Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism. He has worked for NBC, CNBC, PBS television, and the Fox News Channel where he currently appears on the weekly media critique show, “Fox News Watch.” Thomas has authored ten books, including Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, A Freedom Dream, Public Persons and Private Lives, Book Burning, Liberals for Lunch, Occupied Territory, The Death of Ethics in America, Uncommon Sense and Things That Matter Most. His latest was The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas. In 1995, Thomas was honored with a Cable Ace Award nomination for Best Interview Program. Other awards include a George Foster Peabody team reporting award, and awards from both the Associated Press and United Press International. Common Ground, which Thomas writes for USA Today, offers insightful discussion of contentious social issues with his friend and political counterpart, Bob Beckel. The two are working together on a book to be published in 2007.
Close.
Cal Thomas
Syndicated political columnist
Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism.
more »
"My name is Ghostbuster, and under Mr. Mark's encompassing definition of religion, I am indeed religious."
That was about as much fun as having a tooth pulled with no sedative.
No matter how subjectively I try to apply the list, under your definition I am indeed "guilty" as charged on one or all points at varying degrees. I certainly aim to become "less religious" in many areas, but I suppose we all have our vices.
Of course, I stand by my stated differences between religion and relationship. I think my analogies work just fine :)
You know, it is interesting to ponder a paradigm shift to a different system of belief/non-belief. I think about that very question all the time when reading the diverse opinions on these boards. At this point, I've got my own choices narrowed to a few options that I find most rational. First is agnosticism. I cannot know, period. I think that makes the most rational sense and is the least presumptuous option. But, I doubt I could remain agnostic because like most people I don't think I could be content "not knowing". So, agnosticism might lead to my second choice which is atheism based on naturalism. I would probably fashion myself after Sam Harris. I would pride myself in being a consistent atheist. I don't care much for inconsistent christians so I doubt I would care for inconsistent atheists. If not atheism, my third option would probably be a form of spiritualism. I would not have an issue meshing agnosticism with spirituality, but I might find atheism and spirituality at odds.
We ought to submit this as a question for the On Faith panel.
I will never agree with you 100% of the time - I can't agree with myself 100% of the time! That said, I think that you and I have much in common, and that if either of us ever decided to hop the fence in the religious wars we would find common ground more often than naught.
But I've already hopped that fence and don't plan on retracing my steps anytime soon. Maybe one day you'll vault over to "our" side. There's plenty of room over here...and a helluva lot less manure to be wading through when compared to those "other side" neighborhoods of fear, guilt and ignorance.
You know, if you really wanted to throw me off sometime, just say: "That makes total sense, I see what you are saying and I agree 100% with everything you just said".
On second though, please don't say that. I might fall off this chair and hurt myself :)
As for your points, I actually think you may have me nailed with that last line. I'm going to think about what you said and get back to you when I have more time tomorrow.
You write: ""Religion" as you defined it is completely one sided. It is the antithesis of having a personal relationship with Christ."
But the dictionary definition of the word "religion" handily encompasses your idea of having a personal relationship with god. Like many Xians on this board, you seem to believe that your having an imaginary "personal relationship with Christ" puts your beliefs outside of the realm of being called "religion." It doesn't. It is merely a facet of your religion that is present only in Xianity.
Every Xian that I know believes that their faith is about having a "personal relationship with Christ." The dictionary defines that belief as, "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." In fact, the more fervently you believe in the personal relationship aspect of your faith, the more your faith resembles the dictionary definition of religion as, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
The non-sequitor comes when you ask how the definition of the word "childhood" has anything to do with a father's love for his child. It doesn't, anymore than the word "baby." But that is NOT the case of the word religion whose definition encompasses your own definition of your belief/faith/religion as being a personal relationship. Your belief in your "personal relationship with Christ" is a "personal set...of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices." It's hardly one-sided.
Or are you saying that you're the only Xian on the planet who believes he has a personal relationship with Christ?
Time to embrace the horror, Ghostbuster. You're as religious as it gets.
A father's loving relationship with his four year old daughter (adopted or biological) is not contingent on the facts that 1) she is his child and therefore it's her responsibility to love him 2) she is committed to him as her father 3) she obeys all his rules 4) she models his behavior... the list could go on and on.
She doesn't "do, follow, believe" anything to deserve his love. It is the same problem with your religious definition. It is the same core issue I have with ALL religion. "Religion" as you defined it is completely one sided. It is the antithesis of having a personal relationship with Christ. I'll tell you the same thing I told some of my Mormon friends...
Its not about what you do, its about what was done for you.
I am concerned about the content/methods of your hoax pages. Better methods to disprove the OT etc. would be to cite studies from National Geographic etc. about the origins of homosapiens and similar studies on the lack of archeological evidence of the existence of Noah, Moses etc.
I may not have the belief in God that you do, but I like to pride myself on being able to understand and relate.
All I can say is this: Doubt is a part of belief, yet you have to still want to believe. Just because there are contradictions, they shouldn't put a damper on your beliefs. You still believe, right? Just hold on to that and you'll be fine.
Now, though, you can still believe but have a rationality to it. I have no problem with religion, I have quams with the followers who seem to have forgotten the message. The message is that it doesn't matter what faith you have, just that you HAVE FAITH.
Some believe, some don't. We can all still get along and share a drink.
Hopefully this hasn't tainted your views on posting here.
Maybe we can co-author a book of overused religious cliches someday. It will be a pretty big book, don't you think?
Now back to my point...
Main Entry: child·hood
Pronunciation: 'chI(-&)ld-"hud
Function: noun
1 : the state or period of being a child
2 : the early period in the development of something
How does that definition describe a father's relationship toward his child?
A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -
X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .
Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!
As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.
confused: says, "I do not believe in a young earth btw. The bible's refernces to each creative "day" can mean thousands to hundreds of thousands of years or even more for each creative day"
Confused, they were regular 24 hour days. There are as many eye witnesses to God creating the world as there were when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The last one of them had Omega watches too. With all those eye witnesses and reliable time pieces how can we deny they were regular days?
There is one question not yet answered. How is it that God needed Moses to lead His people out of bondage in Egypt? After all, God created the whole shebang in 6 days and yet couldn't seem to get what He wanted, something as simple as freeing slaves a few years later. You don't suppose God lost His almighty power?
And A & E and talking snakes and magical gardens and global floods and seas parting and "pwtfft"s and their ugly counterparts and passing through walls and bodies rising to spirit states and all those fast buck fortune tellers then and now!!!!
I do not believe in a young earth btw. The bible's refernces to each creative "day" can mean thousands to hundreds of thousands of years or even more for each creative day.
I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses for 16 years up until just last year. I was an elder as well. We taught and believe that these things (such as holocaust, crime, tsunamis etc) happen because man is being allowed to govern himself, apart from God, to prove for all time the sad consequences of manmade, independent of God rulership.
Now, I have always been a person of great faith. I have no problems admitting when I am in error, thus I left the Witnesses faith altogether and am now shunned by all Jehovah's Witnesses including my own kid. Tough consequences to have to pay for simply walking away due to doctrinal disagreements and nothing else.
But I still today believe that the universe and we ourselves are the result of an intelligent designer and did not arrive through Big Bang's, abiogenesis, evolution without the guiding hand of intellect.
Yes, imo the bible has many things which make it stand out as perhaps being inspired of God. Which to me is the most compelling reason why a third of the world is Christian in my opinion. Otherwise the bible would be nothing more than some "good book" if not for some powerful evidence of inspiration. Due to the numerous fulfilled prophecies, the overall harmony of the bible writers, it's scientific accuracy etc the bible is the most widely printed book of all time, available in over 2000 languages and a major influence on billions of people throughout the earth for many centuries now. Anybody that wants to just write it off as hogwash is standing on shaky ground and in denial of some of the facts here. There are very compelling reasons to believe it is inspired.
But for me, the easily counted, verifiable and difficult to refute testimony from those Greeenland ice cores is extremely problematic for the Noah's Ark bible account. But so are the marine fossils found on mountaintops, which to many DO supprt the global flood theory.
My questions above is probably more for believers than unbelievers. I already know that most unvbelievers feel the bible is fairytaleland. Fine, I respect your right to believe that. I may join you one day. But for now, I am interested in dealing with this specific issue of ice cores which seriously challenge the global flood account which the bible speaks in great detail about.
I am being as sincere as I possibly can be. I have no hidden agenda or ulterior motives. I am still a Christian believer but have some serious doubts about a very significant postion of what the bible teaches.
Thanks for taking the time. I am open to hear the some other thoughts on those ice core conclusions.
Scientists infer with a high degree of certainty that the earth is 5 billion years old. This inference is based on the natural geologic deposits of uranium, and the quantity of its daughter isotopes formed as a by-product of its radioactive decays series, and all of these fractionated quantities correlated with the known radioactive half-life of uranium. It is simple nuclear physics. If you are afraid that Iran might get the atomic bomb, then you must believe in nuclear physics. If you believe in nuclear physics, then you should accept its simple findings regarding the age of the earth. Leaky glaciers in Greenland are the least of the many proofs we have that the earth is very old, indeed. Intelligent, educated, and sophistocated Christian acknowledge all of these things.
I agree with Jay S. My "crap-detector" is going off on confused. The glaciers in Greenland are suddenly making you doubt the literal word of the Bible? Come on! It doesn't make sense.
If the tsunami that killed 250,000 people did give you pause, I find it very dubious that leaky Greenland glaciers would bother you.
"... then how do we know what in the bible is true and what is not?"
Here is the answer, the plain and awful truth:
"We don't know."
Faith is not knowledge and knowledge is not faith. You must decide for yourself what your faith encompasses, and no one else can decide it for you; but always please remember, all of the people who speak in the name of God, are not, themselves God, but just men, with moral authority no greater than your own.
Ther false certainty when there is none is arrogant and unbecoming; tentative faith in what you believe to be true is humble and humbling.
This is more difficult than fundamentalism, but I am certain that is a better and more correct way.
Fulfilled prophecy in the bible? Scientific accuracy? Please provide examples.
I'm surprsed it was the Greenland ice cores that have elicited this confusion in you. There is much in science that conflicts with what the bible claims is true. The major findings in modern geology, biology, and physics don't mesh at all with Genesis, if you choose to read that book literally.
Thanks for the many replies to my question. I read them all. here is the problem with believing some or certain parts of the bible exclusively: If the bible quotes Jesus(along with several other writers) as saying the flood was a very real, historical, global event; but the evidence today suggests that in fact may not be the case at all, then how do we know what in the bible is true and what is not?
Either the bible is the written word of God, inspired BY GOD, or it is not. I have always believed it was. There are numerous reasons to believe it is. Fulfilled prophecy for one. Scientific accuracy when science was yet primitive. The willingness to include human mistakes in their writings. The practical value of what was written... and many other reasons to believe, as Paul said, it being inspired of God.
But in Mat 24 Jesus talks about the flood as a real, global event, which mirrors our own time currently in many ways. Though the facts are not supporting such a claim as a global flood.
So what can I believe and not believe? Did Jesus resurrect the dead as is claimed? Did he heal the sick, walk on water and other miraculous things or not? I hope these things are true by the way. But the facts about those Greenland ice cores really put a difficult light on a very large part of what the bible says throughout its pages.
"That some reject his message is their right, but they also must accept the consequences, for "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).
And they get offended when we, atheists, reply with arguments. The paragraphs above contais a menace and an insult. It says that you will punished for eternity if you don't believe, and, of course, you are also stupid. But God is love.
Thank Mr. Hitchens, Dawkings et al. for showing up and return the offense.
Don't you realize, religious people, how vacous are your arguments? I think some of you do, because there are many intelligent people among you, but change to new ideas has always being difficult.
Belief in the literal words of the Bible, that the serpent in the Garden of Eden, for example, spoke, is naive and indicates an unsophistocated and primitive sort of relgion. Yet, that is what some people believe. Some people develop quite a high degree of sophistocation in other ways, yet maintain this primitive sort of belief when it comes to relgion. It is a sort of weird "dream-space" that they inhabit, like the Australian aborigines are said to believe.
But believing Christians can and do develop as they grow and learn. Parts of the Bible are very very old, and have been copied and translated many times, and are not reliable accounts of history. Almost all of the Bible describes local settings that are very foreign to us, describing local contingencies that do not apply to us, that are even like a blinding glare to us, obstructing the meaning, which is not clear to us, so far away in time, setting, and culture. All of these things go into consideration, when reading the Bible.
When you look at it this way, it is very unwise to cling onto any single verse or saying, and it is unwise to quote disconnectedly to support your arguments. The Bible is just a helping tool, when used properly, but it is too often used as a weapon to beat people up with.
I've spent a good part of my life time, including three years in seminary and a number of years in the pastorate, considering the same question you raised. Through study and prayer this is what I've come to believe, that while the Bible has history in it, and is inspired by God, it was not dictated by God. The writers of the Bible did not have our need to make everything historically correct to be true, but where interested in the truth of the message they sought to convey. We can be pretty sure that some parts of the Bible, the Sermon On The Mount for instance, are either the words of Jesus or close reports of what he taught. Other parts of the Bible need to be judged by the fact that, as Cal says, Christianity is a religion of relationships, and both the Hebrew Bible and our New Testaments are books of relationships. Personally I believe we must start with the mind of Jesus and judge everything else accordingly.
The words knowing, trusting, believing, are actually pretty complex words with varied and subtle meanings. Knowing about the age of the world gives you a sort of inference of high certainty based on science. Belief in God, is a faith or trust, not provable or demonstrable by anything like science. If it makes you a little queasy, then you must get up your nerve and maintain it, or else stop believing.
In fact, there is no human authority who can tell us what the Bible means and there is no human authority who can tell us what God wants of us, and from us. There are many men who claim this authority, but they have no more legitimacy than you or me to say what the Bible MIGHT mean and what God MIGHT want.
We experiment inside of our heads, with belief, and then we negotiate with each other. Think about all these things. It takes a little courage, but blaming a difficulty in faith on the atheists doens't do any good and doesn't help; and condemning science for undermining your beliefs also is not very helpful or productive.
I personally think my cat Max was sent by God to die for humanities sins. This belief is just as rational as thinking that Jesus was. He was nothing more than a radical Jew of his times, who had followers who established a religion that they used for various ends, not the least was Constontines re-editing of Christianity to further the Roman Empire.
Anyone who believes in the Bible need only ask every non-Christian what they think of the many violent fairy tales to know that it is self-evidently untrue to all but those who have been brainwashed and do not have the courage to face the world honestly.
The stories are legends and myths and you don't have to believe them literally.
It's unlawful to present legends and myths as absolute facts and use that to extract money from people. It's called the con in street language. Religion involves "confidence" expressed as "faith" in the learned doctor of divinity.
http://www.hoax-buster.org says the Bible has source documents that are being suppressed. You decide what that means.
Mr Cal is a strong supporter of the doctors of divinity and has the media to support them.
It was refreshing to read in Reverend Rex Humbard's obituary, that the evangelist who was first on TV and had a long career never mixed politics with his sermons and didn't believe that religion should be interjected into his sermons. He is a rare spirit and will be missed
It was refreshing to read in Reverend Rex Humbard's obituary, that the evangelist who was first on TV and had a long career never mixed politics with his sermons and didn't believe that religion should be interjected into his sermons. He is a rare spirit and will be missed
It was refreshing to read in Reverend Rex Humbard's obituary, that the evangelist who was first on TV and had a long career never mixed politics with his sermons and didn't believe that religion should be interjected into his sermons. He is a rare spirit and will be missed
I admire and applaud Cal Thomas for once again speaking out the truth.
He is right in acknowledging that detractors of religion often have legitimate points to make. True Christians must become more aware of the ubiquitous tendency of (the human aspect of) religion to control and monopolize. Indeed the word religion itself alludes to bondage.
My only concern is that his use of religious language could undermine his thesis, at least in the minds of some. ("in that while", "whosoever")
I thought at first I was reading a column written by someone else that was accidentally inserted under Cal Thomas's name.
So to sum up the article, religion is man-made and used to control people. But god is real. And to prove that he is real, and that those who reject him are fools, one must resort to quoting Christian scripture which is derived from ... religion.
Hey, I recognize that circular logic ... it really IS Cal Thomas!
You are correct in the assertion that religion is of man and that God is devine ... yet your reference to "Jesus" and subsequently Christianity belies that message. Jesus' role in our salvation and/or place as the son of God is WHOLLY of man's creation ... we can be holy at our base, a gift from to my point of view, an un-named creator, but it is completely unrelated to the man-made deification of either Jesus or Mohhamed -- either of which having been elevated to masiah status by a group no differt than the followers of David Koresh or Warren Jeffs for that matter.
Religion is a detriment to all that we as people are capable of achieving.
I admire and applaud Cal Thomas for once again speaking out the truth.
He is right in acknowledging that detractors of religion often have legitimate points to make. True Christians must become more aware of the ubiquitous tendency of (the human aspect of) religion to control and monopolize. Indeed the word religion itself alludes to bondage.
My only concern is that his use of religious language could undermine his thesis, at least in the minds of some. ("in that while", "whosoever")
confused ... try adopting a more Deistic view of it all. That is .. God exists and created the universe, but the various holy books that exist are not words from God to man. They are instead words of men about their yearning to reach God, and expressing that as best they could in their particular times and places.
The stories are legends and myths and you don't have to believe them literally.
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus established THE Christian church, (NOT Christian churcheS). So God has nothing to do with religion. You denying the divinity of Jesus are you or is that just another case of selective Bible quoting.
You can wiggle out of the Protestant heresy Cal by invoking the "sect" rule.
There's a few of us who invoke the Forrest Gump rule, "stupid is as stupid writes." "God has nothing to do with religion." You mean "the perception of God?" Who does Pat Robertson talk to anyhow? Has he announced the results of the 2008 election yet?
You can wiggle out of it Cal. Say, "the Devil made me write that."
I agree, God has nothing to do with religion. It's the Devil behind it. You're lucky those atheists don't even believe there is a Devil or they might say something really bad about religion.
So Mr. Thomas' argument is that religion is a sorry mess, but fortunately, it has nothing to do with his beliefs?
It's like hearing Muslims claim that "Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim!" Oh well, problem solved then. No need to critically examine your faith.
Well, no. Changing the definition of religion to exclude yourself will not change the fact that faith in god makes people do terrible things to each other. The enemy Hitchens is attacking is dogma and blind faith, and you've just displayed it, Mr. Thomas!
I am a believer and Christian (and Administrative Council chairperson in my local church), and I may not be the person to answer you're question either....but i'll give it a shot. I don't believe the Bible is the "word" of God. I don't really know where that came from. What it is, is a collection of personal experiences, direct experiences, with God and Jesus. Its written by different people, translated and transcribed several times, and was organized and compiled by other people into a collection of books. What it is, is the best compilation of religious matter we have. It may be flawed....but that is because it was written by humans. It is the closest we can get to being with Jesus when he was teaching. The letters from Paul and others are the closest we can get to learning from the original disciples. They were not perfect and didnt know everything, but they have an emmense amount to teach us about God and Jesus. Whether or not specifics were made in error during the original writing, or transcribing, or translating, the core truths that permeate the Bible are the core truths of the world. Don't get hung up on insignificant details because those were probably a result of human error. Particularly in the Old Testament, since much of that ironically is why Jesus came to put the Jews back on the right path.
I am a believer and Christian (and Administrative Council chairperson in my local church), and I may not be the person to answer you're question either....but i'll give it a shot. I don't believe the Bible is the "word" of God. I don't really know where that came from. What it is, is a collection of personal experiences, direct experiences, with God and Jesus. Its written by different people, translated and transcribed several times, and was organized and compiled by other people into a collection of books. What it is, is the best compilation of religious matter we have. It may be flawed....but that is because it was written by humans. It is the closest we can get to being with Jesus when he was teaching. The letters from Paul and others are the closest we can get to learning from the original disciples. They were not perfect and didnt know everything, but they have an emmense amount to teach us about God and Jesus. Whether or not specifics were made in error during the original writing, or transcribing, or translating, the core truths that permeate the Bible are the core truths of the world. Don't get hung up on insignificant details because those were probably a result of human error. Particularly in the Old Testament, since much of that ironically is why Jesus came to put the Jews back on the right path.
Umm...you seem to be confusing God with religion as well. By the fact that you claim that "God" sent "his" son to save us you are tacitly and implicitly stating that the Christian religion = God. Your BELIEF is based on RELIGIOUS dogma and has just as much validity in describing the concept of God as anyone else's religion.
Well said. God has no religion. PERIOD. God does not have hands or feet. God is SPIRIT. Man is the one who puts "isms" together to separate people and philosophies. God is not a Catholic or a Jew. Simply put, His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways, therefore, the very things we think are so right, so perfect, by way of our small mindeness regarding religion, I am sure God not on finds comical, but takes pity in our foolish thoughts and behaviors.
Futhermore, I believe the Bible is a True and sufficient guide but a guide nevertheless. tTakin into account that it is not the original word of God. That many things were added in translation and left out because of politics and translation, when it is being read, know that it can not, will it ever encompass God and His desires for His people in its entirity. Man put it together, and man if flawed. So keep that in mind when you feel compelled to QUOTE SCRIPTURE AND BE A BIBLE BUSTERS. All in that Book is not "Thus saith the Lord". Most of it is "Thus saith him and Thus saith her".
And how exactly do you purport to know anything about what your magic sky fairy "wants"? If someone else told you that their magic sky fairy wanted the exact opposite, through recourse to what argument and evidence would you make to disprove them that doesn't beg the question? The bible is full of many terrible things as well, so quoting one or two nice passages doesn't really get you anywhere if you are indeed claiming this book as some kind of divine word. You also have no evidence you can point to that the bible, out of all the religious texts in existence, is somehow the "true" divine text. Morality becomes much more forceful when it's not contingent on arguments for which there is not, and cannot be, any evidence.
I saw a History Channel program a while back that dealt with Bible stories. If I recall correctly, the Genesis account was largely borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, except that in the original, the serpent was a bringer of wisdom, not doom.
If memeory serves, their findings on the flood were that there was a massive flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, and that, and they hypothesized that primitive people would have concluded that the whole world was flooding - THEIR entire world certainly was. Or it could have been hyperbole inserted after the fact to make the story more exciting.
Funny Cal, on the one hand, you dismiss religion as a creation of man, and then use it to bash those who find the created 'God' to be a doubtworthy concept!
Make up your mind, are you a mindless follower, or a thinking dissenter? You can't be both.
With all respect Mr. Thomas, you leave us with nothing other than when some nut commits some horrendous act on the authority of God and in the name of God, we have no choice other than to accept it. Isn't that the logical extension of what you are saying. I applaud people who do good works in the name of God. But that isn't what vexes our world today, would that it were so. It is evil that is being perpetrated in the name of God more often than not. How can you sit there and peddle the nonsense that a personal relationship with God is the definitive basis of morality when what those 19 hijackers did on 9-11--killing themselves and the innocent passengers--was for them a logical outcome grounded in their own personal relationship with their God?
Hitchens seems to be right on this point. If these young men were insane, then why is it not also to be inferred that those who do good on the basis of a perceived personal relationship with God, are not also insane, albeit it in a more positive, constructive way?
If the flaws in all the foundations of contemporary religions were fixed, would there be any "gods" or "god reps" left??????? Jesus would definitely be downgraded to a well-meaning preacher/peasant.
And Mohammed, he would be downgraded to the warmongering, womanizing, plagiarizing, and hallucinator that he was.
Religion, spirituality and athiesm can be termed as three ways how man relates to Divine (I am not using the word "God" for obvious reasons). Religion: to relate to the Divine personally via human mind, so called desire-soul of vital feelings etc., and by physical consciousness. Spirituality: relating to the Divine in terms of experience- transcendental, inside one's being; atheism: relating to the Divine by denying it. Ironically, the starting point for all these three are human mind or a bit fundamental, human consciousness. the problem comes when spirituality - quest for the Divine - is mixed with religion,(a way of fostering a relationship with the Divine) but not the vice versa.More spiritual a religious person is, better to him/her and the community. The author of the article and a few commentators consider both the religion and spirituality as the same and thus the confusion and corruption. Can atheist, who by definition is non-religious, be spiritual? Why not: as long as the his/her faculties are ordained to the betterment of human Spirit. Hence a corrupt and atheist politician can never be spiritual while an atheist and strict policeman/woman could be.
"Mr. Mark,
Good to see you again. That is an encompassing definition you offered, but you haven't grasped what Thomas means in his comparison."
Thanks for the comment.
Oh, I grasped what Cal meant: religion is an invention of man, god is god. What Cal leaves out is that god is also an invention of man.
Cal wishes to define the term "religion" narrowly. It's a common tactic among religious apologists, and I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel - scratch that, a penny - for every time I've seen that piss-poor argument advanced. My posting the dictionary definition was to show that the term religion encompasses much. In fact, if you're the sole person on Earth who believes in your specific take on god, then you're being religious. While it's true that religion is an invention of "man" in the corporate sense, religion can also be an invention of "a man" in an individual sense.
Cal Thomas is a moron; an arrogant bully. His comments are absurd, and are unintelligible unless one ALREADY believes the relevant background conditions -- which, of course, are the targets of intelligent critique, whether from Hitchens or any other thoughtful, responsible, courageous person.
Thank you Russell. But I would like a believer to share their thoughts with me. I do believe in God. I am certain that the universe, the earth and all life upon the earth did not originate without the guiding hand of intellect. I have always believed the bible is the word of God as well. But those Greenland Ice Core discoveries really challenge the global flood account in my view. I cannot find a way around this dilemma which challenges the flood account along with the bible itself for that matter.
All Comments (86)
First off, let me make a confession...
"My name is Ghostbuster, and under Mr. Mark's encompassing definition of religion, I am indeed religious."
That was about as much fun as having a tooth pulled with no sedative.
No matter how subjectively I try to apply the list, under your definition I am indeed "guilty" as charged on one or all points at varying degrees. I certainly aim to become "less religious" in many areas, but I suppose we all have our vices.
Of course, I stand by my stated differences between religion and relationship. I think my analogies work just fine :)
You know, it is interesting to ponder a paradigm shift to a different system of belief/non-belief. I think about that very question all the time when reading the diverse opinions on these boards. At this point, I've got my own choices narrowed to a few options that I find most rational. First is agnosticism. I cannot know, period. I think that makes the most rational sense and is the least presumptuous option. But, I doubt I could remain agnostic because like most people I don't think I could be content "not knowing". So, agnosticism might lead to my second choice which is atheism based on naturalism. I would probably fashion myself after Sam Harris. I would pride myself in being a consistent atheist. I don't care much for inconsistent christians so I doubt I would care for inconsistent atheists. If not atheism, my third option would probably be a form of spiritualism. I would not have an issue meshing agnosticism with spirituality, but I might find atheism and spirituality at odds.
We ought to submit this as a question for the On Faith panel.
October 3, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 3, 2007 09:32
Dear Ghostbuster -
Thanks for the comment.
I will never agree with you 100% of the time - I can't agree with myself 100% of the time! That said, I think that you and I have much in common, and that if either of us ever decided to hop the fence in the religious wars we would find common ground more often than naught.
But I've already hopped that fence and don't plan on retracing my steps anytime soon. Maybe one day you'll vault over to "our" side. There's plenty of room over here...and a helluva lot less manure to be wading through when compared to those "other side" neighborhoods of fear, guilt and ignorance.
:)
October 2, 2007 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 16:50
Mr. Mark,
You know, if you really wanted to throw me off sometime, just say: "That makes total sense, I see what you are saying and I agree 100% with everything you just said".
On second though, please don't say that. I might fall off this chair and hurt myself :)
As for your points, I actually think you may have me nailed with that last line. I'm going to think about what you said and get back to you when I have more time tomorrow.
Regards
October 2, 2007 3:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 15:45
Dear Ghostbuster -
Nope. It still doesn't work.
You write: ""Religion" as you defined it is completely one sided. It is the antithesis of having a personal relationship with Christ."
But the dictionary definition of the word "religion" handily encompasses your idea of having a personal relationship with god. Like many Xians on this board, you seem to believe that your having an imaginary "personal relationship with Christ" puts your beliefs outside of the realm of being called "religion." It doesn't. It is merely a facet of your religion that is present only in Xianity.
Every Xian that I know believes that their faith is about having a "personal relationship with Christ." The dictionary defines that belief as, "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." In fact, the more fervently you believe in the personal relationship aspect of your faith, the more your faith resembles the dictionary definition of religion as, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
The non-sequitor comes when you ask how the definition of the word "childhood" has anything to do with a father's love for his child. It doesn't, anymore than the word "baby." But that is NOT the case of the word religion whose definition encompasses your own definition of your belief/faith/religion as being a personal relationship. Your belief in your "personal relationship with Christ" is a "personal set...of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices." It's hardly one-sided.
Or are you saying that you're the only Xian on the planet who believes he has a personal relationship with Christ?
Time to embrace the horror, Ghostbuster. You're as religious as it gets.
October 2, 2007 1:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 13:19
Mr. Mark
The analogy works. Just follow the premise.
A father's loving relationship with his four year old daughter (adopted or biological) is not contingent on the facts that 1) she is his child and therefore it's her responsibility to love him 2) she is committed to him as her father 3) she obeys all his rules 4) she models his behavior... the list could go on and on.
She doesn't "do, follow, believe" anything to deserve his love. It is the same problem with your religious definition. It is the same core issue I have with ALL religion. "Religion" as you defined it is completely one sided. It is the antithesis of having a personal relationship with Christ. I'll tell you the same thing I told some of my Mormon friends...
Its not about what you do, its about what was done for you.
October 2, 2007 8:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 08:43
Cal says:
“Islamophobia” (can't they come up with something better than this overused word?)."
Try- Islamofauxbia
October 2, 2007 7:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 07:22
Thanks Russell! I absolutely DO still believe in God and Christ. But I also have questions that deserve answers.
September 29, 2007 10:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 29, 2007 10:33
BGONE,
I am concerned about the content/methods of your hoax pages. Better methods to disprove the OT etc. would be to cite studies from National Geographic etc. about the origins of homosapiens and similar studies on the lack of archeological evidence of the existence of Noah, Moses etc.
See for example:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
Other cites are available but On Faith limits comments to two internet addresses.
Wikipedia's reviews on the historical Jesus and also the origins of "pretty wingie talking flying fictional thingies" are very good
September 28, 2007 4:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 16:04
Ghostbuster -
Your attempt at an analogy is a non-sequitor.
September 28, 2007 3:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 15:12
Confused:
I may not have the belief in God that you do, but I like to pride myself on being able to understand and relate.
All I can say is this: Doubt is a part of belief, yet you have to still want to believe. Just because there are contradictions, they shouldn't put a damper on your beliefs. You still believe, right? Just hold on to that and you'll be fine.
Now, though, you can still believe but have a rationality to it. I have no problem with religion, I have quams with the followers who seem to have forgotten the message. The message is that it doesn't matter what faith you have, just that you HAVE FAITH.
Some believe, some don't. We can all still get along and share a drink.
Hopefully this hasn't tainted your views on posting here.
September 28, 2007 9:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 09:19
Posting here was a real waste of time.
September 28, 2007 3:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 03:59
Mr. Mark,
Maybe we can co-author a book of overused religious cliches someday. It will be a pretty big book, don't you think?
Now back to my point...
Main Entry: child·hood
Pronunciation: 'chI(-&)ld-"hud
Function: noun
1 : the state or period of being a child
2 : the early period in the development of something
How does that definition describe a father's relationship toward his child?
September 27, 2007 11:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 23:29
A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -
X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .
Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!
As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.
September 27, 2007 11:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 23:09
BGone, you are a hoot. Makes no sense at all, but a hoot nonetheless...
September 27, 2007 11:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 23:01
confused: says, "I do not believe in a young earth btw. The bible's refernces to each creative "day" can mean thousands to hundreds of thousands of years or even more for each creative day"
Confused, they were regular 24 hour days. There are as many eye witnesses to God creating the world as there were when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The last one of them had Omega watches too. With all those eye witnesses and reliable time pieces how can we deny they were regular days?
There is one question not yet answered. How is it that God needed Moses to lead His people out of bondage in Egypt? After all, God created the whole shebang in 6 days and yet couldn't seem to get what He wanted, something as simple as freeing slaves a few years later. You don't suppose God lost His almighty power?
Maybe that wasn't God? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul just for you, Concerned. How concerned are you Concerned?
September 27, 2007 10:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 22:02
Confused,
And A & E and talking snakes and magical gardens and global floods and seas parting and "pwtfft"s and their ugly counterparts and passing through walls and bodies rising to spirit states and all those fast buck fortune tellers then and now!!!!
September 27, 2007 6:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 18:56
I do not believe in a young earth btw. The bible's refernces to each creative "day" can mean thousands to hundreds of thousands of years or even more for each creative day.
September 27, 2007 5:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 17:06
I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses for 16 years up until just last year. I was an elder as well. We taught and believe that these things (such as holocaust, crime, tsunamis etc) happen because man is being allowed to govern himself, apart from God, to prove for all time the sad consequences of manmade, independent of God rulership.
Now, I have always been a person of great faith. I have no problems admitting when I am in error, thus I left the Witnesses faith altogether and am now shunned by all Jehovah's Witnesses including my own kid. Tough consequences to have to pay for simply walking away due to doctrinal disagreements and nothing else.
But I still today believe that the universe and we ourselves are the result of an intelligent designer and did not arrive through Big Bang's, abiogenesis, evolution without the guiding hand of intellect.
Yes, imo the bible has many things which make it stand out as perhaps being inspired of God. Which to me is the most compelling reason why a third of the world is Christian in my opinion. Otherwise the bible would be nothing more than some "good book" if not for some powerful evidence of inspiration. Due to the numerous fulfilled prophecies, the overall harmony of the bible writers, it's scientific accuracy etc the bible is the most widely printed book of all time, available in over 2000 languages and a major influence on billions of people throughout the earth for many centuries now. Anybody that wants to just write it off as hogwash is standing on shaky ground and in denial of some of the facts here. There are very compelling reasons to believe it is inspired.
But for me, the easily counted, verifiable and difficult to refute testimony from those Greeenland ice cores is extremely problematic for the Noah's Ark bible account. But so are the marine fossils found on mountaintops, which to many DO supprt the global flood theory.
My questions above is probably more for believers than unbelievers. I already know that most unvbelievers feel the bible is fairytaleland. Fine, I respect your right to believe that. I may join you one day. But for now, I am interested in dealing with this specific issue of ice cores which seriously challenge the global flood account which the bible speaks in great detail about.
I am being as sincere as I possibly can be. I have no hidden agenda or ulterior motives. I am still a Christian believer but have some serious doubts about a very significant postion of what the bible teaches.
Thanks for taking the time. I am open to hear the some other thoughts on those ice core conclusions.
September 27, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 16:52
Scientists infer with a high degree of certainty that the earth is 5 billion years old. This inference is based on the natural geologic deposits of uranium, and the quantity of its daughter isotopes formed as a by-product of its radioactive decays series, and all of these fractionated quantities correlated with the known radioactive half-life of uranium. It is simple nuclear physics. If you are afraid that Iran might get the atomic bomb, then you must believe in nuclear physics. If you believe in nuclear physics, then you should accept its simple findings regarding the age of the earth. Leaky glaciers in Greenland are the least of the many proofs we have that the earth is very old, indeed. Intelligent, educated, and sophistocated Christian acknowledge all of these things.
September 27, 2007 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 16:37
I agree with Jay S. My "crap-detector" is going off on confused. The glaciers in Greenland are suddenly making you doubt the literal word of the Bible? Come on! It doesn't make sense.
If the tsunami that killed 250,000 people did give you pause, I find it very dubious that leaky Greenland glaciers would bother you.
So?
September 27, 2007 4:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 16:18
Confused asked:
"... then how do we know what in the bible is true and what is not?"
Here is the answer, the plain and awful truth:
"We don't know."
Faith is not knowledge and knowledge is not faith. You must decide for yourself what your faith encompasses, and no one else can decide it for you; but always please remember, all of the people who speak in the name of God, are not, themselves God, but just men, with moral authority no greater than your own.
Ther false certainty when there is none is arrogant and unbecoming; tentative faith in what you believe to be true is humble and humbling.
This is more difficult than fundamentalism, but I am certain that is a better and more correct way.
September 27, 2007 4:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 16:12
Confused:
Fulfilled prophecy in the bible? Scientific accuracy? Please provide examples.
I'm surprsed it was the Greenland ice cores that have elicited this confusion in you. There is much in science that conflicts with what the bible claims is true. The major findings in modern geology, biology, and physics don't mesh at all with Genesis, if you choose to read that book literally.
September 27, 2007 4:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 16:12
Thanks for the many replies to my question. I read them all. here is the problem with believing some or certain parts of the bible exclusively: If the bible quotes Jesus(along with several other writers) as saying the flood was a very real, historical, global event; but the evidence today suggests that in fact may not be the case at all, then how do we know what in the bible is true and what is not?
Either the bible is the written word of God, inspired BY GOD, or it is not. I have always believed it was. There are numerous reasons to believe it is. Fulfilled prophecy for one. Scientific accuracy when science was yet primitive. The willingness to include human mistakes in their writings. The practical value of what was written... and many other reasons to believe, as Paul said, it being inspired of God.
But in Mat 24 Jesus talks about the flood as a real, global event, which mirrors our own time currently in many ways. Though the facts are not supporting such a claim as a global flood.
So what can I believe and not believe? Did Jesus resurrect the dead as is claimed? Did he heal the sick, walk on water and other miraculous things or not? I hope these things are true by the way. But the facts about those Greenland ice cores really put a difficult light on a very large part of what the bible says throughout its pages.
I am definitely confused!
September 27, 2007 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 15:44
"That some reject his message is their right, but they also must accept the consequences, for "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).
And they get offended when we, atheists, reply with arguments. The paragraphs above contais a menace and an insult. It says that you will punished for eternity if you don't believe, and, of course, you are also stupid. But God is love.
Thank Mr. Hitchens, Dawkings et al. for showing up and return the offense.
Don't you realize, religious people, how vacous are your arguments? I think some of you do, because there are many intelligent people among you, but change to new ideas has always being difficult.
September 27, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:50
Belief in the literal words of the Bible, that the serpent in the Garden of Eden, for example, spoke, is naive and indicates an unsophistocated and primitive sort of relgion. Yet, that is what some people believe. Some people develop quite a high degree of sophistocation in other ways, yet maintain this primitive sort of belief when it comes to relgion. It is a sort of weird "dream-space" that they inhabit, like the Australian aborigines are said to believe.
But believing Christians can and do develop as they grow and learn. Parts of the Bible are very very old, and have been copied and translated many times, and are not reliable accounts of history. Almost all of the Bible describes local settings that are very foreign to us, describing local contingencies that do not apply to us, that are even like a blinding glare to us, obstructing the meaning, which is not clear to us, so far away in time, setting, and culture. All of these things go into consideration, when reading the Bible.
When you look at it this way, it is very unwise to cling onto any single verse or saying, and it is unwise to quote disconnectedly to support your arguments. The Bible is just a helping tool, when used properly, but it is too often used as a weapon to beat people up with.
September 27, 2007 2:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:36
"Particularly in the Old Testament, since much of that ironically is why Jesus came to put the Jews back on the right path."
Maybe for you this is why he came...what arrogance!!!!! Typical of the believers..they know everything...very very scarey.
September 27, 2007 2:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:22
Dear Confused
I've spent a good part of my life time, including three years in seminary and a number of years in the pastorate, considering the same question you raised. Through study and prayer this is what I've come to believe, that while the Bible has history in it, and is inspired by God, it was not dictated by God. The writers of the Bible did not have our need to make everything historically correct to be true, but where interested in the truth of the message they sought to convey. We can be pretty sure that some parts of the Bible, the Sermon On The Mount for instance, are either the words of Jesus or close reports of what he taught. Other parts of the Bible need to be judged by the fact that, as Cal says, Christianity is a religion of relationships, and both the Hebrew Bible and our New Testaments are books of relationships. Personally I believe we must start with the mind of Jesus and judge everything else accordingly.
September 27, 2007 2:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:14
Dear Confused
As a Christian, here is what I believe:
The words knowing, trusting, believing, are actually pretty complex words with varied and subtle meanings. Knowing about the age of the world gives you a sort of inference of high certainty based on science. Belief in God, is a faith or trust, not provable or demonstrable by anything like science. If it makes you a little queasy, then you must get up your nerve and maintain it, or else stop believing.
In fact, there is no human authority who can tell us what the Bible means and there is no human authority who can tell us what God wants of us, and from us. There are many men who claim this authority, but they have no more legitimacy than you or me to say what the Bible MIGHT mean and what God MIGHT want.
We experiment inside of our heads, with belief, and then we negotiate with each other. Think about all these things. It takes a little courage, but blaming a difficulty in faith on the atheists doens't do any good and doesn't help; and condemning science for undermining your beliefs also is not very helpful or productive.
September 27, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:46
I personally think my cat Max was sent by God to die for humanities sins. This belief is just as rational as thinking that Jesus was. He was nothing more than a radical Jew of his times, who had followers who established a religion that they used for various ends, not the least was Constontines re-editing of Christianity to further the Roman Empire.
Anyone who believes in the Bible need only ask every non-Christian what they think of the many violent fairy tales to know that it is self-evidently untrue to all but those who have been brainwashed and do not have the courage to face the world honestly.
September 27, 2007 1:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:39
Traine:
The stories are legends and myths and you don't have to believe them literally.
It's unlawful to present legends and myths as absolute facts and use that to extract money from people. It's called the con in street language. Religion involves "confidence" expressed as "faith" in the learned doctor of divinity.
http://www.hoax-buster.org says the Bible has source documents that are being suppressed. You decide what that means.
Mr Cal is a strong supporter of the doctors of divinity and has the media to support them.
September 27, 2007 1:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:19
It was refreshing to read in Reverend Rex Humbard's obituary, that the evangelist who was first on TV and had a long career never mixed politics with his sermons and didn't believe that religion should be interjected into his sermons. He is a rare spirit and will be missed
September 27, 2007 1:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:18
It was refreshing to read in Reverend Rex Humbard's obituary, that the evangelist who was first on TV and had a long career never mixed politics with his sermons and didn't believe that religion should be interjected into his sermons. He is a rare spirit and will be missed
September 27, 2007 1:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:18
It was refreshing to read in Reverend Rex Humbard's obituary, that the evangelist who was first on TV and had a long career never mixed politics with his sermons and didn't believe that religion should be interjected into his sermons. He is a rare spirit and will be missed
September 27, 2007 1:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:18
I admire and applaud Cal Thomas for once again speaking out the truth.
He is right in acknowledging that detractors of religion often have legitimate points to make. True Christians must become more aware of the ubiquitous tendency of (the human aspect of) religion to control and monopolize. Indeed the word religion itself alludes to bondage.
My only concern is that his use of religious language could undermine his thesis, at least in the minds of some. ("in that while", "whosoever")
September 27, 2007 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:04
I thought at first I was reading a column written by someone else that was accidentally inserted under Cal Thomas's name.
So to sum up the article, religion is man-made and used to control people. But god is real. And to prove that he is real, and that those who reject him are fools, one must resort to quoting Christian scripture which is derived from ... religion.
Hey, I recognize that circular logic ... it really IS Cal Thomas!
September 27, 2007 12:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:55
You are correct in the assertion that religion is of man and that God is devine ... yet your reference to "Jesus" and subsequently Christianity belies that message. Jesus' role in our salvation and/or place as the son of God is WHOLLY of man's creation ... we can be holy at our base, a gift from to my point of view, an un-named creator, but it is completely unrelated to the man-made deification of either Jesus or Mohhamed -- either of which having been elevated to masiah status by a group no differt than the followers of David Koresh or Warren Jeffs for that matter.
Religion is a detriment to all that we as people are capable of achieving.
September 27, 2007 12:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:50
I admire and applaud Cal Thomas for once again speaking out the truth.
He is right in acknowledging that detractors of religion often have legitimate points to make. True Christians must become more aware of the ubiquitous tendency of (the human aspect of) religion to control and monopolize. Indeed the word religion itself alludes to bondage.
My only concern is that his use of religious language could undermine his thesis, at least in the minds of some. ("in that while", "whosoever")
September 27, 2007 12:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:46
confused ... try adopting a more Deistic view of it all. That is .. God exists and created the universe, but the various holy books that exist are not words from God to man. They are instead words of men about their yearning to reach God, and expressing that as best they could in their particular times and places.
The stories are legends and myths and you don't have to believe them literally.
September 27, 2007 12:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:40
Cal says, "God has nothing to do with religion."
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus established THE Christian church, (NOT Christian churcheS). So God has nothing to do with religion. You denying the divinity of Jesus are you or is that just another case of selective Bible quoting.
You can wiggle out of the Protestant heresy Cal by invoking the "sect" rule.
There's a few of us who invoke the Forrest Gump rule, "stupid is as stupid writes." "God has nothing to do with religion." You mean "the perception of God?" Who does Pat Robertson talk to anyhow? Has he announced the results of the 2008 election yet?
But then there is http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul with all the wiggle room you need. Jesus was the son of the being in the ball of fire.
You can wiggle out of it Cal. Say, "the Devil made me write that."
I agree, God has nothing to do with religion. It's the Devil behind it. You're lucky those atheists don't even believe there is a Devil or they might say something really bad about religion.
September 27, 2007 12:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:29
So Mr. Thomas' argument is that religion is a sorry mess, but fortunately, it has nothing to do with his beliefs?
It's like hearing Muslims claim that "Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim!" Oh well, problem solved then. No need to critically examine your faith.
Well, no. Changing the definition of religion to exclude yourself will not change the fact that faith in god makes people do terrible things to each other. The enemy Hitchens is attacking is dogma and blind faith, and you've just displayed it, Mr. Thomas!
September 27, 2007 12:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:29
Confused:
I am a believer and Christian (and Administrative Council chairperson in my local church), and I may not be the person to answer you're question either....but i'll give it a shot. I don't believe the Bible is the "word" of God. I don't really know where that came from. What it is, is a collection of personal experiences, direct experiences, with God and Jesus. Its written by different people, translated and transcribed several times, and was organized and compiled by other people into a collection of books. What it is, is the best compilation of religious matter we have. It may be flawed....but that is because it was written by humans. It is the closest we can get to being with Jesus when he was teaching. The letters from Paul and others are the closest we can get to learning from the original disciples. They were not perfect and didnt know everything, but they have an emmense amount to teach us about God and Jesus. Whether or not specifics were made in error during the original writing, or transcribing, or translating, the core truths that permeate the Bible are the core truths of the world. Don't get hung up on insignificant details because those were probably a result of human error. Particularly in the Old Testament, since much of that ironically is why Jesus came to put the Jews back on the right path.
September 27, 2007 12:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:07
Confused:
I am a believer and Christian (and Administrative Council chairperson in my local church), and I may not be the person to answer you're question either....but i'll give it a shot. I don't believe the Bible is the "word" of God. I don't really know where that came from. What it is, is a collection of personal experiences, direct experiences, with God and Jesus. Its written by different people, translated and transcribed several times, and was organized and compiled by other people into a collection of books. What it is, is the best compilation of religious matter we have. It may be flawed....but that is because it was written by humans. It is the closest we can get to being with Jesus when he was teaching. The letters from Paul and others are the closest we can get to learning from the original disciples. They were not perfect and didnt know everything, but they have an emmense amount to teach us about God and Jesus. Whether or not specifics were made in error during the original writing, or transcribing, or translating, the core truths that permeate the Bible are the core truths of the world. Don't get hung up on insignificant details because those were probably a result of human error. Particularly in the Old Testament, since much of that ironically is why Jesus came to put the Jews back on the right path.
September 27, 2007 12:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:06
Umm...you seem to be confusing God with religion as well. By the fact that you claim that "God" sent "his" son to save us you are tacitly and implicitly stating that the Christian religion = God. Your BELIEF is based on RELIGIOUS dogma and has just as much validity in describing the concept of God as anyone else's religion.
I think you missed the point.
September 27, 2007 12:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:01
Hmmm, was Matthew 11:28-30 really said by Jesus?? No, according to many contemporary NT exegetes. e.g. See http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=%22yoke+and+burden%22+%22historical+jesus%22&source=web&ots=8mVw7VQ2hb&sig=LHA3ZHyKzadfx94bpt78pV1LPp4
p.349, (52) Yoke and Burden
September 27, 2007 11:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 11:58
Mr. Thomas,
In all your pomposity, you still didn't answer Mr. Hitchens question.
I don't agree with Mr. Hitchens, but, if you couldn't come up with something better, you shouldn't have picked up your pen.
September 27, 2007 11:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 11:47
Well said. God has no religion. PERIOD. God does not have hands or feet. God is SPIRIT. Man is the one who puts "isms" together to separate people and philosophies. God is not a Catholic or a Jew. Simply put, His thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways, therefore, the very things we think are so right, so perfect, by way of our small mindeness regarding religion, I am sure God not on finds comical, but takes pity in our foolish thoughts and behaviors.
Futhermore, I believe the Bible is a True and sufficient guide but a guide nevertheless. tTakin into account that it is not the original word of God. That many things were added in translation and left out because of politics and translation, when it is being read, know that it can not, will it ever encompass God and His desires for His people in its entirity. Man put it together, and man if flawed. So keep that in mind when you feel compelled to QUOTE SCRIPTURE AND BE A BIBLE BUSTERS. All in that Book is not "Thus saith the Lord". Most of it is "Thus saith him and Thus saith her".
September 27, 2007 11:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 11:42
And how exactly do you purport to know anything about what your magic sky fairy "wants"? If someone else told you that their magic sky fairy wanted the exact opposite, through recourse to what argument and evidence would you make to disprove them that doesn't beg the question? The bible is full of many terrible things as well, so quoting one or two nice passages doesn't really get you anywhere if you are indeed claiming this book as some kind of divine word. You also have no evidence you can point to that the bible, out of all the religious texts in existence, is somehow the "true" divine text. Morality becomes much more forceful when it's not contingent on arguments for which there is not, and cannot be, any evidence.
September 27, 2007 11:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 11:41
There is God, Cal--look around and you see thousands of them,
all made up by humans.
If only you would sacrifice yourself for a noble cause:
how much did you get paid to repeat a 12th century argument?
September 27, 2007 11:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 11:28
Confused:
I saw a History Channel program a while back that dealt with Bible stories. If I recall correctly, the Genesis account was largely borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, except that in the original, the serpent was a bringer of wisdom, not doom.
If memeory serves, their findings on the flood were that there was a massive flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, and that, and they hypothesized that primitive people would have concluded that the whole world was flooding - THEIR entire world certainly was. Or it could have been hyperbole inserted after the fact to make the story more exciting.
September 27, 2007 11:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 11:05
Funny Cal, on the one hand, you dismiss religion as a creation of man, and then use it to bash those who find the created 'God' to be a doubtworthy concept!
Make up your mind, are you a mindless follower, or a thinking dissenter? You can't be both.
September 27, 2007 11:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 11:03
With all respect Mr. Thomas, you leave us with nothing other than when some nut commits some horrendous act on the authority of God and in the name of God, we have no choice other than to accept it. Isn't that the logical extension of what you are saying. I applaud people who do good works in the name of God. But that isn't what vexes our world today, would that it were so. It is evil that is being perpetrated in the name of God more often than not. How can you sit there and peddle the nonsense that a personal relationship with God is the definitive basis of morality when what those 19 hijackers did on 9-11--killing themselves and the innocent passengers--was for them a logical outcome grounded in their own personal relationship with their God?
Hitchens seems to be right on this point. If these young men were insane, then why is it not also to be inferred that those who do good on the basis of a perceived personal relationship with God, are not also insane, albeit it in a more positive, constructive way?
September 27, 2007 10:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 10:56
"Me wonders":
If the flaws in all the foundations of contemporary religions were fixed, would there be any "gods" or "god reps" left??????? Jesus would definitely be downgraded to a well-meaning preacher/peasant.
And Mohammed, he would be downgraded to the warmongering, womanizing, plagiarizing, and hallucinator that he was.
September 27, 2007 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 10:48
Religion, spirituality and athiesm can be termed as three ways how man relates to Divine (I am not using the word "God" for obvious reasons). Religion: to relate to the Divine personally via human mind, so called desire-soul of vital feelings etc., and by physical consciousness. Spirituality: relating to the Divine in terms of experience- transcendental, inside one's being; atheism: relating to the Divine by denying it. Ironically, the starting point for all these three are human mind or a bit fundamental, human consciousness. the problem comes when spirituality - quest for the Divine - is mixed with religion,(a way of fostering a relationship with the Divine) but not the vice versa.More spiritual a religious person is, better to him/her and the community. The author of the article and a few commentators consider both the religion and spirituality as the same and thus the confusion and corruption. Can atheist, who by definition is non-religious, be spiritual? Why not: as long as the his/her faculties are ordained to the betterment of human Spirit. Hence a corrupt and atheist politician can never be spiritual while an atheist and strict policeman/woman could be.
September 27, 2007 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 10:39
Ghostbuster writes:
"Mr. Mark,
Good to see you again. That is an encompassing definition you offered, but you haven't grasped what Thomas means in his comparison."
Thanks for the comment.
Oh, I grasped what Cal meant: religion is an invention of man, god is god. What Cal leaves out is that god is also an invention of man.
Cal wishes to define the term "religion" narrowly. It's a common tactic among religious apologists, and I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel - scratch that, a penny - for every time I've seen that piss-poor argument advanced. My posting the dictionary definition was to show that the term religion encompasses much. In fact, if you're the sole person on Earth who believes in your specific take on god, then you're being religious. While it's true that religion is an invention of "man" in the corporate sense, religion can also be an invention of "a man" in an individual sense.
September 27, 2007 10:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 10:33
Cal Thomas is a moron; an arrogant bully. His comments are absurd, and are unintelligible unless one ALREADY believes the relevant background conditions -- which, of course, are the targets of intelligent critique, whether from Hitchens or any other thoughtful, responsible, courageous person.
Read John Dewey's (1934), A Common Faith, Cal...
September 27, 2007 10:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 10:30
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
Here is a very persuasive and comprehensive article about the Greenland Ice core discoveries.
September 27, 2007 10:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 10:10
Thank you Russell. But I would like a believer to share their thoughts with me. I do believe in God. I am certain that the universe, the earth and all life upon the earth did not originate without the guiding hand of intellect. I have always believed the bible is the word of God as well. But those Greenland Ice Core discoveries really challenge the global flood account in my view. I cannot find a way around this dilemma which challenges the flood account along with the bible itself for that matter.
Any other possible explanations that may help?
Thanks again.
September 27, 2007 10:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 10:04
Confused:
It's because the Bible is a book full of borrowed stories. The great flood--borrowed.
Earth is a bit older than 6,000 years too.
Face it, the Bible is not the word of God. It is the words of primitive men who knew nothing of the world, and failed at trying to explain it.
The Bible is Swiss Cheese.....holes everywhere!
September 27, 2007 9:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 09:43
I have asked Christians if they will go to heaven even if they cheat on their wives, are physically abusive, cheat on taxes and in business and commit