are human beings...in exactly the same way that I am a human being...I don't see how anyone can claim any knowledge of these things that I don't possess.

Consider the word "Faith"...does not that word mean: Acceptance without benefit of knowledge? Simply by declaring that one has "faith", one has already admitted that one does not know! If one has already admitted that one does not know, then how can anything that one may say about one's faith even possibly be true? When I hear someone declare that they have "faith", and in the same breath qualify that word "faith" with the word "truth", I challenge anybody...anywhere on this planet to explain to me why I should not consider that I have just been LIED to!

There is not a crises of "faith" in this world. There is a crisis of honesty...about just what it is that we DO know about life and existence, and what it is that we DO NOT know.

J and Jeffrey Young - Can you give me some examples of questions and doubts you've had about your faith?

Thanks

Faith which does not question is not a dialogue. It is rigid. God speaks to people not to religions . I have questioned, doubted that is human . But in everything God was and is faithful .If only man has fallen short.

Faith which does not question is not a dialogue. It is rigid. God speaks to people not to religions . I have questioned, doubted that is human . But in everything God was and is faithful .If only man has fallen short.

To question faith is to determine the strength of an individual's belief system. As the modern world reveals many of the secrects of life in all its marvelous forms we need to continue to question how our beliefs comport to the facts presented by science and our own experiences.

To question faith is to determine the strength of an individual's belief system. As the modern world reveals many of the secrects of life in all its marvelous forms we need to continue to question how our beliefs comport to the facts presented by science and our own experiences.

To question faith is to determine the strength of an individual's belief system. As the modern world reveals many of the secrects of life in all its marvelous forms we need to continue to question how our beliefs comport to the facts presented by science and our own experiences.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (Authorized Version)

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.(NIV)

The Bible tells Christians to question all things. Arguably we are told to "bounce" all notions against the Bible and test them to see whether they "square-up."

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (Authorized Version)

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.(NIV)

The Bible tells Christians to question all things. Arguably we are told to "bounce" all notions against the Bible and test them to see whether they "square-up."

"Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Doubt does not oppose Faith. The opposite of Faith is unbelief..

By NO Means wonder about anything you've been
fed!
One loose string in this fairy fabric would
unwind the faithful at warp speed. (pun intended)
The fact that new artifacts come to light, on judas for example, shouldn't change any minds.
What you've decided is true is true, no matter how silly.

I see the issue of questioning as the issue of evidence from the natural world calling an ideology into doubt. The new Creation Museum in Kentucky is an extreme example of natural evidence being twisted to fit an ideology, as opposed to conclusions being derived from the evidence. Is it possible to reconcile the idea of faith with the principle of empiricism? Maybe that requires a definition of the divine that does not involve deities that control natural events.