The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane is the eighth Episcopal Bishop of Washington, a diocese that encompasses 93 congregations and about 45,000 church members in the District of Columbia, and the Maryland counties of Prince George's, Montgomery, Charles and Saint Mary's. Before coming to Washington, the “On Faith” panelist was dean of Saint Paul's Cathedral in San Diego from 1996-2002. In Washington, he also serves as president of the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation, which governs Saint Alban’s School for Boys, the National Cathedral School for Girls, Beauvoir Primary School, the Cathedral College and the National Cathedral. Throughout his ministry, Chane has been active in projects addressing low-income housing needs, public education reform, poverty and health care reform issues. He also has worked with Episcopalian and charitable organizations around the world as a community organizer, board member and adviser. In San Diego, he was part of an initiative to strengthen ties with Hispanic church members. As part of that effort, he served on the Diocesan Hispanic Task Force and coordinated the “Church Without Borders” program linking the Diocese of San Diego with the Diocese of Western Mexico and the Anglican Church of Mexico. Chane, who earned his divinity degree at Yale Divinity School, enjoys playing drums in reunions with his old blues band, "The Chane Gang."
Close.
John Bryson Chane
Episcopal Bishop of Washington
The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane is the eighth Episcopal Bishop of Washington, a diocese that encompasses 93 congregations and about 45,000 church members in the District of Columbia, and the Maryland counties of Prince George's, Montgomery, Charles and Saint Mary's
more »
"determining that there a supernatural creator doesn't seem so simple to me, especially when you consider that such a powerful entity would need to be created as well."
Not clear the God had to be created.
"believing in such a being is easy enough, I suppose, because once you have faith in something, you don't have to think about it anymore, you just know it's true. Further scientific enquiry or other forms of rational thought not needed."
Dude, you will find no blind faith here. Even my Atheism was not blind. Open to new data it was.
The difference between me and the blind faith Atheists is that I accept the Universe as evidence and work from there on the data it offers.
So who is it really who has steadfast faith not concerned with science and observations?
determining that there a supernatural creator doesn't seem so simple to me, especially when you consider that such a powerful entity would need to be created as well.
believing in such a being is easy enough, I suppose, because once you have faith in something, you don't have to think about it anymore, you just know it's true. Further scientific enquiry or other forms of rational thought not needed.
"I completely agree to your statement that a "scriptural" (my definition) god (the main topics of the pious crowd, heaven and hell etc. etc.) has really nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the beginning. It is funny that so many people connect the two dimensions and try in vain to prove the one through the other, arriving at nothing but constant circular reasoning."
Roger Penrose who did some of the probability calculations to which I refer carefully observes that any creator has "nothing to do with denominations." I agree.
I take my deductive religion project axioms as:
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. She did this to make an abode for life.
I use "She" to distance Her from the ancient world's various patriarchal religions. Lepi and PaganPlace seem to enjoy this usage. But one thing seems sure to me. Whoever, or whatever this creator was She was not the God of Sunday School.
After almost thirty years of Atheism, I was very reluctant to conclude that there is a creator. It turns out to be the simplest interpretation.
While I admit you can say "Well, it just happened. Why do you need a creator?" But then you have to explain how it happened so perfectly for us to exist. I broke my Atheist jaw trying to chew that rock up.
Thank you for your post. I had read, and just now reread, your earlier post.
I agree with you that labels are not reality and don't even point toward reality.
As a Buddhist sympathizer, I believe that reality inheres in the present moment and that, from the point of view of human perception, it is infinite, multifaceted, and mysterious.
To Norrie Hoyt: Hi, hope you are doing fine, I don't know if you have read my posting of Sept 8, 2007 at 10:43 AM but if you haven't, I wish you would, thank you. Concerning what you wrote, "GOTT MITT UNS was engraved on the inside of the military belts worn by Nazi soldiers in World War II, where it appeared next to images of the swastila and the imperial German eagle", when I was in Vietnam, a friend of mine from the same beach that I grew up in was also there even though we never saw each other over there but we did talk on the phone. Well after we both got home in some of the conversations that we had, he related how he had seen the swastika on some graves over there. The swastika, I believe is originally a Buddhist symbol, it might be the wheel of life, I really don't know, maybe you do. I used to think that the Germans came up with it but they didn't. It does seem obvious that just because some people use symbols and words, that doesn't necessarily mean they take them to heart, sometimes it can just be a smokescreen that they hide behind. It does seem interesting about the "imperial German eagle" though, since that seems to be a very nationalistic symbol, I think that should speak for itself. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
I don't want to leave the impression that I don't like the American Episcopal Church or its clergy.
I love their clergy. A wonderful Episcopal priest played the violin at our civil wedding in the Governor's office in the Vermont State House.
Kathy and I wrote our own wedding service in which we vowed to stay together for as long as we felt like it. (It's been 33 years so far.)
As he left the service, an old Vermont politician commented, "They don't do it that way in Barre."
[Barre, home of the famous Vermont granite quarries, is a conservative, largely Catholic, working-class town.]
Another Episcopal priest, seeking to be admitted to the Vermont Bar, asked if he could serve his mandatory legal clerkship with me in my law office. He did, and I thoroughly enjoyed his company.
If I decided to become a Christian [God forbid!],
I'd be either an Episcopalian or a Congregationalist.
If I seem sometimes to be a bit rough in my comments, it's because, in trying to make a point, I try to be entertaining, just as the clergy do in their sermons. That way the readers are less likely to fall asleep or skip over the post, and my point may actually stick in their minds for a few minutes.
I really do wish you and Bishop Chane the very best.
"Since neither you nor I know what was before this beginning, the hypothesis of god (as a joker) amounts to a comparable amount of ignorance, with the only difference that I, or we atheists, admit it."
What you miss is that we know what is here now after the beginning. It has properties we can study. It is VERY precisely tuned to support life. I can't ignore that.
As to the self generating mathematical algorithms, the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" is, to me a very interesting piece of the puzzle, too.
Hi, Norrie - Anglican bishops in England might be pretty comfortable - state church and all, but their Episcopal counterparts in the US are an endangered species, with some conservative americans switching allegiance to the Nigerian church to avoid accepting gays.
Though Bishop Chane's views on God might seem vague and wobbly, his accepting views on gays are crystal clear and firm, I'm sure. Ain't no goin' back.
Bravo, Bishop Chane and all your reasonable, compassionate colleagues.
your deductions lack a strange amount of logic: The question between science and religion is not the fact (present ever moving theoretical assumption anyway, in light of string or brane theories!), that the universe had a beginning, but that SOMEONE with an intention started it. The poetic analogies are nice (though pretty old), but prove nothing as to the WILL or the individuality of a "god" (how would we have to picture him?) for the "creation" of the universe.
Since neither you nor I know what was before this beginning, the hypothesis of god (as a joker) amounts to a comparable amount of ignorance, with the only difference that I, or we atheists, admit it.
The mere fact that it started certainly is no proof for a willful beginning, which even you as a scientist with religious assumptions should see. The probability question omits the self-generating force of mathematical algorithms, which have the power to create forms by the sheer consequence of the rules (the "laws" of nature, the interplay of the four physical forces; fractals are an example). The "absurd" probability smallness appears in a different light.
I completely agree to your statement that a "scriptural" (my definition) god (the main topics of the pious crowd, heaven and hell etc. etc.) has really nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the beginning. It is funny that so many people connect the two dimensions and try in vain to prove the one through the other, arriving at nothing but constant circular reasoning.
Just because, as you say, "...all other adherents to an Abrahamic religion believe that 'God' created the universe and this world" doesn't mean he does too.
He's already gotten in a lot of trouble with supposed fellow adherents for saying ""God lives within each of us...not outside of us."
GOTT MITT UNS was engraved on the inside of the military belts worn by Nazi soldiers in World War II, where it appeared next to images of the swastila and the imperial German eagle.
In an earlier post on this thread, I wrote:
"Bishop Chane and all other adherents to an Abrahamic religion believe that 'God' created the universe and this world.
"By creating this universe and this world with the characteristics they in fact have, 'God' must be held to have intended the natural and probable consequences of those characteristics, viz., suffering and death.
"'God' must therefore be considered to be a torturer and a murderer, as the Cathars so readily perceived."
"Suffice it to say that I do not think that supernatural events (e.g., creation of the universe by a supernatural being, virgin birth, resurrection, bodily ascension into heaven) are possible."
Creation of the Universe is in a different category than virgin birth, resurrection, bodily ascension into heaven. The Universe presents evidence. For example the microwave background radiation is the remnant of an image of the universe shortly after The Big Bang (poetically: The Moment of Creation). The COBE satellite has gotten enough data to construct a picture of the surface universe just as it became transparent (poetically: Let There Be light). Roger Penrose uses black hole theory to compute the probability of the Universe with thermodynamics like the one we live in is 1/(10^(10^128)). This number is absurdly small. Thus the Universe we live in is not a chance occurrence.
In science, we reject hypotheses that have a low probability given the observations.
Modern science sees nearly back to the moment of creation. It provides theories that give physical interpretation back to 10^(-45) seconds after The Big Bang.
So:
1.There was a moment of creation.
2.The resulting Universe was not one expected by chance (to an absurd degree of confidence)
So what do you make of that?
If you reject what cannot be observed, and you reject what has been observed, what does that leave you?
Thomas Baum and Moderate, I must admit I have difficulty following your thought processes and understanding your questions. Suffice it to say that I do not think that supernatural events (e.g., creation of the universe by a supernatural being, virgin birth, resurrection, bodily ascension into heaven) are possible.
I also don’t understand why Richard Schneider thought I needed to mind my own business, and will stop by here to see if he has something to say about that.
“Moderate - are you equating faith with hypotheses?”
Axioms and hypotheses are not really the same thing. An hypothesis is loosely held and part of the method of scientific investigation the Catholics developed in the Middle Ages, and which was subsequently secularized. Hypotheses are always under revision by a deliberate method. Axioms and premises are necessary to make arguments about hypotheses and to advance the state of the hypotheses with regard to their generality and universality.
You must always strive to take as little on faith as possible. In math that means having as few axioms as possible and still be able to derive the rich field theorems that you need for your science of hypotheses. If you want to do arithmetic, you need the Peano axioms to prove you have done it right. If you don't like one of the Peano axioms you can reject it, but you will find that you cannot add, or count, (though some rudimentary ability to do this is “built in” to us. Among the primitives, they count one, two, three, and many, or use the remarkable computers called the hands put things in correspondence with fingers. How it got “built in” is another discussion.) and then prove you got it right.
Euclid gave the axioms of plane geometry. Well, one of these is that parallel lines never meet, and people took Euclid's postulates (axioms) as “true” for two thousand years. They built impressive technologies on that. Later Riemann said that if you can't prove the parallel postulate what happens if you replace it with its negation. Parallel lines always meet. What he got was spherical geometry, rather than plane, and founded the field of Non-Euclidean Geometry, which is still under investigation.
If you take the parallel postulate (and the other ones) on faith you get plane geometry. If you take its negation on faith you get spherical geometry. Different theorems become available to in each system. You can choose your kind of geometry, but it takes and act of faith to get any one of them.
My deductive religion project presently has two axioms:
1.In the beginning, God created heavens and the earth (poetic for Universe).
2.She did this to create and abode for life.
Many ethical concepts follow.
My point to you is that you have axioms too, whether you like it or not. What are they? Without knowing and identifying your foundations you will be adrift and never really know why you do things or what is right, except by intuition.
Clearly you do have some intuition on this subject if keep some form of the Golden Rule. But it is better to make principled decisions that are accessible to you.
As Socrates said: “The unexamined life is not worth living”
“Hypotheses change with new evidence - faith does not.”
My faith is informed by evidence, and changes with new evidence. Axioms 1 and 2 both come from the nature of the observed Universe, and am confident in them because they are consistent with scientific epistemology and the observations.
Doctrine, which is the equivalent religious equivalent of theorems derived from axioms or scientific laws and observations. Doctrine changes with new understanding of the “facts on the ground”.
“Where did "love thy neighbor" come from? it's very ingrained in humanity. Buddha said it 5 centuries before Jesus did. See Marcus Borg's "Jesus and Buddha - Parallel sayings, parallel lives."
and surely someone said it before that. If neither Jesus or Buddha had been recorded saying it, someone else would have since - it's such common sense.”
And yes, many great religions, and thinkers have arrived at it over the ages. It was certainly part of the Jewish tradition in pre-Christian times, too. It is ingrained in most, but not all people. I believe it is ingrained in good people. There are notable and numerous exceptions. They have been the bringers of destruction.
So what else do you use for your fundamental premises? Another way to phrase that is: What else do you take on faith? And why?
To E FAVORITE and the rest of the world: "Love thy neighbor", what you wrote, "If neither Jesus or Buddha had been recorded saying it, someone else would have since - it's such common sense", since all of humanity are our neighbors, why does common sense seem not very common with humanity and while we are at it why does common courtesy also seem not very common. If you read some of these posts, they are filled with hatred, do you think there might be a reason for that? I have met God the Trinity, does that mean since you don't believe it, that it isn't true? I have also met satan, just because you don't believe me, does not mean that it isn't true. Does somebody calling themself a christian mean that they know anything else about God except for His Name? It doesn't matter if anyone believes me, actually it isn't even important, I am just a messenger, what is important is that I do the job that God gave me and that is to tell the whole world that He is Love, Pure Love and that His Plan is for all of His children. One day a lot of people that call themselves christians, denominational or otherwise, will find out what christianity is all about. It does matter what you do and why you do it and also what you know. Just because the bible has been so distorted and sliced and diced by people does not mean that it isn't true. Some people use the bible to justify all of their own shortcomings and to judge and condemn others. "Look at the beam in your own eye before you try to take the speck out of your brother's", "judge not lest ye be judged", "give mercy and mercy shall be yours", "the measure you judge with will be the measure that you are judged with", people that call themselves christians should ponder these statements and others that Jesus spoke of, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Christianity is not a religion, it is not the dogma, it is not the rules and regulations, but you would be hard pressed to think that, from some of the hatred being spewed out of some of the mouths of some that call themselves christians. There is also a lot of hatred being spewed out of some of the mouths of some of the people that put another label upon themselves, God is not really into labels. Another thing, there is also such an air of superiority coming from both so-called christians and from others no matter what they call themselves. I was taught something very interesting in 2nd grade and that is we are all equal in God's eyes, think about it whether you believe in God or not, it is not saying we are the same, or we have all of the same abilities or nothing like that, but if you think about it rather than just react to it, it may speak to your heart. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
You are a monk brainwashed in some form of Tibetan non-religion who went on a non-religious mission financed by your non-religious apparently rich family but you still believe in the literal bible and literal koran. And you still live in Tibet where the Chinese make your life miserable by restricting your access to excess.
You don't have a dime to your name giving all your money the the African poor but you saved enough to pay for Internet access, a computer and a cozy place to write to all of us people of excess.
Richard R Schneider, I concur with your statement, "Everyone is entitled to their own faith."
I also wonder what I said here to inspire your directive to me that “You need to mind your own business.” I can’t promise that I’ll take your advice, but I am curious -- what, in your opinion, should I avoid saying in the future?
Dear E Favorite: My faith changes with the evidence. You keep your faith, I'll keep mine. Everyone is entitled to their own faith. You need to mind your own business.
Moderate - are you equating faith with hypotheses?
Hypotheses change with new evidence - faith does not.
Where did "love thy neighbor" come from? it's very ingrained in humanity. Buddha said it 5 centuries before Jesus did. See Marcus Borg's "Jesus and Buddha - Parallel sayings, parallel lives."
and surely someone said it before that. If neither Jesus or Buddha had been recorded saying it, someone else would have since - it's such common sense.
"Weather happens. I don't believe that individual weather events are planned or controlled by any deity. Warm air mass meets cool air mass over large body of water, hurricane forms. I don't think that Mama Gaia woke up one late August morning a couple of years ago with a bad case of PMS and decided to give mankind a well-deserved b1tch-slap."
You are sweet to answer my silly tease. I do agree with you in the main. Also about God (The Gods) not putting a tiger in our tanks that belch out vast clouds of carbon dioxide that change the climate. We have only our selves to blame for that. (the) God(s) do not protect us from our own stupidity.
Who was it who said: "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."?
“Regarding: "Science was mostly created by religion" I'd say "Science was mostly DEVELOPED by religIOUS PEOPLE" because in the old days, they were likely to be the ones with advanced education. It's no accident that Mendel, the guy who developed genetics,was a monk.”
It is not that simple. The connection is much more profound than happenstance of who was educated first. Kitty Furguson in “The Fire in the equations” put her finger on it in a way that made Stephen Hawking take notice and endorse the book.
She said:
"There is a further element of risk for anyone on a search for truth. You cannot start in a vacuum. You must begin by trusting some ideas about the universe that have never been proved and might turn out to be wrong. To be simplistic about it, you have to assume that you exist and that you are sane. Those may not be such difficult assumptions. Common sense supports them. Of course you have to believe they are true in order to trust your common sense. You see what sort of mental maze we get ourselves into!
The search for truth in science is based on agreement concerning just such basic assumptions. It is a gamble, if you will; a gamble that certain articles of faith which cannot be proved by science are nevertheless well-founded enough to provide a springboard for all scientific investigation. It is intriguing to find that religion shares much of science's basic view of reality. How is it that two approaches, science and religion, both claim to be avenues to truth but in many ways reputed to clash with one another, should be in a agreement on so basic a level?
The explanation could be quite simple - that we are all looking at the same universe, and what is obvious to one reasonable person is equally obvious to the next. If that is so, it should not surprise us to find all reasonable people more or less in agreement about certain fundamental aspects of the universe. However, the agreement is not unanimous. We are speaking of a world-view shared by science (since the seventeenth century) and Western religion, with exceptions even here, but not shared by all of humanity who presumably experience and have experienced the same universe...”
... Depending on whether we believe in God, you or I might leave God out of the following articles of faith, but otherwise we would find little in this seventeenth-century world-view with which to disagree. In the seventeenth century a scientist could have had it both ways without risking charges of contradiction. What he learned form his religion and his direct experience of the universe led him to believe the following:
- The universe is rational, reflecting both the intellect and faithfulness of its Creator. It has pattern, symmetry, and predictability to it. Effect follows cause in a dependable manner. for these reasons it is not futile to try to study the universe.
- The universe is accessible to us, not a closed book but one open to our investigation. Minds created in the image of the mind of God can understand the universe God created.
- The universe has contingency to it, meaning that things could have been different from the way we find them, and chance and/or choice have played a role in making them what they are. Whether this is contingency in the sense that chance and choice play an ongoing role within the universe, or merely in the sense that there was an initial chance occurrence which brought about this universe instead of a different one or none at all, one cannot learn about the universe by pure thought or logic alone. Knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
- There is such a thing as objective reality. Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is truth behind everything. Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in the desert in response to our opinions, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, or anything else. Reality is not a democracy. There is something definite, some raw material, out there for us to study.
- There is unity to the universe. There is an explanation – one God, one equation, or one system of logic – which is fundamental to everything. The universe operated by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute, or even from millennium to millennium. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits.”
This is one glimpse into the common source of monotheistic religion and science. There are many others, from Pythagorus on. So, many of the Atheist fundamentalists who pretend to stand upon science actually stand against it. They haven't even come to grips with the basic issues about the foundations of science, or the foundations of logic, or the foundations of mathematics.
You see, all arguments have premises. All mathematical systems have axioms. These we must take on faith. Why? Because the systems don't exist if you refuse the premises and axioms. No theorems can be proved, and nothing can be known.
So why bother? Because of the useful results that we get from the systems engendered by the what we take on faith. Medicine, electricity, computers, communication, chemistry, physics, mathematics, modern agriculture, aviation, ... Well, I don't have time to list them all.
There is no escape from faith, if you wish to reason. The fundamentalist Atheists on the site are generally not well thought out, because they fear to do what it takes to actually reason.
I feel sorry that you are offended by my posts, but i assure you that I have spoken nothing that is not truthful about America, you my friend are a little to unreasonable. My heart goes out for tose who know you, they are in danger of your hatred. It spreads like the fires of California..
hey monk you notice how no one is responding, how dare you come onto and American site and bash us..all of your people need to be taught a lesson in fact, we should just wipe out all of you arabs and be out of there...America is the greatest nation in the world, we don't pick the fight we just get criticized for finishing the fight with your sorry countries.
I mean come on you are the problem, America does so much good and bails so many countries out of problems and the thanx we get is More More More...let me tell you I hope you blow yourself up with an IED as you are trying to hurt our Troops....
And I would have been in your Countries Peace Core why? I am not an American, but I took the mission trips, and I didn't go with a "church" my family financed my trips, and we went their to aid in relief, I know it is hard to believe, but some of us in the world see what is going on, "They took the Power from the have-nots and then came the shots"
I understand you think that by following what the Bible or the Quaran instructs and teaches we are brainwashed, but just go put somemore money on the 'ol Visa CC...I mean you as a consumer are brainwashed to believe that these worthless Plasma and LCD Tv's, and HD this and that, are good for the people. Give the Peasents more things for them to occupy their time with and we (the governments) can do whatever we want....
I mean you vote, my country doesn't get to vote because we are being occupied, and yet this wonderful American Dreams are going to liberate us from the tyranny of our Oppressors...It's ironic that I could walk down the street and go to the local Market without being attacked and questioned by either Road security or Military Checkpoint....
But hey nothing like totaly destroying my country's infustructure FOR WHAT....oh yeah:
Providing/making jobs is the best way to fight poverty and Americans are very good at that with their interest in productivity and all things new and novel.
How are those alternate sources of fuel panning out?
Had you been brainwashed in some form of religion, you would have had added direction and assistance in your missionary work. And what missions were you working in? USA Peace Corps?? (although I don't believe they call their projects missionary work.)
Hmmm, and buying electronics and other goods is actually a great thing. Look at China and India in the last 25 years. Providing/making jobs is the best way to fight poverty and Americans are very good at that with their interest in productivity and all things new and novel.
That was very amazing, The world only knows God through the Holy Spirit, and the acts in which we are seen doing are how the "world" sees The Holy Spirit. It is are jobs to show the "world" that living by the word of God is better than giving into all the temptation and the "I want it now" Microwaved mentality that has gripped The Entire World, not just America...When is the last time you didn't see people complaining about standing in line or having to wait more than 30 sec for a meal...
The world has givin into Microwave mentality, but not me, I don't even own one, and let me say I am not a cave man, I just don't like the thought of purposely trying to infuse my food with radioactive microwaves. I know, in the age of cell phone this and that...when the biggest thing to happen in the last year was an iPhone? Who the flip cares...a little less "gimmme gimme gimme" a little more "for $.88 a day you can feed and educate kids in equador"
All those missionary trips I took to Africa and Central America watching kids die, while, my friends in the States wondered if their $950 Mortgage was going to be paid on time..??
TO XYMERIAN MONK: Hi, I was wondering if you had the chance if you would read the posting I did on Sept 6, 2007 at 5:31 PM. Thank You, by the way I live in America and a lot of people sure do seem to be spoiled and ungrateful over here, kind of like a bunch of unruly children. One of the things Jesus spoke of was to be child-like as opposed to childish which are worlds apart. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
It seems mu tongue has spoken sharply once again, I am sorry Concerned that I lashed out, but it seems that the average American spends his time b*tching about the way things are....and yet you have a system of Balances, if a problem is in need of fixing vote to fix it..but there in lies the problem...your Great Democracy (actually Republic) has fallen to the corruption that you people love to call out in other countries...No Government is Perfect, except Iran (a joke for all to snear at).
It seems that the common man, and your Elected Officials have not seen eye to eye, and yet only 30% vote..."Some of those who want Forces are the same that Burn Crosses...Killing in the Name of"
-Rage against the Machine sums up America in one Lyric-
And what religion were you Bred, Born and Brainwashed in?
I would never be so. Religion or anything of such a cultish nature is quite a turnoff to me as a reasonable person, and I am offended that a Catholic such as yourself would ever through the Bred. Born, and Brainwashed comment into the mix. I have no anger towards you, but you seem to have such a negative attitude at anything that is not a New/Age whatever...Why should I care what is taught in theology, or Universities??? How does the "knowledge" of your Universities helping to end such torment in Sudan, the knowledge that is spewed from the dying jays of the American "education" system seems to be flawed...I see that your President went to Yale, so he is quite an Enlightened Person...correct?
Theology, has no bearing on my life...Although I would love to go waste 100,000 on the "Great American Dream" such as the excellent way the "Teachers" live in your great society..I am not bashing the country, only the wasted energies spent on learning "Better" things has led your great Nation down its path... So how is the Debt going...how much money does it take to buy LOVE and PEACE...I know not these answers, but you being the Concerned Cultist now Liberated should...
Moderate - I can only speak for myself regarding katrina relief, but I do think my actions/motivations may be similar to many other people, irrespective of religion. I didn't respond as an atheist. I responded as a fellow human being.
I felt sorry for them. It seemed the least I could do. If I had lived closer I would have considered taking people in - not sure I would have done it, though. That would have been a bigger commitment. I respect the people who did. I suspect some of them were non-believers.
Regarding: "Science was mostly created by religion" I'd say "Science was mostly DEVELOPED by religIOUS PEOPLE" because in the old days, they were likely to be the ones with advanced education. It's no accident that Mendel, the guy who developed genetics,was a monk.
On my side of the fence, it is because we are all Children of God and when one suffers, all suffer. So we should be willing to devote at least a small fraction of our time, treasure, and talent to helping each other through rough times. Because I believe that God created the universe as an abode for life, I see preserving and furthering life as a sacred duty as well as a privilege. This has many implications.
On your side of the fence, what is the motivation? This is not a criticism. It is an honest question.
It is all to clear after seeing the spectacle of Sam Harris, who publicly advocates torture because he lives in fear, criticizing Mother Teresa, that Atheists can go very, very, wrong. Religionists can also go very wrong. Clearly the religious Bush didn't care enough to cancel his month long vacation, and made religion look bad because of it.
I would like to get a better understanding of how an Atheist would go right on something, which you did if you contributed to relief of the Katrina disaster.
Moderate:
**As to God and storms, I think Zeus runs that, so ask PaganPlace, and lepidopteryx.
Whadaya think Lepi?**
Weather happens. I don't believe that individual weather events are planned or controlled by any deity. Warm air mass meets cool air mass over large body of water, hurricane forms. I don't think that Mama Gaia woke up one late August morning a couple of years ago with a bad case of PMS and decided to give mankind a well-deserved b1tch-slap.
My Divine isn't like that. It's not an exeternal entity sitting at a control panel throwing switches and pushing buttons. It's part of me and I'm part of it. It and I are part of an inter-connected web along with the rest of the Universe. It's why I don't practice petitionary prayer. If there's something I need or want, I do two things - I focus my mental and spiritual energy toward that goal (which I guess some people would call prayer), and then I focus my physical energy toward it.
I have dear friends who had just bought a house in New Orleans. They evac'd to Houston when it became apparent that Katrina was going to hit. Did I worry that their house would be destroyed? Sure. Did I ask the gods to magically shield their house? No. Did I think of them often with hope for their safety and that of their hiome? Sure. As it turned out, a tree limb fell through the roof onver their back porch, but the rest of the house was undamaged. Was I grateful? Sure. Did I think it was because they had somehow earned special divine favor that others had not merited? No. That's just how the wind blew. The gods didn't steer the wind around their house and into someone else's house that they didn't like as much.
I do think that we bring generally heightened storm strength on ourselves via our production of greenhouse gases, and it would have been nice if the Corps of Engineers had listened to the scientists who were telling them several years ago that the levees would not be able to withstand a storm surge of this magnitude, but that's a whole other conversation.
Even in places with little to no human population, storms happen. It has nothing to do with punishment for so-called sins or inadequate levels of worship.
"It just doesn't fit anymore into this ever changing,ever evolving,ever developing brave new world,mostly created by science."
It is not that simple. Folks like you either don't know, or don't want to know any of the history of science.
Science was mostly created by religion. From the Pythagorean Society, to the High Middle Ages, through the Renaissance, science and mathematics were developed by the religious to study God's, (or the Gods') plan in laying the foundations of the world, and the Universe.
You must be some scientific genius to be so much smarter than Newton and Einstein put together. They voted against your view of a universe without cause, and for good reason.
The fulminating Atheists on this site are on intellectual par with the cartoon characters like Beavis and Butthead when they pointed a TV remote at the world, said "This sucks. Change it.", and pressed the button.
Guess what? It didn't work. God's creation is not subjective, and neither is God.
COncerned: "...New Reality that is being taught in many Catholic college graduate theology classes."
But this new reality isn't being taught to the parishioners, is it? Why do you suppose that is and what can be done about it?
Moderate - I don't question God because I don't have belief in a God. How could someone know that God didn't cause Katrina, but did cause his people to help in the aftermath? I think that people like me who provided financial support during Katrina were acting on their own innate moral sense.
Screaming??? Hmm, how so? Because we want The Jihadist et al to come to grips with the flaws in the foundations of Islam? That is not screaming, that is concern for world peace akin to saying/singing the Prayer of St. Francis every day.
And what religion were you Bred, Born and Brainwashed in? It took me about five years to rid myself of old time, orthodox Catholicism. Now I am a Catholic/Christian of the New Reality that is being taught in many Catholic college graduate theology classes.
With all these new atheist books topping the best seller list in most countries its as if western civilization is finally growing up and beginning to move away from the fairyland scenario of gods and devils and all the rest of the superstitious mumbo jumbo they've been drumming into our heads for two thousand years or more.It just doesn't fit anymore into this ever changing,ever evolving,ever developing brave new world,mostly created by science.
Enough already with the superstitious nonsense.
I'm so glad that the good bishop says God lives inside ourselves and not outside.In other words he lives in our imagination and not anywhere real.
That also explains why different people believe in differnt gods and some believe in nogod.
This used to really confuse me so much I gave up thinking about it.But yes,of course,a muslim would have a different god in their minds because they were forced to imagine Allah when they were kids,and we we forced to believe in in an old man god with a white beard,and Indians beleive in Indian gods like Vishnu and all the other imaginary gods.
But if gods are imaginery why do we fight about them? If they are imaginary,isnt thatthe same as saying they are not real? That gods dont exist?
I feel so much better about things now.
And I don't need to pray anymore,which always seemed a waste of time.
Thanks bishop.I never thought I'd see the day when a bishop converted me to atheism.
I tend to agree with much of what you say,but you
generalize when you say god is in all of us,even if your God is only a metaphor.
The skygod we argue back and fore over on these threads is an imaginary bigdaddy in the sky that folk talk to and expect to be with when they leave this world for the imaginary world of the dead,known as Heaven.
God is not in all of us.Only in the deluded.
"God lives within each of us...not outside of us!"
Sorry, but that is Bad Theology.
God lives within each of us... and outside of us.
Do you seriously think that the God who created the Universe lives ONLY in us? We create religion, but God created the Universe, and us within it. We did not create God.
You should give your well intended humanist side a closer look, its a bit too hard over. Think about Genesis 1. There is a whole lot to it.
"Bishop Chane - how is it that you know that God had no hand in the disasters but was there afterwards to help us clean up the mess?"
The churches and sent a lot of people and money down to help rebuild. The still do. Could God be acting through His people in this way? I worked on organizing the disaster relief. Did you? If not, why question God about your own failings?
"Apologists and moderates like this author give cover to the fundamentalists."
You don't get out much, do you.
The problem with the Episcopal Church is NOT giving cover to fundamentalists. It is pretty much a far-left institution, and tolerant of all things the far-left of is tolerant of. However, they are intolerant of conservatives, and especially fundamentalists.
The search committee for Bishop John Bryson Chaine had a full page list of considerations for the ideal candidate that they circulated. A requirement for gay friendliness was there near the top, but beliefs in God, and the Resurrection were nowhere on the list. Even some gay friendly folks like The Moderate here were discomfited by this.
Bishop Chaine: What do you think of that priority?
As to God and storms, I think Zeus runs that, so ask PaganPlace, and lepidopteryx.
I have to ask what that person feels the need to scream from a mountain top his beliefs, You should not care so much (or obviously so Little) about what we as a collective audience thinks...what is the point of throwing a boulder to crush the mosquitoe on my shoulder..that is a saying my father would say to me as a child when I would try and insert my views.
The point you get, for you are obviously inteligent, albeit persistent in pushing your views; however, what has happened to you to make such a hatred of things that we as people hold "sacred" does it affect you as an American citizen to be forced o bow to God? NO
In the United States of America, you may freely join in in the religious debates; but in my country you can not, that is why I love America...everyone is free to have an opinion or a beleif that no one can break or take...you should be rejoicing that you have such a gift..
Richard Schneider, you say "It is an absolute pleasure to see this kind of rationality exetending itself into mainstream religion. We are seeing the early stages of the transformation of belief from the ancient religions, to modern understanding and the rationality of belief based on reason and science."
I sure hope you're right. and I sure hope this inspires Bishop Chane to move sprightly in the inevitable direction of Christian Humanism.
There's no going back, Bishop -- can't you see it?
you say that we are what God is, well that is interesting. I myself would never boast that we are God, conserdering the mess the world is in and the millions that die needlessly by starvation, when America wastes 42% of the food that is consumed whithin its monsterous bowles every year.
If we were all God we would not let the innocent lose their innocence and the destruction of civilizations accure while scoffing at the one thing that could save...LOVE
By investing a personal interest in the situations that rack the human mind with extreme emotional responses we learn that we are small. I held a child in Angolia that was dying of Rhubella, a simple disease that we recieve shots for...another with HIV/AIDS and lastly an infant whose throat had closed due to lack of use (starvation)..nothing in my experence could have prepared me for those things...
God is in everyone and is attainable, but do not confuse accessability with your theory, as nice as it sounds, it is not reality...
I mean these things not as an attack, far from it, I don't even want to try and "convert" anyone, I see all of us as great and marvelous, but we are not a god, or the God.
Richard Schneider, you say "It is an absolute pleasure to see this kind of rationality extending itself into mainstream religion. We are seeing the early stages of the transformation of belief from the ancient religions, to modern understanding and the rationali
All Comments (151)
Dear E Fav:
"determining that there a supernatural creator doesn't seem so simple to me, especially when you consider that such a powerful entity would need to be created as well."
Not clear the God had to be created.
"believing in such a being is easy enough, I suppose, because once you have faith in something, you don't have to think about it anymore, you just know it's true. Further scientific enquiry or other forms of rational thought not needed."
Dude, you will find no blind faith here. Even my Atheism was not blind. Open to new data it was.
The difference between me and the blind faith Atheists is that I accept the Universe as evidence and work from there on the data it offers.
So who is it really who has steadfast faith not concerned with science and observations?
September 11, 2007 7:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 19:47
determining that there a supernatural creator doesn't seem so simple to me, especially when you consider that such a powerful entity would need to be created as well.
believing in such a being is easy enough, I suppose, because once you have faith in something, you don't have to think about it anymore, you just know it's true. Further scientific enquiry or other forms of rational thought not needed.
September 11, 2007 9:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 11, 2007 09:26
Dear Gerry,
"I completely agree to your statement that a "scriptural" (my definition) god (the main topics of the pious crowd, heaven and hell etc. etc.) has really nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the beginning. It is funny that so many people connect the two dimensions and try in vain to prove the one through the other, arriving at nothing but constant circular reasoning."
Roger Penrose who did some of the probability calculations to which I refer carefully observes that any creator has "nothing to do with denominations." I agree.
I take my deductive religion project axioms as:
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. She did this to make an abode for life.
I use "She" to distance Her from the ancient world's various patriarchal religions. Lepi and PaganPlace seem to enjoy this usage. But one thing seems sure to me. Whoever, or whatever this creator was She was not the God of Sunday School.
After almost thirty years of Atheism, I was very reluctant to conclude that there is a creator. It turns out to be the simplest interpretation.
While I admit you can say "Well, it just happened. Why do you need a creator?" But then you have to explain how it happened so perfectly for us to exist. I broke my Atheist jaw trying to chew that rock up.
September 10, 2007 9:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 21:35
Thomas Baum,
P.S.: I forgot to mention the swastika.
I gather Wikipedia isn't always that reliable, but it frequently is. Here's what it says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Regards.
September 10, 2007 6:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 18:55
Thomas Baum,
Thank you for your post. I had read, and just now reread, your earlier post.
I agree with you that labels are not reality and don't even point toward reality.
As a Buddhist sympathizer, I believe that reality inheres in the present moment and that, from the point of view of human perception, it is infinite, multifaceted, and mysterious.
Best wishes to you.
September 10, 2007 6:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 18:40
Norrie: "If I seem sometimes to be a bit rough in my comments, it's because, in trying to make a point, I try to be entertaining...."
I know, I know - and I'm very entertained - and I bet Bishop Chane is too - please keep it up.
September 10, 2007 11:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 11:51
To Norrie Hoyt: Hi, hope you are doing fine, I don't know if you have read my posting of Sept 8, 2007 at 10:43 AM but if you haven't, I wish you would, thank you. Concerning what you wrote, "GOTT MITT UNS was engraved on the inside of the military belts worn by Nazi soldiers in World War II, where it appeared next to images of the swastila and the imperial German eagle", when I was in Vietnam, a friend of mine from the same beach that I grew up in was also there even though we never saw each other over there but we did talk on the phone. Well after we both got home in some of the conversations that we had, he related how he had seen the swastika on some graves over there. The swastika, I believe is originally a Buddhist symbol, it might be the wheel of life, I really don't know, maybe you do. I used to think that the Germans came up with it but they didn't. It does seem obvious that just because some people use symbols and words, that doesn't necessarily mean they take them to heart, sometimes it can just be a smokescreen that they hide behind. It does seem interesting about the "imperial German eagle" though, since that seems to be a very nationalistic symbol, I think that should speak for itself. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
September 10, 2007 10:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 10:52
E Favorite,
I don't want to leave the impression that I don't like the American Episcopal Church or its clergy.
I love their clergy. A wonderful Episcopal priest played the violin at our civil wedding in the Governor's office in the Vermont State House.
Kathy and I wrote our own wedding service in which we vowed to stay together for as long as we felt like it. (It's been 33 years so far.)
As he left the service, an old Vermont politician commented, "They don't do it that way in Barre."
[Barre, home of the famous Vermont granite quarries, is a conservative, largely Catholic, working-class town.]
Another Episcopal priest, seeking to be admitted to the Vermont Bar, asked if he could serve his mandatory legal clerkship with me in my law office. He did, and I thoroughly enjoyed his company.
If I decided to become a Christian [God forbid!],
I'd be either an Episcopalian or a Congregationalist.
If I seem sometimes to be a bit rough in my comments, it's because, in trying to make a point, I try to be entertaining, just as the clergy do in their sermons. That way the readers are less likely to fall asleep or skip over the post, and my point may actually stick in their minds for a few minutes.
I really do wish you and Bishop Chane the very best.
September 10, 2007 10:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 10:44
"Since neither you nor I know what was before this beginning, the hypothesis of god (as a joker) amounts to a comparable amount of ignorance, with the only difference that I, or we atheists, admit it."
What you miss is that we know what is here now after the beginning. It has properties we can study. It is VERY precisely tuned to support life. I can't ignore that.
As to the self generating mathematical algorithms, the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" is, to me a very interesting piece of the puzzle, too.
September 10, 2007 8:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 10, 2007 08:59
Hi, Norrie - Anglican bishops in England might be pretty comfortable - state church and all, but their Episcopal counterparts in the US are an endangered species, with some conservative americans switching allegiance to the Nigerian church to avoid accepting gays.
Though Bishop Chane's views on God might seem vague and wobbly, his accepting views on gays are crystal clear and firm, I'm sure. Ain't no goin' back.
Bravo, Bishop Chane and all your reasonable, compassionate colleagues.
September 9, 2007 6:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 9, 2007 18:01
The Moderate,
your deductions lack a strange amount of logic: The question between science and religion is not the fact (present ever moving theoretical assumption anyway, in light of string or brane theories!), that the universe had a beginning, but that SOMEONE with an intention started it. The poetic analogies are nice (though pretty old), but prove nothing as to the WILL or the individuality of a "god" (how would we have to picture him?) for the "creation" of the universe.
Since neither you nor I know what was before this beginning, the hypothesis of god (as a joker) amounts to a comparable amount of ignorance, with the only difference that I, or we atheists, admit it.
The mere fact that it started certainly is no proof for a willful beginning, which even you as a scientist with religious assumptions should see. The probability question omits the self-generating force of mathematical algorithms, which have the power to create forms by the sheer consequence of the rules (the "laws" of nature, the interplay of the four physical forces; fractals are an example). The "absurd" probability smallness appears in a different light.
I completely agree to your statement that a "scriptural" (my definition) god (the main topics of the pious crowd, heaven and hell etc. etc.) has really nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the beginning. It is funny that so many people connect the two dimensions and try in vain to prove the one through the other, arriving at nothing but constant circular reasoning.
September 9, 2007 11:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 9, 2007 11:32
E Favorite,
You're right - You never know with these Episcopalians.
In New England it's been dry martinis after (if not before and/or during) Mass. In the South, always bourbon and coke, who knows when.
In Virginia, theft of diocesan property and its conveyance to a mad Nigerian bishop. In New Hampshire, doing right by their present Bishop.
Where will it all end? At least I hope they keep their High Church music.
But if, as you suggest, the Bishop may not believe in the creation of the world by an Abrahamic diety, where does that leave him?
Is he a Buddhist, a Transcendentalist. a New Age fantasist? A partisan of the Grand High Turtle creation theory?
Normally I cut Episcopalians and their Bishops a lot of slack.
But I had a sudden thought: aren't Episcopal Bishops among the most comfortably settled people in the world?
And didn't Jesus say to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?
Maybe in poking at the Bishop I was unconsciously acting as an adherent of the Jesus Religion (which is not Christianity).
I wish the Bishop well and will meditate for his rapid enlightenment (and his quick discarding of his present deluded samsaric opinions).
All I know for sure is that it's late here. I'm going to turn in, hopefully to sleep, perchance to dream (of a better plane of existence?).
If the morrow shows up, the battles will undoubtedly continue.
Good night, and best wishes to you (and the poor benighted Bishop).
Amen & Amen.
September 9, 2007 1:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 9, 2007 01:55
Hey, Norrie -- Give the poor Bishop a break!
Just because, as you say, "...all other adherents to an Abrahamic religion believe that 'God' created the universe and this world" doesn't mean he does too.
He's already gotten in a lot of trouble with supposed fellow adherents for saying ""God lives within each of us...not outside of us."
You never know with these Episcopalians.
September 8, 2007 10:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 22:48
Bishop Chane's essay is entitled GOD WITH US.
The German for this is GOTT MIT UNS.
GOTT MITT UNS was engraved on the inside of the military belts worn by Nazi soldiers in World War II, where it appeared next to images of the swastila and the imperial German eagle.
In an earlier post on this thread, I wrote:
"Bishop Chane and all other adherents to an Abrahamic religion believe that 'God' created the universe and this world.
"By creating this universe and this world with the characteristics they in fact have, 'God' must be held to have intended the natural and probable consequences of those characteristics, viz., suffering and death.
"'God' must therefore be considered to be a torturer and a murderer, as the Cathars so readily perceived."
Ah, yes:
GOD WITH US - GOTT MIT UNS
In the hellish world God/Gott created.
Hitler and Bishop Chane evidently agree on that.
September 8, 2007 10:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 22:29
Dear E Fav:
"Suffice it to say that I do not think that supernatural events (e.g., creation of the universe by a supernatural being, virgin birth, resurrection, bodily ascension into heaven) are possible."
Creation of the Universe is in a different category than virgin birth, resurrection, bodily ascension into heaven. The Universe presents evidence. For example the microwave background radiation is the remnant of an image of the universe shortly after The Big Bang (poetically: The Moment of Creation). The COBE satellite has gotten enough data to construct a picture of the surface universe just as it became transparent (poetically: Let There Be light). Roger Penrose uses black hole theory to compute the probability of the Universe with thermodynamics like the one we live in is 1/(10^(10^128)). This number is absurdly small. Thus the Universe we live in is not a chance occurrence.
In science, we reject hypotheses that have a low probability given the observations.
Modern science sees nearly back to the moment of creation. It provides theories that give physical interpretation back to 10^(-45) seconds after The Big Bang.
So:
1.There was a moment of creation.
2.The resulting Universe was not one expected by chance (to an absurd degree of confidence)
So what do you make of that?
If you reject what cannot be observed, and you reject what has been observed, what does that leave you?
September 8, 2007 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 14:20
Thomas Baum and Moderate, I must admit I have difficulty following your thought processes and understanding your questions. Suffice it to say that I do not think that supernatural events (e.g., creation of the universe by a supernatural being, virgin birth, resurrection, bodily ascension into heaven) are possible.
I also don’t understand why Richard Schneider thought I needed to mind my own business, and will stop by here to see if he has something to say about that.
September 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 12:29
Dear E Favorite:
“Moderate - are you equating faith with hypotheses?”
Axioms and hypotheses are not really the same thing. An hypothesis is loosely held and part of the method of scientific investigation the Catholics developed in the Middle Ages, and which was subsequently secularized. Hypotheses are always under revision by a deliberate method. Axioms and premises are necessary to make arguments about hypotheses and to advance the state of the hypotheses with regard to their generality and universality.
You must always strive to take as little on faith as possible. In math that means having as few axioms as possible and still be able to derive the rich field theorems that you need for your science of hypotheses. If you want to do arithmetic, you need the Peano axioms to prove you have done it right. If you don't like one of the Peano axioms you can reject it, but you will find that you cannot add, or count, (though some rudimentary ability to do this is “built in” to us. Among the primitives, they count one, two, three, and many, or use the remarkable computers called the hands put things in correspondence with fingers. How it got “built in” is another discussion.) and then prove you got it right.
Euclid gave the axioms of plane geometry. Well, one of these is that parallel lines never meet, and people took Euclid's postulates (axioms) as “true” for two thousand years. They built impressive technologies on that. Later Riemann said that if you can't prove the parallel postulate what happens if you replace it with its negation. Parallel lines always meet. What he got was spherical geometry, rather than plane, and founded the field of Non-Euclidean Geometry, which is still under investigation.
If you take the parallel postulate (and the other ones) on faith you get plane geometry. If you take its negation on faith you get spherical geometry. Different theorems become available to in each system. You can choose your kind of geometry, but it takes and act of faith to get any one of them.
My deductive religion project presently has two axioms:
1.In the beginning, God created heavens and the earth (poetic for Universe).
2.She did this to create and abode for life.
Many ethical concepts follow.
My point to you is that you have axioms too, whether you like it or not. What are they? Without knowing and identifying your foundations you will be adrift and never really know why you do things or what is right, except by intuition.
Clearly you do have some intuition on this subject if keep some form of the Golden Rule. But it is better to make principled decisions that are accessible to you.
As Socrates said: “The unexamined life is not worth living”
“Hypotheses change with new evidence - faith does not.”
My faith is informed by evidence, and changes with new evidence. Axioms 1 and 2 both come from the nature of the observed Universe, and am confident in them because they are consistent with scientific epistemology and the observations.
Doctrine, which is the equivalent religious equivalent of theorems derived from axioms or scientific laws and observations. Doctrine changes with new understanding of the “facts on the ground”.
“Where did "love thy neighbor" come from? it's very ingrained in humanity. Buddha said it 5 centuries before Jesus did. See Marcus Borg's "Jesus and Buddha - Parallel sayings, parallel lives."
and surely someone said it before that. If neither Jesus or Buddha had been recorded saying it, someone else would have since - it's such common sense.”
And yes, many great religions, and thinkers have arrived at it over the ages. It was certainly part of the Jewish tradition in pre-Christian times, too. It is ingrained in most, but not all people. I believe it is ingrained in good people. There are notable and numerous exceptions. They have been the bringers of destruction.
So what else do you use for your fundamental premises? Another way to phrase that is: What else do you take on faith? And why?
September 8, 2007 11:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 11:04
To E FAVORITE and the rest of the world: "Love thy neighbor", what you wrote, "If neither Jesus or Buddha had been recorded saying it, someone else would have since - it's such common sense", since all of humanity are our neighbors, why does common sense seem not very common with humanity and while we are at it why does common courtesy also seem not very common. If you read some of these posts, they are filled with hatred, do you think there might be a reason for that? I have met God the Trinity, does that mean since you don't believe it, that it isn't true? I have also met satan, just because you don't believe me, does not mean that it isn't true. Does somebody calling themself a christian mean that they know anything else about God except for His Name? It doesn't matter if anyone believes me, actually it isn't even important, I am just a messenger, what is important is that I do the job that God gave me and that is to tell the whole world that He is Love, Pure Love and that His Plan is for all of His children. One day a lot of people that call themselves christians, denominational or otherwise, will find out what christianity is all about. It does matter what you do and why you do it and also what you know. Just because the bible has been so distorted and sliced and diced by people does not mean that it isn't true. Some people use the bible to justify all of their own shortcomings and to judge and condemn others. "Look at the beam in your own eye before you try to take the speck out of your brother's", "judge not lest ye be judged", "give mercy and mercy shall be yours", "the measure you judge with will be the measure that you are judged with", people that call themselves christians should ponder these statements and others that Jesus spoke of, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Christianity is not a religion, it is not the dogma, it is not the rules and regulations, but you would be hard pressed to think that, from some of the hatred being spewed out of some of the mouths of some that call themselves christians. There is also a lot of hatred being spewed out of some of the mouths of some of the people that put another label upon themselves, God is not really into labels. Another thing, there is also such an air of superiority coming from both so-called christians and from others no matter what they call themselves. I was taught something very interesting in 2nd grade and that is we are all equal in God's eyes, think about it whether you believe in God or not, it is not saying we are the same, or we have all of the same abilities or nothing like that, but if you think about it rather than just react to it, it may speak to your heart. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
September 8, 2007 10:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 10:43
Monk,
Repetition is one of the great ways to educate.
Some observations.
You are a monk brainwashed in some form of Tibetan non-religion who went on a non-religious mission financed by your non-religious apparently rich family but you still believe in the literal bible and literal koran. And you still live in Tibet where the Chinese make your life miserable by restricting your access to excess.
You don't have a dime to your name giving all your money the the African poor but you saved enough to pay for Internet access, a computer and a cozy place to write to all of us people of excess.
September 8, 2007 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 10:39
Richard R Schneider, I concur with your statement, "Everyone is entitled to their own faith."
I also wonder what I said here to inspire your directive to me that “You need to mind your own business.” I can’t promise that I’ll take your advice, but I am curious -- what, in your opinion, should I avoid saying in the future?
September 8, 2007 10:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 10:38
Dear E Favorite: My faith changes with the evidence. You keep your faith, I'll keep mine. Everyone is entitled to their own faith. You need to mind your own business.
September 8, 2007 6:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 06:48
Moderate - are you equating faith with hypotheses?
Hypotheses change with new evidence - faith does not.
Where did "love thy neighbor" come from? it's very ingrained in humanity. Buddha said it 5 centuries before Jesus did. See Marcus Borg's "Jesus and Buddha - Parallel sayings, parallel lives."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1569751692/ref=sib_fs_bod/002-4083225-2322467?ie=UTF8&p=S00S&checkSum=P%2BlU2SKuUlY2GrUAOsiOO5MaNbsQggT5iPJu1kDuIu8%3D#reader-link
and surely someone said it before that. If neither Jesus or Buddha had been recorded saying it, someone else would have since - it's such common sense.
September 8, 2007 1:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 8, 2007 01:17
Dear Lepi:
"Weather happens. I don't believe that individual weather events are planned or controlled by any deity. Warm air mass meets cool air mass over large body of water, hurricane forms. I don't think that Mama Gaia woke up one late August morning a couple of years ago with a bad case of PMS and decided to give mankind a well-deserved b1tch-slap."
You are sweet to answer my silly tease. I do agree with you in the main. Also about God (The Gods) not putting a tiger in our tanks that belch out vast clouds of carbon dioxide that change the climate. We have only our selves to blame for that. (the) God(s) do not protect us from our own stupidity.
Who was it who said: "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."?
All the best.
September 7, 2007 11:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 23:11
Dear E Fav:
The ethic you seem to be discussing is:
"Love thy neighbor as thy self."
Where did that one come from?
September 7, 2007 10:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 22:50
Dear E Fav.
“Regarding: "Science was mostly created by religion" I'd say "Science was mostly DEVELOPED by religIOUS PEOPLE" because in the old days, they were likely to be the ones with advanced education. It's no accident that Mendel, the guy who developed genetics,was a monk.”
It is not that simple. The connection is much more profound than happenstance of who was educated first. Kitty Furguson in “The Fire in the equations” put her finger on it in a way that made Stephen Hawking take notice and endorse the book.
She said:
"There is a further element of risk for anyone on a search for truth. You cannot start in a vacuum. You must begin by trusting some ideas about the universe that have never been proved and might turn out to be wrong. To be simplistic about it, you have to assume that you exist and that you are sane. Those may not be such difficult assumptions. Common sense supports them. Of course you have to believe they are true in order to trust your common sense. You see what sort of mental maze we get ourselves into!
The search for truth in science is based on agreement concerning just such basic assumptions. It is a gamble, if you will; a gamble that certain articles of faith which cannot be proved by science are nevertheless well-founded enough to provide a springboard for all scientific investigation. It is intriguing to find that religion shares much of science's basic view of reality. How is it that two approaches, science and religion, both claim to be avenues to truth but in many ways reputed to clash with one another, should be in a agreement on so basic a level?
The explanation could be quite simple - that we are all looking at the same universe, and what is obvious to one reasonable person is equally obvious to the next. If that is so, it should not surprise us to find all reasonable people more or less in agreement about certain fundamental aspects of the universe. However, the agreement is not unanimous. We are speaking of a world-view shared by science (since the seventeenth century) and Western religion, with exceptions even here, but not shared by all of humanity who presumably experience and have experienced the same universe...”
... Depending on whether we believe in God, you or I might leave God out of the following articles of faith, but otherwise we would find little in this seventeenth-century world-view with which to disagree. In the seventeenth century a scientist could have had it both ways without risking charges of contradiction. What he learned form his religion and his direct experience of the universe led him to believe the following:
- The universe is rational, reflecting both the intellect and faithfulness of its Creator. It has pattern, symmetry, and predictability to it. Effect follows cause in a dependable manner. for these reasons it is not futile to try to study the universe.
- The universe is accessible to us, not a closed book but one open to our investigation. Minds created in the image of the mind of God can understand the universe God created.
- The universe has contingency to it, meaning that things could have been different from the way we find them, and chance and/or choice have played a role in making them what they are. Whether this is contingency in the sense that chance and choice play an ongoing role within the universe, or merely in the sense that there was an initial chance occurrence which brought about this universe instead of a different one or none at all, one cannot learn about the universe by pure thought or logic alone. Knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
- There is such a thing as objective reality. Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is truth behind everything. Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in the desert in response to our opinions, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, or anything else. Reality is not a democracy. There is something definite, some raw material, out there for us to study.
- There is unity to the universe. There is an explanation – one God, one equation, or one system of logic – which is fundamental to everything. The universe operated by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute, or even from millennium to millennium. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits.”
This is one glimpse into the common source of monotheistic religion and science. There are many others, from Pythagorus on. So, many of the Atheist fundamentalists who pretend to stand upon science actually stand against it. They haven't even come to grips with the basic issues about the foundations of science, or the foundations of logic, or the foundations of mathematics.
You see, all arguments have premises. All mathematical systems have axioms. These we must take on faith. Why? Because the systems don't exist if you refuse the premises and axioms. No theorems can be proved, and nothing can be known.
So why bother? Because of the useful results that we get from the systems engendered by the what we take on faith. Medicine, electricity, computers, communication, chemistry, physics, mathematics, modern agriculture, aviation, ... Well, I don't have time to list them all.
There is no escape from faith, if you wish to reason. The fundamentalist Atheists on the site are generally not well thought out, because they fear to do what it takes to actually reason.
September 7, 2007 10:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 22:36
where did everyone go...was it something I said?
September 7, 2007 8:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 20:33
I feel sorry that you are offended by my posts, but i assure you that I have spoken nothing that is not truthful about America, you my friend are a little to unreasonable. My heart goes out for tose who know you, they are in danger of your hatred. It spreads like the fires of California..
Being Confused at such an attack-MONK
September 7, 2007 7:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 19:52
hey monk you notice how no one is responding, how dare you come onto and American site and bash us..all of your people need to be taught a lesson in fact, we should just wipe out all of you arabs and be out of there...America is the greatest nation in the world, we don't pick the fight we just get criticized for finishing the fight with your sorry countries.
I mean come on you are the problem, America does so much good and bails so many countries out of problems and the thanx we get is More More More...let me tell you I hope you blow yourself up with an IED as you are trying to hurt our Troops....
September 7, 2007 7:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 19:35
And I would have been in your Countries Peace Core why? I am not an American, but I took the mission trips, and I didn't go with a "church" my family financed my trips, and we went their to aid in relief, I know it is hard to believe, but some of us in the world see what is going on, "They took the Power from the have-nots and then came the shots"
I understand you think that by following what the Bible or the Quaran instructs and teaches we are brainwashed, but just go put somemore money on the 'ol Visa CC...I mean you as a consumer are brainwashed to believe that these worthless Plasma and LCD Tv's, and HD this and that, are good for the people. Give the Peasents more things for them to occupy their time with and we (the governments) can do whatever we want....
I mean you vote, my country doesn't get to vote because we are being occupied, and yet this wonderful American Dreams are going to liberate us from the tyranny of our Oppressors...It's ironic that I could walk down the street and go to the local Market without being attacked and questioned by either Road security or Military Checkpoint....
But hey nothing like totaly destroying my country's infustructure FOR WHAT....oh yeah:
Providing/making jobs is the best way to fight poverty and Americans are very good at that with their interest in productivity and all things new and novel.
How are those alternate sources of fuel panning out?
_MONK of XYMER_
September 7, 2007 6:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 18:34
Monk,
Had you been brainwashed in some form of religion, you would have had added direction and assistance in your missionary work. And what missions were you working in? USA Peace Corps?? (although I don't believe they call their projects missionary work.)
Hmmm, and buying electronics and other goods is actually a great thing. Look at China and India in the last 25 years. Providing/making jobs is the best way to fight poverty and Americans are very good at that with their interest in productivity and all things new and novel.
September 7, 2007 5:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 17:43
Thomas Paul Moses Baum...
That was very amazing, The world only knows God through the Holy Spirit, and the acts in which we are seen doing are how the "world" sees The Holy Spirit. It is are jobs to show the "world" that living by the word of God is better than giving into all the temptation and the "I want it now" Microwaved mentality that has gripped The Entire World, not just America...When is the last time you didn't see people complaining about standing in line or having to wait more than 30 sec for a meal...
The world has givin into Microwave mentality, but not me, I don't even own one, and let me say I am not a cave man, I just don't like the thought of purposely trying to infuse my food with radioactive microwaves. I know, in the age of cell phone this and that...when the biggest thing to happen in the last year was an iPhone? Who the flip cares...a little less "gimmme gimme gimme" a little more "for $.88 a day you can feed and educate kids in equador"
All those missionary trips I took to Africa and Central America watching kids die, while, my friends in the States wondered if their $950 Mortgage was going to be paid on time..??
Ranting and Raving- MONK
September 7, 2007 4:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 16:32
TO XYMERIAN MONK: Hi, I was wondering if you had the chance if you would read the posting I did on Sept 6, 2007 at 5:31 PM. Thank You, by the way I live in America and a lot of people sure do seem to be spoiled and ungrateful over here, kind of like a bunch of unruly children. One of the things Jesus spoke of was to be child-like as opposed to childish which are worlds apart. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
September 7, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 15:41
Seems there is quite a liitle while between posts, anyone catch the game?
Just making Small Talk-MONK
September 7, 2007 3:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 15:25
It seems mu tongue has spoken sharply once again, I am sorry Concerned that I lashed out, but it seems that the average American spends his time b*tching about the way things are....and yet you have a system of Balances, if a problem is in need of fixing vote to fix it..but there in lies the problem...your Great Democracy (actually Republic) has fallen to the corruption that you people love to call out in other countries...No Government is Perfect, except Iran (a joke for all to snear at).
It seems that the common man, and your Elected Officials have not seen eye to eye, and yet only 30% vote..."Some of those who want Forces are the same that Burn Crosses...Killing in the Name of"
-Rage against the Machine sums up America in one Lyric-
_MONK of XYMER_
September 7, 2007 3:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 15:02
Concerned:
And what religion were you Bred, Born and Brainwashed in?
I would never be so. Religion or anything of such a cultish nature is quite a turnoff to me as a reasonable person, and I am offended that a Catholic such as yourself would ever through the Bred. Born, and Brainwashed comment into the mix. I have no anger towards you, but you seem to have such a negative attitude at anything that is not a New/Age whatever...Why should I care what is taught in theology, or Universities??? How does the "knowledge" of your Universities helping to end such torment in Sudan, the knowledge that is spewed from the dying jays of the American "education" system seems to be flawed...I see that your President went to Yale, so he is quite an Enlightened Person...correct?
Theology, has no bearing on my life...Although I would love to go waste 100,000 on the "Great American Dream" such as the excellent way the "Teachers" live in your great society..I am not bashing the country, only the wasted energies spent on learning "Better" things has led your great Nation down its path... So how is the Debt going...how much money does it take to buy LOVE and PEACE...I know not these answers, but you being the Concerned Cultist now Liberated should...
_MONK of XYMER_
September 7, 2007 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 14:20
Moderate - I can only speak for myself regarding katrina relief, but I do think my actions/motivations may be similar to many other people, irrespective of religion. I didn't respond as an atheist. I responded as a fellow human being.
I felt sorry for them. It seemed the least I could do. If I had lived closer I would have considered taking people in - not sure I would have done it, though. That would have been a bigger commitment. I respect the people who did. I suspect some of them were non-believers.
Regarding: "Science was mostly created by religion" I'd say "Science was mostly DEVELOPED by religIOUS PEOPLE" because in the old days, they were likely to be the ones with advanced education. It's no accident that Mendel, the guy who developed genetics,was a monk.
September 7, 2007 10:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 10:44
Dear E Fav:
Glad to hear you pitched in on Katrina.
But in terms of ethics, why did you do so?
On my side of the fence, it is because we are all Children of God and when one suffers, all suffer. So we should be willing to devote at least a small fraction of our time, treasure, and talent to helping each other through rough times. Because I believe that God created the universe as an abode for life, I see preserving and furthering life as a sacred duty as well as a privilege. This has many implications.
On your side of the fence, what is the motivation? This is not a criticism. It is an honest question.
It is all to clear after seeing the spectacle of Sam Harris, who publicly advocates torture because he lives in fear, criticizing Mother Teresa, that Atheists can go very, very, wrong. Religionists can also go very wrong. Clearly the religious Bush didn't care enough to cancel his month long vacation, and made religion look bad because of it.
I would like to get a better understanding of how an Atheist would go right on something, which you did if you contributed to relief of the Katrina disaster.
September 7, 2007 9:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 09:08
Moderate:
**As to God and storms, I think Zeus runs that, so ask PaganPlace, and lepidopteryx.
Whadaya think Lepi?**
Weather happens. I don't believe that individual weather events are planned or controlled by any deity. Warm air mass meets cool air mass over large body of water, hurricane forms. I don't think that Mama Gaia woke up one late August morning a couple of years ago with a bad case of PMS and decided to give mankind a well-deserved b1tch-slap.
My Divine isn't like that. It's not an exeternal entity sitting at a control panel throwing switches and pushing buttons. It's part of me and I'm part of it. It and I are part of an inter-connected web along with the rest of the Universe. It's why I don't practice petitionary prayer. If there's something I need or want, I do two things - I focus my mental and spiritual energy toward that goal (which I guess some people would call prayer), and then I focus my physical energy toward it.
I have dear friends who had just bought a house in New Orleans. They evac'd to Houston when it became apparent that Katrina was going to hit. Did I worry that their house would be destroyed? Sure. Did I ask the gods to magically shield their house? No. Did I think of them often with hope for their safety and that of their hiome? Sure. As it turned out, a tree limb fell through the roof onver their back porch, but the rest of the house was undamaged. Was I grateful? Sure. Did I think it was because they had somehow earned special divine favor that others had not merited? No. That's just how the wind blew. The gods didn't steer the wind around their house and into someone else's house that they didn't like as much.
I do think that we bring generally heightened storm strength on ourselves via our production of greenhouse gases, and it would have been nice if the Corps of Engineers had listened to the scientists who were telling them several years ago that the levees would not be able to withstand a storm surge of this magnitude, but that's a whole other conversation.
Even in places with little to no human population, storms happen. It has nothing to do with punishment for so-called sins or inadequate levels of worship.
September 7, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 09:05
Dear YoYo:
"It just doesn't fit anymore into this ever changing,ever evolving,ever developing brave new world,mostly created by science."
It is not that simple. Folks like you either don't know, or don't want to know any of the history of science.
Science was mostly created by religion. From the Pythagorean Society, to the High Middle Ages, through the Renaissance, science and mathematics were developed by the religious to study God's, (or the Gods') plan in laying the foundations of the world, and the Universe.
You must be some scientific genius to be so much smarter than Newton and Einstein put together. They voted against your view of a universe without cause, and for good reason.
The fulminating Atheists on this site are on intellectual par with the cartoon characters like Beavis and Butthead when they pointed a TV remote at the world, said "This sucks. Change it.", and pressed the button.
Guess what? It didn't work. God's creation is not subjective, and neither is God.
September 7, 2007 8:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 08:45
COncerned: "...New Reality that is being taught in many Catholic college graduate theology classes."
But this new reality isn't being taught to the parishioners, is it? Why do you suppose that is and what can be done about it?
Moderate - I don't question God because I don't have belief in a God. How could someone know that God didn't cause Katrina, but did cause his people to help in the aftermath? I think that people like me who provided financial support during Katrina were acting on their own innate moral sense.
September 7, 2007 8:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 08:35
Monk,
Screaming??? Hmm, how so? Because we want The Jihadist et al to come to grips with the flaws in the foundations of Islam? That is not screaming, that is concern for world peace akin to saying/singing the Prayer of St. Francis every day.
And what religion were you Bred, Born and Brainwashed in? It took me about five years to rid myself of old time, orthodox Catholicism. Now I am a Catholic/Christian of the New Reality that is being taught in many Catholic college graduate theology classes.
September 7, 2007 12:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 7, 2007 00:38
With all these new atheist books topping the best seller list in most countries its as if western civilization is finally growing up and beginning to move away from the fairyland scenario of gods and devils and all the rest of the superstitious mumbo jumbo they've been drumming into our heads for two thousand years or more.It just doesn't fit anymore into this ever changing,ever evolving,ever developing brave new world,mostly created by science.
Enough already with the superstitious nonsense.
September 6, 2007 10:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 22:35
I'm so glad that the good bishop says God lives inside ourselves and not outside.In other words he lives in our imagination and not anywhere real.
That also explains why different people believe in differnt gods and some believe in nogod.
This used to really confuse me so much I gave up thinking about it.But yes,of course,a muslim would have a different god in their minds because they were forced to imagine Allah when they were kids,and we we forced to believe in in an old man god with a white beard,and Indians beleive in Indian gods like Vishnu and all the other imaginary gods.
But if gods are imaginery why do we fight about them? If they are imaginary,isnt thatthe same as saying they are not real? That gods dont exist?
I feel so much better about things now.
And I don't need to pray anymore,which always seemed a waste of time.
Thanks bishop.I never thought I'd see the day when a bishop converted me to atheism.
September 6, 2007 10:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 22:22
Richard Schneider
I tend to agree with much of what you say,but you
generalize when you say god is in all of us,even if your God is only a metaphor.
The skygod we argue back and fore over on these threads is an imaginary bigdaddy in the sky that folk talk to and expect to be with when they leave this world for the imaginary world of the dead,known as Heaven.
God is not in all of us.Only in the deluded.
September 6, 2007 10:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 22:18
Dear Bishop Chaine,
"God lives within each of us...not outside of us!"
Sorry, but that is Bad Theology.
God lives within each of us... and outside of us.
Do you seriously think that the God who created the Universe lives ONLY in us? We create religion, but God created the Universe, and us within it. We did not create God.
You should give your well intended humanist side a closer look, its a bit too hard over. Think about Genesis 1. There is a whole lot to it.
September 6, 2007 9:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 21:59
Dear E favorite:
"Bishop Chane - how is it that you know that God had no hand in the disasters but was there afterwards to help us clean up the mess?"
The churches and sent a lot of people and money down to help rebuild. The still do. Could God be acting through His people in this way? I worked on organizing the disaster relief. Did you? If not, why question God about your own failings?
September 6, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 21:49
Dear Venkat:
"Apologists and moderates like this author give cover to the fundamentalists."
You don't get out much, do you.
The problem with the Episcopal Church is NOT giving cover to fundamentalists. It is pretty much a far-left institution, and tolerant of all things the far-left of is tolerant of. However, they are intolerant of conservatives, and especially fundamentalists.
The search committee for Bishop John Bryson Chaine had a full page list of considerations for the ideal candidate that they circulated. A requirement for gay friendliness was there near the top, but beliefs in God, and the Resurrection were nowhere on the list. Even some gay friendly folks like The Moderate here were discomfited by this.
Bishop Chaine: What do you think of that priority?
As to God and storms, I think Zeus runs that, so ask PaganPlace, and lepidopteryx.
Whadaya think Lepi?
September 6, 2007 9:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 21:40
Concerned:
I have to ask what that person feels the need to scream from a mountain top his beliefs, You should not care so much (or obviously so Little) about what we as a collective audience thinks...what is the point of throwing a boulder to crush the mosquitoe on my shoulder..that is a saying my father would say to me as a child when I would try and insert my views.
The point you get, for you are obviously inteligent, albeit persistent in pushing your views; however, what has happened to you to make such a hatred of things that we as people hold "sacred" does it affect you as an American citizen to be forced o bow to God? NO
In the United States of America, you may freely join in in the religious debates; but in my country you can not, that is why I love America...everyone is free to have an opinion or a beleif that no one can break or take...you should be rejoicing that you have such a gift..
_MONK of XYMER_
September 6, 2007 9:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 21:04
Richard Schneider, you say "It is an absolute pleasure to see this kind of rationality exetending itself into mainstream religion. We are seeing the early stages of the transformation of belief from the ancient religions, to modern understanding and the rationality of belief based on reason and science."
I sure hope you're right. and I sure hope this inspires Bishop Chane to move sprightly in the inevitable direction of Christian Humanism.
There's no going back, Bishop -- can't you see it?
September 6, 2007 8:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 20:44
Richard Schneider:
you say that we are what God is, well that is interesting. I myself would never boast that we are God, conserdering the mess the world is in and the millions that die needlessly by starvation, when America wastes 42% of the food that is consumed whithin its monsterous bowles every year.
If we were all God we would not let the innocent lose their innocence and the destruction of civilizations accure while scoffing at the one thing that could save...LOVE
By investing a personal interest in the situations that rack the human mind with extreme emotional responses we learn that we are small. I held a child in Angolia that was dying of Rhubella, a simple disease that we recieve shots for...another with HIV/AIDS and lastly an infant whose throat had closed due to lack of use (starvation)..nothing in my experence could have prepared me for those things...
God is in everyone and is attainable, but do not confuse accessability with your theory, as nice as it sounds, it is not reality...
I mean these things not as an attack, far from it, I don't even want to try and "convert" anyone, I see all of us as great and marvelous, but we are not a god, or the God.
_MONK of XYMER_
September 6, 2007 8:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 6, 2007 20:42
Richard Schneider, you say "It is an absolute pleasure to see this kind of rationality extending itself into mainstream religion. We are seeing the early stages of the transformation of belief from the ancient religions, to modern understanding and the rationali