All Comments (126)

buhdjwp eprasvmn depuafog lykwtjx reuzqowlm lzhs zjrak

JNR,

First, E Favorite can be my friend even if he does not hold the same beliefs as me or cite the same creeds. To feel otherwise would be unchristian.

McLaren doesn't decouple salvation; he writes extensively about what salvation means in the Bible. He argues that, while the afterlife is a theme in the New Testament, it is a relatively minor theme. Rather, salvation is in the present. Also, salvation is not private; it is corporate (societal) as well as personal. The lens of Constantinian orthodoxy has made many clergy ignore major themes in the Bible as being "irrelevant".

McLaren is really trying to say that the message is indeed relevant to our world today; indeed, more so than ever. Humanity has built a suicide machine that worships theistic capitalism rather than God. In our march toward "progress" we are destroying God's creation through extinction of species, ecological calamity, the threat of thermonuclear war, etc. Certainly Christians (or, as I prefer to call myself, followers of Jesus) should be concerned about destroying the wondrous beauty that God has given us.

And the "social gospel" that you attempt to marginalize is much more thatn Matthew 25. It is found throughout the four Gospels (especially the synoptics) as well as the epistles of Paul and James and is particularly prominent in the prophets. Have you read Amos lately? Isaiah?

So uccer, you've sold your birthright for a mess of emotionally comforting pottage (Golly! Like, thanks for being emotionally supportive!). Why doesn't his approval frighten you and cause you to examine yourself in the faith?

And of course there's nothing wrong with McLaren's social Gospel (Mt 25, etc.), except that he wants to decouple it from salvation, so why does he bother posing as an evangelical? Make all the idiotic, unsubstantiated accusations you wish about my 'venom' or bigotry, etc. I just wearily observe you seem to have abandoned the faith.

E Favorite :

Thanks for the friendly/supportive post. Don't get those too often haha.

A book you may be interested in is "Everything Must Change" by Brian MacLaren. As the title implies, he goes beyond the call that just the church must change (although he certainly makes that point). He argues that the world needs to follow Jesus' teachings to avoid disaster: ecological, war, etc. Good reading.

To Mohammad Malleck of Canada

First of all for your information. I am not a Hindu, but a Christian, a practicing one at that. Therefore , I shall not respond to your intemperate and condescending responses to my comments.

However, I did look up by Googling Lenasia Muslims whom you credited as having helped Gandhi to formulate his philosophy of nonviolence. The following is a direct quote from the Lenasia Muslims cite that I got.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/library-resources/online%20books/history-muslims/1900-20s.htm

"Mahomed Cassim Angalia [d 1952] in 1914 in Durban. Angalia was opposed to Gandhi's passive resistance stance as a weapon of struggle against oppressive and unjust government policy. He felt it was provocative and counter-productive; instead he preferred direct negotiations and first-hand consultations."

I found the rest of your stuff in your response to me, hardly worth reading, leave alone wasting my time responding to it. If you have not read Abdul Kalam Azad's autobiography, India wins freedom, I urge you to read it to understand the animosity that existed between Azad and Jinnah. Yes, I would rely on the personal accounts of Gandhi, Azad, Jinnah etc rather than the pontifical pronouncements of "talking heads."

Again, in the name of peace and truth, I implore you to refrain from prevarication. It helps no one. Salaam, and peace.

Alex

PAGANPLACE:

It is a good point that you make. My statement does seem to make a line betweem man and other animals. As if man the animal could be a god or devil and other animals are preprogrammed robots. I think that as the brain becomes more complex in animals that they do exhibit 'god-like' behaviors like compassion. Our remote anscestors worshipped some animals as gods. Neaderthals had religion. I wonder if our close animal relatives had such a concept as 'loving an enemy'. Certainly if they carried out such a concept, they would never have written it down for posterity.

As far as being freaked-out, I'm still trying to work that one out. Thank you for noticing.

YANGPU6 said:
“Scientists and theologians alike conclude that the universe is so well constructed, and the chances of such a universe happening at all (after all, it came from a cosmic vacuum), are so, so incredibly slim, that it is only academically fair to state the obvious. The obvious being that the cosmos must have been designed. The scientists say no more or less than this; the theologians say more.
The problem appears to be that the conclusion is disliked.”
Agreeing with his comment I would like to further add:
It is human nature that, we are always thankful and respectful to the ones who do us any favor even the smallest one.
We are thankful and respectful to our parents, friends, providers, employers, people who are genuinely helpful to us in any period of our life time. And we tend not to forget those who do any favor or provide any help to us. Infect we feel certain level of warmth and affection towards them, and even obey them if justly required. In certain favors we feel as if even we unconditionally owe them.
This is our NATURAL REACTION!

Some how even after REALISING that there is some Creating Force behind the whole creation. Who provided us INFINITE comforts and favors, we failed to recognize that we owe ONLY to Him our sincere and humble thanks to our Sustainer and Provider.

By finding faults in our self made concepts and religions, long ago, we have given up hope in truly believing in any thing and carried away by our lust ant greed.
By not taking responsibility it doesn’t go away.

Responsibility say we should whole heartedly search for the truth, seek knowledge even we have to go to the far end of the world, e.g. China. And just don’t make judgments depending upon our already proven wrong preconceived ideas. And if we hear or find something, we should evaluate it by its standards and given means. And not against our self conceived ones, depending upon our individual good or bad experience or knowledge.

Yangpu6 -

You should really go back and read Hawking, Stenger, Davis, et al. if you think Intelligent Design is accepted by the physics community. The
'weak' form of anthropism (without the deity) is
vaguely more likely to be entertained as a distant possibility, but is not a frontrunner in current cosmological thinking by reputable cosmologists. What the above seem to think is that the cosmos emerged in a micro-instant from
'nothing' or the quantum vaccuum (as you said).

Stenger points out that the structure of the cosmos as we know it today is exactly like you'd expect (as a physicist) if it emerged spontaneously without purpose or design. Much of the universe is not habitable, and about 95% of the known universe consists of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' - neither of which are currently understood and do not fit current models of a particle-based universe....there is obviously a great deal more to learn down the road.

If the universe was designed intelligently, whoever did it didn't do a very good job of it even by human standards! If you have to believe in an intelligent designer, you'd be better off reading up on Gnosticism - that view does not cast the creator of the universe (the Demiurge) in a very positive light (the old testament Yahweh) - the Demiurge made lots of mistakes during his creation but still thinks he's the ultimate Godhead (which he is not). This is in fact the very cosmology that Christianity suppressed way back in the early centuries of it's emergence. In many ways, Gnosticism is more eastern than western in it's religious viewpoint.....very interesting stuff.

all the best -

Remark: I have taken care to review that anthropic argument for the existence of God.

Scientists and theologians alike conclude that the universe is so well constructed, and the chances of such a universe happening at all (after all, it came from a cosmic vacuum), are so, so incredibly slim, that it is only academically fair to state the obvious. The obvious being that the cosmos must have been designed. The scientists say no more or less than this; the theologians say more.

The problem appears to be that the conclusion is disliked.

Forgiveness: Certainly we all can forgive, and we do not need to be Christians.

Indeed, in my opinion it is the Christians that should seek forgiveness as they openly promote the notion of original sin. Reflect upon this affair slowly as you look lovingly into a child's happy face. It is a disgraceful notion. Hence, if anyone needs forgiveness it is the Christians that utter and promote such a Doctrine.

Should we forgive someone that has used the hard-earned thithings of a communiuty to pay for expensive trips abroad, instead of using it to help the local needy on their very own door-step? The answer appears to be quite obvious.

Forgiveness requires a case-by case examination. In some cases, as we all know, forgiveness is a sin to proffer. Moreover, forgiveness for all? Then it follows that there is no meaning to notion at all.

Forgivness is grave affair, or used to be. I am now told that you can be forgiven in a New-York minuite.

In my opinion authentic forgiveness is always unconditional and so the title of this essay is itself indicative of just how out-of-touch the writer is with the notion.

Forgiveness: Certainly we all can forgive, and we do not need to be Christians.

Indeed, in my opinion it is the Christians that should seek forgiveness as they openly promote the notion of original sin. Reflect upon this affair slowly as you look lovingly into a child's happy face. It is a disgraceful notion. Hence, if anyone needs forgiveness it is the Christians that utter and promote such a Doctrine.

Should we forgive someone that has used the hard-earned thithings of a communiuty to pay for expensive trips abroad, instead of using it to help the local needy on their very own door-step? The answer appears to be quite obvious.

Forgiveness requires a case-by case examination. In some cases, as we all know, forgiveness is a sin to proffer. Moreover, forgiveness for all? Then it follows that there is no meaning to notion at all.

Forgivness is grave affair, or used to be. I am now told that you can be forgiven in a New-York minuite.

In my opinion authentic forgiveness is always unconditional and so the title of this essay is itself indicative of just how out-of-touch the writer is with the notion.

Hi, Thomas. Going back a bit:

" Thomas Baum:

TO PAGANPLACE:

Don't worry, God is a lot nicer than some people even want Him to be, at least to other people."

Well, I think that you may see, at least in your tussles with Canyon, that some want the whole universe to be *meaner* than them, so as to call *abuse* "Love."

Some will also try to say abuse is really "nice."

Good cop, bad cop.

I hope you mean what you say.... cause at least in your world, that appears to be about the best you can think of others.

I'll take it at face value, for now, though.
If you will support people's *freedom and dignity,* for all... Too often 'God Is Love' turns into 'Whatever we call Christianity is 'Love,' whether or not it bears even the slightest resemblance to anything but bald-faced hate'

But you could see how *that* plays out, right?

"Lots of people are really going to be surprized, some pleasantly, some unpleasantly. Ultimately, tho, all will be well."

Well, to my experience, a lot of people who were really spooled up about what people believe are gonna continue to be awfully-relieved, but...

Good thought. If that's not a case for cutting people some 'slack,' I don't know what is. :)

"God is Love, not a loving God, but a Being of Love, Pure Love. Since we are made in God's Image if Love is shining thru us...get the point."

Funny how I'm the one who catches flak for divine images, (and, apparently, how some kinds of people are less 'in that image' than others, but, OK. Now, ...practice.

"Take care, see you in the Kingdom."

How bout I see you in this Republic, first? ;)

UCCER - Looks like we're in complete agreement -- except about those supernatural beings.

I know all Christians aren't like JNR -- I used to be a liberal Christian myself until recently.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to see Christian humanism become a reality -- and I think it will, but perhaps not in my lifetime.

If more people like you and I stood up to clergy and refused to pay lip service to dogma, maybe things would change sooner.

Read Spong's "Why the Christian Church must Change or Die" and discuss it with your pastor.

I didn't have the nerve to. I left instead.

Rafael and E Favorite::

(Sorry, messed up the subject heading on the last post; getting late haha).

I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that I can have civil discourse with you but it is difficult for me to have civil discourse with the fundamentalists. In a hypothetical social gathering, I would be more likely to socialize with you than with JNR or Canyon, for what it's worth....

Where perhaps we disagree is, I hope you haven't become convinced that fundamentalism is all there is to Christianity. It saddens me that so many people now think of Christians as looking out only for their own salvation, unconcerned for others. Please remember that many Christians have worked tirelessly against the evils of slavery, apartheid, and segregation, to name just a few.

I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that I can have civil discourse with you but it is difficult for me to have civil discourse with the fundamentalists. In a hypothetical social gathering, I would be more likely to socialize with you than with JNR or Canyon, for what it's worth....

Where perhaps we disagree is, I hope you haven't become convinced that fundamentalism is all there is to Christianity. It saddens me that so many people now think of Christians as looking out only for their own salvation, unconcerned for others. Please remember that many Christians have worked tirelessly against the evils of slavery, apartheid, and segregation, to name just a few.

UCCER - I think JNR is right - you are more like atheists than you are like him. All the two of you seem to have in common is belief in supernatural beings and events. But with atheists, you share critical thinking skills and understanding of the importance of reason. Most atheists are also humanists - concerned about people for their own sake, not their perceived status with the almighty. That's something else we seem to have in common.

UCCer:

Didn't you read JNR? If you don't take the old book as the wholly inspired, inerrant word of his god (apparently not yours), you're just like Spong and you too are out of the club. Another bully who doesn't like your answer.

I'm beginning to believe that JNR was right, we do have more in common than he does with you: a bit more humility and a whole lot more humanity.

JNR:

Actually, all I did was ask Canyon Shears why he always blasts liberals on the On Faith panel. That's hardly mounting a defense for Bishop Spong. I just think he deserves the right to speak in a free society.

I am not going to go through a point-by-point analysis of Spong's views with you. Personally, I like to hear things from a variety of perspectives, including progressive, liberal, evangelical, conservative, orthodox, and progressive. How can one take a reasoned stand without hearing the alternatives.

There are places that I agree with Spong's theology and places where I disagree. So what? There are probably places where you and I agree and others where we disagree. So what? So what? People are allowed to have differing perspectives on things, especially theology.

UCCER, I have no venom - I would like for you to realize what you're involved in. If you know God exists, then stop kicking against the goads - the first liberal theologian spoke in Gen 3:1-5. Why do you swallow this garbage? Have YOU EVER READ SPONG'S 12 THESES? IF SO HOW CAN YOU DEFEND HIM?

Cant understand why anyone would be proud to be a christian. Its as silly as being a mormon or a muslim.Or a sikh or a hindu.

To locate Dawkin's "The God Delusion" in my local bookshop,I had to browse in the 'religious' section,and I was embarrassed that anyone would see me and think I was fool enough to be religious.
I couldn't get out of there quick enough.

It bothers me that books on atheism are so often kept among the religious books,when really they should be on opposite sides of the store,among books on philosophy and science.
Religious books should be among the books on astrology,numerology,scientology,alien abductions,and UFO sightings.
I mentioned this to the storekeeper,but he wasn't impressed.

JNR,

Your post at 1:39 PM today (11/18/2007) was so presumptuous and full of venom I don't really know where to begin.

I will say this: if being "Christian" means satisfying you and your definition of orthdoxy then no thanks. I'll be happy to call myself a follower of Jesus in that case. That said, who left you in charge? It's Jesus' church, not yours.

RAFAEL: "Just curious, do you advocate death for gays, for children who curse their parents, fortunetellers, adulterers, non-virgin brides, followers of other religions? What about those who eat oysters, shave their beards, and mix fibers in their clothing? Stoning these people to death rarely seems to get much defense these days even though God said they were okay in the Bible, your arbiter of who is and who aint."

Fair question - but the answer is the distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial law:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=27

You might point out there are no actual headings in the OT differentiating between them, but then you must account for the difficult facts: the gentiles in the OT are NEVER condemned for disobeying ceremonial or civil laws. Only moral laws. These same laws are repealed explicitly in the NT, but the moral laws are affirmed.

So to answer your question, the dietary laws, and laws regarding beards/mixed fibres do not apply any more.

Adultery and homosexuality are violations of the moral law, but we can't mindlessly apply the penalties of the civil law of ancient Israel against them. I take John 8 as the model for dealing with sexual sin. It ought to be outlawed, but if the person repents of their sin and turns from it, they should be shown mercy. But please don't ask people to ignore what Jesus said: "Go and sin no more".

Just one proviso - the cosmos may in fact have always existed, contrary to what one poster believes. The universe just might be replicating itself for all eternity and this is exactly what Buddhists maintain. Infinity is a hard nut to crack, much less bite into....nevertheless, study up on Inflation theory as it is currently tied to the Big Bang and you may find infinity staring you right in the face. Unfortunately we don't presently have the math to deal with it. The Planck constant as applied to the micro-moment of the Big Bang is where our cosmic travels start - and stop.

Sometimes science and religion does seem to converge - however, Intelligent Design is not one such area of convergence.

Read Stenger's book if you think so (he is not remotely a Buddhist by the way - in fact his last statement in the book shows clearly that he doesn't understand it at all!!)

You'll forgive me for the divergence??

I caught a glimpse of 'anthropic principle' mentioned in a post and thought immediately of a book that I might recommend to all those of (religious) faith that would like a wee bit of a scientific challenge, if you're up to it -

Read 'God: The Failed Hypothesis' by physicist Victor Stenger and then read 'Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture' by
Lawson and McCauley.

In this modern age, why do (so many) humans not only adamently believe in God the creator as an absolute truth, but further - why is it that religious belief in general is so homogeneous throughout recorded history?? There is nothing new about any religion today that hasn't been done before elsewhere by other/earlier believers.

If you think you've got a corner on the truth read these two books and find out where you might have gotten your ideas about God and religion - and whether or not these beliefs have a chance at being true in an objectively real way. Truth or myth?? Stray outside the comfortable boundries of belief and expand your horizons. Most will not, but then what are you afraid of?

Sure, Spong is a Christian if he conceives of himself as a Christian. It doesn't bother me and I have no idea why it apparently infuriates you.

Just curious, do you advocate death for gays, for children who curse their parents, fortunetellers, adulterers, non-virgin brides, followers of other religions? What about those who eat oysters, shave their beards, and mix fibers in their clothing? Stoning these people to death rarely seems to get much defense these days even though God said they were okay in the Bible, your arbiter of who is and who aint.

The Bible is the arbiter of Christianness. Anyone who denies it is the wholly inspired, inerrant word of God is not a Christian.
Note UCCER in his very first comment on this thread support Bp Spong. But just google 'Spong' and '12 theses' and tell me, do you think Spong is a Christian? Do it.

JNR,
Your logic is terribly poor.
a) "Of such a nature" does not constitute evidence. There is no logical connection your statement about a "personal" cause and the non-eternity of the universe. If your god is eternal, why did he suddenly decide 15 billion years ago to create the universe? That makes even less sense than if the universe had been eternal.
b) There are many forms of morality that do not require anything supernatural. You might start with reading more about humanism.
c) By your argument you take Jonestown as evidence that Jim Jones was an incarnation of Jesus, as he claimed.
d) "A, B,and C pointing to" the creator does not constitute evidence.
Terribly poor!

JNR: this is where things get interesting and a little silly, when Christians start calling other Christians non-Christian. It's not clear to me who should be the arbiter of Christian-ness. Is it the case that only non-Christians "invent" notions of a deity, or that only the non-Christian notions are vague? You ridicule UCCer's view of God as communicating only through "vague 'spiritual experiences'" as if this were somehow more compatible with an atheist world view than a Christian world view.

I really should stay out of the Christian chest thumping, but to me it sounds a little ridiculous for you to accuse one another of not being the real McCoy. Presumably according to your world view, your god is the only one fit to do the judging, and only at the end--so perhaps your lack of humility makes you not really a Christian either?

Rafael: "In fact, there is no need to disprove anything supernatural because there is no evidence for it."

Wrong!
a) This universe is of such a nature that something external/transcendent must have caused it. The cause is likely personal because were it not, the effect (the universe) would always have existed, which is not the case.
b) You take morality seriously? The only way for you to do so is to believe in something that transcends the mindless material universe you think gave rise to you. The Law Giver is God.
c) The historicity of the empty tomb. The 500 in 1 Co 15 who witnessed the risen Jesus and were willing to die for it. Are you willing to die for anything? If Paul and Peter had not known that Jesus had risen, would they have been willing to die for Him?
d) Consciousness, rationality, genetic information all of which point to the Creator.

Rafael: agreed. there are those on these threads who appear to act as if their logic conclusively proves that god does not exist. don't mean to suggest that science bothers.

Joet said:
"as for some of the rest of you, ;-), it is just as bogus to attempt to use logic, reason or science to disprove god as it is to prove it. give it up. it's OK to point out such things as the curious origins of the bible, but believers are perfectly entitled to overcome same if they are so moved. otherwise we will never stop pointing out the flaws in each other's logic, because our logic is necessarily flawed if we are attempting the impossible. "

Who do you think is trying to disprove the existence of gods with science? Certainly not scientists. Logical thinkers might point out inconsistencies or conflicts in the logic of people who describe their god. Pointing out inconsistencies in human concepts is completely different from disproving the existence of something supernatural using methods that relate to the natural world. In fact, there is no need to disprove anything supernatural because there is no evidence for it.

.

Excuse me, but wasn't the "voluntary" giving up of power of the dominating "authorities" a sign of cognition of their fault or "sin" (always, a foreshadowing of repentance)? And--as you all too clearly, dramatically showed--met with the abused people's acceptance, and lead to the "stunning achievement" you now celebrate? Were there, therefore, no "preconditioned" to forgiveness that, instead of revenge and the like, the people made?

Would the change have occured from a unilateral, unconditional act of the oppressed people? Whether forced by circumstances or by free volition, the first step was taken by the oppressor (at least in this case). They were met more than half-way, it is true, by the oppressed. And you have an achievement worth crowing about.

What would have happened if instead the oppressed people marched to the citadels of the oppressors and told them, "All right. Enough. We forgive you unconditionally. Give up your position of power and let us free"? They would have been slaughtered.

And then, if the oppressed fought back, would you call it "revenge, vengence, etc.?" Would they then have dismayed Tutu and company as being contrarians to their "insight"?

Perhaps the dictum (on "unconditional forgiveness") should be rephrased. I suggest this: "To the repentant sinner, offer forgiveness--and let no conditions mar its grace."

Now, that would be viable, pragmatic, for "vengeful" humans, truly a "stunning ahievement." As South Africa has, so you wrote, done it.

.

Scarlett: indeed you note how easy it is for us to discuss forgiveness when we aren't talking about something close and personal. I have the time for all my posting because I was victimized myself (thank heaven for severance packages for execs) to serve as a scapegoat. The revenge fantasies are only beginning to abate many months later. The anger is not easy to fight. I have managed to readily convince myself that the offender isn't worth giving the power to keep me a victim, so that part was manageable. So I am part way there, and can see the finish line of complete forgiveness (not the tell the offender part - probably never - and no need, will probably never see again). so Scarlett, thanks for bringing the conversation back to reality.

as for some of the rest of you, ;-), it is just as bogus to attempt to use logic, reason or science to disprove god as it is to prove it. give it up. it's OK to point out such things as the curious origins of the bible, but believers are perfectly entitled to overcome same if they are so moved. otherwise we will never stop pointing out the flaws in each other's logic, because our logic is necessarily flawed if we are attempting the impossible.

Scarlett, forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean not talking over with the offender what he did and why it was wrong, but that's a separate issue from forgiveness. You shouldn't beat him over the head with it ad infinitum - that's where it crosses the line where you're really not forgiving him. But you ought not let this person blithely go on thinking he hasn't really done anything wrong.
You can forgive him in the sense of bearing no malice towards him, but it would be insane to reinstate whatever type of relationship/trust you had without some form of acknowledgment and repentance on his part - and this would require you to talk it out with him and let him know why he'd done wrong.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

I notice that many of the posts concerning forgiveness are concerned with releasing individuals who are once-removed from us, ie: torturers, political enemies, terrorists, even murderers. There is an impersonal nature to the evils they inflict on us. But what of those close to us? Those whom we work with? Who, for years, have called themselves friends and associates. And what shall we do when they betray us? A "Judas" situaton, totally unexpected, that causes deep pain and anguish to a wide circle of people. It takes years, my friends, and constant deep prayer to come close to just "acceptance." I often wonder if there isn't a "middle step" before release; even just telling betrayers that we know what they did and how it made us feel. I don't know the answer here, I just know "forgiveness" is a mighty complex thing and the word is easy to throw around until you've been knifed in the back by those you loved and lived with.

Rafael - sorry about the confusion with 1, and 2 as well! I didn't mean political liberal, I meant theological liberal, like uccer, who is not a Christian, so please don't pay him the compliment of arguing against him as if he was one.
Their view DOES reduce to atheism in the end: a God who cannot communicate with us except (they hope) by vague 'spiritual experiences' which could have naturalistic esplanations (may it was that pepperoni pizza you had earlier, uccer, and not the Holy Spirit you experienced!). A God who does not intervene in history, whose non-activity is for all intents and purposes compatible with the atheist world view.
Yet to keep from despair ('feeling that the universe is nothing more than a mechanical dance of atoms' as C.S.Lewis puts it) they invent a vague concept of Deity - by no means a Christian one. It's a kind of self therapy for them.

And why do they do it? Because there is some aspect of their lives that is more important to them than God. They would rather cling to their favorite sins than forsake all and follow Christ.
But their conscience still bothers them, which explains the obsessive need to have their identity as 'Christian' affirmed.

As for the distinctions in 3) Take for example John W. Loftus, atheist propagandist of Debunking Christianity. He tries to say that since God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he could have arranged for us to escape all physical harm (by having us be born with wings for example, so we could fly if pushed over a cliff).
But of course this is not logical necessity - it just seems plausible to Loftus. God may be omnibenevolent, and to show us our limitations and dependence. We also live in a fallen world. It is a kind of judgment against us for sin. You can't say omnibenevolence = shielding us from the consequences and just deserts of our actions (see Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis).

To the omnipresent anonymous (who posts simultaneously on multiple threads!):

1) Why can't all you anonymouses just pick your own handle for the sake of continuity in discussion? Sheesh.

2) Do you understand that there is a difference between an atheist and a liberal? That there are liberal theists and conservative atheists?

3) If you have something to contribute, for example by making the distinctions that you say would resolve the apparent contradictions, why not do so? Shouting "Don't fall for the liberal's lies!" makes you sound like a drooling fanatic on a street corner.

ANONYMOUS,

I am sorry I ahve been censored (see my last posting on Samuel Lloyd's comment) and I have vowed to stop posting after the last few designed to avoid leaving loose ends.

I give up.

Mohamed: "To me God is, in a certain sense, an interactive process"

But is God for you a Person who can communicate with his creatures? If not, then why are you not just an atheist, but who calls God what he feels is unknowable (a mere unconscious state or process)? Are you a liberal Muslim (counter part to Spong)?

Mohamed: "... omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence among other attributes. It can be proved, using bi-valued logic, that such a deity is a contradiction"

I've heard atheists try to prove a contradiction (usually between omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence - ie. problem of evil). But they always fail to make distinctions that would resolve the apparent contradiction. Don't fall for the liberal's lies!

UCCER,

You write : " The anthropic principle doesn't prove that God exists, but it sure suggests it."

No, it neither suggests it nor disproves it. Rafael has answered you that "it sure does not suggest the existence of your god". He answered me : "You almost lost me at 'when we dare to challenge the deity.' If we don't agree on that basic assumption, what is the point of building a discussion that depends on it?"

The point is: god, or God, is a concept that each one formulates for himself based on emotions and ideas imparted to us by those who cared for us in our earliest formative days and years, and refined constantly by experience and our cogitations on the human condition. Certain attributes of the deity seem to be shared by all people from all societies, cultivating all manner of creeds and hailing from all walks of life -- omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence among other attributes. It can be proved, using bi-valued logic, that such a deity is a contradiction, and this, while leaving the debates about evolution/creation/intelligent design, about whether morality derives from divine rules or is a constantly evolving value-system adapting to the necessities of survival of the specie confronted to constantly changing challenges in his environment, etc. However, we now know that bivalued logic is not the only one that can explain life, matter, physical forces, consciousness, etc. What's more, we now know how to draw the differene between the known-knowns, known-unknowns, knowable, and unknowable, not justin the sense of limitations arising from the process of collecting data to verify hypotheses but also the more fundamental ones refferred to by the initiated as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. We are even more blessed than that in having been able to cultivate enough confidence in our thinking abilities that we are making enormous progress investigating the different methods by which we get to know -- in other words in answering the question "do we know how to know?". Antonio D'Amasio's argument is that Galileo's/Descartes' reasoning approach (Cogito ergo sum, even augmented to reasoning in a many-valued logical mode) is not sufficient -- we also get to know through the emotions -- by the hardwiring, in our brains, through the repeated firing of nerones along particualr circuits and synapses, of certain methods of perception of reality. One good example to illustrate: there is no convincing proof why the world we experience has to be three-dimensional (with time being a fourth) except that the inverse-square law for the force of attraction between physical bodies (particles and planets) would, in a four dimensional world become an inverse-cube law and would make the expansion of the universe after the big bang impossibly slow for life to have evolved. So, life and consciousnes exists because the world we experience is three-dimensional. But there is convincing physics theory that the world might be ten-dimensional (with time being an eleventh dimension -- that's what string theory is about!) except that we cannot experience it precisely because life as we know it could have evolved only in a three-dimensional world. (This argument is not totally fool-proof, but is a strong hypothesis being subjected to tests).

However, it is also important to note that our brain did not evolve with science or thought in mind. The evolution of our brain has been a stupendously suucessful butad hoc adaptive process.

Which brings me to MY conception of God. Victoria, bear with me. I am a Muslim. I have questioned myself since the age of eight about the ideas of the deity that I received from my parents and those who cared for me, and I have found no contradiction with the Islamic idea of God; but my conception of Him or Her might not exactly be totally congruent with yours.

To me God is, in a certain sense, an interactive process of our gradual communion with The Almighty (Omnipotent), The Omniscient, The Omnipresent, The Benevolent, The All Merciful, The Most Generous Provider. Viewed from this perspective, and this concept of the deity is a process rather than a state of nature, the contradictions that skeptics and atheists righly point to do not, nonetheless, apply. They would apply if the conception of the deity were static or even if it were a steady state. But God reveals himself to us (not just to men, not just to our specie, but to all creation or if you want all evolving consciousness) as we ourselves evolve. Fo r the Muslim, this is the Sufi concept of God. In Christianity, Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, and too many other profoundly religious thinkers with superbly kucid intellects have reminisced about these ideas and sgared them with "believers'. In that sense, Rafael, I have immense respect for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, indeed animists and humanists and agnostics who really probe the profound ideas behind Omnipotence, Omniscient, All Merciful, All Forgiving.

Yes, Victoria, be reassured that forgiveness and love and humility are the most cherished values for me. But forgiveness as the equivalent of "I could not care less because it is not I or those who are dear to me or those who can retaliate who are affected" is totally repulsive to me.

So help me God!

peace all- i remember when i read gandhis autobiography ( i forget what it was called but it was enormous) that he credited throeau's civil disobedience with his own concept of it.

mohammed- you're asking people to make judgements about what others peoples conditions are

i know you'll be easy on me because im such a simple and easily defeated foe :)
i dont have your razor mind-

i stated elsewhere that when one forgives a person they dont know for something that they personally didnt experience- it is a pointless sham-

i have forgiven and forgotten and wished some light of love to enter the hearts of my torturers

i can only speak for my own soul
its been tested to death(at least twice) and that is what ive found

it doesnt make me weak- it makes me steel inside (literally, i have a titanium rod in my forearm-hee hee from one such torture experience- AND i come from the steel city! pittsburgh-hee)

to hurt to subjugate to torture to hate to be angered- those really are weaknesses

to forgive such a one outright to their face will only madden them-
forgiveness is not a blessing one dispenses with some angelic air to prove ones spiritual superiority but is a quiet and private affair between ones soul and ones soul.

for me its absolute and non-negotiable

what i say would be just words if i havent lived it many times

i call it walking through the fire, but there is no human born who does not suffer

peace!

No, it sure doesn't suggest the existence of your god. You seem to be contradicting yourself again, one minute saying that a scientific principle can't prove the existence of something supernatural, which as you say is purely an act of faith, the next minute letting your biased hopes creep into your interpretation of the principle. For the reasons I described, the fact that we are here to observe this universe does not bear on its improbability, any more than the fact that you are here to observe your own existence bears on its improbability (and by implication the need for some otherworldly force to overcome that improbability).

Nor does the idea that the physical universe had a beginning at a physical event imply some otherworldly creator. Again, you are letting your hopes creep in. And then you're back to the perfectly tuned constants argument, which (let me repeat) is not improbable when it is conditional on our being here to observe it.

What you describe as "no-god" is difficult to define as a fantasy. Perhaps you feel that your position on all other gods is also a fantasy--remember that the only difference between us is that I believe in one less god than you do. Your claim that "no-god" is a fantasy in the absence of proof would carry the absurd requirement that I prove that every god every dreamed up by anyone does not exist. There is no such burden on people who don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. The burden is on those who claim things for which there is no evidence.

Your faith, on the other hand, does support a fantasy, a belief for which we have no verifiable evidence. The tooth fairy once seemed real enough to me, and brought me tremendous, overwhelming joy while I believed in it. But that didn't make it real in any verifiable sense beyond my fantasy experience of it.

CS:

You said:
"God will ultimately do the judging, that is true. But I am the watchman, calling out that the sword is coming, that God is going to be judging soon, either on the day of your death, or when He returns."

"He has given me the keys to the kingdom, the authority to say who is going to Heaven and Hell."

Oh my, that's really quite a claim.

I often feel that I experience the Holy Spirit in worship. And God has answered several of my prayers, sometimes in dramatic and unexpected ways. But I certainly would not say that God has given me any authority. That would really be "out there".

Could you elaborate?

Rafael:

I'm glad you brought that up as I had intended to get to it.

The anthropic principle doesn't prove that God exists, but it sure suggests it. The problem with the anthropic principle in the eyes of most scientists is, it really borders on philosophy more than science. That is, hypotheses for or against it cannot be tested. We cannot change the physical constants; rather, we are "stuck" with the ones we have. We cannot simply travel to one of the other universes in the ensemble, if indeed they exist. We can only observe the universe we are in, which seems to be ideal for life and indeed human life.

So we have reached the limit of scientific discovery in the big bang theory. We can reasonably conclude that the universe had a beginning, a starting point. This again suggests a Creator but does not prove it. THe physical constants are perfectly tuned to support the development of increasingly intelligent carbon-based life forms. Suggests but does not prove the Creator. That's all we can do. We are left to either believe or not believe.

You said "what you are really saying is, 'please allow me my fantasy.' You're welcome to it."

To which I would reply that you are also welcome to have your no-God fantasy. Neither of us has a provable hypothesis. We never will. I will say that I have found tremendous, overwhelming joy through my faith. To me, it is real.

You're still in a cult. Flee to God before it's too late.

Yes, science generally discounts explanations that have no evidence and cannot be falsified. But it's not the first time you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of these fundamental principles.

CS:
It seems you've never realized that street preachers turn off more people from religion than they turn on. If you were really interested in saving people's souls, or whatever your deranged, narrow little mind tells you you're up to, you would have figured out a better strategy long ago.

ANONYMOUS,

You don't seem to understand. A moral principle of forgiveness has to be applicable not just to particular past events, not just to particular foreseeable future events, not just to general foreseeable events for well-identified societies, but for a more general class of events and experiences, applicable to very general (even if not necessarily ALL)types of human societies).

To make my argument clear and specific -- if you forgive all that you say you forgive and you are right, would it be OK for Iran to acquire the bomb? Would it be OK for the US to 'bomb Iran back to the stone age' to prevent it from acquiring the bomb? Would it be OK for the Evangelical who ACTUALLY wants to assassinate Hugo Chavez to be allowed to indulge his epiphany? Would it be OK for the Pope to prevent ALL Catholics from using the condom? Would it be OK for the superneocon presidential candidate who dreams of achieving endtimes salvation by bombing Mecca and Medina to be allowed to indulge his satanic wish?

You may answer YES to all of these, but then it would violate all criteria of reasonable thought.