Switching Faiths

Who has time for this Internet foolishness?

Christians, if you are truly follwers of Jesus, get off the Internet and go find some poor people to feed.

Pagans, tear yourself away from the electronic device and go hug a tree!

As for the rest of you, surely there is something better to do. That's all I have to say about this page.

God promises to unite His people. How? By His word. He has not created false religions. They have come from not following the word God sent to the prophets.
Here are some scriptures needed for correction in all faiths:
** Bible: "if it is not according to the law and the prophets, it is because there is no light in them."

** Qur'an "say, O people of the scripture, you stand on nothing till you observe the Torah, Gospel and what God has sent down to you" "say, I believe in all books God has sent down."

** Qur'an "The religion ordained for you is the religion of Abraham,.. Moses and Jesus (Isa), be not divided therein."

** Bible-Torah (Law of Moses) "You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deut.4:2

** For Hindu and Buddhists, they are to honor all holy books... and live by the law of God.

God foretold a time of great falling away from His word; we have gone through that. He also foretold a restoration of all He told the prophets, that is our choice now. Peace and all protections are tied to obedience to the word of the living God who revealed Himself for us to read and know what He requires of us.

He said not to seek after riches. The goal of life is not employment; it is retirement in a garden paradise which we can create. It overcomes pollution, energy crisis, global warming, diseases, social security problems and immigration disputes.

Pray to turn our life to the retirement lifestyle and that God will lift up the leader He has to bring it to pass. One God has one faith-obedience and faith in His word... a message of unity and peace.

I have a few legitimate questions for any adherent of Islam reading this? On multiple posts I have heard Muslims say that people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Magdi Allam are heretics or infidels or what-ever. Are all non-Muslims viewed this way, and these two just vocal enough to draw direct condemnations? Is it just these two because they are speaking out against Islam? Are the people posting it just crazy? Is someone who was once a Muslim and then converted worse than someone who never was? This is honest inquiry, not an attack.

I have a few legitimate questions for any adherent of Islam reading this? On multiple posts I have heard Muslims say that people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Magdi Allam are heretics or infidels or what-ever. Are all non-Muslims viewed this way, and these two just vocal enough to draw direct condemnations? Is it just these two because they are speaking out against Islam? Are the people posting it just crazy? Is someone who was once a Muslim and then converted worse than someone who never was? This is honest inquiry, not an attack.

I have a few legitimate questions for any adherent of Islam reading this? On multiple posts I have heard Muslims say that people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Magdi Allam are heretics or infidels or what-ever. Are all non-Muslims viewed this way, and these two just vocal enough to draw direct condemnations? Is it just these two because they are speaking out against Islam? Are the people posting it just crazy? Is someone who was once a Muslim and then converted worse than someone who never was? This is honest inquiry, not an attack.

Christie, @ March 20, 2008 8:23 PM, ou made the right choice by switching.

Choosing your own religion is not only healthy but it puts everyone on equal footing to receive everlasting life.
(John 17:3)
3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

The Pew survey reported that the Catholic Church in America has lost more adherents to other religions. This makes perfect sense. If you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, it is difficult to remain Catholic. I was raised Catholic and thought the priests were teaching the Bible. When I finally studied the Bible I could plainly see the Church was teaching the doctrines of men based on human philosophy. (the trinity, hell fire, the immortality of the soul, all good people go to heaven, to name a few) These teachings are in direct opposition to what is stated in the Bible. Thus, the Church drew people away from God instead of helping people to develop a personal relationship with God. How personal a relationship can you have with someone when you don’t know or use their name? God has a personal name and the Church doesn’t teach it.
(Psalm 83:18)
18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

When I read 1Timothy 4:1-3, I asked my priest at that time to explain it to me.
(1 Timothy 4:1-3)1 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.

The priest’s response, “Oh, we don’t use that book so much.”
That was enough for me, I switched.

Merry meet, Cricket.

Lovely - some (pagan) friend sent me here to read, and now I'm hooked. Is this a fairly typical conversation, or can I hope you'll all grow dull and boring and let me break loose?

As a pagan in the middle of a small extension of the Bible Belt, I'm horribly opinionated...

I wish it wasn't so but facts do not lie :
"Paganism is no help; it is a conduit to sexual perversion. Hence, their gods see no discord with the iniquity of human sacrifice or temple prostitutes. Under such a regime, truth becomes relative, subjective, and therefore meaningless since your truths may not be those of another."
___________________________________________

pa·gan:

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.
adj.
1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.
TheFreeDictionary by Farlex

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

I don't use a dictionary to define my beliefs,. but if you had gone a bit farther and looked up neo-Paganism,you would have found the following:

"Ne·o-Pa·gan·ism (n-pg-nzm)
n.
Any of various religious movements arising chiefly in the United Kingdom and the United States in the late 20th century that combine worship of pagan nature deities, particularly of the earth, with benign witchcraft."

The word Pagan comes from paganus, meaning rural - it originally simply referred to people's worship of local, mainly agricultrual gods. That's me - I believe that the Earth is a living being and that everything from slime molds to geraniums to blue whales to you and I are part of her and therefore part of each other. Because all are interconnected, when you do good for one, you do good for yourself, and when you do ill to one, you do ill to yourself.
I don't do blood sacrifices of any kind, and I don't serve my gods by boffing strangers.

"Paganism is no help; it is a conduit to sexual perversion. Hence, their gods see no discord with the iniquity of human sacrifice or temple prostitutes. Under such a regime, truth becomes relative, subjective, and therefore meaningless since your truths may not be those of another."
___________________________________________

pa·gan:

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.
adj.
1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.
TheFreeDictionary by Farlex

2 Corinthians 6:14-17, (14)“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (15) What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? (16) What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (17) Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.” NIV

I was taught as a child that the Southern Baptist version of Christianity was the only true faith. As soon as I was old enough to refuse to go to church with my parents, I quit going. I had stopped believing in it long before that.

I encouraged my daughter to explore different spiritual paths and find the one, if any, that felt right to her. She has investigated Christianity from both a Catholic and Protestant perspective, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Taoism, and Mahikari, among others. She now considers herslf an agnostic with a Buddhist twist.

Am I disappointed that she does not embrace my Pagan path? Not in the least. I would be disappointed if she tried to follow my path just to please me, when it isn't the right path for her. I'm proud of hr for having the courage to keep searching until she found what was right for her.

"Think DEVIL! Or your slimy brain is already filled with satanic thoughts you cant get rid off. And no space left???"

Your comment was uncalled for. Ironically though I am not bothered by your nonsense. I do not believe in the alah and satan cannot touch me because I have a brother that sticks closer to me then any friend.

-Satan (Personal name : Iblees) is real.
-He (they are) is from the race of Gin’s or Ginni. And humans who obey them also called Satans.
-Made of fire, like us humans are made of water and earth.
-Was made the leader of the Angels for his obedience and worship.
-Was punished for his DISOBEDIENCE & AROGANCE. And granted life until Judgment Day.

(Reminder to Christians who disobey and break one law will not enter the kingdom of Heavens; accept only by the Mercy of Most Merciful and Forgiving God (Allah in Arabic). But with all your sins “through out your life you have to PROVE CONTINUOUSLY” that you are inclined towards OBEYING & REPENTING TO GOD for every sin you do due to obeying Satan becoming under his trap). As human nature shows that you keep practicing what you want to master, e.g., sports, business, EVIL DEEDS / DISOBEDIENCE OR VIRTUE / GOOD / OBEDIENCE OF GOOD DEEDS.

***-The HEAVIEST ON SATAN IS PROSTRATION.***
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE REFUSED TO DO.

***AND THAT IS WHAT EVERY APOSTLE (from Adam to Noah, Abraham to Moses, **JESUS** and Mohammed (P.B.U.T.)) OF GOD HAS DONE.****PROSTRATED IN FRONT OF THE ONLY GOD*** CAN ANY CHRISTIAN EVERY LIVED AND LIVING DENY IT THAT JESUS USE TO PROSTRATE WHILE PRAYING TO HIS GOD???????????????????????

***BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MOST FAVOURITE WORSHIP OF GOD OF ALL CREATIONS (ALLAH IN ARABIC) IS. ***

NOW THE SECRET:

On every sin repent through PROSTRATION (Sajud – Sajdha - 2 Nawafil of forgiveness) other than compulsory prostrations in a day and ***that will hurt the Satan so bad*** that he will give up making you do the same sin, may be other but not the same. But you need to prostrate in front of THE ONLY GOD.
BECAUSE THE **ONLY UNFORGIVEABLE SIN** IS “SHIRK” CALLING / WORSHIPING SOMEBODY ELSE AS GOD WHICH IS USELESS BECAUSE YOU ARE PROSTRATING TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND NOT THE “ONE” THE “CREATOR” THE “SUSTAINER” THE “MOST MERCIFUL” THE “MOST FORGIVING” THE “ONLY” WORTHY OF PROSTRATION.

Now for your information:
-Humans can see Gins or Jinni’s (not everyone). Question is HOW?
-Jinni’s are also believers and non-believers (partners of satan like us humans).
-Gin’s have different abilities than human, e.g., they can reach from one place to another in less than a blink of an eye therefore you can say THEY CAN SEE AND KNOW THINGS that are not possible for humans. They have long life (not every one); therefore some are even from the age of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), Jesus (A.S.) and even before like satan himself one of the oldest.

- Some of you must have experienced the humans whose bodies are OCCUPIED by some external force. You call it exorcism. Yes this is what non believing satan jinn’s some times also do which is VERY VISUAL other than there regular daily mischief’s with humans like interfering in your thoughts and decisions effecting your daily life making it sinful and making you humans one of the satans.

- Now, I also have some experience of persons with exorcism CURRED by the “Mufti” level of Higher degree in Islam. The one who can give “Fatwah” against any act whether it is acceptable or not in Islam.

MY EXPERIECNE:

I have been told that there are many different ways of experiencing Gin’s. But the experience I had so many times “at different places with that Mufti” is as follows:

At different occasions and different house I have the chance to accompany the Mufti due to one of my friend, at the place of PRESENCE an external force affecting a human body.

The Mufti called “An Innocent Child sinless” age 5 to 8 mostly of the house, if not then asked to bring any of the relatives. Family members and we all are present there at different occasions. ( Mufti told that a sinless adult if not then a child is needed to help, because only they can see certain things other than him).

The sinless person sits in front of the Mufti along with the affected one, if possible otherwise not necessary. Then the Mufti asked the sinless person to close his/her eyes and do not open until he tell them. Then at every different occasion he read some verses and blows at the face of the sinless person sitting in his front. After that every time Mufti started asking questions to that sinless person:
-With closed eyes do you see someone else than already present in the room.
Reply: Yes, Few people came and sat behind Mufti, some are weird looking different then humans. But every time child never gets afraid even after.
- Mufti always ask there names and send them greetings. (Mufti told us they are his friends and helpers – Gin’s).
- Then Mufti proceeds ask them, if it is possible for them to control and correct or diminish the other presence. The Mufti’s friends – Gin’s were also pious practicing believers, who checked around and on every occasion confirm back through the sinless innocent child that they can do it.
- Then Mufti and his friends finish there job – remove the presence either capture them or make them agree to leave immediately etc.
- Then the Mufti again read some verses and blows at the face of the sin less person and asked him/her to open there eyes.

Results are every time immediate and positive.

CCNL:

Now you have an idea that who is behind the CAUSE and what is the reason of your:
-Constant Headaches due to unnecessary continues thoughts.
-Continuous dissatisfaction and impatience in life making you take impulsive wrong decisions/acts.
-Unnecessary worry of coming time.
-Depression and heavy heart.
-Emptiness in life, not sure what you want from it.

You can heel the body temporarily with the medicine. But can you heel / control the continuous CAUSE, i.e., your thoughts OR in the words you understand your unnecessary worries????????

Think DEVIL! Or your slimy brain is already filled with satanic thoughts you can’t get rid off. And no space left???

J. Osbourn :

The Evolving Doctrine of Mary - The Progress of Error.

What truth you speak.

" Possum :

Anonymous:
"Not so, it is a good thing to expose children to spirituality"

Why?"

Why not??

It creates an awakening to the spiritual senses and helps the child later on in life to discern their choice of spiritual involvement. Keeping in mind the experience is a healthy one and the child is not forced into a cultish type of belief.

Forced is the operative word. Most children want to share the Christian beliefs of the parent; my daughter and I were the only one in our home to be Christians, so it was a joyful experience for both of us as we spent a lot of time together. We went many places together and I was always a part of her spiritual experience and shared in her growth as a youth group leader.

My daughter sings and dances to Christian rock, pop, and rap in the church youth group which reaches out to other youths in the community that tell them about Christ. She is involved in Human Videos, plays that act out scripture that really speak to the heart of other youths.

While we shared that time together it was good. It depends on how the child is introduced to it and how the parent is willing to allow the child to evolve throughout their childhood. At age 16 I presented to my daughter that I was going to look for another church, she had proven herself responsible in all other aspects of life such as school, work, and personal and emotional development so I said to her it is your decision now choose what you want to do, stay with this church or you can come with me to another church, she decided to stay.

I was very proud of her for making the decision to stand on her own belief and supported her always with it.

The Evolving Doctrine of Mary - The Progress of Error

Mary, the mother of Jesus, is one of the most interesting and important women found in Scripture. The Bible describes her magnificent faith from the time she becomes pregnant until she stands at the foot of the cross. Hers is a compelling story.

But Catholicism has developed the story of Mary over the centuries until today she is called sinless, “the gate of heaven,” and the mediatress between God and man. How did she evolve from the very holy woman of the Bible to a sinless, undying female mediator through whom men can approach God? The answer may help us understand how all error progresses.

Let’s start with reality. As a virgin Mary conceived the Christ child through the Holy Spirit, as prophesied 700 years before (Isaiah 7:14). This woman was God’s human instrument for bringing Jesus into the world in the flesh. Her strength is evidenced in the things she endured. Her story needs no mythological additions to make it wondrous, inspiring and faith-building.

But the fact that additions aren’t needed doesn’t prevent men from creating “cunningly devised fables” (2 Peter 1:16; 2 Timothy 4:1-4).

Fable Of The Immaculate Conception
Many presume the term “immaculate conception” refers to the fact Jesus was born without sin. But that is not the case. Catholic doctrine teaches Mary was born without sin. “When we say that Mary was conceived without sin we mean that from the very first moment of her existence she was free from original sin, she was full of grace” (Mary—Doctrine for Everyman, page 17).

We’re exploring how error evolves. So, did you catch in the Catholic explanation above about why they came to believe she was born without sin?

It’s because they believe another error—the idea that men are born in sin or inherit the sin of Adam through their parents.

But the birth and sinless nature of Jesus cast the doctrine of inherited depravity in grave doubt. If babies inherit the sinful nature of their parents, how did Jesus come to be born without sin? Why didn’t he “catch” or otherwise “pick up” all the sins of his ancestors through Mary?

So, Catholic scholars faced a choice. Repudiate the false notion of inherited sin or create an answer to the dilemma. They chose the latter route. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX declared Mary had been born without sin. Thus, they explained Jesus’ sinless nature and held on to the doctrine of inherited sin.

But it makes one wonder. If Mary was sinless, why did she say, “my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior” (Luke 1:47-48)? Describing someone as your savior implies the need for salvation. Mary must have recognized she had sinned.

Fable Of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
The Bible clearly states that Mary was a virgin who had never known a man sexually from the time she conceived until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:18, 23-25; Luke 1:26-35). Thus, the birth of Jesus was absolutely unique. The manner of his birth helps depict the two-fold nature of our Lord, being man and God at once.

But why would the Catholic church contend that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life on earth? They contend she never had sexual relations with a man or had any other children. To quote their approved writings, “It is Catholic faith that Mary was a virgin before the divine birth; during it; and after it—Our Lady never had any other children” (Mary—Doctrine for Everyman, p. 14).

Like our first fable, this one is rooted in yet another false premise. The Catholic church teaches that abstinence from marriage and sexuality is a superior position spiritually. This is why priests, nuns and other church leaders take vows of celibacy.

But to maintain their doctrine on celibacy, the myth about Mary’s perpetual virginity runs headlong into conflict with the Bible. The Bible only declares that Joseph did not know his wife sexually “till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (Matthew 1:24-25). Jesus is declared to have had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3; Matthew 12:46-50; Acts 1:14). And Hebrews 13:4 declares that marriage is honorable, including the sexual component (“the bed”).

The Apostle Paul taught that husbands and wives should not deprive or defraud one another of the sexual component of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1-5) and the sexual union is a part of a man and woman becoming “one flesh” (Matthew 19:5-6).

It is interesting that the Catholic church will “annul” a marriage and say it never really existed if it isn’t sexually “consummated.” Did Mary’s marriage to Joseph never really exist?

What a tangled web is weaved when error is compounded by more error. But that is the nature of the evolution of false teaching.

Fable Of The Assumption Of Mary Into Heaven
Some books call this the “great assumption.” That’s a pretty good description. This Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary never died but was taken directly to heaven like Enoch and Elijah. “When the course of our Lady’s life on earth was ended she was taken up body and soul into heaven” (Mary—Doctrine for Everyman, p. 34).

The Bible says absolutely nothing about Mary after reporting her and Jesus’ brothers assembling with the disciples after the Lord’s ascension (Acts 1:14). So, why did Catholics feel a need to create this doctrine?

Remember, error leads to error. Remember how the doctrine of original sin led to the development of the doctrine of immaculate conception? That doctrine didn’t end the problems Catholics had with the idea that men inherit sin from their forefathers.

By declaring Mary sinless, they created a new dilemma. Everyone who has read the book of Romans knows the Bible declares “the wages of sin is death” (6:23). But, wait a minute. If Mary had no sin, why would she die? Why would she receive the wages of a sinner when she hadn’t earned them?

Catholic doctrine had created a clear conflict. So, the choice was to repudiate the doctrines of the immaculate conception and original sin or “fix” the conflict with an explanation. Catholics chose the latter course.

In 1950 it became official Catholic dogma that Mary didn’t die.

Fable Of Mary As Mediatress Or Mediatrix
If Mary was sinless and went straight to heaven without facing the judgment of our Lord, she certainly would be greater than the mighty lawgiver of old, Moses. She would be greater than Abraham, the model of faith. So, where does her “assumption” lead?

We really see how error evolves into complete and total blasphemy now. The Catholic church calls Mary a mediatress or mediatrix (feminine form of mediator). “The name mediatress is given her insofar as she exercises this influence in heaven” (Mary—Doctrine for Everyman, p. 40).

This is problematic because the Apostle Paul said, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). If Mary is a mediator, that makes “two” of them.

So, the Catholic church had a choice. Back away from this doctrine or develop it further. They chose the latter.

Calling her the “mother of God,” they also described her as the “gate of heaven” because, they say, no one can enter the blessed kingdom without passing through her.

So, Catholics pray to Mary. They claim that Jesus, as judge, is too harsh, but that Mary will not refuse anyone. Wow! That makes Mary sound more full of grace and mercy than even our Lord. And he’s the one who died for our sins on the cross.

Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God “in my name” (John 14:13-14). Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Peter preached as the church first began, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). He was speaking of Jesus, not Mary.

Jesus declared that “all power” had been given to him “in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). That wouldn’t leave any for Mary.

So, the Catholic church had a choice. It could repudiate this error and worship Jesus as Lord and only mediator, or it could develop this doctrine further. It chose to develop its error.

And that latter course is pure blasphemy, assuming for Mary the prerogatives of deity. In the same Catholic document previously quoted, it reads, “All power is given to thee (Mary—rb) in heaven and on earth” and “at the command of Mary all obey—even God.”

What? Even God obeys Mary?

“The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name…above every other name, that at thy name, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth,” says the same Catholic document.

All that leaves a Bible believer with mouth agape.

Why Opposing Error Is So Important
Perhaps you are seeing not only the errors of Catholicism about Mary but the more important issue—how error evolves into monstrous and blasphemous false doctrine that totally repudiates the teaching of Scripture and elevates the human to the level of divinity.

Beginning with the doctrine of original sin, the myths and fables about Mary have grown until now she is viewed as sinless and virtually equal with Jesus. There has been a move afoot for several years now to declare her a co-mediator with Christ.

Her supposed assumption into heaven and associated doctrines make her equal in glory with Jesus and her declared mediation makes it seem she actually has greater influence than the Lord himself.

We have explored the development of one area of false doctrine in one human denomination. If we believe and teach error and then refuse to repent when the Holy Spirit brings it to our attention by showing us how it conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture, then we are helping the enemy of our souls with his lies that are meant to confuse and destroy us.

Anonymous:
"Not so, it is a good thing to expose children to spirituality"

Why?

" SqueakyRat :

"I think it's sick that children even have "religious affiliations." Proselytizing to children is child abuse. Let them be. If they're of a religious temperament, they'll find their way to some expression of it in their lives."

Not so, it is a good thing to expose children to spirituality, but give them room as an adult to find their own way. My daughter choose to stay in the Christian walk I had while she grew up and I grew out of the rigidness of that Christianity and left the church.

It worked for her and she is happy with it. My guess is that she will grow out of it too. I trust ed her judgment and let her pick her own way after I left our church when she was 16 years old and able to drive herself to continue her youth-group and human video dance club involvement.

She was angry at me for leaving though.

I think it's sick that children even have "religious affiliations." Proselytizing to children is child abuse. Let them be. If they're of a religious temperament, they'll find their way to some expression of it in their lives.

Thanks, Lepi, Terra, and others for debunking the myth that "Pagans aren't sophisticated". We actually tend to be more educated and well-read than our Christian counterparts.

My BA was in Communications, with a minor in Russian. I'm currently a few classes away from my MS in IT Systems Management. I know Pagans who are doctors, nurses, accountants, professors, lawyers, scientists, and (of course, in the DC area) government employees.

Before you think that ancient Pagans were unsophisticated, remember that they built Stonehenge and the Pyramids.

Muslims are not allowed to change their religion.
Death penalty and all that, don'tcha know.

Why is belief in God necessary to lead a moral life ?

The percentage of people that have changed their religious beliefs is healthy. Blind adherence to a religion one is born into, I don't believe can be considered a sincere religious belief. A belief, religious or otherwise, is meaningless if it is not one that is arrived at though a thoughtful process. I thought all religious belief's contained a universal principle of respect for life, particularly human life. However, as I grow older and as I read items like many of the posts contained herein, I have come be believe that this is not true. Many who purport to be strongly religious seem to only respect those who believe exactly as they do. This either means their religion does not respect individual life, or calls into question their individual ability to be as religious as they purport to be. It's a shame so many are unable to discuss topics like religion without personally attacking another's character and beliefs. More intelligent discussion of religion might be had if religious beliefs were bigger than egos.

The biggest problem with spirituality is the notion that it is somehow a separate domain from the material universe. This is not only about spirituality in the outer world but also in the inner world. Man is built with feet of clay; the very same dirt that ate and reproduced itself into what eventually became mankind. But that dirt is no less divine than man - not only as part of man, but also as part of the universe.
So while events in the world can connect meaningfully on a level different than simple cause and effect, i.e. they can be meaningful to the beholder (which is divine), one must be very careful not to ignore the basic eat-or-be-eaten nature of things and oneself, or to try to somehow circumvent it or jail it. Because if that happens, then the dirt flies in one's face with such force, that few would survive the impact.
This is not just the dirt that God breathed life into etc., this is also the dirt God made before making mankind, which is no less animated by God and natural laws than man is.
("divine" in this context doesn't mean "good". It means interconnected on a level different than cause and effect)

"Now you have an idea that who is behind the CAUSE and what is the reason of your:
-Constant Headaches due to unnecessary continues thoughts.
-Continuous dissatisfaction and impatience in life making you take impulsive wrong decisions/acts.
-Unnecessary worry of coming time.
-Depression and heavy heart.
-Emptiness in life, not sure what you want from it.

You can heel the body temporarily with the medicine. But can you heel / control the continuous CAUSE, i.e., your thoughts OR in the words you understand your unnecessary worries????????

Think DEVIL!!"

Suggestion made on presumption are offensive. Get all the facts first before making a judgment, please!

Questioning minds, are a plus in a society.I am one of those who has switched religions, I believe we need to learn about different spiritual practises, and then decide which philosophy your soul is drawn toward. Birth should not decide religious affiliation. Wisdom and knowledge and quest for answers to the BIG questions, should determine faith. I switched from hindusim to a buddhist spirituality. But I decided not to limit my teacher to Buddha alone, but include Jesus, lord krishna and their words of wisdom, the Bible and the Gita.

Switching religions is a sign of health. It proves that people are actively searching for a religion without mechanically following what their parents handed down to them.

People switching religions is a wake up call for parents and religious leaders. Something is going wrong in the way religion is being presented to children that makes them switch their faiths when they grow up. It is good news however. Everybody has a chance to ask themselves what is going on and undertake any changes that may be necessary.

If may well be that the person switching religions is choosing a different set of religious beliefs simply because it appeals more to them. That freedom should be allowed them. Anyone can do only so much in influencing another person. The right to worship God in any way one pleases is the most fundamental of all human freedoms, even more fundamental than freedom of speech. No human being, however noble and selfless has the right to dictate how another human being chooses to worship His creator, or not. Having done one's best to set a good example, having given the children the best education regarding religion/s, one must leave the rest in God's hands. It is He who leads each soul to Himself in anyway He chooses. Neither parents nor religious leaders should hold themselves responsible for the choices made by anyone. But they do have the responsibility to offer their own religious convictions with a life that matches what they preach.

If places of religious worship would be a place not only where God is worshipped as a community, where rituals are not looked upon as an end in itself, but merely as a way to express one's love for God, a place where a strong sense of community is fostered, real support is offered to the weak and vulnerable in the community, yes love as Jesus commanded...then there would be less and less reason for people to look elsewhere to be spiritually nourished.

Switching religions is a sign of health. It proves that people are actively searching for a religion without mechanically following what their parents handed down to them.

People switching religions is a wake up call for parents and religious leaders. Something is going wrong in the way religion is being presented to children that makes them switch their faiths when they grow up. It is good news however. Everybody has a chance to ask themselves what is going on and undertake any changes that may be necessary.

If may well be that the person switching religions is choosing a different set of religious beliefs simply because it appeals more to them. That freedom should be allowed them. Anyone can do only so much in influencing another person. The right to worship God in any way one pleases is the most fundamental of all human freedoms, even more fundamental than freedom of speech. No human being, however noble and selfless has the right to dictate how another human being chooses to worship His creator, or not. Having done one's best to set a good example, having given the children the best education regarding religion/s, one must leave the rest in God's hands. It is He who leads each soul to Himself in anyway He chooses. Neither parents nor religious leaders should hold themselves responsible for the choices made by anyone. But they do have the responsibility to offer their own religious convictions with a life that matches what they preach.

If places of religious worship would be a place not only where God is worshipped as a community, where rituals are not looked upon as an end in itself, but merely as a way to express one's love for God, a place where a strong sense of community is fostered, real support is offered to the weak and vulnerable in the community, yes love as Jesus commanded...then there would be less and less reason for people to look elsewhere to be spiritually nourished.

The RYR already had faith otherwise he would not have traveled so far to ask questions of this itinerant impoverished preacher from the sticks that he had likely already asked of every other Rabbi within arms reach. And being rich and a ruler that was likely a long reach for that time and place.

This may have been his first visit to Jesus but I doubt it was his last. Many in the 1st century church thought him to be none other than Nicodemus. Jesus, you see, takes you where you are at and then leads you to where you need to go.

Free will always operates in opposition to God for it is permeated with selfishness. Until God changes your heart you remain ever a natural man for whom the things of the spirit are foolish, which by the way is why every other religion in the world save reformation Christianity makes of man his own savior. The minute you say man chooses God you make Christ's death on the cross unnecessary.

CCNL:

Now you have an idea that who is behind the CAUSE and what is the reason of your:
-Constant Headaches due to unnecessary continues thoughts.
-Continuous dissatisfaction and impatience in life making you take impulsive wrong decisions/acts.
-Unnecessary worry of coming time.
-Depression and heavy heart.
-Emptiness in life, not sure what you want from it.

You can heel the body temporarily with the medicine. But can you heel / control the continuous CAUSE, i.e., your thoughts OR in the words you understand your unnecessary worries????????

Think DEVIL!!

Daniel,

"Modern pagans are not true pagans historically--they do not really believe in gods and goddesses behind things. And they are not sophisticated enough to think about morality without gods and goddesses. They are stuck somewhere in the middle with watered down gods and goddesses and morality. Modern paganism: ineffective religion, science and philosophy."

Watered down Gods and Goddesses..? LOL...
Ineffective religion? Well it is said that we are growing, between 1990 and 2001 there was a 1675% growth. (And we do not go door to door.)Part of the switching of religions...is to us.
Science- our science is better then some...we believe in evolution, Quantum Machanics, and the earth revolves around the sun.
Philosophy? The Goddess has it right...scroll down.

We are not sophisticated to think of morality without the gods?

Our Gods do not give us rules of behavior such as a 10 commandments writ in stone. We have what is called the Rede...which means guide. We have Principles...they are writ by man not gods. They are ways to live ethically in balance and harmony with others. The Goddess did say," for my law is love unto all beings. Keep pure you highest ideal; strive ever towards it, let naught stop you or turn you aside..." also, "And therefore let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you".

I would compare our morality against most other religions and we would win. Ethical behavior, being honest and acting honerable is part and parcel to who we are. Our practices depend on belief..and if you can not believe your own words and intentions...how can you succeed or have anyone else believe you? We have a saying...Give your word seldom, but when you do it must be like iron.

We also have what is called the Law of Return, "What you put out returns to you". We recieve what we give to others.

I would place our morals as as good as many and better then most.

You are right we are not as the old Pagans...We are not of 10,000 years ago..we are people of 2008. I can tell you know only surface of what we are...first off, capitalize Pagan.

The elements for us are associated with energies. That energy might be associated with a God, Goddess, or different of forms. As far as associateing things like water, or trees, or mountians with a Goddess or God...in some cultures yes that was true...in some they were associated with spirits. But it is also not so simple...We celebrate the seasons; the turning of the year, the connection between man and our environment, and man and universe.

We just happen to use poetry, Prose, creative imaginary and mythology...its a language for us.

There are different religions in Paganism. I happen to be Wiccan. I belong to a tradition (denomination), to a coven; what you all might think of as a church. In fact in Louisiana we are a legal church....signed and sealed by the State.

You call us unsophistacated, I find that funny. Is that because we are different or you just can not connect educated folks with our beliefs?

One of our Wiccan leaders...Patrick McCollum, Hp. is Director and Chair of the National Correctional Chaplaincy Directors Association; and the Chaplaincy Liaison for the American Academy of Religion. He is also National Coordinator for the Lady Liberty League; the National Chaplaincy Affairs Coordinator for Circle Sanctuary in Wisconsin; and Director of Chaplaincy at the Cherry Hill Seminary; a Pagan Seminary.
He is also a master goldsmith. As a jeweler he does custom designs and his work has appeared in many high-end stores, such as Fred Segal, Barneys New York, Ice Beverly, Rodeo Drive, and the Forum Shops at Caesar's Palace. McCollum has also designed for a number of movie stars, including, Larry Hagman, Meg Ryan, and Russell Crowe. As such, McCollum had the honor of designing a United States Presidential Belt Buckle for President Ronald Reagan.

Patrick just appeared before the US Commission on Civil Rights in Washington, DC. He was invited to give a presentation on Religious Discrimination and Prisoners' Rights.

I just spoke to Patrick this afternoon and there will be presentations to Congress in the near future.

Phyllis Curotte, a social, political and spiritual activist, is an attorney, Wiccan priestess and author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling BOOK OF SHADOWS, sold in 12 countries. She has been honored by Jane magazine, along with Hillary Clinton, as one of the Ten Gutsiest Women of the Year, and was a finalist for the 2000 Walter Cronkite Faith and Freedom Award. One of the Wiccan spiritual movement's most renowned and influential theologians, H.Ps. Curott lectures and teaches internationally and was described by New York Magazine as one of New York's hippest and most intellectually cutting edge speakers.

These are only two of the many Wiccans that have made a mark for themselves.

Daniel, Pagans probably are better read then the average person, we certainly have larger libraries with more diverse interests. Knowledge is the base of our cornerstone. Most of us are well educated and are professionals.

Do not look down your nose at us, its a sure way to fall on your butt.

terra

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Your hallucinations follow in the footsteps of the great hallucinator, the warmongering, illiterate, "stenchifying" greed and lust driven arab and his hallucination-based and therefore significantly flawed religion aka Islam.

BTW, jinn are better known as "demons of the demented".

-Satan (Personal name : Iblees) is real.
-He (they are) is from the race of Gin’s or Ginni. And humans who obey them also called Satans.
-Made of fire, like us humans are made of water and earth.
-Was made the leader of the Angels for his obedience and worship.
-Was punished for his DISOBEDIENCE & AROGANCE. And granted life until Judgment Day.

(Reminder to Christians who disobey and break one law will not enter the kingdom of Heavens; accept only by the Mercy of Most Merciful and Forgiving God (Allah in Arabic). But with all your sins “through out your life you have to PROVE CONTINUOUSLY” that you are inclined towards OBEYING & REPENTING TO GOD for every sin you do due to obeying Satan becoming under his trap). As human nature is you keep practicing what you want to master sport, business, EVIL / DISOBEDIENCE OR VIRTUE / GOOD / OBEDIENCE OF GOOD DEEDS.

***-The HEAVIEST ON SATAN IS PROSTRATION.***
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE REFUSED TO DO.
AND THAT IS WHAT EVERY APOSTLE (from Adam to Noah to Moses, Jesus and Mohammed (p.b.u.t.)) OF GOD HAS DONE.
***BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MOST FAVOURITE WORSHIP OF GOD OF ALL CREATIONS (ALLAH IN ARABIC) IS. ***

NOW THE SECRET:

On every sin repent through PROSTRATION other than compulsory prostrations in a day and ***that will hurt the Satan so badly*** that he will give up making you do the same sin may be other but not the same. But you need to prostrate in front of THE ONLY GOD. BECAUSE THE **ONLY UNFORGIVEABLE SIN** IS “SHIRK” CALLING / WORSHIPING SOMEBODY ELSE AS GOD WHICH IS USELESS BECAUSE YOU ARE PROSTRATING TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND NOT THE “ONE” THE “CREATOR” THE “SUSTAINER” THE “MOST MERCIFUL” THE “MOST FORGIVING” THE “ONLY” WORTHY OF PROSTRATION.

Now for your information:
-Humans can see Gins or Jinni’s (not everyone). Question is HOW?
-Jinni’s are also believers and non-believers (partners of satan like us humans).
-Gin’s have different abilities than human, e.g., they can reach from one place to another in less than a blink of an eye therefore you can say THEY CAN SEE AND KNOW THINGS that are not possible for humans. They have long life (not every one); therefore some are even from the age of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), Jesus (A.S.) and even before like satan himself one of the oldest.

- Some of you must have experienced the humans whose bodies are OCCUPIED by some external force. You call it exorcism. Yes this is what non believing satan jinn’s some times also do which is VERY VISUAL other than there regular daily mischief’s with humans like interfering in your thoughts and decisions effecting your daily life making it sinful and making you humans one of the satans.

- Now, I also have some experience of persons with exorcism CURRED by the “Mufti” level of Higher degree in Islam. The one who can give “Fatwah” against any act whether it is acceptable or not in Islam.

MY EXPERIECNE:

I have been told that there are many different ways of experiencing Gin’s. But the experience I had so many times “at different places with that Mufti” is as follows:

At different occasions and different house I have the chance to accompany the Mufti due to one of my friend, at the place of PRESENCE an external force affecting a human body.

The Mufti called “An Innocent Child sinless” age 5 to 8 mostly of the house, if not then asked to bring any of the relatives. Family members and we all are present there at different occasions. ( Mufti told that a sinless adult if not then a child is needed to help, because only they can see certain things other than him).

The sinless person sits in front of the Mufti along with the affected one, if possible otherwise not necessary. Then the Mufti asked the sinless person to close his/her eyes and do not open until he tell them. Then at every different occasion he read some verses and blows at the face of the sinless person sitting in his front. After that every time Mufti started asking questions to that sinless person:
-With closed eyes do you see someone else than already present in the room.
Reply: Yes, Few people came and sat behind Mufti, some are weird looking different then humans. But every time child never gets afraid even after.
- Mufti always ask there names and send them greetings. (Mufti told us they are his friends and helpers – Gin’s).
- Then Mufti proceeds ask them, if it is possible for them to control and correct or diminish the other presence. The Mufti’s friends – Gin’s were also pious practicing believers, who checked around and on every occasion confirm back through the sinless innocent child that they can do it.
- Then Mufti and his friends finish there job – remove the presence either capture them or make them agree to live immediately etc.
- Then the Mufti again read some verses and blows at the face of the sin less person and asked him/her to open there eyes.

Results are every time immediate and positive.

And my degree is in Animal Science, by the way.

Gary:
**I remain of the opinion that your average modern pagan (Please note that average would undoubtedly imply that there were exceptions) is generally some sort of liberal arts major engaged in an over extension of role play.**

I assure you that the Pagans I know (and I'm willing to bet the farm that I know a lot more than you do) are quite serious about our beliefs.
You seem to think that in order to be a Pagan, one must make blood sacrifice of some sort - either animal or human. You do realize that even among ancients, blood sacrifices were not everyday occurences, right? I wonder if you question the sincerity of modern Jews who don't practice animal sacrifices.

My Paganism tells me that I am a part of the living Earth, and She of me - and by extension I am a part of every living thing, from the bacteria in my morning yogurt to the potted geranium on my back porch to the cat asleep on my husband's stomach to you - and every living thing is part of me as well. It tells me that everything I do affects every other thing in the world because we are all connected. That knowledge impacts everything I do, from composting/recycling to where I buy the food I eat (as much as possible at the local farmers' market) to the cleaning products I use (mostly white vinegar, baking soda, and hydrogen peroxide) to the route I plan for errands. My religion is not an elaborate RPG, it's how I live every minute of every day. Formal rituals are only a small part of it.

While BGLT people are most certainly welcome in Paganism, being BGLT is not a requirement. And I'm sure that every religion has its share of "dingy" folk.

Modern satanism is as rife with sects as any other theological structure. One Lavay Satanism if I recall correctly is little more than more than normally in your face atheism. Others groups are just kids acting out - a sort of fire for effect outrageousness. There are reputedly underground groups (and they are underground for rather obvious reason) that engage in human sacrifice. I say reputedly because the evidence for their existence nowadays is fairly scant. Beyond that there is little to say.

The few Wiccans I have known were almost all Lesbians but that amounts to a grand total of five so I wouldn't extend that to the whole group out of hand. I thought all five to be slightly dingy into the bargain and no not because they were lesbians but rather because they always behave as if they were about a brick short of a load. Again based on that small a sample I would not extend that to the whole group.

Near as I can see modern Pagans have little to nothing in common with their ancient forebears and that given the number of apparently sacrificial victims found in bogs all over Europe is likely a good thing. I remain of the opinion that your average modern pagan (Please note that average would undoubtedly imply that there were exceptions) is generally some sort of liberal arts major engaged in an over extension of role play.

Anthropoligist :
"What a wonder reading this thread! Philosophers, Theologians, Scientists and Bible Beaters. Eyes turned towards the mind, eyes turned towards nature, eyes turned towards scripture. What do they see?"

Ourselves.

terra

"I hope modern pagans in examining past paganism turn into classics scholars...."

It's funny you mention that. My husband who teaches mythologies from around the world in our little community has studied everything from Homer to Joyce to Shakespeare to Faulkner while working towards a Master's degree. There are a lot of Master's Degrees, PHDs, nurses, professionals, social workers and others in our community.

The first Pagan I ever met was my college roommate who last I heard was working on her PHD in anthropology in Peru somewhere in a place without running water or electricity. It was the best 'sorry i can't come to your wedding' letter I'd ever seen.

There is so much encouragement in Paganism to study and study some more- everything from Asimov to Carl Sagan to Aristotle to Jung to Joseph Campbell- which increases our understanding of the purposes of everything from the myth to the mind.
Philosophy, history, religion- it's all there.
We just love to learn and study- it uncovers so much. For me the fun is realizing that there is SO much I don't have a clue about and starting to fill in the gaps.

To Priver from Daniel. Decent reply. I was not aware of what exactly modern pagans are up to--I just winged an observation from intuitions of statements of some modern pagans and compared with what I know of paganism of the past. I hope modern pagans in examining past paganism turn into classics scholars....

Wow! I'm a Heathen! That's a compliment. Thank you, Anonymous. If memory serves, that would be more of a warrior-like path. Not sure though.

That's pretty cool.. but no. My path is more Celtic based. The Heathens are.. Norse? Asatru? If anybody knows the answer to that, please share.

I just wonder why Anonymous gets to pick and choose who responds to him/her and nobody else does.

Daniel,

Modern Pagans have a lot more morality than you give credit for. Our Rede includes ourselves within its words.. and just a few words says a lot.

And Paganism, like Christianity, is a WIDE umbrella term for lots of distinctions within. There are a lot of Pagan Reconstructionists that are working to revive those ancient traditions within the context of modern life. They adhere as closely as possible to the original teachings from original sources, which often means having to deconstruct original writings that have a decidedly Christian bent to them. It's a hard process for the best of scholars but it's well worth it if new information can be revealed. With those comes different associations of the forces of Nature that are embodied in the faces of the Gods/Goddesses.
Some take the approach you describe. Others do not and view the gods/goddesses as separate beings with personalities all their own.

Think of it sort of like the sects of Christianity that don't always agree on things about Jesus.

Blessed be.

On the subject of paganism, I would like to say first of all that the person who posted under the name "complexity" is a thoughtful person...

The problem with modern "pagans" as I see it is that they really are not pagans--have really little to do with paganism historically speaking. Paganism historically speaking was a variety of systems with a variety of personifications for forces of nature, etc. A stream would be closely associated with a goddess. Lightening with a particular god. A pagan religion could have a multiplicity of gods and goddesses--some good, some evil, some ambiguous as to morality. The monotheistic religions of course simplified things into a strict good/evil dichotomy. But such a dichotomy is not without origin in pagan religion.

Now what modern pagans do is...really not believe in any of the personifications of forces of nature at all! They say they believe in an earth goddess, stuff like that, but they are not pagans like the ancients. Of course this is not necessarily bad--in fact modern pagans are more scientific than mythical when it comes to contemplating a stream or a tree in the woods (there is no god or goddess behind this or that stream or tree) but in one particular sense modern pagans are on the wrong track: in not really believing in personifications behind things and not believing in strong trends toward good or evil emanating from such personifications, they remove themselves from a contemplation of good and evil,--are quite bankrupt when it comes to thinking about morality. Morality originated in clearly distinguishing right and wrongs and these right and wrongs were seen as embodied in things and emanating from forces behind nature--gods and goddesses, demons, etc. As man becomes more sophisticated he has to begin thinking about courses of action without suspecting they ultimately emanate from things behind nature, but in his sophistication he often just stops thinking about morality altogether. It is difficult to think about morality without postulating ultimate sources for good and evil, that good and evil emanate from sources behind nature. Modern pagans are not true pagans historically--they do not really believe in gods and goddesses behind things. And they are not sophisticated enough to think about morality without gods and goddesses. They are stuck somewhere in the middle with watered down gods and goddesses and morality. Modern paganism: ineffective religion, science and philosophy.

BYE BYYE:

**You libs are headed for a breakdown. "all tokanism asside, I just love my excessively black son-in-law,**

Please define "excessively black" - I was not aware that there was such a thing. I don't care if my daughter brings home a love who is white, black, or plaid, male, female, or hermaphrodite, as long as they make each other happy.

**but homophobes are unhealthy people, not that I'm remotely latent,**

Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but I'm just not into women. Just like you don't have to be black to know that Jim Crow was wrong, you don't have to be BGLT to know that discriminatory marriage laws are wrong.

**but god I'm phobic about religion in public so act as the centurion to defend..**

I'm not phobic about religion in public - I don't go ape-sh1t when I see a person wearing a crucifix or a WWJD bracelet. I do object to people trying to push certain items of specific religious dogma into secular law, and I do object to having Chick tracts thrust in my face as I'm walking through the park. I have twice been physically menaced by over-zealous evangelists when I politel;y refused their literature - one blocked my path and grabbed me and only let go when I threatened to relocate his genitalia to his throat with my knee, and the other put his foot in my door when I tried to close it, and limped away after I slammed it. Sorry if being attacked makes me seem phobic.

**I havent decided yet..., but Satanism is cool cause that pisses them off,**

I didn't say that Satanism was or wasn't cool - I said I didn't know anything about it.

**but antagonism shows an adult attachment to the earth-godess who is not a diety of any sort, but Zeuss id as valid as,,,,"**

I am not antagonistic toward Christianity - I object to attempts to evangelize me against my will, and I object to one religion being favored over others, as is currently the situation where I live, because certain of MY religious practices are illegal simply because they violate CHRISTIAN doctrine.

Good work Anonymous. Your check is in the mail and the little Thai boy will visit tonight.

Lepidopteryx, my invitation's still open if you ever want to reconsider.

Yours truly,

S.

"Born Again" Hammerhead,

From Professors Crossan and Reed's book, Excavating Jesus":

p. 245, "but the thousands of victims of crucifixion left no traces save one (The crucified Man of Givat Hamivtar.)

The norm was to let crucifieds rot on the cross or be cast aside of carrion. The point was to deter lower class violations of Roman law and order."......."

i.e. Jesus suffered the same fate as all lower class victims of crucifixion.

Professors Crossan and Reed then go into great detail about the scriptural details (or lack thereof) and archeological history of the Jesus' crucifixion. See pp 245-270.

Here, try this one out then, Popadopalyx:
"The Boy Who Couldn't Stop Washing"

You libs are headed for a breakdown. "all tokanism asside, I just love my excessively black son-in-law, but homophobes are unhealthy people, not that I'm remotely latent, but god I'm phobic about religion in public so act as the centurion to defend.. I havent decided yet..., but Satanism is cool cause that pisses them off, but antagonism shows an adult attachment to the earth-godess who is not a diety of any sort, but Zeuss id as valid as,,,,"

Too easy..
Did I mention I was outta here? :)

Mephostophelyx
"Satanism, as I understand it (and if there is a Satanist reading this who can provide more information, please do), is simply the flip side of Christianity. I have not studied Satanism, so I can't really say much beyond that."

Hey I'm a Satanist!! Can I play!?? I love "let's piss off the Christians!"

I'm so outta here. Washington Post attracts the same vast wannabe-intellectual A.D.D. mob as the beeb.
Liberals couldn't muster an original thought between them if they herded slugs into universities.

Paganplace, What a self-righteous pig you are after all the incidences of personal attacks made by you and you want to slam me over one time of by the way you heathen friend Priver caused the discord. Let me remind you that you do not own this site and I am free to say what I want and not accountable to anyone but the moderators, Got it.

If I am ever on this on any other site do not talk to me. I do not want anything to do with you at all. In fact. If you so much as personally attack like you and you gang did before I will contact the moderators and report it. Just because you are addicted to posting sites does not give you the right to dictate anything to me.

I do not like you.

The usual - doing my part to piss off the religious right, and recently with Terra and several others trying to get a fair shake down south for the religious left.
Got m'ija and her bf moved into their own place - she's excited about holding her 18th birthday celebration inher own home. She hasn't told her grandparents yet - we're not sure if they're going to be more upset over the fact that she's moved in with a man,or that she's moved in with a black man. They're going to have to getused to it, though - they're engaged and planning to be married in July 09, and I love my future son-in-law.
We're buying a house - my first ever after 30+ years of renting. I'm asking some Pagan friends to come over and join me in a blessing ritual after we close before we start moving our stuff in.
Stage managing a production of one of my all-time favorite plays - Dancing at Lughnasa.

Other than that, not much...

" Paganplace :

Anonymous:

"Enough said, I am not going to argue this issue with you. You have your beliefs and I have mine."

You're entitled to your own beliefs, ...you're not entitled to your own "facts," ...yes, many Christians teach certain loops of false logic to try and connect Pagans to your Satan, but it's simply not true.

You're responsible for what you say... your beliefs about us and defamations of us result in real harm to real people, as we find when anyone decides we're fair game to oppress when they decide a Maypole is "really" Satanic, regardless of the facts, and happen to have a badge."
````````````````````````````````

Perhaps you need a reminder from 2/24/08 which I called you on for defaming my character and personally attacking me.

Here is the deal, I have had enough of your arrogance and it is my choice not to come back here and post again. You are so full of yourself you really make me want to vomit.

There are only one or two people of your pagan friends that are worth taking the time to discuss anything with. No skin off my back there are plenty other places for me to blog.

MM, Lepi! :) Busy by my standards, I suppose. :)

Yourself? :)

Merry meet, PaganPlace. How have you been?

Anonymous:

"Enough said, I am not going to argue this issue with you. You have your beliefs and I have mine."

You're entitled to your own beliefs, ...you're not entitled to your own "facts," ...yes, many Christians teach certain loops of false logic to try and connect Pagans to your Satan, but it's simply not true.

You're responsible for what you say... your beliefs about us and defamations of us result in real harm to real people, as we find when anyone decides we're fair game to oppress when they decide a Maypole is "really" Satanic, regardless of the facts, and happen to have a badge.

So many Christians know so little about their own origins, thinking that Christianity is unique when in fact it stands on the shoulders of Pagan giants.

When we reference Joseph Campbell's 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' we find the myth of the returning Hero or Heroine, and all it's many variations. Before Jesus, we had Osiris, Persephone, Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, and Orpheus. Later we had Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, and among the oldest stories of death, transformation and re-birth, we have the Sumerian goddess Inanna (Ishtar). The characters change but the fundamental archetype remains.

Both Campbell and Carl Jung did much put mythology in the perspective of transcultural archetypes that may be universally experienced across a broad socio-cultural and historical landscape as imaginal/collectively unconscious phenomena (not to say imaginary, since archetypes reside objectively in the 'imaginal' realm).

In ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, the Mythraic cult, Orphic cult, the Corybantic rites, and the Eleusinian mystery cult were secret societies that allowed initiates to undergo transformative rites & experiences leading to knowledge of death and re-birth in the netherworlds (while still in this world). Unfortunately those first-hand glimpses (and methodologies) into the life ahead have been lost through the centuries. Today people have to simply take religion on faith, rather than on first-hand experience.

As a notable exception we may find today the same mythic initiatory scheme in the Tantic Tibetan Book of the Dead, that speaks with authority of the Bardo or 'between' world that is invariably experienced by the dead on the way to another human incarnation. Those schooled in the Tantic systems of meditation will have experienced these realms prior to their actual death - and will reputedly have far greater control over their experience by virtue of this knowledge.

Elsewhere, we find these same initiatory religious & cultic archetypes and rites of passage everywhere throughout history, from Sibera & Australia to Indonesia, throughout India, China, and Southeast Asia and on to Africa and South America. Mythical and esoteric truths are forever comfirmed by real experience.

As has been said over and over, believing is not knowing - something worthy of a Gnostic!!

Mythrais and the Mythraic cult were in fact replaced by Christianity and Jesus as the central mythic Hero figure - as the predominant religion of the Roman Empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. Until then, they had been serious competitors for the hearts and minds of what would become a major world religion in the ensuing centuries.

As one of our more devout posters pointed out to us either here or on another thread ' there is nothing new under the Sun' (Ecclesiastes).

That includes religion and mythical heros in all their many variations....

ANON:

Paganism is an earth-centered faith - while there are many different "denominations," they share a core belief that the Earth is a living being, that everything has a living spirit, and that all existence is interconnected. Pagans do not have a single deity who is the embodiment of everything good, and a single anti-deity who is the embodiment of everything evil. Pagans don't believe in Satan, so Satanists are not Pagans.

Satanism, as I understand it (and if there is a Satanist reading this who can provide more information, please do), is simply the flip side of Christianity. I have not studied Satanism, so I can't really say much beyond that.

lepidopteryx :

ANON:

Pagans don't worship YOUR God - fair enough.

But your statement that Satan is a Pagan because he is without your God implies that Pagans are in league with your Satan, when actually our religion has nothing to do with Satan, since we don't acknowledge the existence of such a being. Satan is a character from YOUR book, not mine.

Just trying to make that clear for those who don't know the difference between Paganism and Satanism.
````````````````````````````````

Yes, that is fair enough and I guess what both of us have been trying to say but we kept tripping over our words coupled with emotions hence, misunderstanding occurred.

I apologize for sounding rude and insensitive to your beliefs that is not how I want to be. I respect you choice to believe as you deem necessary apart from imposing your beliefs on me.

But are all Pagans non-Satan worshippers? I thought that some groups of pagans worshiped Satan? Satan worship is one thing I do not want any part of, not even in a discussion forum.

ANON:

Pagans don't worship YOUR God - fair enough.

But your statement that Satan is a Pagan because he is without your God implies that Pagans are in league with your Satan, when actually our religion has nothing to do with Satan, since we don't acknowledge the existence of such a being. Satan is a character from YOUR book, not mine.

Just trying to make that clear for those who don't know the difference between Paganism and Satanism.

It is so. It is not so. It is so. It is not so.

" rick Taft :

Jehovah set us up for failure. Telling Adam and Eve they could have anything BUT made that apple irresistible. He should have known that.

Any amount of forethought would have saved humanity eons of strife. If this is the best Jehovah could do then he's certainly not infallible or even admirable. How can I worship someone I can't admire?

After 2000 years that question remains unanswered. Thus the loss of interest."
`````````````````````````

Typiclal lack of personal responsibilty from an immmature person. Have you forgotten that Adam and Eve had a choice, two roads set before them, and they chose to disobey the directions given, end of story. If they would have resisted and not taken the fruit the wrong done would have been avoided.

If God had not given you free will you would have found fault with that. Grow up will you, personal responsibility is for everyone. Good luck with your decesion.

lepidopteryx :

ANON:
**Satan is pagan because he is without God, period."

Pagans have many gods and goddesses.

Since a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the son of Jehovah, and according to your scriptures, Satan does believe that, he would be a Christian.
```````````````````````

It is obvious to me that you are not familiar with who is considered without God and not a Christian. To be without God does not mean you believe that there is a God, it means that you are not in Christ through salvation.

But I am sure that you have heard this before since many Christians have posted what it means to be in Christ. Satan is without God, Jehovah God, because he is not in Christ through salvation.

According to the definition of Pagans listed in my previous post they are without God and not in Christ through salvation. Christians in Christ believe that there is only one God, the living God, and Jehovah God. Christians in Christ (God) do not believe in other Gods or goddesses, we consider other Gods to be false Gods.

Enough said, I am not going to argue this issue with you. You have your beliefs and I have mine.

Jehovah set us up for failure. Telling Adam and Eve they could have anything BUT made that apple irresistible. He should have known that.

Any amount of forethought would have saved humanity eons of strife. If this is the best Jehovah could do then he's certainly not infallible or even admirable. How can I worship someone I can't admire?

After 2000 years that question remains unanswered. Thus the loss of interest.

ANON:
**Satan is pagan because he is without God, period."

Pagans have many gods and goddesses.

Since a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the son of Jehovah, and according to your scriptures, Satan does believe that, he would be a Christian.

ANON:
**Priver, "We take wisdom wherever we find it, and Nature is our greatest teacher."

`````````````````````````````
You are right about one thing, I do not agree with the above, at all. But that is okay it is your choice to believe what you want. Just don't push your beliefs on me or try to convert me to them.**

Pagans aren't the ones who go about telling everyone else to convert or face eternal damnation. We don't proselytize and we don't try to convert people. You won't find us on street corners shouting passages from "The Spiral Dance" or handing out tracts with the Wiccan Rede or the Charge of the Goddess printed inside.

Satan is pagan because he is without God, period.

Satan is pagan because he is without God, period.

ANON:
**Satan is a Pagan**

Actually Satan is a Christian.

We Pagans have nothing to do with him since we don't believe he exists.

lepidopteryx :

"If God already KNOWS before a person is conceived whether or not that person will become Christian, what becomes of the idea of free will?"

Suggeston. In "the Hammer of God" a sci-fi where LaPlace(?) makes the statement that with an intelligence, say a computer "sufficiently vast, "both the future, as the past, would be present in its eyes."
ie: predetermination with or without a God.

The objection was interesting: Indeterminacy prevents this Laplacian nightmare.

I'm with Einstien.. no way an unlimited God would allow a "God of ramdom" indeterminacy.
Ocham would puke over that too.

BUT, within OUR realm of being, within and about the infinite, I must admit that indeterminacy is valid given any context at all.

Therefor my free-will exists, AND predetermination of infallable chains of action/reaction exist.

Hence: an unlimited God.

Look at the number Pi. BOTH useable in my finite context, and transcendental throughout any infinite scale you like.

Yet never a dichotomy or paradox.

2a.m. on the west-coast and I'm bored.

Bobster:

But I claim unlevel playing field.
With the believers (including me) claiming eternal life at stake.. what's in it for the crusade of non-believers? All I can gather is general anti-Bush, anti-US, sabotage of western unity, etc.

Richard Dawkins (sorry to be so pedantic in my acknowledgement of patron saints of atheism), also insists on the word 'exist' as having any meaning to a spaceless/timeless entity such as consciousness.
It allows his typical Britness a path to "pure belief" in fairy stories, and his rightful authority as a scientist.

Father Jonathan Morris cut him down to size by siting philosophy as the proper venue in which Father Jon was contrastingly authoratative.

No one would call 'logic' a belief or philosophy since it spawned allphilosophy.
And all science, were it not for logic (and belief in odds thereof in repeatability) is based entirely in the clouds.
Empiracism is ONLY a matrix of cross-corroborated testimony and has no stand-alone legitimacy in truth. :) At least insofar as it relies on repetition as 'proof'.
It's the consensus. Anyone notice how crucial concensus has become these days with all the mob-mentality?
Sorry, I digress.

In fact the only absolute truths live outside of experimentation. So in 'fact', it's science that has undignified itself with irrational "beliefs" and inadviseable authority, and spirituality that relies solely on absolute truths such as "I am that I am".

I defy anyone to find some translation from Hebrew indicating that God should be so reduced as to 'exist'.

I am that I am sleepy now. (no disrespect, beloved poetry of religion, for my seemingly irreverant glibness)
I just couldnt let science go around authorizing the inexplicable.
Thanks for reading.

"I can see that you are set on making me look like the bad guy. After explaining to you twice about my comment on comparing you, pagans to Satan was only in the context of both are without God you continue to put words in my mouth, which is totally casting false aspirations, but be it unto you as you have done to me.

In case you do not know what that means, what goes around comes around, and in biblical terms, you sow what you reap."

Actually, I am aware of our Rule of Three, which is another way of stating the same thing. Just a bit more immediate. :)

Seeing as how once again you have ignored my statemtent that 'Pagans are without god' is actually quite impossible, putting words in others' mouths and equated people with some version of your Black and white viewpoint, I can understand why you wouldn't want to continue such a discussion.

"As far as "You have no control over who responds to you." You should have never challenged me, but I do have control over who responds to me, total control, here is how I will control it."

Nobody can tell anyone who someone 'should never have challenged' or what I or anyone else 'should' or shouldn't do. That assumes a superiority where none exists. All are equal.

"I will not be commenting at all anymore, so save your smart as* responses for someone else"

That is your choice- but when people put things on this board that are simply not factual, disparage mine or others belief systems without knowing anything about it, I and others will always be here to challenge them. I would expect any Christian to speak up to defend their belief system and fully support their right to do so in a respectful manner.

If that makes me 'Smart ass' then so be it.

Blessed be.

'

As far as "You have no control over who responds to you." You should have never challenged me, but I do have control over who responds to me, total control, here is how I will control it.

I will not be commenting at all anymore, so save your smart as* responses for someone else

Concerned Christian,

So as far a you know the center of Mr Crossan's earth shaking revelation concerning the discovered nail spike was that it revealed cruxifiction to be a bad way to die?
Really?
Who'd have thunk?
Would you like me to enlighten you as to what the real chief claim of his regarding this nail spike was?
Or would you rather not discuss it?

"Born Again" Hammerhead,

The discovery of the crucified body simply verified that crucifixion was a horrible method of execution.

I think these surveys can do more harm than good in the long run. The religious right uses them to confirm their own agendas which can be different for each religion, and to bash those who don't believe in God. But then again the far left people who don't want religion of any sort in the public view will use the same survey to pound christians. Or to confirm their beliefs that there is no God. Which is ridiculous anyway. Beleif in God is a personal matter. The same with religion. I don't know why many people always see the two as one. When they are not. Yes, a person can merge the two for one belief. But many people today are content with just their own belief in God. All the surveys in the world will not prove of Gods existence, or that God does not exist. And the core of religions is God. Organized religion can be on the decline, but then again individual belief in God is a total different matter.

concerned christian,
No,the focus of Mr crossan's parochial minded allegation concerning the nail spike was not that this was Jesus's ankle bone attached to it.
But you are getting warmer.
Actually that it was Jesus's ankle bone would have been a more plausable claim than the impluse driven,personal issue based one he made.
I'm not at all surprised that you would feign ignorance concerning Mr Crossan's chief allegation based upon the discovery of this nail spike.
I'm sure he wishes the archeological community would forget the implusive parochial claim his personal issues caused him to make as well.
Are you sure you have no idea what Mr Crossan's chief claim concerning this nail spike was?

Priver, "But if you're here stating things like 'all Pagans are evil' and 'they are equated with Satan' I will continue to address you as I see fit, like it or not. Sorry. You have no control over who responds to you.

Blessed be."
````````````````````````````````````

I can see that you are set on making me look like the bad guy. After explaining to you twice about my comment on comparing you, pagans to Satan was only in the context of both are without God you continue to put words in my mouth, which is totally casting false aspirations, but be it unto you as you have done to me.

In case you do not know what that means, what goes around comes around, and in biblical terms, you sow what you reap.

As far as "You have no control over who responds to you." You should have never challenged me, but I do have control over who responds to me, total control, here is how I will control it.

I will not be commenting at all anymore, so save your smart as* responses for someone else

"So you speak for others on this forum??? So do I hear right that you are the "unofficial" spokesperson of the pagan group?"

NO. I speak for them only in the sense that they themselves have stated that they are here for a similar purpose, namely to dispel myths about who we are and what we do.

There is a HUGE range of thought within the Pagan community about the nature of the Divine, with Nature and the Planet Earth as being the source of it. Therefore, what you call 'separation' from the Divine is not possible. and if you bothered to ask instead of stating things as fact when you know no such thing, than you would know that.

"How self-righteous can someone be to make such a statement "If you don't want me to ask, then please don't come here," as if what "you" want is the be all and end all of the issue. You must think that you own this forum."

Nope, I don't. Never did. I read far more of this site than I respond to and only jump in occasionally, as I did here. But if you're here stating things like 'all Pagans are evil' and 'they are equated with Satan' I will continue to address you as I see fit, like it or not. Sorry. You have no control over who responds to you.

Blessed be.

Priver, "I have no idea why you would state things like 'all Pagans worship Satan' and then call me antagonistic for stating otherwise and asking to not be defined by other people. It's an insult to my intelligence to be lumped in with 'Satan worshippers' and I stated as such. That's a bit hypocritical, and condescending, there.

That is shutting off discussion. If you feel that I have slighted you somehow, I apologize. But I'm not sorry I asked. It's what I do. If you don't want me to ask, then please don't come here.

And I only speak for myself and those that I have gotten to know on this forum.
`````````````````````````````````````

So you speak for others on this forum??? So do I hear right that you are the "unofficial" spokesperson of the pagan group?

I did not state that "'all Pagans worship Satan' what I stated was the definition of Pagans from Wikipedia and noted my source as such. What I also said that according to the definition Pagans
are without God like Satan is, very different then "'all Pagans worship Satan.'"

How self-righteous can someone be to make such a statement "If you don't want me to ask, then please don't come here," as if what "you" want is the be all and end all of the issue. I will come here regardless of what you do or do not do, that is my right and you have no right to even suggest that I do not come here. Have I said that to you, NO! You must think that you own this forum.

As far as "And I only speak for myself and those that I have gotten to know on this forum." So after the meeting you all attended, it was decided that you speak to me and give me their message? Just as I said before, "WE" against "ME." Because of this very issue, discussion is over, have a good evening.

"Additionally, stop directing your questions to me as if you are speaking for the “group” of Pagans, please. It carries a “HUGE” message of “WE” are in this together against you. Not good groundwork to facilitate a healthy conversation and certainly does not promote a learning environment.

Finally, my reasons for being here are none of your business, period."

Nobody is against anybody here. But you don't want to be questioned about things that are outright confusing to other people and you don't think that anybody should challenge you. That doesn't make sense to me.

And honestly, I think a lot of those people who do question things like that are not Pagan. Pagans do not try to convert anyone because we don't like it when others do it to us.

I have no idea why you would state things like 'all Pagans worship Satan' and then call me antagonistic for stating otherwise and asking to not be defined by other people. It's an insult to my intelligence to be lumped in with 'Satan worshippers' and I stated as such. That's a bit hypocritical, and condescending, there.

That is shutting off discussion. If you feel that I have slighted you somehow, I apologize. But I'm not sorry I asked. It's what I do. If you don't want me to ask, then please don't come here.

And I only speak for myself and those that I have gotten to know on this forum.

I come to learn. How about you?

"I came here on this forum because I want to do what I can to counteract the stereotypes that exist about us and have for a very long time. There's a LOT of work to be done."
`````````````````````````````

I am rooted and grounded in my Christian belief in God and Christ, nothing, no one, or anything will persuade me otherwise.

I personally love Jesus Christ and I am not ashamed to admit it, he is the source of my very being. No matter what I encounter in my life I untimely, spiritually, remain steadfast in Christ. I know that he loves me and the more I read the bible I know the mind of God and Christ and how they think about issues.

You want others to look at your Pagan faith in another light, then treat people with respect and stop being a know it all smart-as*. When you talk to me like you did in this post I am very tempted to log-off and cease talking with you.

Priver, "Why do you think Christians should be afraid of questions? Pagans are not as long as the askers are respectful and curious and not out to learn about us only to report back to the other Christians how evil we are (which does happen from time to time). In fact we LOVE genuine questions. It shows an open mind and a willingness to learn something about those neighbors.

This forum is supposed to be for people willing to ask questions and to learn about what else is around them.

I stick to my beliefs and I allow others to stick to theirs. My path teaches that there is truth in all religions or belief systems and that no one way is better than any other. I ask questions to develop my own understanding. Especially since so many people are proclaiming to be Christian in this country. To not be seems to be a basis for not allowing others to be a part of decision making or excluded, scorned or harassed.

I came here on this forum because I want to do what I can to counteract the stereotypes that exist about us and have for a very long time. There's a LOT of work to be done.

If you don't want to be questioned, then why are you here? To put others down?"
‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘

Look, first of all I do not appreciate your antagonistic tone such as “Why do you think Christians should be afraid of questions?” and “If you don't want to be questioned, then why are you here? To put others down?” You call this being opened-minded?? Please spare me the false-hood; I call it being antagonistic because that is what it is.

Secondly, if you have a willingness to learn with an open mind leave then, bottom line leave the negative connotations out of the conversations. Additionally, stop directing your questions to me as if you are speaking for the “group” of Pagans, please. It carries a “HUGE” message of “WE” are in this together against you. Not good groundwork to facilitate a healthy conversation and certainly does not promote a learning environment.

Finally, my reasons for being here are none of your business, period.

I am an urban contemplative of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who wishes to thank all of you for your wonderful working to shed some light on these difficult matters out of your own, important experience and thought. And I, too, wish to say we have to be careful not to "pigeonhole" the beliefs and sentiments of us "religious" types--as I try not to do with your expressions, since I know they are not a complete rendering of the long hours some of you have pondered these issues. We are all unique, individuals who are loved by our Creator as we are--and we are all equal, but loved so madly we cannot fathom it. That is why we have the freedom to say and feel as we do. I converted from a Protestant faith ten years ago now--and have taken solemn religious vows finding the commitment to this glorious LOVE I have experienced so profoundly was the only way I could adequately give back the joy and happiness I now have and want to do with all my heart. Surely Paradise is here right here on Planet Earth in the year 2008, and the Kingdom is already here--we only have to open our eyes and hearts to it. This is NOT to say there is no original sin or evil--also to which I have burdens (which I carry joyously, too) which is adquately seen in the various conversations and allusions to it in the voices as this feed has progressed. That goodness WILL prevail (and is) is that to which I give my life. You, too, in continuing this converssation are contributing to that end. Thank you for all.

Matthew Mark :

>The ultimate quest of spiritualism , "not >religion", is to find the "God in us".

That's my take too. Religions or no, there is only one God with lots of names.
We should be starting with the common-denominators between all religions and working our way out. Screw the righteousness of it all! :)))

"For some time now "quantum theory" has shown stong parallels to the concepts of Zen Buddhism
(and other Eastern philosophy). Eastern has focused on "oneness".

They are arriving a a commonality that there is one "force" (for lack of a better word) and the dualism of Western science (dividing and classifying everything assuming knowledge comes from analysis)is fading into a unified theory of energy.

Plus the realization that you cannot remove the experimenter from the experiment. Nor can you remove the man from a unified world.

It is only the Merchants of ignorance that perpetuate divisiveness."

I had to quote all of that because.. sorry to keep boringly agreeing.. but I wholeheartedly do.

The thing I notice is, not only is this truth not evasive or hidden, it's the most evident bloody thing in the universe.
I look out from a singularity I call "I" in a moment I call "now". The ONLY absolute truth EVER possible.
Once I accept that you do too in exactly the same way, It's a demonstration of the entire universe, big bang of creation, "I and the father are one".. everything.
Physicists become "kinda handy" after that. :)

Who could miss this unavoidable commonality?
Richard Dawkins could for awhile longer maybe.
Boy is HE in for a shock.

"Born Again" Hammerhead,

The debate does not center around the crucifixion of Jesus but it does concern the details of said crucifixion i.e. most NT exegetes consider these details as mostly embellishments and myths.

The nail in the foot/ankle was not that of Jesus and I believe Professor Crossan discusses this in his book (with archeologist Professor Reed), Excavating Jesus.

None of the books written in the first to third century CE are precise history because of the lack of attestations, unprejudiced reporters, photography, newspapers and TV. And this is exactly why one must review all the documents from this period and compare the attestations and publication stratums, something done by the likes of Professor Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and the other members of the Jesus Seminar. These documents are on-line. See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

"If Pagans do not believe that Satan even exist then stop with the questions, because Christians will defer to what God has said in the bible and Pagans will argue the point and around and around the cycle goes.

If you don't beleive it let it go, stick with your belief and let Christians stick to their belief. Not rocket science. Pagans need to practice what they preach and accept Christians for what they believe."

What's wrong with asking someone who posts to something like this how they see the world? Some Christians may point to the bible and say 'see this part? I think this actually might mean XYZ'.

I came out of Judaism and don't know the first thing about Christianity, even though I've read the bible. I don't understand how people reconcile all the contradictions contained in the bible. I am curious about others belief systems and don't think that all Christians are based solely on the bible or anything else. Some people have said that they have had experiences that have led them to where they are, and that may not have anything to do with a book. Why must faith be only based on a book and nothing else?

Why do you think Christians should be afraid of questions? Pagans are not as long as the askers are respectful and curious and not out to learn about us only to report back to the other Christians how evil we are (which does happen from time to time). In fact we LOVE genuine questions. It shows an open mind and a willingness to learn something about those neighbors.

This forum is supposed to be for people willing to ask questions and to learn about what else is around them.

I stick to my beliefs and I allow others to stick to theirs. My path teaches that there is truth in all religions or belief systems and that no one way is better than any other. I ask questions to develop my own understanding. Especially since so many people are proclaiming to be Christian in this country. To not be seems to be a basis for not allowing others to be a part of decision making or excluded, scorned or harassed.

I came here on this forum because I want to do what I can to counteract the stereotypes that exist about us and have for a very long time. There's a LOT of work to be done.

If you don't want to be questioned, then why are you here? To put others down?

MM, To Anonymous:
"Exactly, you finally got my point!!!!"
Ownership as in "my" is ego driven and contentious."
```````````````````````````````````
Really, thanks for asking.

Priver, "um.. nope. He's an invention of the monotheistic authors, and that's it. We have nothing to do with him, and really don't care to. Don't even think he exists. I think the bible does a great disservice by equating 'Satan' with great powers and limiting the Divine to just one or two good qualities."
```````````````````````````

If Pagans do not believe that Satan even exist then stop with the questions, because Christians will defer to what God has said in the bible and Pagans will argue the point and around and around the cycle goes.

If you don't beleive it let it go, stick with your belief and let Christians stick to their belief. Not rocket science. Pagans need to practice what they preach and accept Christians for what they believe.

Zero Dots
" (1) think we're all on the way to convergence, science and all religions."

Can I get an "Amen"

For some time now "quantum theory" has shown stong parallels to the concepts of Zen Buddhism
(and other Eastern philosophy). Eastern has focused on "oneness".

They are arriving a a commonality that there is one "force" (for lack of a better word) and the dualism of Western science (dividing and classifying everything assuming knowledge comes from analysis)is fading into a unified theory of energy.

Plus the realization that you cannot remove the experimenter from the experiment. Nor can you remove the man from a unified world.

It is only the Merchants of ignorance that perpetuate divisiveness.

To Anonymous:
"Exactly, you finally got my point!!!!"
Ownership as in "my" is ego driven and contentious.
Sorry to disappoint but I was trying to get to a different point.

Priver, "We take wisdom wherever we find it, and Nature is our greatest teacher."

`````````````````````````````
You are right about one thing, I do not agree with the above, at all. But that is okay it is your choice to believe what you want. Just don't push your beliefs on me or try to convert me to them.

Matthew mark, "Being self righteous and pretentious only generates sparation from others, hence contentiousness and strife. Most organized religions must profess that they are the one, true religion, or face losing their following.

Religion therefore does not love thy neighbor"
``````````````````````````

Exactly, you finally got my point!!!!

Zero Dots

You quote of St Paul is also a major principle of Hinduism ,Buddhism ,Judaism, and Islam.

Their emphasis is not of the intellect but of the spiritual. God or Allah or the Essence is in all his/her creation, including man. We come from God and we return to God.

The ultimate quest of spiritualism , "not religion", is to find the "God in us".

It is his peace we find when we stop parading our beliefs or beating our breats in mea culpas
and accept ourselves. Interestingly enough, when you accpt yourself you will also find yourself accepting others.

I liked the excerpt "humble thyself before the Lord and he shall lift you up".

Being self righteous and pretentious only generates sparation from others, hence contentiousness and strife. Most organized religions must profess that they are the one, true religion, or face losing their following.

Religion therefore does not love thy neighbor

Matthew Mark :

>"be in the world and not of the world""

"It's from St Paul."

Thank you!

I searched PDF of KJV, google etc, but used "be in the world BUT not of the world"
Drew a proper blank.

Anyway Deepak says it all in these here vids. I think we're all on the way to convergence, science and all religions.

I'll bet the MOMENT ego is lost and we all go there together, nature sees fit to reveal another long sought after.. unified field theory.

That's when the fun begins. :)

"Just because Pagans have what you call ”truth shining forth” does not make them any less evil then the beliefs they stand for. Satan is a Pagan"

um.. nope. He's an invention of the monotheistic authors, and that's it. We have nothing to do with him, and really don't care to. Don't even think he exists. I think the bible does a great disservice by equating 'Satan' with great powers and limiting the Divine to just one or two good qualities.

Bonewits's definitions are good ones and they should be a jumping off point. But Please, if you want to know what someone calling themselves Pagan believes, then ask. You don't have to agree, but give us enough credit for finding our own belief systems on our own. We've thought this out much more than someone claiming to know what we are because 'some book said so' does.

Other people try to define who and what we are without even bothering to ask questions. I wouldn't ever claim to know what a Christian thinks without asking them or responding to what they've put out in forums. Notice too, that someone does so and posts anonymously.

We take wisdom wherever we find it, and Nature is our greatest teacher.

I understand with people having problems with that in contemporary society to some degree but it doesn't give others a license to tell me what my belief system is. People have been hurt badly, deprived of property or children or run out of towns just because they are Pagan and want to be left alone to be who they are.. right here in the US.

think about this, please.

Zero Dots

"But I should warn you that it's impossible to have bias when youre on a floating speck of dust looking for any shred of truth. :)"

AS I am a spec of dust.
I'm just confused by all the contradictory dogmas that are out there posing as the "truths".

"I'll start.
"be in the world and not of the world""

It's from St Paul.

I'm not really sure waht "liberal" and "conservative" mean as they are relativistic values that change with time, place or issue.
Example "Social conservatives" or "liberal capitalists".

As for Anonmous' question:
"Love thy neighbor as thyself? Who is thy neighbor??' Apparently you missed the parable of the Good Samaritan. ALL are your neighbors.

"Do those of all beliefs and religions love those that break into someone else’s home, rummage through their personal belongings?? Is nothing sacred to some?"

It is easy to love "good people" but most religions condemn those who hold nothing sacred.
THe obsession is with satisfaction of physical wants, a temporary situation at best.

These obviously do not love their neighbor and, by their own choice, violate the principle and must suffer the consequences.

Your examples actually validate the principle.

Anonymous wrote, “I'm not comfortable - culturally - with neo-paganism, but I see the truth shining forth from correspondents like Terra Gazelle and Paganplace. My biggest beef with fundamentalist Christians is their idea that their own (culturally biased) form of salvation is the only one. That's just counterintuitive.”

```````````````````````````````````````

According to whom…....you? Well isn’t that just what you spoke against by saying, “My biggest beef with fundamentalist Christians is their idea that their own (culturally biased) form of salvation is the only one.”

Since when do “all fundamentalist Christians” believe as you say they do?? Talk about bias you are the epitome of it! Perhaps reading a private journal will clear your head.......or maybe headhammer can help you discerned the truth?

Love thy neighbor as thyself? Who is thy neighbor?? Do those of all beliefs and religions love those that break into someone else’s home, rummage through their personal belongings?? Is nothing sacred to some? Why, this is not deserved???

Just because Pagans have what you call ”truth shining forth” does not make them any less evil then the beliefs they stand for. Satan is a Pagan and has “wisdom and insight” and “truth shining through”, but yet Satan is evil to the core, there is no good in him and this is because he is without God. The following is the definition of a pagan,

Pagan classifications: Pagan subdivisions coined by Isaac Bonewits:

-Paleopaganism: A retronym coined to contrast with "Neopaganism", denoting a Pagan culture that has not been disrupted by other cultures. The term applies to Hinduism, Shinto, pre-Migration period Germanic paganism as described by Tacitus, Celtic polytheism as described by Julius Caesar, and the Greek and Roman religion.

-Mesopaganism: A group, which is, or has been, significantly influenced by monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic worldviews, but has been able to maintain an independence of religious practices. This group includes aboriginal Americans as well as Australian aboriginals, Viking Age Norse paganism. Influences include: Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Spiritualism, and the many Afro-Diasporic faiths like Haitian Vodou, and Santería. Bonewits includes British Traditional Wicca in this subdivision.

-Neopaganism: A movement by modern people to revive nature-worshipping, pre-Christian religions, or other nature-based spiritual paths. This definition may include anything on a sliding scale from Reconstructionist at one end to New Age and non-reconstructionist groups such as Neo-druidism and Wicca at the other. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Say what you will but the truth is in scripture, choose not to believe it and that makes you a “heathen”, period.

Revelation 3:15-17, {15} I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! {16} So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. {17} You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. NIV

Sure, Matthew Mark, I'll bite, thank you.
But I should warn you that it's impossible to have bias when youre on a floating speck of dust looking for any shred of truth. :)

I'll start.
"be in the world and not of the world"
I've been looking for the source of those words for awhile, because I suggest they are the crux.

Just now I heard Deepak Chopera just say he thought they were the crux too. And this I heard "out of the mouths of babes" of washington post, sooo.. forgive the BBC crack. I'm not going ANYwhere till WP get a fair shake.

I REALLY don't care which religions can relay these truths.

Sure, Matthew Mark, I'll bite, thank you.
But I should warn you that it's impossible to have bias when youre on a floating speck of dust looking for any shred of truth. :)

I'll start.
"be in the world and not of the world"
I've been looking for the source of those words for awhile, because I suggest they are the crux.

Just now I heard Deepak Chopera just say he thought they were the crux too. And this I heard "out of the mouths of babes" of washington post, sooo.. forgive the BBC crack. I'm not going ANYwhere till WP get a fair shake.

I REALLY don't care which religions can relay these truths.

Zero knots

Glad you joined so you could enjoy the experience of a free and open discussion.

Unfortunately in your closing you betrayed an apparent bias which you brought with you and with which you will only leave, nothing else.

Seems all the "discussion" is about the color, texture, location, thickness and other (endless)attributes about the hair on a dog.
Few, if any, can see the dog.

I know of no religion that does not have a central principle of "loving thy neighgbor as they self.

If we could rise above the demagoguery we might not be at each others throats throwing dogma at each other.

Changing churches (or not) is like changing clothes....only for appearance sake

My 1st time reading Washington Post. Just want to see what the liberals are up to and.. shock!, it's an American clone of the BBC !!

Implications, subtleties, innuendo, indightment, conclusions disguised as impartial questions..

You'd think ANY American would prefer a straight fight to all these sneak attacks.

If this subject were about "evolving philosophy" it wouldn't send up this defcon alert. :)
But nooo, the left have to imply staunch unchangable dogma and mindless adherance to it.

Guess what, people. Just as Father Jonathan Morris advances as a reliable philosophy, change in religion itself is good, let alone religious seekers.

Oh well. Thanks for the memorY, washington post.

Concerned Christian,
Your statement cncerning the historical accuracy of the bible is based in personal issues on your and Mr crossans part.
If not outright dishonesty as in Mr Crossan's parochial illadvised assertion concerning the finding of a nail spike in the ankle bone of a cruxifiction victim.
He simply could not let his emotional issues prevent him from making such an error.
An error making his dishonest uneducated bias clear,andone I'm sure he wishes the archeological world would forget.
I don't suppose you would have the nerve to defend Mr Crossan's parochial assertion concerning the nail spike would you?
Dodn't think so.
There is no written record for the period,people,nations,places,etc,etc, in question that even comes close to the comprehensive information upheld by the archeological findings.
Not even close.
And I defy you to name another written source as being more complete?

BLESS IT AND CALL IT GOOD! Change though painful is always good. How else could inspiration enter? I call myself SPIRITUAL NOT RELIGIOUS although I see myself as Christian. Christian in the sense in this is my background, but also in the sense that this is where my faith was placed. I am not religious because just as in differing peoples, say 30 students in a classroom, each one has something to contribute with each one no more correct than another. I BELIEVE ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Created by the ONE SOURCE OF LIFE some call God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Buddha, life or nothing etc., etc., etc. WE ARE EVOLVING AND THAT IS ALWAYS GOOD. WE HAVE COME FROM ONE PLACE AND WILL RETURN THERE. May you find your truth.

"Born Again" Hammerhead and Other Bible Thumpers,

The bible is not an historical document. There are too many inconsisties and lack of attestations to make it so.

As per Professor Crossan from his book Who is Jesus:

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple.

Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus.

No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset.

And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered.

And From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

In case you all didn't recognize my schoolmarm tone of voice, that was me just now. I'd also like to make a plea that we stop trying to ascertain which religion or philosophy has the most arrogant and undemocratic adherents. With all respect to Deb and Jihadist, we've all got stuff in our traditions that would make us look bad if taken alone. So let's not mistake history, politics and cultural bias for religious faith.
(You too, Concerned, but I'm not confident you read anyone else's posts when you are so busy cutting and pasting the same lengthy comments on every topic.)

In defense of Gary D
ISTM that he is an example of a good, sincere follower of Christ who doesn't really understand the nature of the Trinity. Or, to be fair, in trying to give answers that will be understood by nonbelievers he may be glossing over some of the essentials.
I'm with Matthew Mark on much of this: We all rely on circular logic, which isn't logical at all, in defending our faith. And some of us are way too hung up on sharing our own individual enlightenment. Most of this is personal and cultural, folks. I'm not comfortable - culturally - with neo-paganism, but I see the truth shining forth from correspondents like Terra Gazelle and Paganplace. My biggest beef with fundamentalist Christians is their idea that their own (culturally biased) form of salvation is the only one. That's just counterintuitive.

Garyd,
This concept of yours that some such as Judas or the rich young man are first denied "faith" prior to it becoming incumbent upon them to make a decision about Christ void of this witholding of "faith", while others are cosmically imbued with faith out of the blue prior to their decision about Christ is antibiblical,and flies in the face of God being "no respecter of persons".
The roman centerion who spoke of Christ in terms of being able to save life just by His Word was said by Christ to have great "faith".
I take it you think by Jesus mentioning only his "faith" that the decision to believe process was then still in state of flux?
Really?
There is not one instance in scripture in which Jesus specifically seperates a person's belief in Him and their "faith" in Him.
You cannot name one?
When the thief on the cross asked Jesus to "remember him" was this the imbuement of faith or the decision to believe in salvation
"Lord remember me when thou comest into Thy kingdom." (Luke 23:42)

Yet while the other thief demonstrated "faith" in Christ's supernatural diviniy for the sole purpose of preseving his own hide:
"If thou be Christ,save thyself and us."
(Luke 23:42)

"

Even the posse of hell had "faith" and "belief" that Jesus was indeed God and fully supernaturally capable as such:

"And they watched him,whether he would heal him on the sabbath day,that they might accuse Him." (Mark 3:2)

The fact that they had "faith" and "belief" in who and what He was of no consequence in their ultimate decision.
So depraved is our human nature that that we are willing and very much inclined to shake our fist in the face of Him we have full "faith" and "belief" is God.
That is in fact our natural inclination.

God already KNOWS before a person is conceived whether or not that person will become Christian, what becomes of the idea of free will?
````````````````````````````````

Correction, God already knows the decision you will make using your free will.

God does not make mistakes, Adam and Eve had a choice and they made it of their own free will. They could have walk away or denied taking the fruit when offered.

GaryD,
Please explain something to me.

According to you, God knew before he created the world who would and would not spend eternity in Heaven. That means that he also KNEW Adam and Eve would eat the Forbidden Fruit.
If an omniscient, infallible god KNOWS that something is going to happen, then that event MUST occur, otherwise the god is neither onmiscient nor infallible. So if God KNEW before he ever created them that Adam and Eve would eat the Fruit, then they really did not have the option not to do so. For them to have told the serpent "We can't - God said not to." would have meant that God's prescience was subject to error.

If God already KNOWS before a person is conceived whether or not that person will become Christian, what becomes of the idea of free will?

pitting health against sickness is just another in a long series of intellectually lazy posits by quinn and meacham-
it presents a false and unrelated connection to the issue- but it does get people fighting, doesn't it? and for our hosts- they seem willing to substitute conflict for dialogue-

i think the conversion rates indicate a spiritual restlessness, and in america we have the freedom to explore that.

arun gandhi quoted the Mahatma- and likened religion to ones mother- not abandoning her because she is less attractive than a friends-
heres his interpretation of grandpa's words-

"If one is born into a religion and finds it less than desirable one needs to stay and do something to change it or reform it. In other words one should not run away from one's responsibilities not shirk them. This will only lead to greater dissatisfaction."

i didnt get that idea-
i infer that one remain unthinkingly loyal- despite ones brain telling them that their religion leaks inconsistency- or is incongruous with the truth ones feels is necessary for spiritual satisfaction.

to set one's childhood indoctrination aside, and all of its emotional, irrational, and complicated associations for a while-

means one has to be able to open ones mind and heart up to the possibility and recognition that many others on the planet- different from us- have mothers and religions that pull at their heartstrings, and that some may have transcended those (kind of) emotional blackmails- to search for a larger truth-

one can coe from a dysfunctional mother, or religion, and still be conflicted in their loyalty to a degree-

not because they have a corrupted heart- but just a working brain that can make a distinction between an imposed direction- and a conscious choice one makes.

on a spiritual path- ones loyalty needs to be pointedly focused on one's truth- not blindsided by emotional conflicts.

its not a matter of my truth is better than your truth- or you are sick and i am healthy-

pitting people against each other in that way hasn't really helped anyone anywhere much, has it.

i recognize the god within all of you
peace

And in all those to whom he spoke the decision was as it could only be once real faith had a hold on that individual. Faith is not man saying yes faith is making it possible that no other answer is even thinkable.

What Jesus did for people was to force upon them an understanding of who and what they had become. Did Judas go back on his faith? NO his heart had never been changed to begin with. The same is true of Demas who traveled ten years with Paul. Judas and Demas had head knowledge but no heart knowledge and thus in the end they fell away.

Look at the story of the rich Young ruler as seen in Mark and beginning after the departure of the RYR.

Jesus says to the disciples: How hard it is for the rich to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. I tell you truly it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The disciples (aghast now for after all were not all the patriarchs rich?) ask: Who then can be saved.

And Christ's response: With man this is impossible but through God all things are possible.

Garyd,
the "book of life" contains the names of not just those who will "be there future" by mere virtue of "being there then" etc,etc...as you have so axiomatically,and void of detail suggested.
But to be more specific on the details it will contain the names of all those that God in His infinite wisdom knew,before the foundation of the world would decide to be there.
An supernatural component inherent in God's nature and in the book of life's compilation you seem to be not to fond of,or to aware of,I'm not sure which?
Again it is curious to me this penchant you have for subtracting any decision on our part from the process is uncharacteristic of the Book of Life's compilation.
Jesus demonsrated the true characteristic of the Book of Life's compilation in that every person He came into contact with was immediately brought to a decision making crossroads.
You cannot name one person He encountered who Jesus allowed to forgo the decision making process?
The fact that Jesus,in His divinity, knew ahead of time what that decision would be was immaterial.
We all must freely decide.
There is not one person who Jesus encountered who was able to avoid this decison making process.
With the exception of children not of age and understanding to make such decisions which Christ indicated immediately come into His presence at the time of their death.

"O ye who would enter that glorious rest and sing with the ransomed the song of the blest,the life everlastinf if ye would obtain,"Ye must be born again"
(William T. Sleeper)

Hammerhead:

Just to be clear the Holy Spirit goes only where God or Jesus or both would have him go. The spirit decides nothing.

The Book of life was written before the foundation of the world. If you were in it then you will be in it today tomorrow and at the end of the world.

We are saved by grace, though faith; and that not of ourselves it is the gift of God.

In other words sir saving faith is God's gift to a fallen man by which that man might beleive and then be saved. To those whom God has not supplied faith neither will they believe in the one true and living God.

True Godly works are a response to a salvation already received and not a cause of that salvation.

HAMMERHEAD :
“Concerned Christian,
If you doubt that Jesus was God it is quite plausible to labor and conclude,as you have, that His Word has been "embellished" and stepped upon to the point of being unrecognizable.
An exercise and outlook borne of doubt.
However,if you belive that He was God then by definition you have moved light years ahead and above of the doubt filled labor borne process of measuring the divine content of each word.
You know His living promises, and His living words are real and eternal.
"Standing on the promises that cannot fail,when howling storms of doubt and fear assail,by the living Word of God I shall prevail,standing on the promises of God."
(R. Kelso Carter)
"For all the promises of God in Him are yea,and in Him Amen,unto the glory of God by us."”
(2 Corinthians 1:20)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What beautiful truth you wrote.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Once again, your references have been checked and none of them address the following flaws in Islam:

"1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
"

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Why do you argue amongst yourselves about dogma and mythology? They are from the past. But you bring them to the present, only perpetuating your own pain.
Reality is today, not yesterday, nor tomorrow.

You do not need dogma to relieve your pain, you need to forget the dogma that perpetuates your pain.

Accept things as they are, accept yourself as complete.
You seek something you already have.
God and you are one.

Why do you argue amongst yourselves about dogma and mythology? They are from the past. But you bring them to the present, only perpetuating your own pain.
Reality is today, not yesterday, nor tomorrow.

You do not need dogma to relieve your pain, you need to forget the dogma that perpetuates your pain.

Accept things as they are, accept yourself as complete.
You seek something you already have.
God and you are one.

Concerned Christian,
If you doubt that Jesus was God it is quite plausible to labor and conclude,as you have, that His Word has been "embellished" and stepped upon to the point of being unrecognizable.
An exercise and outlook borne of doubt.
However,if you belive that He was God then by definition you have moved light years ahead and above of the doubt filled labor borne process of measuring the divine content of each word.
You know His living promises, and His living words are real and eternal.

"Standing on the promises that cannot fail,when howling storms of doubt and fear assail,by the living Word of God I shall prevail,standing on the promises of God."
(R. Kelso Carter)

"For all the promises of God in Him are yea,and in Him Amen,unto the glory of God by us."
(2 Corinthians 1:20)

Garyd,
Are you saying the holy spirit decides for us?
Or do we decide?
It can't be both.
Also,do you believe you could be spiritually reborn while your heart remained static?
What makes you think the transformation is anything less than comprehensive?

Hammerhead Jesus declared no such thing. Jesus told Peter after his confession that that confession came by the Holy Spirit not of himself. No one is saved lest God via the Holy Spirit first changes his heart.

Most of the "major religions" , whether Christain, Jew, Buddist, Muslim, etc)share the same basic principle
"Love thy neighbor as thyself"
Unfortunately few members ever follow this principle.
Secondly, most religious people are self-interested in that they seek only personal salvation. There are few, if any, bodhisattyas, the epitome of the principle.
Further, the study left out THE major religion in Ameerica.......capiltalism. the gods are wealth, consemerism, materialism, institutionalized greed, etc

It depends on the intentions Americans have had in converting to other religions or even dropping

Dear Jihadist,

I was hoping to find some questions, instead I found tendentious statements about dalits/harijans in India and their feeble relationship with the religion of Hinduism. So, I chose to be brief, and selectively respond to what I thought important (but may not be entirely relevant to this blog's topic.)

Jihadist: "Dalits/harijans as untouchables are at the bottom rung, in fact off it, and brahmins are the highest ranked in the caste system. What are Brahmins like you really thinking and doing about dalits/harijans on their human rights?"

Me: I agree and would repeat that yes in India Dalits and Harijans are treated with much shame and they have converted out of Hindu religion to Islam, Christianity or Buddhism. But, their conversion has not elevated their status, thanks to Allah, God and Bodhisatva. The Hari of the Hindus has had the last laugh. And perhaps to dispel your ignorance and misleading statements, India has 33% reservation for OBC (Other Backward Castes) and Muslims for all government jobs and educational institutions. If the University Grants Commission (a Central Govt. arm) finds a university not providing special advantages to the minority (Dalits/Harijans/Muslims/Christians) then the university can face show cause notice. So, while I agree that discimination exists in the Hindu society, and yes Brahmins are to take a big blame, this has nothing to do with spirituality. Its a social phenomenon, and IK cannot see why should we discuss it here. I agree that this discrimination has been existing for close to thousand years, and is apparently difficult to eradicate.

Jihadist: "By the way, that proposal of yours that Muslims being stopped from migrating to the west as they will put in place Shariah and global Islamic caliphate and bring about the end of civilisation as we know it is fantastic and received positive responses from many Americans in On Faith threads. Well done there."

Me: Thank you. To me it is a clear and present danger. Allowing Muslims to migrate to USA in large hordes would lead to extreme danger. The situation in UK is a forerunner of the dangers to come if Muslim population is unchecked. The situation in UK is so hopeless, that the archbishop Rowan Williams is suggesting incorporating Shariah law. This situation has of course come to reality because of the majority population of migrant Pakistani (and other South Asian) Muslims who have now bred radical Islam there. There is nothing wrong in citing UK's situation to warn that same might happen in USA.

Jihadist:"A brahmin is a brahmin is a brahmin. He can never avoid social exclusion of people in his own countries, and now asking countries to practice social exclusion. In their own socieities. In migration."

Me: Well... This is what one of the Divine gems from the Holy Quran [009:029] states about non-Muslims:

YUSUFALI: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Why (falsely) pick exclusively on Brahmins for their perceived attitudes on "social exclusivity" ? Isn't it Divine (according to the Quran) to discriminate and humiliate non-Muslims ? Isn't that Divine message preaching social exclusivity for Muslims ?

"Born Again" Hammerhead,

Analyses of John 3:7 by contemporary NT exegetes concluded that it was an embellishment to Jesus' life. Actually most of John's gospel falls into the same category.

First, it indicates our pluralism as a society: We don't cook the same meals out mothers cooked and most of us do not marry spouses from our own neighborhood and ethnicity. It just isn't the first thing we look for in a soulmate.
Second, most Americans have no idea what their parents' religion teaches or claims to believe in. Ask most Christians about transubstantiation or the doctrine of the trinity and you are likely to get as a reply a blank look. What this means is that we can happily church shop, joining a faith like we would pledge a fraternity.
It's social, and it's cultural, but for many people it has nothing to do with G-d.

The entire premise of the survey itself is based in a spiritual understanding that is miles wide and inches deep,at least as far as this Jesus who is the Christ is concerned.
Jesus declared that every person must decide for themselves if they will believe on Him.
By definition then it is an impossibilty to be be a "christian" by virtue of family church membership,connections,affiliations,etc,etc...
Christianity is something you do,not something that someone (father,mother,uncle,aunt,etc,etc..)does to you.
Jesus got to the very heart of this very issue when He said:

"Ye must be born again."
(John 3:7)

To Possum from Daniel. There is no point in arguing with you Possum. You are illogical. In your response to me you immediately state that "no one is saying morality is natural"--but then of course you also deny that morality came from God (something transcendent to the natural). Well, where is the root of morality then Possum? On one hand you say no one is saying morality is coded in DNA, then you are saying religions have co-opted that which already made sense to the animal and religious community. Obviously you lean toward morality having natural, biological roots--unless you can explain otherwise.

But the big problem with your criticism is that you totally avoided the main point of my argument concerning morality existing without a belief in God.

I will now repeat it in its entirety and hopefully with greater clarity. Religions are closed, non-historical systems. They arose before modern man's extended sense of space/time. Religions are closed systems which believe they know the beginning and end of existence and the certain behaviors to reconcile themselves to this conception of existence. Of course by "behaviors" I mean the religion's conceptions of morality. Now when we enter an extended space/time sense--move toward modern man and anthropology, biology, physics,--an increased sense of the historical from classical historians such as Herodotus and Thucydides to the latest historians--and culminate in biological theories such as Darwin's view, we have the religious views exploded and we begin to conceive the before and after of religion.

But this before and after immediately puts us in a moral quandary, because we have man more and more considered in a biological sense and we begin to have man's morality considered as having material origins--natural rather than supernatural origins. So much should be clear and is the reason why atheists lean toward saying man can be moral without God--that morality is rooted in biology and we can be naturally moral. But in dispensing with the religious views and entering the biological we enter a deterministic view (a view the opposite of free will) much worse than any religious view because we are slaves to evolution, slaves to the biological, and this slavery is such that we really do not know whether man was really that moral, is really that moral, or will increase in morality. That too should be obvious. And finally it should be obvious that the more man embraces the biological view the less he can take for granted that he is a moral animal. In fact he must be more humble and careful than the great religions.

He must be more humble and careful than the great religions because he is comparing himself to animals more and more, and although it would be silly for him to castigate the predatory animals (for they are instinctive), he cannot help but be humbled by the many examples of animal life that are clearly of superior morality (or should be considered such despite too being instinctive). Furthermore man cannot help but begin to take his evolution into his own hands, cannot help but take the course of mastering evolution, genetically altering himself--otherwise he would be merely subjected to evolutionary drift to who knows what end, what morality.

We have man without God never really being able to think of himself as being moral, because having exploded the religious view he is left with having to radically alter himself--alter the race genetically and not be content with simple behavior modifications within each individuals lifetime for the sake of some God. Are things becoming clearer Possum? Modern atheists seem to be doing nothing more than eliminating religion but preserving the morality religions are familiar with and saying that such morality does not need religion and that it has natural underpinnings. I say that is entirely missing the point, the challenge of entering the biological view and exiting the religious view. Worse it is itself some sort of religious view, a belief that religions and their Gods were not evolutionary necessary, that all morality so far could have developed without religion--and furthermore that we can sustain such moralities indefinitely without religion. That strikes me as non-historical and as illogical as any religion.

The task for man is to exit religion and enter the biological view and to somehow begin to take evolution into his own hands. But not only is this morally difficult to begin with, it presupposes we have an idea of ourselves as potentially being a greater, better animal. We right now have the potential to begin to breed ourselves--improve ourselves--as we do livestock, but apparently no one likes to consider himself as potentially obsolete. The plain fact is humans now not only lack a truly definitive knowledge of how to genetically alter themselves, they lack the morality, the requisite sense of self-sacrifice, to allow a better human animal to be born and replace current human existence.

Humans far from being able to be moral without God are rather faced with evolution--evolution which so far is defeating humans in the technological and moral sense--and there is no doubt in my mind unless humans can be girded to the great task demanded by evolution we will have to be subjected to religious systems, for otherwise we will be subjected to evolutionary drift, views of the world which are expressive of the loss of mastery of man...

That should be fairly obvious Possum. It takes little to arrive at my contemplations. Read and compare books on history, biology, physics, religion. See how immense the task becomes for man when we open up an extended historical, time/space sense. Without God the ground opens beneath our feet and we are faced with the uncertainty of quantum physics, blind random evolution, etc. We are faced with a potential determinism worse than any religion. We are asked to exercise free will to the point of genetically altering ourselves to stay ahead of problems before us. The deeper the view the greater the heights toward which we must aspire. If things need to be clearer I am dissatisfied with both organized religion and current atheist man.

I believe we must take evolution into our own hands and this means contemplating God as never before, because a belief in God when contemplating evolution turns into contemplating more and more what we should make of ourselves. But this is also an atheistic project because we must never belief we have transformed ourselves into Gods. We must aim toward God but not God. A little paradox I shall work on some more. Good day Possum and I hope before my words you do not play dead...I enjoy reading what you write.

Jihadist,

More responses to your latest post later this weekend.

Thomas, The Moses of the NT and now Preacher Baum,

You hallucinated in 2000 and you are still hallucinating.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

You wrote, "You are not going to convert anyone to Christianity/Catholicism by your "holy than thou" rhetoric about a flawed religion. Your "vision" of God does not hold up to reality and you are suffering from the normal Christian brainwashing."

Do you actually read what I write?

I am not trying to convert anyone to anything, I am just doing the job that God gave to me the best that I can.

As far as a "holy than thou" rhetoric, you definitely do not read what I write.

Have you ever noticed that some of the people that know God's Name but seem to know nothing else about God write very similiar things about what I post as you do?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

How about source for that Chris?

Concerned there is also a paucity of evidence for the existence most of Jesus' contemporaries. 200 years is a long time for some kinds of evidence to survive. We know from Roman records that we have that crucifixion was a fairly common punishment in Roman times. We have little physical evidence corroborating what the Romans themselves stated.

This may be a little anal retentive, but I earlier wrote "Christians are 7 times more likely to be criminally unethical!" I must have had a brain cloud. It should have been 50 times, not 7 times. Sorry for the error - I should check my work before posting.

Thomas The Moses of the NT, Now Preacher Baum,

You are not going to convert anyone to Christianity/Catholicism by your "holy than thou" rhetoric about a flawed religion. Your "vision" of God does not hold up to reality and you are suffering from the normal Christian brainwashing.

Below is an easy Five Step Program to ease your way back to the real world:

1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

Concerning "religious affiliation".

Religion, what is it?

Religion seems to come in all kinds of forms, whether a belief in God is involved seems to be beside the point if people want to be serious about the subject.

Have you ever heard the term "religious fervor" well it doesn't always refer to someone with a belief in God or some kind of being greater than us humans, does it?

To some science is their religion, to some money is their religion, to some power is their religion, to some their intelligence is their religion, the point I am trying to get across is that different people try to use different things, either inside or outside of themselves to lord it over others or to make themselves feel superior to others, something to think about.

Whether you believe that Jesus is God-Incarnate or not, which He is, Jesus did not attempt to lord it over others, did He?

One of the things that Jesus said was, "The Son of Man [Jesus] did not come to be served but to serve" did He not?

One of the things about being a "Christian" as opposed to being someone that calls themself a "Christian" is to take up Jesus's invitation to "Come follow Me" and at least try and make an attempt to do that, don't you think so?

Sometimes it seems that some people go 'religion shopping' to try and find the 'christian lite' that best suits them.

If people really take to heart what Jesus said and did and think honestly about it, they would have to say this Person [Jesus] has to be the most bizarre human being that ever set foot on this planet or He is Who He said that He is.

God is a Being of Pure Love and since we are all made in the "Image and Likeness of God" if love shines thru us then God is shining thru us, if not then He isn't, no matter what 'religion' people wish to label themselves with.

Being a Christian is not belonging to some religion, it is also not trying to cram the bible down other's throats, it is not looking for a bunch of rules and regulations to follow, it is coming to a realization that we are all God's children and that God became our [humanity's] Brother and also taking to heart what Jesus said about sending us another Helper [The Holy Spirit] who helps and guides us if we are willing and that all of us have different jobs, so to speak, to do.

As I have said before:

The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition in His Time.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom [the new heavens and new earth].

Take care, be ready, see you [humanity] in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

While WAPO readers discuss America's religious infidelities-- The Iranian parliament is discussing a new penal code, under which citizens who convert from another religion will face execution. People wake up!

THE PRICE OF FAITHLESSNESS

Iran to Punish Apostasy with Death

Apostasy -- or the formal renunciation of religion -- is already punishable in Iran with death. But now, Iran wants to make the death penalty for apostasy part of the penal code. The European Union is concerned and has asked Iran to reconsider.

The European Union this week sent a letter to authorities in Iran expressing its concern over a proposed change to the penal code that would make apostasy punishable by death.

The EU is responding to news that the Islamic Republic is planning to subject "apostasy, heresy and witchcraft" to the Hudud -- the body of fixed punishments assigned to crimes that are considered violations of the "claims of God." Other Hadud crimes include alcohol consumption, theft, highway robbery and illegal sexual intercourse.

As the news agency Reuters reported earlier this week, the EU, which opposes the death penalty as a matter of policy, expressed "acute concern" over the proposed penal code revision.

"These articles clearly violate the Islamic Republic of Iran's commitments under the international human rights conventions," Slovenian leaders, who currently head the rotating EU presidency, wrote in a statement.

"The EU calls upon the Iranian authorities, both in government and parliament, to modify the draft penal code in order to respect the obligations."

The death penalty has already been applied to apostates in Iran -- but this was never, since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979, institutionalized as a matter of legal practice.

Iran typically dismisses Western criticism of its legal system, claiming that Islamic law is fundamentally different.

The main concern seems to be arising from the Baha'i faith, which forms a religious minority in Iran but, unlike Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, is not officially recognized by the regime.

On Thursday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the Baha'i community in Germany is particularly worried about the fate of three Iranian Baha'i, who were arrested in 2006 in the southern Iranian city of Schiras for having founded a center for Baha'i children and youth. They were sentenced to four years imprisonment and are said to be in a secret service rather than normal prison.

At the beginning of February, the EU officially protested the sentence and expressed its concern about the "worsening situation for ethnic and religious minorities in Iran, in particular that of the Baha'i." The Iranian court defended its decision on the basis that the Baha'i, in promoting their faith, were spreading propaganda "against the Islamic regime."

The Baha'i faith developed out of Shia Islam in the 19th century and its followers have been subject to discrimination for generations.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,538466,00.html

lepidopteryx writes: "Have you considered the possibility that amoral people are flukes?"

When one is burdened with the poisonous idea of "fallen man" or "original sin", I'd guess that this kind of consideration isn't likely to take place. After freeing my mind of the Christianity virus, one of the first things that struck me was how incredibly moral the vast majority of people are.

First up - I expect that the survey results suggest aspects of health and sickness of religion in USA. It is sick because its retention rate is lower than most of the religions cited would want. It is healthy because many of them appear to be gaining new adherents. It might say more about Americans than about American religion.

I've also heard over the years that most religious conversion occurs amongst children. So these results are encouraging to those proselytizers out there - nearly one of every two people is likely to make a religious switch. Those are good stats.

Athena is not interested in fear. And yet, for those looking to switch, truth is one of the main motivators (I acknowledge that there might be others, like convenience, culture, etc.). And truth can be effective regardless of the pain/fear/discomfort/inconvenience that accompanies it.

So, for example, following Jesus is a hard endeavour. It is variously described in the Bible as carrying a cross (to your death), dying to self, beating your body (disciplining yourself), denying yourself, and becoming a slave. At the same time, 'our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ' is described as the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Alpha and Omega, the One who was, who is, and who is to come, and is described in awesome terms in various points in Scripture. In this regard He inspires fear.

The truth of His life, death, resurrection, and teachings supercedes the sacrifice and fear of following Him. In Mark 1, Jesus instructs us to repent and believe, and then invites/commands us to 'Come, follow Me.' It is our response which determines our salvation in this world and into eternity.

Much grace,
StephenS2S

Poor, poor "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist, she again goes on and on about the caste system in flawed Hinduism but again not one time does she mention the caste system in flawed Islam i.e. those 200 million inferior members called the Shiites.

Some recent rhetoric out of Saudi Arabia rings loudly with repect to this major flaw in Islam i.e. from CNN

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

And of course, the "obfusing" one is a Sunni and echoes Bin Jabrain's refrain.

Deb Chatterjee,

My friend! What is this? "What gives?" you asked?

It's a human rights issue that does not seem to interest you obviously. Much more less than all those great western thinkers whom you wrote about here.

Your response to me on dalits sounds almost dismissive of them - men, women and children. I was hoping that you would be as concerned of their plight as you are on the "threat" of Islam and Muslims.

Are dalits/harijans that insignificant that they do not warrant even any attention? Even in India and by Indians? "Religion is the opiate of the masses" you quoted Marx. We know that Mr. Marx also call for a classless society.

Dalits/harijans as untouchables are at the bottom rung, in fact off it, and brahmins are the highest ranked in the caste system. What are Brahmins like you really thinking and doing about dalits/harijans on their human rights?

You : Caste system is certainly a social problem in that it discriminates.

Moi : I take it you are saying it is not rooted in Hinduism, but only a "social problem" as in colonial era discrimination as when colonisers' exclusive clubs posted signs up front saying, "No dogs or Chinese/Indians/Malays allowed"?

You : However, I fail to see how changing religion makes that social discrimination go away as a Divine blessing.

Moi : Giving up so soon as an armchair activist on issues in India and Indian society? As you believe religions should be changed or do away with, perhaps discrimination rooted in religion will be gone too if we eliminate religion. I am sure the Divine would be pleased when we do away with social disrimination, but alas, not man, with all his members only clubs one has to qualify for membership based on set terms, conditions and criterias for suitability or otherwise. Even the Boy Scouts of America discriminate against atheists.

You : I mostly agree with your views on aspects of Dalits/Harijans in India. However, there is not a single society that is free from racial/social discrimination, and including your religion Islam. So, what gives ?

Moi : I was hoping that since your have many suggestions on religion and believers, especially Islam and Muslims, (including proposing the west to stop Muslim migrants from getting into the west in case Shariah is implemented and an global Islamic caliphate emerge bringing civilisation as we know it to an end I presume) you would have ready answers on Hinduism, India and disrimination of dalits/harijans. You would know better I assumed.

As Anonymous stated, dalits/harijans are a huge number, a huge percentage of India's population. The indifference to their plight is surprising given their huge numbers. I have not begun to write here how some poor Hindus do bury their babies (alive sometimes) if are born female as their parents could not afford the dowries for their marraige. There is sexual discrimination too.

One can only suppose that it is hard for educated Indians and sheltered Brahmins (by caste system) who are western educated and/or very well versed in western thought and culture to relate to and emphatise with some of their own people. Only the great Mahatma Gandhi seems to care for the dalits whom he renamed as harijans.

You can be dismissive here in On Faith on dalits/harijans, but they exist, their plight is real and they are some 160 milion to 250 million of them - over half to three quarter of the population of the United States.

By the way, that proposal of yours that Muslims being stopped from migrating to the west as they will put in place Shariah and global Islamic caliphate and bring about the end of civilisation as we know it is fantastic and received positive responses from many Americans in On Faith threads. Well done there.

Any wonder why dalits/harijans are switching religions from Hinduism to Christianity and some to Islam in the last and this century? A brahmin is a brahmin is a brahmin. He can never avoid social exclusion of people in his own countries, and now asking countries to practice social exclusion. In their own socieities. In migration. It is in his social nature which is imbued and inbred and which he is unconscious of.

And my favourite Crossanized Christian here talks about born, bred and brainwashed in religion.

Deb Chattejee. Have you really considered that we are also not free from the culture and prejudices of our societies in one way or another? Not even my favourite Crossanized Christian, Concerned the Christian Now Liberated. :)

Never mind.

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Athena wrote:

"However, if you think that people who think for themselves and worship out of love, not fear are fools, then I want no part of your religion"

Thinking what ? Thinking of God ? How do you know what you are thinking or taught to think is the right one ? If it is admissable that what you have been taught to think (about God) is also questionable, then the act of worship out of love or fear is vacuous.

The major problem with the western reductionist view of religion/spirituality is that it does not instruct the metaphysical aspects of the mind or consciousness. Do this, turn left, raise your hand, bow your head, close your eyes, raise your head slowly, and say "Hallelujah". That's what I see on this forum about western view of religion, and quite a few people dissatisfied with it which led them to switch faiths. That's why we see people in the West changing religious faiths like changing clothes. No element of freethinking and contemplation. The position is that if one starts contemplating, one might end up with answers or questions that may undermine the canonical beliefs. I come from a Hindu Brahman background. Hindus are equally bad, as they also believe in idol worship. In fact, idol worship is synonymous with Hinduism. Hinduism is a corruption of the "sanatana Vedic Dharma" that existed thousands of years ago, and is universal. (Read some Deepak Chopra's books on this aspect.)

The Fool in the Tarot deck is the seeker of knowledge. So, in that respect, I am a fool.

However, if you think that people who think for themselves and worship out of love, not fear are fools, then I want no part of your religion.

Robert B:
**If morality is a biological primal response, wouldn't everyone naturally be moral? After all, we all naturally like sugar because our tongues evolved in that fashion. Where is my understanding failing here?**

Have you considered the possibility that amoral people are flukes? MOST people are born with ten fingrs, but sometimes people are born with one or more missing. And my mom was born with eleven fingers. MOST people are born with two kidneys, but a friend of mine has a son who was born with only one. The fact that people evolved to have ten fingers and two kidneys doesn't mean that every single person ever born will have ten fingers and two kidneys. Just as the fact that every species has its own evolved "moral" sense (for example, you don't sh1t where you sleep, you don't eat your own kind) doesn't mean that there won't be glitches.

Robert B:
**If morality is a biological primal response, wouldn't everyone naturally be moral? After all, we all naturally like sugar because our tongues evolved in that fashion. Where is my understanding failing here?**

Have you considered the possibility that amoral people are flukes? MOST people are born with ten fingrs, but sometimes people are born with one or more missing. And my mom was born with eleven fingers. MOST people are born with two kidneys, but a friend of mine has a son who was born with only one. The fact that people evolved to have ten fingers and two kidneys doesn't mean that every single person ever born will have ten fingers and two kidneys. Just as the fact that every species has its own evolved "moral" sense (for example, you don't sh1t where you sleep, you don't eat your own kind) doesn't mean that there won't be glitches.

Athena :

"Wrong, the only thing you proved is that you are a fool, end of story."

My, how Christian of you. Love your enemies, indeed.
``````````````````````````````````

Exactly, God himself called unbelievers and scoffers "fools." Just being about my father's business, if you have an issue with it talk to him about it.

Anon,

The death of children wherever will in general be due to lack of medical care and starvation. In Iraq this was also the case as those responsible for distributing oil wealth pocketed the money. Cluster bombs are typically used in large scale wars like the Gulf War where they were used to dislodge the Iragi troops from Kuwait.

For Robert B

I think the female guerilla treated the injured boy the way whe would have treated a baby guerilla.

Isn't there something in morality related to empathy of feelings for others? And doesn't that vary quite alot from person to person? And so being raised up in a Christian envirnment isn't going to make a person more moral, if they simply do not have the capacity to empathize with others.

Daniel:

Thank you for the interesting story regarding the child in the gorilla cage. The one flaw that I can see in the argument that the gorilla had a moral sense was that this happened in a zoo where the gorillas (presumably) had some interaction with humanity. I wonder if a similar situation would have occurred in the wild (though I have no intention of testing it... :))I do admit that the actions of the gorilla are quite striking.

Daniel:
“It seems many atheists try to take the biologic route and say that morality is natural”

Maybe some do, but I think your use of the word ‘natural’ is misleading. If you mean inherited, encoded in our DNA, like hair color, no, I don’t know anyone that is saying that morality is ‘natural’.

“organic and natural religious developments which occurred during the previous millennia”

Not cutting them out, merely pointing out that religious societies and non-religious societies are socially similar as far as morals and laws are concerned. We are not denying that religion has had a significant impact/ stranglehold in our past social definition of right and wrong. We are merely saying that religion didn’t invent that much, they merely co-opted many of those things that already made sense for human and animal communal society. Then each religion tacked on it’s own morals and codes and called the package ‘god’s word’ .
Do you think that when Moses presented “Do not Kill’ and ‘Do not steal’ to his people that they were stunned to hear of such a bizarre concept? Please….

Do you think that when JC’s disciples heard him say ‘be kind to the ill and poor’ that they likewise were baffled by such a freakishly unheard-of idea?

“Do good things and/so others will be good to you?”
We needed the son of a supreme being to tell us that?

“but not facing that in opening things up to the point of a belief in evolution one must call for behaviors and beliefs which religion has never dreamed of”
Like what?

“we do not arrive at man easily being moral without God but have man's actions compared to animals”

We are socially similar. We use animal analogies to demonstrate that even without awareness of god, that there is something in animals, us included, that seems to favor primitive morality. (murder, theft, honest dealings with others, respect for space and property, etc…)
Reason based examination would explain this as social evolution. We can see this by watching animals, it is harder to do with people since there’s too much god in the way.
Over thousands of years, social structures that grew faster and lasted longer were the ones where the climate within the tribe/pack made those things flourish. Tribes with ‘bad’ morality, anarchy, no respect for the lives and property of others would not allow a good, stable environment for social growth and expansion. The stupid/ pointlessly violent/suicidal tribes just did not grow to prominence. These traditions/lessons of safety, security, prosperity were handed down, tinkered with, improved upon, generation after generation… We’re still not done, we’re still not at the finish line… we still have significant cultural disagreements on so called ‘universal morality’ even and especially within ‘closed systems’

"Wrong, the only thing you proved is that you are a fool, end of story."

My, how Christian of you. Love your enemies, indeed.

CCNL writes:
'And keep in mind that the death rate of children under five in peaceful India is 1.9 million/YR. The death of one child is one too many.'

Since many children die in India due to poverty and illnesses its ok to kill couple of millions more using cluster bombs or sanctions in Iraq or Afghanistan.I think this guy need some spiritual lessons

The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 80,625 – 88,048 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

And the statistics about children dying in Iraq due to the economic sanctions and the graft and corruption during the oil for peace program are complex. In some regions of Iraq, the death rate actually went down. And keep in mind that the death rate of children under five in peaceful India is 1.9 million/YR. The death of one child is one too many.

I have 2 thoughts which might be of interest to Chris Everett and Robert B:

This is about little boy who fell into the guerilla enclosure at a zoo a few years ago.

The little boy somehow got himself situated so that he fell from a great height onto the concrete in the guerilla enclosure, and was knocked unconscious, to everyone's horror. It was feared that the guerillas would attack the poor child and tear him limb from limb before any kind of rescue attempt could be made.

But that is not what happened.

Instead, one of the adult female guerrillas gathered up the poor injured child into her arms, and cradled him gently and sweetly as though she knew he was injured, and needed comforting. What a suprise! what a shock!

The child was rescued with no additional injuries. Did the guerilla have a philosphy of morality or ethics? Why was the guerilla kind to the child?

My second thought:

During the Civil War, the South fought for the principle of secession, and the North fought for the principle of perpetual union; they were among the core philosophical values of both sides.

When the war was over, and the South lay defeated at the hands of the victorious North, the South reversed their core principle about secession, and wanted back in the Union as quickly as possible. But likewise, the North reversed their core principle about perpetual union, and sought to keep the Southern states from readmission, until the Constitution could be amended, several times, without Southern input, and so the whole of the Northern program could be passed through Congress, without any Southern interference.

So you see, in a very brief span of time, 2 parties switched their fundamental core values, to make them coincide with the reality and necessity of the moment. They didn't really fight for these "core values" which they abandonned so quickly; they were fighting over alot of other things, including jealousy and regional chauvinism; they were just fighting; that is what people do. Their eloquent reasons for fighting were just an after-thought, their excuse for doing it.

And that is what we all do, on a fairly regular basis, not because we are bad, or ill-intenioned, but because, we operate without any kind of guiding philosphies at all, but we like to tell ourselves that we do.

On the subject of whether one can be moral without a belief in God we need to be very careful in such analysis.

It seems many atheists try to take the biologic route and say that morality is natural, that it naturally arises (and they of course supply examples from the animal world). So we have atheists standing essentially atop of history and against religion--essentially cutting out all the organic and natural religious developments which occurred during the previous millenia--and connecting current man to prehistoric and animal organic developments of morality. The question must be asked why atheists are happy to compare us to animals but are willing to cut out all the religious history of man when anyone can see that the religious history of man is closer to precisely the organic and animal developments...Need I continue? Another problem when getting biological: when we dissolve the religious point of view and begin comparing man to animal life we do not arrive at man easily being moral without God but have man's actions compared to animals--and many animals seem to demonstrate greater moral behavior than man, although these behaviors are instinctive. Many animals also seem to demonstrate worse behavior although these behaviors too are instinctive and it seems silly to blame such animals. Can we really compare our moral life with animals? It seems we must on one hand because so many animals seem so much more moral than we are, but on the other hand it would be silly to blame the purely predatory animals for their life, for they are acting only instinctively. So many tangles...

But perhaps the biggest problem with saying we can be moral without God is that it is based on a misunderstanding of morality as understood by religion. Religions are closed systems and by morality they mean certain behaviors which bring one closer to God or enlightenment, etc. Within these closed systems even questionable actions can be interpreted positively (such as suicide bombers). Now stepping outside such systems--saying there is no God--does not result in some sort of automatic morality without God but rather a heightened consciousness of historical development culminating perhaps in the Darwinian view. With such an extended insight we far from assuming we can be moral without God are thrust into questioning our actions in the light of whether we are slaves to an unconscious biological development (evolution) or whether we must take our evolution into our own hands. But to lean to not taking evolution into our own hands is to fall into a trap of determinism worse than any determinism born of believing in God--and to lean toward taking evolution into our own hands is to inevitably face that our behavior, thought,--everything--now is not good enough, not worthy of being called moral before the great task of having to create ourselves in the evolutionary sense.

What modern atheists seem to be doing is exploding the religious, closed system, but not facing that in opening things up to the point of a belief in evolution one must call for behaviors and beliefs which religion has never dreamed of. Instead atheists seem content to invoke animal examples of morality and have man drifting "morally" like animals, which is to say instinctively--which is not only not being up to the theory of evolution, but seems silly because atheists are willing to have us naturally be moral but are against all the religions of man which are closer temporally to nature and therefore more organic in development than modern, sophisticated atheist man.

Lacey
"precautionary."

I am struggling here... what about 'faith'?

Chris Everett :

I think Lacey just proved the point of THIS discussion! Thanks, Lacey!
```````````````````````

You are welcome, then we should not have to read your "boring judgmental" post from here on, correct???

Temp-pest :

Lacey says:
“It would behoove anyone to fear a living God the holds the power of life and death and controls whether you take your next breath”
And:

"A parent "fears" for there're child crossing a busy street of traffic so it is wise for them to take precautionary measures to ensure the safety of the child, right? Because what parent would place their child in direct danger."

If it is God that holds the power of life and death, then why should a parent fear for the life of their child?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The oberative word was "precautionary." Parents take precautions to ensure the safety of there're child from a possible danger.

As far as I know "all" Gods are superior to man, although I confess that I do not know all the Gods in all religeons, but the majority of Gods have have some sort of power over mankind.

So it would behooves us to take precautions and not make them provoke them to become angry with us. This is plain old common sense which tells us not to provoke danger, get my point??

I think Lacey just proved the point of THIS discussion! Thanks, Lacey!

Athena :

Lacey, I think you just proved the point of this discussion question. Many people change spiritual beliefs because they have outgrown the primal fear of a judgmental, punishing Big Daddy In The Sky.
`````````````````````````````````

Wrong, the only thing you proved is that you are a fool, end of story.

Robert B.
“After all, how can we call something bad if it's just a different way of behaving?”

By ‘bad’ in my anthropological examples, I merely mean things that don’t quite improve things over the long run, no one is sitting in judgment or even keeping score. Once again the rush to determine pure ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ implies that there is a code, law, or governing force. If there is no cosmic or universal right and wrong, then we simply defer, either deliberately (putting my finger in the fire burned my skin and caused great pain so I will warn/teach my children that it is ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ or merely painful.) or perhaps by luck or happenstance or even the demise / weeding out of ‘bad’ behaviors through attrition. (Tribe A tended to defecate in their small local water source, Tribe B did not, the ‘right’ or more successful system killed off fewer people, so tribe B, and their culture grew at a much greater rate, even though these two tribes may have never known about the other, or completely oblivious to the health ramifications of tribe A’s ‘bad’ habits.)

This is sort of why I cringe a little when I hear the term ‘natural selection’ as if someone/something is choosing between the options. I prefer to think of it as ‘natural circumstance’.

“I'm honestly not sure where to draw the line...”
Why do you need to? Isn’t that what a communal society (at least a free and open one) is for?

If you must though, there are a few possible paths to take.

1. With reason. Is there actual harm to society, to the community by having bare-faced women in public places? Is any one’s life, liberty, property, threatened?

2. With theology. Thus it is written: Women walking bare faced in public tempts and arouses the evil Satan in men. Even the THOUGHTS of bare faced women in public is enough to do so and is an abomination in god’s eyes. This is the divine law, this is not open for question. (I am not quoting anything here from any religious belief system, merely posing a hypothetical religious rule)

3. Tradition (Actually 2.A since it is an extension of theology) You were raised to make your bed first thing in the morning after you awaken; you do this every day for thirty years. The only reason you are ever given is “Because that’s the way we do things, that’s the way we have always done things.” You then get married and you discover your wife has no such rules and in fact, thinks your ‘obsession’ is quite cute and silly. However, you feel ‘guilty’ if you do not continue the behavior. Who is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? Who decides? Do you try to convert your wife to your religion? Do you drop yours for hers? (I use this soft ‘Ms. Manners’ example deliberately because it is probably not a health, safety or security issue where the answer would be more a little more obvious)

Bottom line.. Why do we need to lock into ancient codes simply because they are declared ‘absolute’ ? Why not be flexible? Why not actually learn from lessons of history and work to adapt to new ideas and discard some silly ones? Or at least recognize that some things we ourselves do as a habit, or for reasons lost even to ourselves, may not seem ‘normal’ or ‘right’ to others and just choose to not worry about it, nor try to force our beliefs onto others in an attempt to legitimize them?

Robert B,

You write "You see, this is what I don't understand. If morality is a biological primal response, wouldn't everyone naturally be moral? After all, we all naturally like sugar because our tongues evolved in that fashion. Where is my understanding failing here?"

I wrote "We ALMOST ALL like the taste of sugar." I put ALMOST in there because there's no GUARANTEE that everyone likes sugar. Likewise, there's no guarantee that everyone will have the exact same moral sensibility. In fact, it's plain to see that we don't. If you think this somehow contradicts evolution, keep in mind that evolution is statistical - it evolves TENDENCIES but does not eliminate variation (in fact, evolution exists precisely BECAUSE OF variation).

So ALMOST everyone IS moral, in that almost everyone HAS a moral sensibility. (I've read that total sociopaths exist, but they are rare, and as far as I know might just have an outlier moral sensibility rather than a missing one.)

I get the sense that you are unable to let go of the idea of ABSOLUTE morals, even for the sake of argument. Maybe it's because societies codify ethical consensus standards into laws, and then conflate law with ethics. As a result, we think "Thou shall not kill" is a statement of morality, when in fact it's not. It's a statement of law. It's moral force derives from the strength of our primal reaction to murder. But the primal reaction is fundamentally just a gut feeling that has evolved due to the genetic success of our ancestors who felt that way relative to those who didn't, or not as much.

Cris Everett:

I liked what you said:

"Ethical sensibility is a kind of primal response."

I understand that statement; it is what I wanted to say, but perhaps did not say as clearly.

As for universal laws of morality, not only do I not believe in this, I cannot really imagine how this state of affairs could exist. I cannot even begin to comprehend this point of view, so it is difficult for me to say that I respect it. When people speak of these things, I cannot imagine what they could be talking about; it is so alien to my way of loooking at things.

And this is coming from a person raised in a Christian family, who is still, pretty much a Christian. Because, the setting and landscape in which I grew up was twentieth century America, where these concepts of God's immutable laws for man do not coincide with the real world as we now know it to be.

On matters of ethics and morality, I have made some simple observations, which other people should also be able to observe.

I have observed practicing and devout Christians, who are negative, suspicisous defensive, dishonest, and basically difficult in every way.

And then I have observed people with practically no relgious background or training, who glow with optimism, kindness, and perpetual good works, whom I categorize as "people with a good heart."

Daniel wrote:

"I think that you are reading me with a suspicious attitude, because, again, you got something that I did not intend."

I am not so much suspicious as I am easily confused, hence why I keep asking such questions... :)

The paradox of your thinking is mirrored in my own and, I think, virtually everyone else's. Gotta love humanity!

To Chris: "Ethical sensibility is a kind of primal response, like sexuality or taste for food. It is fundamentally bred into us by evolution, although it can also be shaped by cultural influences."

You see, this is what I don't understand. If morality is a biological primal response, wouldn't everyone naturally be moral? After all, we all naturally like sugar because our tongues evolved in that fashion. Where is my understanding failing here?

DITLD,

In view of your last post here's the great Ben Franklin:

"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do."

Robert B,

DITLD says your argument presents a red herring. I say your argument puts the cart before the horse.

Ethical sensibility is a kind of primal response, like sexuality or taste for food. It is fundamentally bred into us by evolution, although it can also be shaped by cultural influences. Like most human characteristics there is a high degree of commonality among different people's ethical sensibilities, although they are by no means identical. We almost all like the taste of sugar. Almost nobody likes the taste of poop. This doesn't mean there are "universal standards" for taste, but the absence of universal standards does not mean that anything tastes as good as anything else.

Likewise with ethical sensibility. The difference is that ethical sensibility relates to interpersonal behavior, and people desire freedom from harm. Ethical STANDARDS arise as a cultural epiphenomenon of the underlying ethical sensibilities of the individuals in a particular culture. Thus they can be considered CONSENSUS standards but they certainly aren't universal or absolute.

Once again I think religion has done a real disservice to the human race, this time by postulating an infinitely authoritarian overlord who is presumably in charge of everything humans should and shouldn't do. As a result, believers in this kind of nonsense are deluded about the nature of ethics in ways that corrupt their own ethical sensibility, justify violations of their neighbors ethical sensibilities, and put them into irreconcilable conflict with even minutely different cultures.

DEFLAW DEMOCRACY

1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". Albright never lost her job for saying this. She continued to travel the world representing the views and aspirations of the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions against Iraq remained in place. Children continued to die.

Robert B said:

"I absolutely agree that some people contemplate morality for self-serving reasons. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't contemplate, does it? I mean, what else is human reason for then?"

I think that you are reading me with a suspicious attitude, because, again, you got something that I did not intend.

I think that we make up our reasons for doing things after we have done them, but I do not think that this is "self-serving;" I think that it is "human nature" for most of us to behave that way. And I do agree with you that contemplating these matters is important; after all, I am one of those people who does it, alot. And I agree with you, that is what our human reason is for.

You will probably note, so I will acknowlege before hand, that this way of thinking is somewhat paradoxical and and not particularly logical or sensible, but what can I say? That is where my personal contemplations have taken me.

Possum wrote: "“Not all bad lessons are discarded, not all good lessons catch on quickly, it is fluid, dynamic and imperfect”"

But doesn't calling it a "bad lesson" imply that there is some independent definition of goodness that transcends culture? After all, how can we call something bad if it's just a different way of behaving?

You're absolutely right on the social taboo issue and I had meant to delete that portion of my last post. Social taboos are often enforced by punitive law. I'm honestly not sure where to draw the line...

Daniel wrote: "But then, we do not really know where anything comes from, now why anything is as it is, do we? So why is a solid and concrete answer to this question so necessary?

I do not think we research these questions so that we can be more moral or better. I think that we research these questions so that we can have some sort of proof to validate the morality that we already have."

I absolutely agree that some people contemplate morality for self-serving reasons. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't contemplate, does it? I mean, what else is human reason for then?

CCNL writes
[ And how long has this blood feud between Sunni and Shiite been going on?? 800 years with about 90,000 Iraqi citizens being butchered in the latest outbreakaths]
Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths-CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

Robert B
“After all, it's the morality of that culture, isn't it?”
Do they do this any more? Why not? Influence from other cultures, from within?
I repeat from the earlier post:
“Not all bad lessons are discarded, not all good lessons catch on quickly, it is fluid, dynamic and imperfect”

It is a serious mistake in understanding to believe that ONLY good, or successful things will always succeed… There are other elements at work.. much like the dinosaurs were just fine for millions of years, an evolutionary success in every way... until a comet hit the earth.. oops..
Also, consider things like ear wax in humans….there are two kinds.. if biological evolution was perfectly mono-linear there would only be one type, same for race, etc. Cultural evolution is not single threaded or linear or perfect either, and it can be changed and influenced by external factors.

“Do we imprison those who break wind at funerals”

… Prisons are built for people who violate specific codes that have been deemed ‘illegal’ by a culture, government or some other social system. Though prison-able infractions vary from culture to culture, place to place as well.
We don’t throw people in prison for adultery, viewing pornography, lying to our spouses, taking the lords name in vain….but then again some cultures do…. One cultures ‘moral taboo’ and laws are another’s “What’s the big deal?” Perfect example Islamic laws regarding female public dress, we Americans just don’t get what all the fuss is about… yet in their culture, it is a VERY big deal.
The difference you ‘detect’ between law and morality and social taboo, are entirely based on who you are and how you have come to be that person, the people, places and things you have experienced.

To Possum --

You responded: "“can we actually call any behavior moral” Morality is indeed relative… the same way left and right are relative. For those that dismiss ‘moral relativity’ as a sinful notion, or impossible standard, I say Pshaw! The ‘Moral’ are constantly pointing out that ‘other people’ are not moral. So morality is apparently not fixed or universal among cultures and creeds."

Your response regarding moral relativism puts me very much in mind of a anecdote that Benjamin Franklin related in his autobiography regarding his own moral development. There was a time when Franklin believed that everything was pre-ordained by God and that, hence, no action that human beings take can rightly be called evil. This attitude lasted until one of his friends used this thinking to refuse to pay back some money that Franklin had loaned him. On pondering this, Franklin concluded that (I'm paraphrasing here) though this view might be correct, it certainly was not useful.

My point is that we might see morals as relative in the abstract, but when a concrete action takes place that offends our moral sensibilities, we are all to ready to rely on the concept of universal standards. Now, where those standards come from is a matter for debate. If it is purely cultural, as you seem to indicate, then can we be justified in judging the actions of, say, eighteenth century Hindus who threw the wives of dead men onto their husband's funeral pyres? After all, it's the morality of that culture, isn't it?

You also brought up the idea of social taboos having moral force. To me, the two are rather different. Do we imprison those who break wind at funerals? Miss Manners might like to, but I have yet to see such a law be enacted. Do we imprison those who commit murder? We certainly do. Would we be

Robert B

The comment from "Daniel (not that other guy, Dan" was really me. I used that name ONE time, but now it is in my "auto-complete" list and I clicked on it by mistake.

Remember George Jetson's famous quote: "Jane! Stop this crazy thing!"

That is how I sometimes feel about the computer.

Robert B,

Here is one of Aquinas' five proofs of the existence of God. I found a critique of it and the other four at http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/2007/10/five-ways-of-aquinas_07.html.

I. First Way: The Argument from Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:

1) Nothing can move itself.

2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.

3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God

Robert B

To answer your question more exactly, I do not know where morality comes from nor why we have a sense of morality. That is a mystery.

But then, we do not really know where anything comes from, now why anything is as it is, do we? So why is a solid and concrete answer to this question so necessary?

I do not think we research these questions so that we can be more moral or better. I think that we research these questions so that we can have some sort of proof to validate the morality that we already have.

Lacey says:
“It would behoove anyone to fear a living God the holds the power of life and death and controls whether you take your next breath”
And:

"A parent "fears" for there're child crossing a busy street of traffic so it is wise for them to take precautionary measures to ensure the safety of the child, right? Because what parent would place their child in direct danger."

If it is God that holds the power of life and death, then why should a parent fear for the life of their child?

DEB CHATTERJEE writes
[However, there is not a single society that is free from racial/social discrimination, and including your religion Islam. So, what gives ?]

Bangladeshis are dalit converted muslims.They got their own country when converted to Islam.

This is what dalits in India have to say.

India’s Black Untouchables forming about 20% of its 1,120 million population continue to be the slaves being victims of its reigning religion of Hinduism

http://www.dalitvoice.org/Templates/july_a2007/articles.htm

Dear Robert B

When I said that your question was a "red herring," I did not mean that you were trying to trick me or trap me. I am very sorry if that is how it seemed.

I meant, that in my opinion, you have a mistaken idea, and the question shows your mistake. I understand that you were sincere, in your question.

That was just my impression and opinion.

To Daniel --

You wrote: "I think your question is a "red herring." To make sure that I am using the right term, I looked it up and read that a "red herring is something used to divert attention from the basic issue.""

Why would I want to do that? If I had not wanted an honest answer, I would never have asked the question in the first place. Do you think that I was trying to trap you or others? Please understand that I was completely honest in my question. I'm not here to play "Gotcha!"; I want to discuss this issue honestly and openly.

You also wrote: "The basic issue is that people come to adulthood with a built-in sense of morality. If they ever get around to analyzing the source or the foundation of their moral beliefs and conduct, it is not for the purpose of changing their basic and fundamental nature, it is more of a parlor game, a mental excercise that the spiritually inclined, or the philosophically inclined like to engage in."

This is an interesting approach, but it doesn't really deal with my original question of standards by which we judge the morality of certain acts. Your points about cultural, experiential, and even biological factors in shaping morality are quite valid. But to say that we have "a built-in sense of morality" says very little about what acts are considered moral and why. My question deals with *why* people see certain acts as moral or immoral, regardless of the culture and experiences of the individual that perpetrates the act.

Perhaps a more concrete example is necessary here. I think most of us here feel a moral revulsion at the thought of someone murdering innocent people. So, when we see suicide bombings in places like Iraq, we judge these acts to be immoral. Do we judge them to be immoral because that's what we've been taught, or do we judge them to be immoral because they are somehow fundamentally wrong?

As for your contention that self-examination as a "parlor game" with little real effect on the person doing it, we will need to be content with agreeing to disagree.

Robert B.
“but what do you all think about natural law and human morality? Specifically, I'd like to hear what the atheists among us think about this question.”

“where do these standards come from? Are they biological? If so, how does that work? Are they purely cultural? If so, can we actually call any behavior moral?”

'Daniel in the lions den' did a very good job explaining this… “Natural Law” does not exist as a fixed entity. A law in this sense implies some form of enforcement, and that there is some force overseeing justice. Natural law is indeed a mere philosophical construct.

I have used this analogy before, but will repeat it in parts to elaborate.
If you are an atheist, stranded alone on an island, with no reasonable expectation of rescue, ‘morality’ is moot. There is no one to judge your behavior. No one will shun you, even if you decide to poison your own water source, kill all the animals and cut down all the trees. You will not be castigated for personal self-gratification, or ogling a porno magazine that washed ashore, or screaming obscenities. You can speak or write any words you wish, declare hatred for anything you like, relieve yourself on the open beach, no one cares, your morality is entirely what you make it.
If, however, someone else were stranded on that same island with you, a stranger, a friend, whatever, things quickly change. No longer are your morals, or lack thereof, all that matters. It is likely that if you saw the other castaway burning down the jungle, you would take issue, and vise verse. It is highly likely, inevitable, that you and the other castaway would attempt to form agreements on communal behavior. There will be compromises, but there will always be a goal, mutual harmony. Unless you just kill the other castaway, which is an option, but if you do so there is no civilization. No primitive tribe can likely progress with anarchy as a basis. Not because an enforcer has ruled it inappropriate, but because it simply does not provide the communal stability to prosper or procreate.
As more and more people are added to this model, more and more codes of conduct become necessary for success. Once again, this is not prescribed by cosmic law, it will quite simply arise out of need. Those communities with reasonable codes of conduct, those that actually lead to growth, health, and procreation, will grow and prosper.
A baby born into a mature, successful ‘culture’ will learn these codes, written or not, simply by growing up in that culture. The child may not in fact be aware that it is learning how to behave.
This is, at least in part, how we, all of us have learned ‘natural law, or ‘common sense’. There maybe some heredity involved, instinct, or biology, if you will, but I’m no expert on such things. The method is the same.. successful traits will be dominant, more likely to thrive in greater numbers.

“can we actually call any behavior moral” Morality is indeed relative… the same way left and right are relative. For those that dismiss ‘moral relativity’ as a sinful notion, or impossible standard, I say Pshaw!
The ‘Moral’ are constantly pointing out that ‘other people’ are not moral. So morality is apparently not fixed or universal among cultures and creeds.

You already live, breathe and exercise moral relativity:

Audible flatulence is considered by many as a social taboo, which suggests a moral position.
However, sitting alone in your recliner, by yourself.. is it more or less moral than if you are at a funeral?
Do your walk around in your underpants? Alone? Around family? At work? The ‘morality’ of this same behavior changes significantly with the situation.
“Natural law” as well is relative, therefore not a ‘law’ at all. Any such concepts, such as common courtesy, common decency, including ‘tradition’ arise from communal intercourse, trial and error style, and then are passed down through generations simply by living within that culture. Not all bad lessons are discarded, not all good lessons catch on quickly, it is fluid, dynamic and imperfect.

What a wonder reading this thread! Philosophers, Theologians, Scientists and Bible Beaters. Eyes turned towards the mind, eyes turned towards nature, eyes turned towards scripture. What do they see?

Athena wrote, "Mike,

I serve my Gods out of love, not fear."
```````````````````````````````````

It would behoove anyone to fear a living God the holds the power of life and death and controls whether you take your next breath.

Fearing is the beginning of wisdom in the same way that you would not place yourself in a state of danger to provoke harm to yourself this is wisdom.

A parent "fears" for there're child crossing a busy street of traffic so it is wise for them to take precautionary measures to ensure the safety of the child, right? Because what parent would place their child in direct danger.

So it is with God, knowing the power he holds it would be wise not to provoke him to anger as stated in the scriptures below,

Hebrews 10: 26-31, (26) For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. (31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Robet B said

"My question is this: where do these standards come from? Are they biological? If so, how does that work? Are they purely cultural? If so, can we actually call any behavior moral?"

I think your question is a "red herring." To make sure that I am using the right term, I looked it up and read that a "red herring is something used to divert attention from the basic issue."

The basic issue is that people come to adulthood with a built-in sense of morality. If they ever get around to analyzing the source or the foundation of their moral beliefs and conduct, it is not for the purpose of changing their basic and fundamental nature, it is more of a parlor game, a mental excercise that the spiritually inclined, or the philosophically inclined like to engage in.

The person that you become is contingent upon many things, (some would say, luck or chance) the setting into which you were born, that is, all of the cultural heritage that you acquire in your growing-up years, as well as the landscape of your life, all of the physical world that you encounter. And also, your physical body, which includes your brain, which you discover, ready-made, and which you have no control in choosing.

If you happen to live in a society that is ruled by reasonable laws which are generally well-respected, then you might get alot of your moral grounding from that simple fact. But such societies evolve and grow over centuries, with alot of strife, warfare, and violence that must lay the ground work and foundation for the utlimately more peaceful and orderly rule of law.

In addition, much of a person's morality and sense of ethics comes from some inner and mysterious quality, which I do not understand and cannot explain. It is like sexual orientation, or intensity of sensual desire; it varies alot from person to person, according to the way in which they are physically made. Like a person's inner will, it is as it is, and expresses itself in a person's life as it will, impervious to exterior control or modification.

I do not think that personal morality comes from church or religion. I do not think that requires alot of arguing to prove; it is pretty noticeable for anyone who cares to notice.

Mike,

I serve my Gods out of love, not fear.

TJ (and others) -

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Proverbs 1:7

I do embrace this verse from Proverbs. I understand how you don't understand this. And it's not surprising to me if you portray this belief as primitive and ignorant. No doubt you'd say this fear drives people to embrace superstition. However, God's Spirit testifies to me differently. And I'm sure no matter how long I attempt to convince you that this is true - it'd be a futile attempt unless God intervenes and reveals himself to you personally. Barring that intervention, it would be even more difficult for you to understand how believers come to love God who they initially fear.

I think I understand how atheists think of their everyday existence. At one point in my life, I wasn't far removed from your reasoning. I wasn't particularly happy then. An obvious argument from you might be that whatever “sadness” I was feeling back then, drove me to a counterfeit faith, enabling me to find a purpose – a psychological self-defense mechanism of some kind. I’m not the brightest guy around, but I’m not so stupid (or smart) to create a false God. God spoke to me. You may scoff, but I’m confident that He’ll speak to you too. But here’s the thing. You can’t approach a Holy and Righteous God as an intellectual. You have to get on your knees and approach Him as the child you are. Again, in the end, it’s all about pride (or humility, for those who actually seek Him)…

Dear Daniel --

Thank you for your answer to my question. Would you please elaborate on what you mean by this comment:

"What people mistake for natural law is really what I would call book keeping techniques, to keep track of the many patterns that we notice in our impressions of an ordered world. There is no natural law that has any real validity in science; even more so is there no natural law that governs human morality."

If I understand the gist of your post (and if I don't, please let me know), we both agree that there are certain standards for human behavior (whether they can be proved scientifically or not). My question is this: where do these standards come from? Are they biological? If so, how does that work? Are they purely cultural? If so, can we actually call any behavior moral?

TJ (and others) -

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Proverbs 1:7

I do embrace this verse from Proverbs. I understand how you don't understand this. And it's not surprising to me if you portray this belief as primitive and ignorant. No doubt you'd say this fear drives people to embrace superstition. However, God's Spirit testifies to me differently. And I'm sure no matter how long I attempt to convince you that this is true - it'd be a futile attempt unless God intervenes and reveals himself to you personally. Barring that intervention, it would be even more difficult for you to understand how believers come to love God who they initially fear.

I think I understand how atheists think of their everyday existence. At one point in my life, I wasn't far removed from your reasoning. I wasn't particularly happy then. An obvious argument from you might be that whatever “sadness” I was feeling back then, drove me to a counterfeit faith, enabling me to find a purpose – a psychological self-defense mechanism of some kind. I’m not the brightest guy around, but I’m not so stupid (or smart) to create a false God. God spoke to me. You may scoff, but I’m confident that He’ll speak to you too. But here’s the thing. You can’t approach a Holy and Righteous God as an intellectual. You have to get on your knees and approach Him as the child you are. Again, in the end, it’s all about pride (or humility, for those who actually seek Him)…

Robert B asks for some opinions on "natural law."

I do not think there is any such thing as natural law, neither as it might apply to physics and chemistry and the nature of the world, nor to human motivations, behavior, and ethics.

In science, natural law was a speculative philosophical assumption, an eighteenth century reaction to the outstanding successes of science. But science itself does not require any such speculation on natural law, in order to opereate successfully. There is no scientific theory of natural law, it is not required for the success or failures of any experiments, and there is, in fact no experiment nor observation that proves the existence of natural law. The existence of natural is just as speculative as the existence of God.

What people mistake for natural law is really what I would call book keeping techniques, to keep track of the many patterns that we notice in our impressions of an ordered world. There is no natural law that has any real validity in science; even more so is there no natural law that governs human morality.

Since there is no natural law, then it is pointless to use the existence of natural law to "prove" the existence of God and the intelligent designer. Of these things we have no knowledge, and by the very nature of the way in which our consiousness operates in this ordered world, we cannot ever know of such things.

I believe many things; I know few things; one thing that I know is that I have impressions of order, and that I, myself, am a focussed reflection of this order. This order is focussed in my consiousness, so that I may navigate my way in life through the order of this world.

Enough about that.

I believe that the main problem with religion is that it is a group of possibly very contemplative people, who write down complex theologies, in the name of God, and then persuade people to follow them, and to believe that these man-made theologies were written by God.

There are many relgious people who live what I would call immoral lives, and whom I would judge to be very bad people. And there are many atheistic people whom I would judge to be moral and good. I base this purely on my daily observations. It is something, other than belief in God or un-belief, that leads and guides people in their moral lives.

The setting and the landscape into which a person is born is more of a determiner of one's personal morality, as well as a basic inner predisposition, the nature of which is not easy to discern or understand.

By the time one reaches adulthood, a person has a sort of morality and ethics already built-in and there is not much use in trying to figure out the motivations of ethics; personal ethics is bound up with a person's personality, and inner will.

Laughing out loud again!! Ah that felt good!! The outburst occurred when I read the "reality challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist said she denounces the caste system even though she believes that her Islamic Sunni class/caste is so much better that the Islamic Shiites. Hmmm, let us check the statistics. Ahh, there it is about 200 million Muslims are Shiites whereas the rest of the billion or so believers in flawed Islam numbers about 800 million.

And how long has this blood feud between Sunni and Shiite been going on?? 800 years with about 90,000 Iraqi citizens being butchered in the latest outbreak.

Daniel in Lion's den wrote:

"As I progress down this road of thought, I am more and more noticing an irony; that the seeminly most religious of people are the ones who are the most apathetic towards religion and science."

I agree whoelheartedly. What are we coming down to ? Fanatical, blood thirsty megalomaniacs ? If I had all the power, I'd impose a ban on organized religions ! If we had the wisdom to spend our precious and limited time and resources on science, that which has been spent in promoting the virtues of organized religion, the whole human race would have been different !

Lepidopteryx wrote:

"One of the many reasons I left Christianity was that I was constantly being chastized for questioning doctrines and scriptures that seemed to contradict themselves or just plain didn't make sense to me. I was told that I didn't need to understand it, I just needed to believe it."

I faced the same problem with the Brahmanical Hindu orthodoxy. I had told my family elders to take a hike or go to hell. Indeed, I quoted Rene Descartes, "COGITO, ERGO SUM " (I think, therefore I am), and politely, sometimes impolitely, told them to shut up or put up with what I am doing. I did not change my ancestral Hindu faith, which still serves as the foundation of my spiritual existence.

Dear Jihadist,

Caste system is certainly a social problem in that it discriminates. However, I fail to see how changing religion makes that social discrimination go away as a Divine blessing. I mostly agree with your views on aspects of Dalits/Harijans in India. However, there is not a single society that is free from racial/social discrimination, and including your religion Islam. So, what gives ?

Aquinas the Executioner

Robert B responds to my noting Aquinas's enthusiastic endorsement of burning heretics at the stake by writing
"Yes, Henry, it's the same Aquinas. Just like the same Karl Marx (whom Deb both denounces in her las post) wrote the comment "Religion is the opiate of the masses.", which she embraces.
Anyone can cherry pick a text and then denounce the whole. Real thinkers look at the good and the bad elements of a text and THEN make a judgment regarding the author."

Citing Aquinas' detailed support of burning heretics is Cherry Picking? Just a minor smudge on his moral position?????
And equatable with "religion is the opiate of the people?" Are you Kidding Robert.

Person 1 says: Religious people are deluded.
Person 2 says: burn to death those who question their faith.

And you think those two positions are Morally equivlent? Aquinas's defenses were monstrous.

Deb Chatterjee,

Hello old friend. It is not often you visit the main thread.

I noted that you are of the Brahmin caste. Well, there are Boston Brahmins.

You stated : "Indeed ALL organized religions (creed) have skeletons in their closet."

We would love to hear your views on dalits/harijans. Some 160 million to 250 million in India. Never mind the goverment formulate laws to protect them and have special quotas for them, but this is one skeleton in the India/Hindu closets that is too well know in Asia and not so in the United States and west at all.

Is institutionalised religion based, culture based "racism" within the same cultural/religious group acceptable?

Some 150 million to some 250 million dalits/harijans is too huge a number. Any wonder why Christianity is making headway in India among those of the lower castes? The dalits/harijans are lower in status than pariahs.

An Indian is only free from such in-group discrimination once he migrate to other countries or switch religion as in India. Country switching and religion switching to escape such institionalised "in-group" discrimination.

One don't need to believe in a Divine Truth to see what is happening on this. Dalits/harijans are one of those issues swept under the carpet in India or rationalised away brilliantly. It does not take a genius to see the obvious - the best educated group in India are of the Brahmin caste for they have historical access to it, but not dalits/harijans. So, all the elites are mostly from the upper castes in India.

Hopefully, the dalits/harijans with quotas and access by law instituted by the Indian goverment will change their state and status. In the meantime, what I read in Indian newspapers and my Indian Brahmin friends the last time I was in India is to hear their complaints about "reverse discrimination". Three thousand years of discrimination on the lower castes is longer.

By the way, Muslims and Islam, Christians and Christianity, has nothing to do with making dalits/harijans the way they are. So, this is certainly one area you can't blame Islam and Muslims, or Christians and Christianity on.

As you stated : "I myself am not (an atheist), but I have no patience for organized religion. Organized religion is a political platform rather than a conduit to elevate one's inner spiritual self."

So, we hope you will do something about organised or institutionalised Hinduism with regard to the rights of dalits/harijans as people. Activism and reform begin internally.

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Thanks for your response Chris -

Curiously, we find that decoherance, a concept originated by David Bohm in the 1950's was used later by Kent Everett to postulate the many-worlds theorem as an alternative to the idea of the wave function collapse found in the Copenhagen interpretation. The many worlds interpretation removes consciousness from the mix and kicks the 'observer effect' to the curb.

Thus, the parallel or overlayed superpositions are infinite until an interaction with micro-elements of the physical environment occur - since these transitions apparently take place in nanoseconds or faster, we don't witness the changes in an apparently stable material universe (things actually coming into being from a probability state, that is).

I find Fred Alan Wolf's book 'Parallel Universes' fascinating but pretty hard to wade through in places. He covers this position.

From a layman's point of view, the world continues to renew itself on a more or less continuous basis from instant to instant, if we can believe what quantum mechanics tells us - irrespective of interpretation. In a very real sense then, something is always coming into being from nothing. Pure space allows everything to happen.

Interesting that Buddhism had this insight 2500 years ago.....however, in the Buddhist view, pure awareness is considered a primary and integral part of the equation.

regards -

I always find discussions of morality and religion very fascinating. For myself, I believe that religion can be a good (perhaps the best) method of moral instruction. This does not mean, of course, that all people who claim to be religious are moral. I also believe that atheists and agnostics can live moral lives, since morality can be based on purely philosophical grounds (that is, belief in natural law).

It's the concept of natural law that I find fascinating. If we posit that there are standards of morality that not purely invented by humanity (that is, if we reject moral relativism), then I think that we have to consider what the source of those standards are. The source cannot simply be man, since man would then be able to alter the natural law (that is, make immoral acts moral and vice-versa), which would lead to the aforementioned moral relativism. For me, the existence of natural law strongly implies a Legislator of some kind.

I realize that this is off-topic, but what do you all think about natural law and human morality? Specifically, I'd like to hear what the atheists among us think about this question.

To all you people discussing whether one can be moral without a belief in God, are you really sure you want to get into an argument about that?

Religions are so sure they have the monopoly on morality because they are essentially non-historical structures--they assume they know exactly what existence is and how man should act for the particular end which they believe in. There is, once again, no historical development--the particular religion is expected to exist in virtually the same form from beginning to the end of existence.

Now stepping out of such religious views into the historical we indeed see that religions have no monopoly on morality, but we enter a terrible problem--especially if increased by beliefs such as the belief in evolution according to Darwin. The historical tests whatever morality man might have, and the more deeply historical we become the more we find man essentially with no fixed morality--essentially amoral--and when we increase the distance to contemplating theories such as evolution we have the flat out immorality of millions of changes for we which have no clear direction--a moral direction--out of. Proof of that is that man has yet to figure out how to morally take evolution into his own hands. We right now can breed humans like we do animals--we can improve the human species--but what person would suggest we breed humans--improve the species--like we do dogs or horses?

We are still stuck with the morality given us by the religious ages whether we are religious or not. We are not up to conceiving let alone acting on a morality which would enable us take our evolution into our own hands. Religions give us the illusion we are moral enough by their non-historical views, but the non-religious foolishly tell us we can be moral without God when really we are surrounded by a profoundly complex existence which asks if we have ever really taken a step toward morality at all. For after all, what is our morality so far before the blindness of evolution and the demand that we take our evolution into our own hands?

Both the religious and the atheists are shortsighted on this problem.

Gah. Everett.

Chris Everret writes: "(Less if you allow that atheists are more capable of evading law enforcement.)"

Let's not forgot about the 4 or 5 that Colson snagged. ;)

Thanks for contributing to Mike's question. You too Possum. I've enjoyed reading both of your comments on the topic.

More than four in ten Americans have switched their religious affiliation since childhood. Is this a mark of the health or sickness of American religion?

I would say it is potentially the sickness of both religion and non-religion unless examined carefully. The reason I say such is that it seems in American life a particular concept is arising more and more which is very difficult to grasp and live by whether one is religious or not. This concept is that there is never a fixed position in life, that one must perpetually adapt--that in fact in its ultimate form the human race must perpetually be genetically altered toward...God?

The great problem with organized religion is that it worships something of a fixed point, whether it be called God or nirvana or whatever and of course immediately erects structures (institutions, etc.) which are quite fixed as if immediately deciding what the fixed point means, and this results of course in immediately "knowing" exactly the behavior and mentality of the truly religious person--and of course these structures are destined to collapse on the shifting sands of life for prematurely believing the end of existence is understood...

But the non-religious life is no better in the U.S. It would seem as if the non-religious life would be more fluid, adaptable (not least because of always sounding the din of the theory of evolution in our ears), but, no, the non-religious life has settled into secular humanism, believes it knows just like any religion the perfect type of man, the perfect type of society (the radical egalitarian type). In a sense the non-religious life is more ridiculous than the religious. The great religions are well aware they are losing adherents, that there is change opposed to their "stability", but the non-religious believe change is on their side, that change favors precisely their pet theories of social organization, etc. Permit me a moment of laughter.

Obviously if a person has any sense at all he will reflect on simply the concept of change. Obviously if the concept of change is fully understood and religion wants to survive it will adapt to change, have church, etc. not founded on a rock but something like an ark, something mobile, adaptable--and ultimately we have man engaged in not just altering himself toward God by behavior changes, etc. within his own existence, but using science to genetically change himself perpetually in perpetual approximation of an always receding, fixed and divine point which he calls God.

As for the non-religious, supposing they truly are willing to embrace theories such as evolution, the above also applies. In fact how can they get away from religion, belief in God, expressed in such a fashion? They cannot--unless they want to say man must take his own evolution into his hands and evolve into something which is not God, something which perpetually steers away from any conception of God...And...

I have to admit on second thought I like that idea, the idea of man taking evolution into his own hands and perpetually steering away from all conceptions of God, never believing he is God...

We must do both: take evolution into our hands--embrace change, never be fixed--and evolve ourselves toward God--be religious in this sense. But we must simultaneously be non-religious and never believe in our changes that we have arrived at God--we must in fact steer away from God, perpetually discount a belief in god. Paradoxical, yes, and I apologize for lack of clarity, but there you have it.

A politics and religion of change. This is the demand of our American life.

Deb,

People don't necessarily change religions because they are weak and can't think for themselves. One of the many reasons I left Christianity was that I was constantly being chastized for questioning doctrines and scriptures that seemed to contradict themselves or just plain didn't make sense to me. I was told that I didn't need to understand it, I just needed to believe it.

Unlike the Red Queen, I can't believe six impossible things before breakfast.

I found that there was no single pre-fabricated path that met all my needs, but that many paths offered me partial answers. So I learned to take what wisdom I find wherever I find it. Call it cafeteris religion if you like - but it allows me to feed my soul a spiritually balanced diet, and my once-starving soul is now thriving.

Mike:
“Why be ethical? Is it because it’s the "right" thing to do? Who gets to define what is right? How do you know what is ethical and what is not? Is it common sense? And if it is, what or who created that common sense in each individual?”

Pardon me for jumping in TJ certainly doesn’t need my help, but you pose very good questions and actually seem to want to hear answers.

“Why be ethical?” For the same reason I check the water temperature before stepping into the shower, the same reason I park my car in pretty much the same spot every day even when other spots are available, because most of the time it just works out better to do so. It is not a matter of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Who defines right/wrong? Situations define their own right/wrong. It’s perfectly reasonable, right, to approach a woman in a singles bar and ask her if she’s available for a date, likes to party, has a cute girlfriend, or dates guys… but doing so in a formal office or at a stranger’s funeral would generally, if not specifically be considered ‘wrong’.
We have laws for the big things, murder, theft etc. they vary, though mostly in degrees, from place to place.
For the little things though, it’s just not that hard to figure out. What is the apparent acceptable behavior where you are standing, at work, at home, at your parent’s house, alone in your basement? It varies.
A key and glorious factor about being an atheist is the freedom of the mind. There are no ‘right’ thoughts’ or ‘wrong thoughts’. Merely thinking something carries no penalty, guilt or fear. It is only our ACTIONS that matter.

“Is it common sense? And if it is, what or who created that common sense in each individual”
It is learned. (though sometimes quite poorly.) You need not study only humans for this. Dogs are pack animals, they recognize structure, enforce boundaries of behavior, share for the common good, all without being aware of rules/commandments , right and wrong, morality, ethics or fear of eternal damnation. Humans are also social animals. We current survivors of evolution come from thousands of years of success through cooperation rather than brute force. We are born quite stupid, but even in our infancy we seek out and recognize basic good and bad, rules and boundaries, and even recognize subtle moral relativity in social interactions.

“There would be no consequence for any bad behavior”
Look once again to the dog pack. There are plenty of consequences for bad behavior in these soul-less animals. The same can be said about people. Even if you were to move into an apartment with, say four other guys, One of them blind, one deaf, the other two from different non-english-speaking countries, one perhaps an aborigine.. whatever… how long would it be, even without cracking open any of the various sacred texts to be found, before you guys had established a common social / moral code?
Alone on an island, there is no sin, there is no right wrong, period. However, as soon as someone else shows up on that island, guess what.. you have to come to some agreements…. Moral codes… when thousands of people show up you establish communities, laws and courts…. It really is just that simple.

Mike,

Christians make up 75% of the U.S. population and 75% of the prison population. Atheists make up 10% of the U.S. population and 0.2% of the prison population (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997).

Ethics are part of our evolutionary heritage as social animals. Recognition of this fact puts us in harmony with the truth and encourages us to cultivate our own ethical sense, allowing our ethics to flourish. Belief in a theological origin of ethics, particularly one that is communicated scripturally or through some other form of external authority, is actually DAMAGING to our ethical sense, since it replaces ethics with a list of prehistoric taboos. What's worse, the inclusion of bribes and threats, in the form of heaven and hell, undermine the very notion of ethics, replacing it with a delusional form of transcendental selfishness. No wonder Christians are 7 times more likely to be criminally unethical! (Less if you allow that atheists are more capable of evading law enforcement.)

Complexity,

I don't have an articulate response yet. There are many factors, and I'm not absolutely committed either way, but the scientific success of the materialistic paradigm, the (presumed by materialists) existence of other minds, the correlation between neurological complexity and the (inferred) sophistication of consciousness all play a part.

I need to learn something about quantum decoherence. I never studied it but my understanding is that it provides a resolution of the measurement problem.

For Complexity

You asked Chris Everett, why he is a materialist. What is a materialist, and why do you think he is a materialist? He and I have exchanged a number of comments, but that term "materialist" has never come up.

Deb Chatterjee wrote:

"There is something that I fail to understand about human nature. It is this: in face of mounting, verifiable evidence many choose to ignore the truth."

Religions are ruled by theology, which are the written opinions of other people on religeous matters. In the past, adherence to these theological scipts was coerced, and it was easier to comply with "belief" than resist with doubt and freedom of speech, and thought.

People encounter the religion handed to them, they do not "believe" it; many people are apathetic about all knowlege; they do not "know" anything, but they just exist, and live, without knowledge, without consistency, nor logic, in how things are or should be.

The inherited beliefs of religions form the setting and the landscape in which we live. But the rise of science, with all of its abundance and utility, also forms the setting and landscape of our lives. In experiencing religion and science, in apathy and without thought, it is therefore not necessary to make them reconciled, since that would require an interest in the conflict, and a desire to make consistencies out of inconsisitencies.

That is how people can say, "Yes science is wonderful, I love science and all of its utility"; and then turn away from science in religious belief that negates science. This is apathy towards knowledge. It is an almost animal quality;

As I progress down this road of thought, I am more and more noticing an irony; that the seeminly most religious of people are the ones who are the most apathetic towards religion and science.

I cannot help but notice how Cal Thomas writes essays about his faith in almost catatonic tones of apathy; he doesn't care, not at all. When any person has mistakenly focussed all of the attention and interest on a single point of dubious validity, then they become apathetic about all else.

I started thinking about this because someone on this thread, earlier, mentioned that people keep changing religions because they are apathetic.

Some people have a natural predisposition to think about spiritual things, and religion. Some people have a natural predispostion to write down complex theology and then try to persuade or coerce others that it is true. Other people are apathetic, and want just to exist in careless, animalistic apathy.

Chris Everett wrote: "Aquinas' basic claim to fame is that he changed the church's view of reason from an untrustworthy tool of the devil to something that could, given sufficient torturing, be pressed into the service of religious apology."

Chris, could you please provide us with a specific example of Aquinas's "tortured" logic? I think it would be an interesting exercise to take a look at it.

To Deb:

Forgive my ignorance regarding your sex. I meant no disrespect. I see "Deb"; I think Debra... :)

As for your post regarding Islam, I will ponder your position further, as I must be getting along to a class.

Mike writes: "Still, you do embrace "all of the good universal laws" and the idea of being "ethical". I find that interesting. I have to ask, why? Why be ethical? Is it because it’s the "right" thing to do? Who gets to define what is right? How do you know what is ethical and what is not? Is it common sense? And if it is, what or who created that common sense in each individual?

Good questions all Mike. I was reared in a Christian household and I freely admit that many of my ethical codes can be found there. However, all of the ethical codes that can be found in the bible can be found elsewhere too. At the same time, I find much in the bible to be thoroughly unethical. I've discarded those parts therefore.

As for why, isn't that answered for you already in the golden rule?

And a follow up question for you.. many animals demonstrate what we'd call rudimentary ethical behavior. Where do their ethics come from Mike?

and continues: "As for me, I’d rather be a janitor in God’s kingdom and accept His gift freely and with joy, then to stand before Him one day with my pride, logic and reasoning, explaining vainly why I never thought He existed."

Oh not me. If I'm wrong and I have to stand before a deity to explain myself, I will do so eagerly. You see Mike, I'm not afraid. That's the difference between us I think.

My post just below was actually meant to be addressed to Chris Everett, but somehow I managed to send it to myself - not a very auspicious sign. Anyway, for your review Chris.....

Why are you a materialist?

I'm often impressed by your posts as are other posters here. Now as a non-materialist, I'm asking you as a physicist to define briefly why you think there is such a thing as 'material' reality?? You say you don't necessarily like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (ie. uncertainty and non-locality) and I'm sure you're not a many-worlder either (I'm fond of this idea).

These ideas do seem to point toward a non-material basis for the reality that we think we know so well. Einstein apparently never did warm up to quantum mechanics, believing it to be incomplete, if not downright incorrect. Today we read where it's the most infallible method of prediction that we have.

So how do you account for the fact that all this stuff hangs together in a countless assemblege of perfectly and imperfectly shaped forms?? Why is it that atoms just happen to hang together to give 'substance' to all the infinite variety of objects in the known and unknown universe? I don't think gravity and the strong and weak atomic forces found in matter tells us definitively why this is so. Somehow the atoms that comprise individual objects maintain a common 'identity' that gives rise to tables, chairs, cars, people, et al. Another mystery!

Physicist Amit Goswami argues that Consciousness is the x-factor that causes phenomenal existence to manifest - so for him, that's what is behind the famous 'observer effect' seen in the particle/wave duality phenomenon. He argues against David Bohm's idea of 'unidentified factors' that cause this to happen - e.g. seen in Bohm's ideas of the Implicate and Explicate order.

I do like Bohm's idea of a holographic universe and I'm surprised more has not been done on the brain as a quantum computer capable of holographic imagery (eg. dreaming and imagination as two examples of possible holographic functions). The fact that atomic matter can exist as both particles and waves seems mysterious to the uninitiated.

Plain ordinary objects seem deeply mysterious to me - when they are dismantled and reduced to their most fundamental, essential parts, you pretty much have nothing - at that point you're talking about 'forces' and 'principles' and probabilities, but seeming nothing that resembles even the most infinitesimal particles - as Nagarjuna the Buddhist dialectician pointed out in the 3rd century AD.

This mystery does get down to the 'spiritual' foundations of materiality - that is a question worth asking. I agree with the Buddhist idea that the 'substance' of ordinary everyday 'material' reality is quite beyond words, concepts, or religion. Thus far it has never been explained in anything other than relative terms, useful though these may be. We look to science and religion for ideas, but what we get is 'relativity' - why Einstein was a materialist still confounds me.

Religionists believe otherwise, and that's part of the problem with religion. I know only slightly more about Buddhism than I know about physics, but it's fun to cobble my own ideas together anyway.

So my question is a sincere one - why are you a materialist?

best regards -

We are beginning a new enlightenment...call it what you will, a new age is dawning. The ideologies of the old age are crystalized and dying. People are no longer interested in dead ideologies. The new energies will inspire people to build new structures for expressing the new consciousness which is growing daily in many people. Those structures, religious, political, social, economic of the past are dead. What will happen next? What will the new structures be like? What is the new consciousness? We should talk about it.

TJ -

You said: "I understand that you are just full to the brim with sin and that it takes a great deal of restraint on your part to not engage in it. I don't have that problem so I can't help you out. I'm perfectly happy being an ethical person and observing all of the good universal laws (golden rule*, etc.) that exist."

Okay – that’s something we can agree upon. I take no offense to your description of me - I do have a great number of sins. And in some areas of my life, I do have to practice much restraint. And certainly, I know that you can offer me no help in that regard. I guess it comes as no surprise to you - This above most other reasons is why I am thankful for a Savior.

Interestingly, no other faith that I know of seems to think a savior is necessary to reconcile one to God. In your case, since you don't believe in God, I guess that point of interest is moot - if not laughable. Still, you do embrace "all of the good universal laws" and the idea of being "ethical". I find that interesting. I have to ask, why? Why be ethical? Is it because it’s the "right" thing to do? Who gets to define what is right? How do you know what is ethical and what is not? Is it common sense? And if it is, what or who created that common sense in each individual?

Some like a world without God – It’s very convenient…no one to be accountable to but themselves and their own code ethics. At some level, I see the appeal. I mean – that is another way out for anyone who is sinful – isn’t it? If there’s no God, then there’s no sin. One could conduct themselves in any fashion one sees fit without guilt or remorse. There would be no consequence for any bad behavior – except what other men might impose via man-made laws. The average law abiding person could feel pretty good about himself. That works pretty good so long as you’re right (i.e. God equals “Invisible Pink Unicorn”).

Still, I see a Holy and Righteous as the reality that I must confront. He isn’t invisible or pink or a unicorn. He is who He is, and I’ve seen enough life to know that He reveals himself to those who recognize their sin and seek Him. He is a loving God who offers a way to be close to Him – through His son Jesus Christ. Sadly, one of the most insidious sins is pride – it may be the sin most responsible for separating “enlightened” souls such as yourself from Him. As for me, I’d rather be a janitor in God’s kingdom and accept His gift freely and with joy, then to stand before Him one day with my pride, logic and reasoning, explaining vainly why I never thought He existed.

TJ -

You said: "I understand that you are just full to the brim with sin and that it takes a great deal of restraint on your part to not engage in it. I don't have that problem so I can't help you out. I'm perfectly happy being an ethical person and observing all of the good universal laws (golden rule*, etc.) that exist."

Okay – that’s something we can agree upon. I take no offense to your description of me - I do have a great number of sins. And in some areas of my life, I do have to practice much restraint. And certainly, I know that you can offer me no help in that regard. I guess it comes as no surprise to you - This above most other reasons is why I am thankful for a Savior.

Interestingly, no other faith that I know of seems to think a savior is necessary to reconcile one to God. In your case, since you don't believe in God, I guess that point of interest is moot - if not laughable. Still, you do embrace "all of the good universal laws" and the idea of being "ethical". I find that interesting. I have to ask, why? Why be ethical? Is it because it’s the "right" thing to do? Who gets to define what is right? How do you know what is ethical and what is not? Is it common sense? And if it is, what or who created that common sense in each individual?

Some like a world without God – It’s very convenient…no one to be accountable to but themselves and their own code ethics. At some level, I see the appeal. I mean – that is another way out for anyone who is sinful – isn’t it? If there’s no God, then there’s no sin. One could conduct themselves in any fashion one sees fit without guilt or remorse. There would be no consequence for any bad behavior – except what other men might impose via man-made laws. The average law abiding person could feel pretty good about himself. That works pretty good so long as you’re right (i.e. God equals “Invisible Pink Unicorn”).

Still, I see a Holy and Righteous as the reality that I must confront. He isn’t invisible or pink or a unicorn. He is who He is, and I’ve seen enough life to know that He reveals himself to those who recognize their sin and seek Him. He is a loving God who offers a way to be close to Him – through His son Jesus Christ. Sadly, one of the most insidious sins is pride – it may be the sin most responsible for separating “enlightened” souls such as yourself from Him. As for me, I’d rather be a janitor in God’s kingdom and accept His gift freely and with joy, then to stand before Him one day with my pride, logic and reasoning, explaining vainly why I never thought He existed.

Robert B.

Indeed ALL organized religions (creed) have skeletons in their closet. Islam has the most of them. Regarding Islam's possible ostracization, I would call for my support, in particular, views of Sam Harris, Sam Huntington amongst many others.

There is something that I fail to understand about human nature. It is this: in face of mounting, verifiable evidence many choose to ignore the truth. In this specific response my position about Islam is factually correct; and I can assert that these facts are often repetitive in nature, with their repetitive occurrence recorded for more than thousand years. Thus, these are not some random anecdotal evidences collected for political expediencies. So, why give or even think of giving credence to Islam claim to the absolute "Divine Truth" ? All other organized religious creeds have guilt; but, in my view their guilt is somewhat less than Islam, and hence the judgement should be fair.

FYI, I assert that Christianity has had its own share of crimes. True. But the crimes of violence and that of other categories committed by Christians cannot be traced back to the teachings of Jesus Christ or his lifestyle - whatever exists in the canonical Bible. Not so about the violence committed by Muslim terrorists. They often have cited the life (sunnah) of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and the Quran. (Specifically the citation of Quran [004:095] is quoted to demonstrate the tacit "divine" support for the recent spate of increased suicide bombings.)

I recommend that you (and other liberals - supporters of Islam's equal status in morality with other Abrahamic faiths) take a hard look at the life of Prophet Muhamamd (PBUH) as available in Ibn Ishaq's biography SIRAT RASUL ALLAH. You can see what that document states about a person (Prophet Muhammad) who founded Islam.

On other issues, like the citations you have provided, thank you. But, I am strong supporter of Immanuel Kant and his "lesser emulators" such as Sam Harris.

Please note that I am not asking everyone to become a atheist. I myself am not, but I have no patience for organized religion. Organized religion is a political platform rather than a conduit to elevate one's inner spiritual self.

One quick smirk: I am a "he", not a "she". :-)

Aquinas' basic claim to fame is that he changed the church's view of reason from an untrustworthy tool of the devil to something that could, given sufficient torturing, be pressed into the service of religious apology.

He was NOT a rational thinker. I doubt very much that Aristotle, whom Aquinas referred to as "the Philosopher," would have thought him rational either.

Yes, Henry, it's the same Aquinas. Just like the same Karl Marx (whom Deb both denounces in her las post) wrote the comment "Religion is the opiate of the masses.", which she embraces.

Anyone can cherry pick a text and then denounce the whole. Real thinkers look at the good and the bad elements of a text and THEN make a judgment regarding the author.

My point was that there were rational thinkers long before anti-theism became fashionable. I always love how people like Deb seem to think that intellectual life began sometime in the 1700s...

Aquinas and Switching Religions

Robert B recommends Aquinas to Deb. Is that the same Aquinas who was a big cheerleader for the inquisition, and constructed irrefutable philopophical justifications why any Christian who (in the imagination of any informer) had doubts about his religion should be publicly burned at the stake.

Good way to discourage the switching of Religions. Maybe the recent ceasing of that practice explains the significant drop in Roman Church membership?

To Deb Chatterjee:

You wrote regarding Islam: "This religion needs to be ostracized from the civilized society."

Your earlier comments on this and other boards lead me to believe that you think that ALL organized religions need to be ostracized from civilized society, so your comment targeting Islam is essentially meaningless. I particularly like how you described those who embrace organized religions as "emotional blobs who need to be led by some traversed path" and as "incomplete" human beings who "need to be led by someone who wields the baton."

I note, however, that you never answered my earlier question about thinkers who were also religious believers. You recommended Immanuel Kant for my edification. Might I recommend that you take a peek at Thomas Aquinas's *Summa Theologica*? It is a work that, in my opinion, is one of the most persistently rational works ever written. If Aquinas is too daunting (and there is no shame in admitting so; I often have trouble myself), check out the works of G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, both of whose works are much more accessible.

I think part of people's switching of their religions means that in the mainstream at least there are some serious problems that people have with the organizations they have left. They still want all the ritual and the community, but there seems to be a certain level of acceptance that they are not getting from their leaders. Or their beliefs don't match those of the community around them so they either look elsewhere or give up altogether.

For me, it was because my own beliefs didn't match those of where I was, and I found a community that did. And I know I'm not alone.

Daniel and Chris
very interesting dialog. thanks fellows.

Daniel: you state these thoughts
1 that we have impressions of order,
2 that order is the essence of existence,
4 that we are born and live in a setting, (a sort of culteral software)
5 that we are born and live in a landscape (a sort of stage for the unfolding of our lives)

You should read (over and over) if you haven't

The Idea of Order in Key West
by Wallace Stevens.

As Chris notes, we can't elucidate these matters in plain declarative language. We need impressions and poetry and intuition and metaphors, and Stevens gets you deeper into this process.

While you're at it, read
The Snow Man, and
13 Ways of Looking at a Blackbird

Better spirituality than the bible, and right up there with Buddhism, in fact a PART of Buddhism.

Truth Seeker wrote:

"Our aim must be to purge these innovations by upholding the Qur'an and nothing but the Qur'an alone, and present the jewel of true Submission to the world."

Islam is a barbaric religion, that supports genocide and intolerance ob non-Muslims. It rejects a human being's right to choose, and supports its barbaric position by stating that Allah has willed everyone to become Muslims or burn in hell. "Allah know best, and ye know not" is the most frequently occuring catchphrase in the Quran.

In fact, most of the world's problems are traced back to Islam and Communism.

However, this is not the specific forum to discuss Islam, and there are other forums that do so. This religion needs to be ostracized from the civilized society.

Why should someone accept Islam ? It is an assemblage of terror and fanatical concepts anyway !

DITLD,

Ethical Culture is a real religion. I am currently reading "The Humanist Way" by Erikson, which I recommend, and from which I got some of the ideas in my post. I've been attending the New York Society for Ethical Culture for a little less than a year and became a member a few months ago.

I too tend to write extemporaneously, in large part as a vehicle for refining my own ideas and beliefs in an environment of constructive engagement with people such as yourself and others. I think you in particular articulate the core of some kind of profound truth, which I also find in strict Buddhism (to the extent that I'm familiar with it). You seem to begin with a purely subjectivist, phenomenological basis - we are, in some sense, awareness itself, and our experience of the world around us consists of impressions of order. I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say that order is the nature of EXISTENCE, however, because I'm not prepared to equate existence with experience.

The apathy you write about seems like the flip side of what Buddhists call enlighenment, which as far as I understand it is complete awareness of present experience. If you accept that impressions are what is most "true" or "real", then the willingness to be unaware of impressions seems like the apathy you are talking about. Of course this begs the question of whether it's possible for impressions to exist if one is unaware of them.

I am very sympathetic to Buddhism and phenomenology but at this point I'm still a materialist. Just because our awareness of physical existence comes in the form of impressions doesn't necessarily mean that physicality doesn't have its own independent existence (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics notwithstanding). So the impressions you speak of are not necessarily ontological - they may just be epistemological, defining the limits of our capacity to know, rather than the nature of reality itself.

You say that E Favorite and I believe that "if people become educated enough, and will think for themeselves, then all this religious superstition will gradually go away, as scientific thought prevails." I'm not so optimistic. However, I do think humanity would move in that direction if more people would be a little more humble about epistemological limits and realize that knowledge OF the world comes FROM the world, and to the extent that our experience of the world is limited, so too is our knowledge. To fill that gap with myths and fictions is to poison the well of our own existence.

For Chris Everett

Believe it or not, when I posted my comment on people's apathy towards religion and science, I had not read your post; we must have posted at about the same time. Is "Ethical Culture" something you are thinking about, or is it an actual organization? I am intersted in it. Is there any way I could find our more about it?

I said that people are mostly apathetic about religion, (and science, too) and you said that people have a responsibility to try and understand and that apathetic people are shirking this responsibility.

I made this statement to try and understand something that you and "E Favorite" have pushed in an number of these threads, that if people become educated enough, and will think for themeselves, then all this religious superstition will gradually go away, as scientific thought prevails.

But I do not think this will happen. This will not happen because we are not logical beings; we are animals, connected to the same sensations of landscape and setting that the animals experience. To me, this apathy of belief is a sort of animalistic quality, the ignoring ot facts, ignorance, not knowing, lack of knowledge, all animalistic qualities.

A person can still be religeous but also experience religious apathy. Look at the essays of Cal Thomas, who writes for this forum as an Evangelical Christian; he often cranks out less than one-hundred pitiful words, to give his point of view, seemingly to indicate that he could not possibly care less about the question at hand; he yet he does seem religious. So much for the religeous apathey of religious people.

In writing all this stuff, and exchanging ideas with you and E Favorite, I have not had all my thoughts and concepts prefabricated, but have been evolving them, in response to you two, and to others.

So far, from conversations on this forum, I have these new ideas:

1 that we have impressions of order,
2 that order is the essence of existence,
3 that impressions are the essence of consciousness,
4 that we are born and live in a setting, (a sort of culteral software)
5 that we are born and live in a landscape (a sort of stage for the unfolding of our lives)
6 and now, at last, I have a new insight, which I call apathy, towards religion and science, or perhaps, in a more general sense, apathy towards knowledge.

This "apathy towards knowledge" is not quite the same as animalistic ignorance, but it is something that we have in common with animals.

I am gradually acquiring so many of these quirky concepts, that maybe I should attempt to write some longer essay, or a book, explaining all these things,which I have never tried before.

"According to a new Pew Forum survey, more than 4 in 10 Americans have switched their religious affiliation since childhood or dropped out of any formal religious group. Is this a mark of the health or sickness of American religion?

Most American religions are afflicted with profound sicknesses.

Leaving them is therefore a sign of individual health.

It's neither a mark of sickness or a mark of health in religion. But it's a sign of the adaptability of religions as social systems, and of the adaptability of the neurological / psychological phenomenon of "religious belief" in human beings. When organized religion overreaches, goes too far in trying to influence or control secular or civic life, when its leaders engage in crime and corruption, when its doctrines become exposed as false or silly or murderous, and when its rituals grow stale and moribund -- then believers stray or fall away. Some of them abandon religion atogether, which I think is a welcome thing. Others drift or settle into some other religious belief system -- sometimes it's a "church of one" custom-tailored by one individual to his or her own unique tastes, and comprising disparate beliefs and elements from the supernatural smorgasbord.

Ahmed,

The truth of the matter:

"UNTIL THE SUPERSTITIONS OF ISLAM ARE DELETED, NO ONE IS SAFE!!!!!"

Hopefully, once the general Muslim population is made aware of this there will be a mad rush out of the doors of the mosques.

Changing religion isn't a sickness. Religion is the sickness.

We are brought up to have certain beliefs about stuff that matter in life, like sex, money, freedom, marriage and relationships. These are normally dictated by religious beliefs but minds are formed about such stuff in childhood, regardless whether our parents are religious or not. In a free society where anything goes a lot of damage ensues and we are at that stage in our evolution and still learning. I believe we will come back to equilibrium. Natural law dictates that.

Religious faith is personal matter and I am against pushing such onto others but what matters is our conduct towards others. We all need to learn to live life consciously, aware of our thoughts, words and deeds and consequences. At the end of the day we all want to live a happy, healthy and prosperous life, free from trouble and pain, as far as possible. Anyone who does not have a screw loose.

The best way to influence others is not by preaching but by conduct. Action, they say, speaks louder.

There is no escaping natural laws which if observed will lead to high conscious living but then again that is what all religions came to tell us. We clang to the books and venerated the messengers but forgot about the message.

Islam (Submission) today is like a precious jewel that is buried under piles upon piles of man-made innovations. Our aim must be to purge these innovations by upholding the Qur'an and nothing but the Qur'an alone, and present the jewel of true Submission to the world.
Quran cuts across geographic, linguistic and cultural barriers and unite all people of the world
"O Mankind, God created you into nations and tribes so that you may get to know each other" -- Holy Qur'an
2:186 -- When my servants ask you about Me, I am always near. I answer their prayers when they pray to Me. The people shall respond to Me and believe in Me, in order to be guided and unite people

Athena,

I was born into a traditional Brahmin Hindu family
that I had disliked because of the simple reason: I was told to do (from past traditions) this and that. There were good aspects of those traditions which I have retained, and bad aspects in my view of course which I have stood up against. But, I did not abandon my ancestral Hindu faith completely to take up some other religious creed. I see that many Catholics leave their ministry and become Protestants. Many Christians convert to Islam.

All I am saying is that this leaving one religious creed and embracing ther other is like cafeteria religion. Its like the American divorce which is based on one's freedom to choose and express oneself. But, to me it looks like you are escaping from something. Why ? And, no you are not stuck into one religion you are born into. But, why would one religious creed be superior to the other. (I am not arguing the spiritual or philosophical aspects of oneself.) But, maybe I am seeing the situation through a wrong lens. I think, and particulartly in USA, the religions lack any deep philosophical basis, unlike the far eastern religious traditions I know. So, people in USA from Abrahamic faiths keep "seeking" but they don't know what they seek. They are spiritually so unfulfilled. So, they try this today, something else tomorrow and then maybe a new thing two days after. That reflects a state of mental immaturity and instability. The extreme group of such mentally unstable people become "Jesus freaks" or worse still members of the cult of "Ku Klux Klan" or like John Walker Lindh, an American convert to Islam, a Taliban. Is this "buffet" of religions good ? You eat more of what you like ? What's the price ? $6.99 ???

Athena,

I was born into a traditional Brahmin Hindu family
that I had disliked because of the simple reason: I was told to do (from past traditions) this and that. There were good aspects of those traditions which I have retained, and bad aspects in my view of course which I have stood up against. But, I did not abandon my ancestral Hindu faith completely to take up some other religious creed. I see that many Catholics leave their ministry and become Protestants. Many Christians convert to Islam.

All I am saying is that this leaving one religious creed and embracing ther other is like cafeteria religion. Its like the American divorce which is based on one's freedom to choose and express oneself. But, to me it looks like you are escaping from something. Why ? And, no you are not stuck into one religion you are born into. But, why would one religious creed be superior to the other. (I am not arguing the spiritual or philosophical aspects of oneself.) But, maybe I am seeing the situation through a wrong lens. I think, and particulartly in USA, the religions lack any deep philosophical basis, unlike the far eastern religious traditions I know. So, people in USA from Abrahamic faiths keep "seeking" but they don't know what they seek. They are spiritually so unfulfilled. So, they try this today, something else tomorrow and then maybe a new thing two days after. That reflects a state of mental immaturity and instability. The extreme group of such mentally unstable people become "Jesus freaks" or worse still members of the cult of "Ku Klux Klan" or like John Walker Lindh, an American convert to Islam, a Taliban. Is this "buffet" of religions good ? You eat more of what you like ? What's the price ? $6.99 ???

Most people change faiths for sex, and you folks know I'm right.

Athena is right about the possibility of leading Pagans...we are maybe the most independent minded, stubborn people created.

Pagans are creative and have their own preception on everything, even about the gods. That is where our respect for other's beliefs come from, because we are used to shrugging our shoulders over how our own worship. It's in the preception how you experience Deity. And that is personal.

We are seekers, that is a solitary enterprise... you can not have a herd metality and find what You believe. What is amazing is that even though we come at it all solitary without a guiding text, we have many things the same.

No, also as a cat owner..except for my Sage Femme....the cats are easier to herd.

terra

Deb - I left Catholicism and changed my spiritual belief to Paganism. Does this mean that I am stupid and easily led? Hardly. You don't lead a Pagan anywhere, we're natural iconoclasts. Leading Pagans is often compared to herding cats. Only, in my experience as a cat owner, herding cats is easier.

So, you're saying that one is stuck with the religion that they are born into, even if you get no fulfillment out of it, because you're stupid and easily led? That doesn't make any sense to me. Are you arguing for staying in the faith of your parents, or abandoning the whole thing entirely?

First, I'm not sure that Buddhism "technically" qualifies as a religion. Yes, I know many people think of it as a religion. That being said, I left the Episcopal church more than twelve years ago and am a member of a Buddhist group.

I simply could not say the "Creed" and believe every word of it. The type of Buddhism I found was a bit more logical and answered my questions. So far I haven't been struck by lightning or ended up in "hell" as my Southern Baptist friends promised.

Is switching "religions" for every one? Probably not. When I read what M. Scott Peck wrote about stages of spirituality in his book "A Different Drummer" I think he was on to something as to why certain people are attracted to certain organized religions.

Heck some of my friends spend a great deal of time in the "church of the Washington Redskins." They eat more hot dogs and drink more beer than they used to eat wafers and wine. Did they change religions? Is their worship a sign of sickness? When they sin do they get penalized 5 yards? They even see the occasional Hail Mary. Isn't this a great country!

And let's not forget the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Look for it on the web) It makes about as much sense as some of the other organized religious groups that some in our country have joined.

"NOT A PAGAN THANK GOD"
ia also NOT A SEEKER OF TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE.

I invite any sane and reasonable person to read through the archive here of Starhawk's uniformly eloquent and smart postings

and compare them to BELIEVERS such as Charles Colson and Cal Thomas,

and if you are capable of recognizing enlightenment and sanity, see who comes out on top.

NOT A PAGAN seemingly relies on prejudice rather than knowledge, and "thanks God" for the gift.

(btw: perhaps the greatest gift this forum has given me is more acquaintance with the wisdom of pagans such as Starhawk and Terra. In line with the topic here, I actually "converted" - though I also remain a Jewish Atheist.)

Switching faiths because you want to be original and different from your parents is unfounded! Not if you are led to believe things that aren't true!

About the homophobia thing: Come on people, the only reason us Christians are uncomfortable with Gay marriage, is because it is a terrible sin in our religion.
People like that should be given equal rights, but not marriage.

I tend to agree with almost all that BR said in his post at 7:08 PM, except with this:

"I don't think it says anything about the health of the individual or the religion."

It contradicts most of what he established before, like when he says: "I would seriously consider switching to another church or another faith, if homophobia is part of that church's official doctrine". A church like this is in serious health problem.

The best for all,

JAC

Not a Pagan,

Before denigrating something you really should know something about it.

A little history...
Pagans were the first Doctors. The first scientists...and as a Pagan I go to doctors, take meds, visit my dentist...do all that modern stuff, this is 2008.

The basic trouble is, people have no idea what being a modern Pagan means. How exactly do you think we make our living? We are doctors, nurses, engineers, home builders,artists, poets, dancers, medical researchers, etc...I am a retired business owner...

and as far as money...there is no passing the plate.

terra

"Read Starhawk and other Pagans here for an example of the healthy approach."
``````````````````````````````````````

Starhawk is a fraud involved in a Pagan cult, and you call that healthy approach?? Good Lord man/woman go see a doctor for help!

Oh, that is right Pagans don't beleive in doctors, well then do as the Pagans do and chant 3 times,

heal thyself,
be healed thyself,
put the money in the plate or no healing of thyself, hahahahahahahahahahahahha!

Virgil Hicks,

You noted "His word is truth.All other ground is sinking sand!"

No, the sinking sands are religions being swallowed in their fundamental flaws.

e.g. Christianity

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

God saves, not man. Faith is God's gift to man at least in terms of faith that actually matters.

This should not be taken to imply that people haven't any faith on their own merely that the faith they have hasn't anything to do with salvation.

There are hundreds of people with faith in the most absurd things, universal health care, government, the basic decency of humanity, government is ultimately perfectible, human beings are ultimately perfectible and on and on.

I am one of those people who switched "faiths," though I actually switched from faith to no faith, or atheism.

I think it is, in part, because people like to own their own beliefs. Not many people like the idea of growing up believing what your parents believe and continuing to do so until you die. Re-evaluating one's faith in an attempt to find what they truly believe and what belief, or lack thereof, appeals to them personally to the greatest extent. For most people this is not always going to be the exact faith by which they were raised.

More practical things, obviously, can also affect people in this regard, as others have mentioned. Many Christians are pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but they are often singled out in certain churches or certain religions as being impure. If I were one religion but my church told me that it was wrong to be gay, I would seriously consider switching to another church or another faith, if homophobia is part of that church's official doctrine.

But ultimately, people are growing up and with maturity comes a re-evaluation of everything one has done with their life. This is when many nonbelievers are "reborn," when many homosexuals come out of the closet, when many religious people come to grips with their inner atheist and when people feel a need to distance themselves from their upbringing, if only temporarily, to "find" themselves.

I don't think it says anything about the health of the individual or the religion. People like change and they like to feel independent. Often, a church's doctrine or a pastor's words are not going to have much impact on this.

What you believe must fall in line with our creator's instruction book.His instruction book is the bible.His word is truth.All other ground is sinking sand!

A young man grows up, he knows the absolute truth, he has the absolute true faith and all others are wrong.

Oops, ok, now he has the absolute true faith, and all the others are wrong and lead to eternal damnation.

I think this isn't indicative of something sick or healthy, what it does do is describe the interchangeability of faith. None of them are true, all of them are true ... whatever.

Robert & Athena:

Religion (creed) is something that will not lead you to God (if that gentleman exists). Its your spiritual strength that would lead to God. This is faith (but not blind faith). Faith in a Creator, like Thomas Jefferson had.

I do find the argument of changing religious tradition, because "America is this great melting pot", somewhat obscurantist. How about those who also divorce ? They can say, and surely do, that one fine day they did not want to be married to the same spouse. They just wanted their freedom to choose, and divorced. Same as changing religious traditions. What's the guarantee that the one which are hooked onto would be lasting long enough to make your lifetime pass ? What is holding you from changing your religion again and again ? If that is acceptable, then to me such persons surely are mentally unstable. These are emotional blobs who need to be led by some traversed path. They look for sure shot paths that the feel comfortable with. They are humans, but I would assert that they are incomplete. They need to be led by someone who wields the baton. Well, Hallelujah !

(I suggest both of you read Immanuel Kant's treatise CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON or the comparatively much less esoteric Sam Harris, END OF REASON ...)

Yonkers, New York
27 February 2008

Let me start with the proposition that most people who profess one religion or another simply inherited it automatically, reflexively and unquestioningly from their parents long before they reach the age of discernment, which is that age where, at maturity, they are in full possession of their cognitive faculties, which of course includes the critical faculty of reasoning rationally, freely, and independently.

If a mature believer is convinced, after a long and exhaustive examination of options, that switching from one religious faith to another is his or her cup of tea, that is not necessarily a sign of either health or sickness.

But it is surely a sign that the switcher has gone through the process of carefully scrutinizing the bases of his original religious faith, probably has found it inadequate in one respect or another, and, after a similar process of carefully scrutinizing the bases of an alternative, came to the conclusion that the latter was superior to the former.

But switching from one religious faith to another is quite apart from questioning the purpose, the validity, the credibility and the need for religion--any religion--itself.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

DITLD,

It seems that the common thread is responsibility, as Ahmed from Bahrain said. The apathy you talk about is the shirking of this responsibility, which in the case of apathy towards science leads to ignorance and vulnerability to demonstrably absurd superstitions. The ethics I speak of is an ethical responsibility to contribute the world, which includes a responsibility to HOW to know, i.e. science.

As to religion being very different from the things Ahmed mentions, I disagree. The words above the podium at the New York Society for Ethical Culture that I attend say, "The place where people meet to seek the highest is holy ground." What this means is that the "seeking of the highest" is the religious activity, regardless of context. Communion for some. Tantra for others. Peyote for others still. It's personal. The common thread is the RESPONSIBILITY to seek.

Someone here mentioned apathy; that is how most people regard religion, and that is how most people regard science. They experience the their religious heritage as part of the landscape and setting of their lives, as though they are acting in a play and have a script to follow.

In the old times, and in the Islamic world today, the theology is quite scripted and enforced and the apathetic people experience the landscape of their relgious belief, just as they experience the seashore, the mountains, the changing seasons.

But most people feel the same way about science as well, that it is not the great challenger of religion, but just part of the landscape of every day life. People don't want to go into it or understand; it is just there and they find it useful; but the utility of science does not stop people from going along with a belief system that says the world is 6,000 years old. Why not? Because people just don't care enough about religion or science, to work it all out in their own heads.

Ahmed from bahrain said:
"Politics, wealth, lifestyle, sex, drugs, clubs, groups, football, are all forms of beliefs"

But that is not right. They are the activities of human beings, which they seek in the pursuit of their lives. Religion is very, very different and quite apart from all of these things.

(And by the way, I am not trying to belittle anyone here who might be reading this; it goes without saying that people who read this forum and post here are very interested in religious matters, much more than the average apathetic person.)

Ahmed from Bahrain,

Your last post sums it all up beautifully. Yet, i bristle at the idea that man needs faith - I think that man needs MEANING, which he might (legitimately) find in politics, wealth, etc.

Seeing how loosly the fruit is attached to the tree, permit me to prosletize for MY religion, Ethical Culture:

The "gospel" of Ethical Culture is a belief in the spiritual sufficiency of ethical living. Its foundation is ethics, not speculative theology (towards which it is neutral).

The motto of Ethical Culture is "Deed before Creed." This reflects the fact that ethics exists only to the extent that it's put into practice. It also reflects the whole-hearted embrace of the scientific method by Ethical Culture, and the fact that, true to the scientific method, ethical beliefs (creed) must be based on evidence - evidence that is generated by performing ethical deeds and observing their effects. The resulting creed is therefore not some petrified "revelation" in an old book - it is the set of time-tested practices known to improve the quality of the human experience, and always open to improvement, like science is. The "God question" is of little relevance to this approach, and formally outside the scope of the Ethical Culture religion.

A central maxim of Ethical Culture is "Act so as to encourage the best in others, and by so doing you will develop the best in yourself." This is an improvement over the already great Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), since it recognizes the differences among us and the likelihood that others may not want what we want for ourselves. It also puts an ethical burden on us to understand what the best in others actually is, even if it differs from the best in ourselves, thus opening our eyes to the diversity of human experience and values. Finally, it closes the ethical loop by affirming that a life of service and contribution is truly the best way to live.

We all need community. It is through community that we live, love and learn, and it is TO community that we contribute and find meaning. I'm still fairly new to Ethical Culture, but afters decades of occasional creepy exposure to various superstitious communities, stumbling upon Ethical Culture was a REAL revelation.

It is a mark of freedom, yet freedom has a price and responsibility. Switching to mind numbing TV reality shows and getting infatuated with appearance, power and swallowing what the media - which has replaced religion - tells you; are signs of not taking responsibility for this freedom seriously.

Man needs faith regardless of religion and will always have faith in whatever. It does not have to be religion. Politics, wealth, lifestyle, sex, drugs, clubs, groups, football, are all forms of beliefs.

Freedom carries immense responsibility and requires wisdom to be truly free from all sorts of self-inflicted beliefs. In the end we become Gods of our own destiny and then we realise that our destiny depends very much on 3 things:

What we think.
What we say.
What we do.

The reasons people are confused about religion today are complicated, but the fundamental source of the confusion is simple. They are looking for a myth they can believe in absolutely. For an explanation of why this may be impossible you can see my ideas at:

http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/religion.htm

Short and sweet: This is why I changed my religion - Catholicism had no place for me. I divorced and remarried. I could not obtain an annulment because parties involved refused to help me by doing the written testimony on my behalf. Not to mention I didn't have the hundreds and hundreds of dollars to pay for getting one.

Catholicism allows ALL sins to be forgiven in the privacy of the confessional. Murder, rape, abortion, incest, etc. etc. Because of the 'seal' of the confessional, a priest cannot divulge what a penitent brings to him.

What sin can NOT be absolved in the privacy of the confessional? One and one only: Remarriage after divorce when it is not performed in concert with the Catholic Church.

Heck, look how long it too Gallileo to become de-excommunicated. 900 years or so? I guess I should add scientific fact to a sin that can't be forgiven.

I have found another faith that I am very happy and proud to say I am a member of. The Society of Friends. The only religion that I have encountered that believes in the absolute equality of men and women. That was a very important part of my conversion along with being an 'unprogrammed' service with God as the light inside of us instead of being offered to us from the altar.

Deb - I believe that you have it backwards. People often remain in the religious traditions that they were raised in because they don't want to look around and think for themselves. Once they do, they realize that they can find a spiritual home that they can support. For some, that's a mega-church. For some, it's a small circle of friends.

Part of being an American in this era is having exposure to religions besides your own. For example, I was raised Catholic, but went to a Presbyterian camp when I was growing up. They were cool with us Catholic kids - even drove us to the local RC Church for Mass on Sunday mornings. I've known Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Moslems, Native American spiritualists, Voodoo and Santeria practitioners, atheists, and Fundamentalist Christians. My boss is Episcopalian with a Jewish wife. It's because we have this big American "melting pot" where all religions are theoretically equal in the eyes of the law, that's so great.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with our "cafeteria" style of religion. There are many different paths along the journey. We can't all march in lock step.

To Deb Chatterjee:

You wrote: "People change religion because they are mentally weak and cannot think for themselves."

Tell that to the vast number of thinkers who existed before your anti-theism became fashionable.

You also wrote: "Karl Marx, famously thundered: RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES. Though I have never been a Communist, on this very score I agree with Karl Marx."

You also agree with Uncle Karl in another way; you also believe that the vast majority of human beings are too stupid to be allowed to live they way they like, so they must be led by a small coterie of people who have understanding of truth.

Odd, isn't it, how anti-theism is, when you get right down to it, a gnostic movement...

Mike:
“Faith is about belief in God, as He is - as He reveals Himself. If you chose a faith because it's what you WANT to believe, as opposed to what you believe to be true - then you're truly misguided.”

If god reveals itself to you and you want to believe that which has been revealed, are you then misguided? Or is it not possible that one could WANT to believe in what IS revealed?

Is it possible to confuse god’s revelation with personal desire? Cannot the ‘WANT’ you feel actually be god’s revelation?

How do you tell these things apart? ‘Wanting’ and ‘knowing’ when neither can be proven or measured?

People change religion because they are mentally weak and cannot think for themselves. They think that one class of ritual is better than other, given the change of times. These folks have no intellectual depth. I liken it to opium addition. Karl Marx, famously thundered: RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES. Though I have never been a Communist, on this very score I agree with Karl Marx. In the western society, witnessing this phenomenon is quite disturbing. It is the west who taught in practical terms that it is logically possible to lead a moral life without subscribing to some religious creed. Thus, when I see doubts about someone's morality and integrity of character, because s/he is an atheist or not religious, I squirm.

My parent's religion was just that - their religion.

When I reached adulthood, I stopped practicing my parents religion, until I had children. I began to raise my children in the religion of my youth, then it dawned upon me - how can I expect my children to believe a religion I, myself, did not believe?

We converted from Roman Catholicism to Reform Judaism, which was more in line with my beliefs and my relationship with the Divine.

Mike writes: "And TJ - I can't help but to think, perhaps you reject evangelicals because they stake claim to and represent a truth that you don't WANT to believe."

Stop trying to live vicariously through me. I understand that you are just full to the brim with sin and that it takes a great deal of restraint on your part to not engage in it. I don't have that problem so I can't help you out. I'm perfectly happy being an ethical person and observing all of the good universal laws (golden rule*, etc.) that exist.

and then continues: "If that's not true, I'd like to know what the facts are, on which you've based your rejection."

There is no compelling reason to believe that the claims are true. Why don't you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? What facts do you base your disbelief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn on? I don't just reject the claims of evangelicals, I reject the claims of all Christians. Just as you should, and do, reject claims regarding the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

* And yes. If I spouted a bunch of idiotic stuff about my invisible friend in public, I'd fully expect and hope that whoever else was present would give me the same kind of harsh criticism (social opprobrium if you will) that I frequently dole out here.

I would hope, if/when someone switches to another faith, it's because God has led them down that path. Otherwise, what's the point? Faith is about belief in God, as He is - as He reveals Himself. If you chose a faith because it's what you WANT to believe, as opposed to what you believe to be true - then you're truly misguided. And TJ - I can't help but to think, perhaps you reject evangelicals because they stake claim to and represent a truth that you don't WANT to believe. If that's not true, I'd like to know what the facts are, on which you've based your rejection. But before you respond, please consider your answer and try to eliminate the urge to paint millions with a brush that really only covers a few.

When any religion fails to mesh with the world around them, people look else where.

I think there is an awakening going on where some doctrine can not logically describe the real world. I heard a great take on this. How do you solve 21st century problems with 1st century information; or 5th or 7th or predating Christ?

I have posted before that the information we have 11.7 Billion times more information (200 petabytes of written information) on the world around us compared 17 megabytes on God. If God exists, which I believe he does in various forms, then defining this infinite being and the rules around eternity would logically require significantly more information.

Since organized religion tends to be stagnant, then how would one learn more? What humans do is explore and learn this is the nature of the mind. As much as we try to shackle the mind it wants to learn. Eventually the push is too much and people go else where in search of answers.

I think the trend is promising that people are willing to evolve their beliefs. This is not to say that traditional teachings are necessarily wrong, but perhaps there is more to learn.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Onward!

I don't much trust what Americans say about their religion. Many profess to be Christians, yet they elect somebody like George Bush.. twice. The loudest evangelicals always seem to be the ones trying to have freaky sex in gas station bathrooms. I could go on.

Judging by our actions, I'd guess we are the one of the least religious nations in the world. On the flip side, we are surely one of the most hypocritical when it comes to religion.

First off, defining the results of the survey as a “health or sickness” begs the question of whether religion itself is a sign of health or sickness. But that’s another whole discussion.

Any leadership study will tell you that people in general don’t like change. The desire to maintain the status quo is often the most difficult hurdle to overcome in any business endeavor -- be it a new process, or a new technology, or anything else that threatens change. Change is stressful!

So a survey that says that more than 40% of the people in the United States have switched religions would seem to indicate that a rather large percent of people feel that there is something missing from their previous religion. These people are asking questions of their church and are finding the answers they receive lacking in some significant way.

As our society progresses toward more globalization I would anticipate this number will continue to increase. There are well over 10,000 religions in the world and it is impossible to know with any amount of certainty which is the "true" one. Just realizing this one fact alone would tend to create doubt and questioning.

Hopefully the result of all of this questioning will be that the religions of Jehovah, Allah, and all the other current deities will finally go the way of Zeus, Odin and all the previous ones. It is high time we stopped believing in primitive myths, superstitions and dogmas.

You raise the question about whether changing religions it is a mark of health or sickness in America. My reaction is, it may not be either. People are naturally searching for answers to ultimate questions, and guidelines to live by. Many are disinclined to accept the traditional beliefs, or non-beliefs, of their parents.

The “winner” in this religion-shopping atmosphere seems to be the evangelical mega-churches, and the “losers” seem to be traditional sects.
In reading the piece in The New York Times yesterday on the Pew Study regarding religious practices in the U.S., Professor Stephen Prothero, of Boston University, was quoted as saying: “The trend is towards more personal religion, and evangelicals offer that,” Professor Prothero said, explaining that evangelical churches tailored much of their activities to youths. “Those losing out are offering impersonal religion,” he said, “and those winning are offering a smaller scale: mega-churches succeed not because they are mega but because they have smaller ministries inside.”

I live in the Houston area, in a northern suburb called The Woodlands (population about 100,000). Near my home is a mega-ministry, run by Pastor Kerry Shook, called The Fellowship of The Woodlands. Each Sunday he draws, I'm told, 25,000 people to what could be described as "relitainment." It's neither fundamentalist religion, nor is it quite as entertaining as a Las Vegas lounge act. It's somewhere in between.

Pastor Shook, often in his Hawaiian shirt, with an orchestra on stage, has used animals, trapeze artists, racecars, butterflies, fish, rock bands, laser shows, and anything that will surprise and entertain the audience. To attract an audience, he advertises heavily on local cable TV, where his perky wife assures us that, " . . . going to church should be fun."

Shook makes the master showman and national phenomenon, Joel Osteen, who packs his Lakeside Church in Houston each week with more than 50,000 people, seem old fashioned. (As is widely-known,, Osteen has no formal theological training.)

We also have Grace Church, which now has five locations in the Houston area, where the pastor preaches from his main church in Clear Lake, and the services are televised to the satellite churches. Sort of like watching Elton John perform on HBO.

My point is not to denigrate these men, and others like them, who are new-age preachers. They are savvy communicators who give the audience exactly what it wants.

Dr. Prothero is correct in stating that evangelical churches are tailored to youth, and that mega-churches often have smaller ministries inside, as does Lakeside and The Fellowship of The Woodlands, what draws people to these places is more psychology than religion. There is a certain "wow" factor, an emotional jolt, when leaving services on Sunday morning.

If you were raised Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, or other strain of conservative Christianity, where you were constantly reminded of sin, pride, evil, guilt, the devil, and the ultimate consequence of eternal damnation, you can now relax. Shook, Osteen, and other theologically-light preachers, tell you that God loves you no matter what, and you should love yourself. At the same time, in an confusing and alienated world, you can now be part of a community of like-minded people who can afford to have your children go to orthodontists and drive nice cars, because that's what God wants for you. And you can feel virtuous because you're donating your worn-out Nikes to the poor children in Kenya.

Along similar lines, a friend of mine who was raised Baptist now attends the very open-minded Unitarian Church because, as he told me, they don't talk about the Ten Commandments, they have the Ten Recommendations. That seems so much more refreshing, doesn't it?

New-age preachers are showmen who are coached in NLP (neuro-linguistic programming), a la Tony Robbins, and other types of communication skills. They use the same kinds of highly-qualified lighting and sound technicians and production people used by professional entertainers. It all makes for good theater. But that's the point. Their premise is that people need to leave on Sunday morning feeling good about themselves, then they'll come back next week for another booster shot.

Many of the people I know who attend these fellowships do so for one or more of the following reasons. One, people have told me that going to these religious-oriented communities, and especially tithing 10% of their income, is a good investment because God will reward them financially. Giving generously, in their minds, is a wise investment strategy, not for eschatological reasons or because it's intrinsically good, but because it's fiscally sound.

Second, they see religious affiliation as the best way to provide solid moral footing for their children in a world of relativity, self-indulgence, sex, drugs, violence, and lack of responsibility and integrity. Certainly nothing wrong with that, although religion is not the only means to moral virtue. Many of those who attend these low-structure, flexible, social mega-churches do so not because of theological belief in a Supreme Being as much as a practical way to keep their kids on the straight and narrow path, much like one uses Santa Claus to instill obedience in four year old.

And third, hearing that God is a forgiving God, who loves you no matter what you do, is a whole lot more comforting than hearing you're going to hell because you had evil thoughts. Shook, Osteen and others also allow you to believe that God, with a little help from the Bible, is whatever you want Him to be. Whatever makes you feel good!

Professor Prothero’s comment "impersonal religion" losing out, no doubt, includes the Roman Catholic Church. It is not surprising that Catholics have lost the largest percentage of followers.

Catholics were raised in an impersonal church. They are used to it. Many of them expect that it is what church should be: rituals and prayer.

Defections from Catholicism have little to do with the appalling lack of courage on the part of the Church for failing to confront the plague of pedophilia on the part of its clergy, or even because of their doctrinal positions on homosexuality, birth control, divorce, or married clergy. As has been well documented, many practicing Catholics have ignored those teachings for years, and still think of themselves as "good Catholics."

A more important reason is that the Catholic Church has a dreadful lack of leadership, and maintains the belief that their clergy have some sort of princely, elitist position, while saying they are really there to serve. They have also done poorly at attracting a new generation of leaders.

For whatever reason, they have not kept up with the "competition," meaning, they are slow to use modern communication techniques to reach an audience that is used to high technology and glitz. The Catholic Church, with its reliance on tradition and ancient ritual, has chosen not to do with the evangelical mega-churches have done so successfully, that is, understand that modern religion is as much about psychology as about theology.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham:

You raise an intersting question about whether changing religions is a mark of health or sickness in America. My reaction is that it may not be either. People are naturally searching for answers to ultimate questions, and guidelines to live by. Many are not inclined to accept the traditional beliefs, or non-beliefs, of their parents. And looking for answers may be more valuable than believing you already have them.

The “winners” in this religion-shopping atmosphere seem to be the evangelicals, and the “losers” seem to be traditional sects.

In reading the piece in The New York Times yesterday on the Pew Study regarding religious practices in the U.S., Professor Stephen Prothero, of Boston University, was quoted as saying: “The trend is towards more personal religion, and evangelicals offer that,” Professor Prothero said, explaining that evangelical churches tailored much of their activities to youths. “Those losing out are offering impersonal religion,” he said, “and those winning are offering a smaller scale: mega-churches succeed not because they are mega but because they have smaller ministries inside.”

I live in the Houston area, in a northern suburb called The Woodlands (population about 100,000). Near my home is a mega-ministry, run by Pastor Kerry Shook, called The Fellowship of The Woodlands. Each Sunday he draws, I'm told, 25,000 people to what could be described as "relitainment." It's neither traditional religion, nor is it quite as entertaining as a Las Vegas lounge act. It's somewhere in between.

Pastor Shook, often in his Hawaiian shirt, with an orchestra on stage, has used animals, trapeze artists, racecars, butterflies, fish, rock bands, laser shows, and anything that will surprise and entertain the audience. To attract an audience, he advertises heavily on local cable TV, where his perky wife assures us that, " . . .going to church should be fun."

Shook makes the master showman and national phenomenon, Joel Osteen, who packs his Lakeside Church in Houston each week with more than 50,000 people, seem old fashioned. (As is widely-known, Osteen has no formal theological training.)

We also have Grace Church, which now has five locations in the Houston area, where the pastor preaches from his main church in Clear Lake, and the services are televised to the satellite churches. Sort of like watching Elton John perform on HBO.

My point is not to denigrate these men, and others like them, who are new-age preachers. They are savvy communicators who give the audience exactly what it wants.

Dr. Prothero is correct in stating that evangelical churches are tailored to youth, and that mega-churches often have smaller ministries inside, as does Lakeside and The Fellowship of The Woodlands, what draws people to these places is more psychology than religion. There is a certain "wow" factor, an emotional jolt, when leaving services on Sunday morning.

If you were raised in a Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, or other strain of conservative Christianity, where you were constantly reminded of sin, pride, evil, guilt, the devil, and the ultimate consequence of eternal damnation, you can now relax. Shook, Osteen, and other theologically-light preachers, tell you that God loves you no matter what, and you should love yourself. At the same time, in an confusing and alienated world, you can now be part of a community of like-minded people who can afford to have your children go to orthodontists and drive nice cars because that's what God wants for you. And you can feel virtuous because you're donating your worn-out Nikes to poor children in Kenya.

Along similar lines, a friend of mine who was raised Baptist now attends the very open-minded Unitarian Church because, as he told me, they don't not talk about the Ten Commandments, they have the Ten Recommendations. That seems so much more refreshing, doesn't it?

New-age preachers are showmen who are coached in NLP (neuro-linguistic programming), a la Anthony Robbins, and other types of communication skills. They use the same kinds of highly-qualified lighting and sound technicians and production people used by professional entertainers. It all makes for good theater. But that's the point. Their premise is that people want a show, and need to leave on Sunday morning feeling good about themselves, then they'll come back next week for another booster shot.

Many of the people I know who attend these fellowships do so for one or more of the following reasons. One, people have told me that going to these religious-oriented communities, and especially tithing 10% of their income, is a good investment because God will reward them financially. Giving generously, in their minds, is a wise investment strategy, not for eschatological reasons or because it's intrinsically good, but because it's fiscally sound.

Second, they see religious affiliation as the best way to provide solid moral footing for their children in a world of relativity, self-indulgence, sex, drugs, violence, and lack of responsibility and integrity. Certainly nothing wrong with that, although religion is not the only means to moral virtue. Many of those who attend these low-structure, flexible, social mega-churches do so not because of theological belief in a Supreme Being as much as a practical way to keep their kids on the straight and narrow path, much like one uses Santa Claus to instill obedience in four year old.

And third, hearing that God is a forgiving God, who loves you no matter what you do, is a whole lot more comforting than hearing you're going to hell because you had evil thoughts. Shook, Osteen and others also allow you to believe that God, with a little help from the Bible, is whatever you want Him to be. Whatever makes you feel good!

Professor Prothero’s comment "impersonal religion" losing out, no doubt, includes the Roman Catholic Church. It is not surprising that Catholics have lost the largest percentage of followers.

Catholics were raised in an impersonal church. Most of them are used to it. They expect that's what church should be: rituals and prayer, not emotion. It's you and God, and maybe some help from a few saints.

Defections from Catholicism have little to do with the appalling lack of courage on the part of the Church for failing to confront the plague of pedophilia on the part of its clergy, or even because of doctrinal positions on homosexuality, birth control, divorce, or married clergy. As has been well documented, many practicing Catholics have ignored those teachings for years, and still think of themselves as "good Catholics."

A more important reason is that the Catholic Church has a dreadful lack of leadership, and seems to believe that the clergy have some sort of princely, elitist position, while saying they are really there to serve. They have also failed at attracting a new generation of leadership.

For whatever reason, the Catholic Church has not kept up with the "competition," perhaps on purpose. They're slow to use modern communication techniques to reach an audience that's used to high technology and glitz. With its traditions and ancient rituals, it has choosen not to do what the evangelical mega-churches have done so successfully, that is, understand that modern religion is as more about psychology than theology.

Born into a Christian family by the time I had the chance to read the bible and ask questions I knew it was not for me.

To me God is part of all there is...God as life force..not just the creator of life, not just physical breath of life and the moving finger...but the causation, the protons, electrons, and neutrons and the space inbetween. Nature and Nature's God...that is mine.

I am a tree hugger...and I "worship" the dirt you walk on.

Paganism is counted as the Fifth highest in population and maybe fourth. That means alot of those who started out in other faiths sought something else. Maybe it's because our spirits need something else. It's like you may like Liver...I don't. I love shrimp, you may be allergic.

Sexuality, to us Wiccans, is seen as a sacred thing..treated with love, respect and care. You do not harm anyone...that means no messing with anyone else's partner...either married or not. If anyone can be hurt, it is hands off. That also means that we take joy and pleasure in it... for that is part of the gifts given to us.

Christians, in many cases, have taken the reverence and mirth out of sexuality. They are so busy with the Thou shalt not's, that they forget the Blessings.

As far as the seeker finding their own spitituality, I think it is a healthy thing. If we are each happier and more true to ourselves it is a good thing for the country. So many like to think there is only one truth....when to me God is big enough for everyone's truth.

terra

This study, as with many other studies of religious affiliation, is flawed by the fact that it asks Americans to self-identify their affiliation.

Studies have shown that Americans often lie about this affiliation when asked to self identify at rates approaching more than 50%. Other studies that look at actual church attendance and tithing rates reveal that at most, 25-30% of Americans are truly actively involved with a christian church, and only half of those attend regularly!

The phenomenon of switching most likely reveals Americans' ambivalence about religion and a search by many that ultimately ends in either atheism, agnosticism or simple apathy.

I would like to know if these switches are from one doctrine to a substantially different doctrine, or if they're simply switches that represent a closer alignment between the believer and his/her doctrine of origin. If the latter, they're not really switches, and the survey is essentially meaningless. If the former, then an additional issue comes immediately to mind: are the switches driven by changes in belief or do they represent changes in social community by people for whom belief is relatively unimportant?

In either case, I see problems. If people are switching for doctrinal reasons, one might credit their ability to transcend their parent's limited understanding of faith and find the "true" faith themselves. But I think it's more likely that people are sufficiently lacking in their own convictions that they tend to eventually fall prey to the promises of one of the many religious organizations that we are all exposed to. I have seen this first hand at the Kabbalah Center, a Scientology-like cult that is so heavily laden with layer upon layer of superstitious nonsense that it is astounding that ANYONE would give it the time of day. And yet, not only do individuals fall for it, but WHOLE FAMILIES! I can understand the single individual - for whatever reason, there's a resonance. What I don't understand is how a spouse could accept such an absurd sea change in his/her beliefs about the nature of reality, simply because their spouse does. How could they so easily abandon the fruits of all their previous efforts at understanding life? Had they never thought about life before? Were they utterly ignorant? I think the answer is "yes," and I think it's an indictment of whatever religious tradition they came from. Religions fail to have universal appeal because religious dogma is seldom universal (or even true!). In a country where no single religious tradition has a monopoly, people are free to gravitate towards whatever idiosyncratic doctrine matches their particular idiosyncracies.

On the other hand, if the switch is for community, involving people who don't really care about the doctrine, then the indictment is of secular culture and it's failure to foster spiritually-nourishing superstition-free communities. I'm not sure why this is - it may be due to the difficulty competing with religions, that are free to promise anything to anyone - it may be due to the financial favoritism shown to religions by government - it may be due to the relative youth of science, reason, and secular culture, and the time it takes for community institutions to arise.

Why are many of us dropping our orthodox affiliation and becoming persons with religious reservations, secularists or atheists??

The answer is simple, the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are becoming more aware of the flaws in the founders and foundations of religion and no longer accept the myths, embellishments and lies associated with these religions.

To wit:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

4. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Sex and Religion

Now that I've got your attention:

The reason MANY are leaving their faith (Catholics have lost the most members) is because of ancient and negative (as opposed to realistic) attitudes towards human sexuality.

Highly religious America has an
**abortion** rate that is 3 times that of most of secular europe, and STD rates that are astoundingly higher.

It is HEALTHY, literally, that as humans see the negative effects of medieval attitudes towards sexuality in their religion, they will tend to migrate towards a more humane, enlightened, health-promoting philosophy and spirituality.

Read Starhawk and other Pagans here for an example of the healthy approach.

Church as the social center of people's lives has declined, even among very religious, fundamentalits people.

But the great failure of tradiditional religion is in the area of human sexuality. The premise of very many traditional religions is that sex is bad, the human body is bad; excessive modesty, even prudish repression is encouraged. Modern ideas on human sexuality as a part of a good, happy, and healthy life are reflexively rejected.

Let's face it; Christians, especially conservative Christians are defined in the modern world by their "homophobia." If a person does not want to be associated with such a primitive outlook, then what choice is there?