All Comments (16)

In the dreamland.

With a dray-horse
that feeling
arrives near the
sound of a bell-glass,
and under a bed
a beautiful care
designs the portrait
of a delicate sadness: it’s
a dreamland, the
tender profile now
recalling the past.

TO MATTHEW: You wrote, "We will be judged by God based on our faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Period." and also, " Those of us who believe that Christ Jesus died on the cross to save our sins will have eternal life with God in heaven. Those who don't believe will be condemned to eternal damnation in the fires of hell.", first off, I would like to ask, is this what you believe? Because if this is what you believe, you have not the slightest idea of what christianity really is, of course it seems like quite a few people calling themselves "christian" don't either. Take care, see you in the Kingdom and don't be too surprised when you eventually find out that God is a Trinity of Pure Love, Who picks His messengers and you definitely are not speaking for God. And God's Plan of Salvation is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be in His Kingdom whether you agree with God or not. The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Martin,you have won more medals in serving God as Allah,than awarded to soldiers in all wars, ever fought. Martin,you can march unto the very gates of heaven,standing upright, unashamedly, fully erect,represent all nations all people's. The Dazzle from your medals so great,all admire as look in awe at such the splendour.The Virgin Son as the very Father will come in person to greet, opening the gates of paradise.. PS..... Martin, the greatest gift humanity given, being our sense of humour,with such we have survived the darkest hours... .. .

Michelle,

In your post, you say that a growing sector of the faith is progressive. I consider myself a progressive Christian (I am a member of a UCC congregation, hence my screen name), so please consider this a friendly question. What evidence do you have that the progressive sector is growing? From what I've seen there are essentially two contrary trends, neither of which indicates the growth of progressive Christianity.

The first, and perhaps the primary trend, is that Christianity itself is shrinking; one poll showed that the number of people who self-identify as Chrsitians is decreasing at 1% per year. A recent Barna group study showed that the decline of Chrstianity is particularly noticable in the 16-25 age range, where 40% now self-identify as non-Christian.

The second trend is that only the fundamentalist churches are growing. Almost all of the mainline churches are shrinking. Some fundamentalist churches are also shrinking, but what growth there has been in Christianity recently has been in mega-churches, pentacostal, non-demoninational, etc., perhaps because of their non-traditional worship style.

So Christianity is shrinking, and a growing portion of this shrinking pool is fundamentalist. That doesn't leave much room for progressive Christianity.

Dr. Marty,

There is no mystery to it. The answers are all in the Bible. We will be judged by God based on our faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Period. That's all there is to it. Those of us who believe that Christ Jesus died on the cross to save our sins will have eternal life with God in heaven. Those who don't believe will be condemned to eternal damnation in the fires of hell.

If you do not believe this in your heart when you recite the creeds, then you are not a true Christian. God will punish you to eternal damnation.

I agree with Michelle that this attack on moderates is nothing more than a pointless setting up and knocking down of straw men.

I am certainly not, nor am I aware of any moderate who is, an apologist for the many shameful excesses and atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion. On the contrary, we fiercely condemn them and avow that this is not the way that the truly faithful should behave. And we try to conduct our own lives so that we can serve as more appropriate examples.

As for this statement, "The human need for a mystical dimension to life like mysticism and other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity."

Duh! Naturally, superstition and credulity are utterly useless to any searcher-after-truth.

And I don't deny the "tools of modern neuroscience" may have some initial value in "approaching" and "exploring" the metaphysical aspects of existence. After all, have you ever seen what neurosurgeons use to "approach" the brain? Imagine, if you will, a stainless steel Black and Decker heavy-duty 1/2" drill with a big nasty hole-saw bit in it.

Great for getting through someone's thick skull, but just try doing neurosurgery with it then!

OK, so now we have the Functional MRI that lets us see the different areas of the brain "light up" as we do or think about various things. Marvelous stuff. But be wary to avoid the cocksure certitude (so characteristic of the "true believer") as to what it allegedly proves -- or even more problematic -- "disproves".

We can just as well take one of those infrared thermometer guns and aim it at each chip on our computer motherboard as we run some program, to see which ones "light up" with heat as the computer does its thing. We can quantify each reading to within 0.1 degree and record a myriad of sequential readings for each and every chip. Golly! Now use that information to reverse-engineer the program that the PC is running! Ummm...

And next tell me whether the neuroscientist can reliably and repeatedly reproduce love in a test tube in his state-of-the-art lab. Inquiring minds want to know.

Dr. Marty: Only you can decide whether anecdotal near-death experiences can ever meet your personal standard of proof. Indeed, Intellect tells us "Rigorous proof of the hereafter is still lacking" -- and I can't rationally dispute that. But then Spirit gently shakes a remonstrating finger at me, saying "Rationality itself is likewise a human construct, and therefore not worthy of being worshipped."

Wayne, that was a nice long post. However, I believe you misspoke about religious moderates or progressives. You seem to imply that Christians especially try not to think rationally about their faith, and that faith requires the shut down of the brain.

True, our faiths have been the cause of too true violence. It has been the rationalization for some evil events. I would suggest that the people who perpetrated these things did not truly know their own religion or that they were using it for their own selfish ends. The first takes stupidity, the second intelligence.

But I suggest to you that you truly do not know the full Christian community. It was not apparent that you knew that a growing sector of the faith does not see Jesus as divine. Or the scriptures as infallible. I dare say you have never read anything put out by the Jesus Seminar, some of the most brilliant professors of our time. I have met one of them...and he does most certainly have faith. I wonder if you have ever spent time in a seminar setting like the one at Philips where students routinely lose their faith and find it again. Or where they write anti-war papers saying there is no just war.

And some of us progressives don't believe in an afterlife, or we really don't care one way or another. We are focused on the here and now, because that is what we have and what we can do with as we are led by an intellectually charged faith.

You do a lot of Christians harm when you insist they are not intelligent or don't think about their faith. I have seen both sides of the coin. And that coin shows both religious leaders and lay people on both sides.

Do your research.

In the cold.

In the cold
of a darkness
I see the profile
of a beautiful sun,
and so, when
a pleasure seems
a sorrow at the
end of the morning,
I hear the sensitive
wind recalling
my faith.

Regarding "near death or post death experiences" I was moved by the reports of two people who spoke on the Barbara Walters interviews on this subject. What struck me about one woman in particular is that she described her experience (the "standard" one as I now recall about a light and conscious decision to return, etc.) but she did not speak about conversion to any religion or indeed about God at all. What she said she was left with was that she no longer fears death and that she needs to cherish her loved ones and her current life experiences, which she does. I guess this sounded like what I thought God would tell someone. Anyway, her presence moved me and, obviously, has stayed with me and now I might say that it is was, for me, "a little something grasped about the abyss of mystery." Joan Mistretta

Regarding "near death or post death experiences" I was moved by the reports of two people who spoke on the Barbara Walters interviews on this subject. What struck me about one woman in particular is that she described her experience (the "standard" one as I now recall about a light and conscious decision to return, etc.) but she did not speak about conversion to any religion or indeed about God at all. What she said she was left with was that she no longer fears death and that she needs to cherish her loved ones and her current life experiences, which she does. I guess this sounded like what I thought God would tell someone. Anyway, her presence moved me and, obviously, has stayed with me and now I might say that it is was, for me, "a little something grasped about the abyss of mystery." Joan Mistretta

John Stuart Mill

"My father's rejection of all that is called religious belief was not,as
many might suppose,primarily a matter of logic and evidence: the grounds for
it were moral, more than intellectual. He found it impossible to believe
that a world so full of evil was the work of a God combining infinite
power with perfect goodness and righteousness.
His aversion to religion,in the sense usually attached to the term,was of
the same kind with that of Lucretius; he regarded it with the feelings due
not to mere mental delusion but to a great moral evil.
It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father's ideas of duty to
allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings
respecting religion;and he impressed on me from the first that the manner in
which the world came into existence was a subject on which nothing was known.
John Stuat Mill,quoted in "Why I Am Not A Christian",by Bertrand Russell.

In the darkness of a melody.

There’s a leak
at the end of a distant
delight, and often,
when a delicate
line arrives in the
fear of a blackbird,
a tender profile
invents, in a moment,
the light of a
sunrise, the luminous
charm recalling
the past.

In the darkness of a melody.

There’s a leak
at the end of a distant
delight, and often,
when a delicate
line arrives in the
fear of a blackbird,
a tender profile
invents, in a moment,
the light of a
sunrise, the luminous
charm recalling
the past.

And, Martin, if you don't understand the scenario above then try this one. It comes from aliens and a little more Bible conforming.

1. In the beginning there was God. God created the universe beginning with a first ever particle of matter.
2. The disposition and whereabouts of every particle of matter that now exists or has ever existed depends on that first particle.
3. The motion, track, path of every particle of matter from it's creation until it's final demise can be computed, (the way the motion of the earth is computed).

Thus the total history from the very first particle until now is recorded in the particles of matter that comprise the universe. It's just a matter of playing the motion of the particles in reverse, like computing the path of a missile in reverse to see where it came from, who's shooting at us, done routinely today. As man has learned to compute the path of large particles, earth, space ships, missiles etc man will eventually learn to do the same thing to the finest particle level.

Thus all history can be reproduced as it happened, to the finest particle level and displayed for all to see, like being there when God said, "let there be light" only really just watching a film of the event. Then man will have all the knowledge that is needed to himself, "let there be light." Better yet, man will be able to create and destroy matter.

With that man will be able to restore youth to the elderly and even bring the dead back to life. It goes without saying that all that man needs can be created as finished goods and when done with whatever it is it can be destroyed. The only question to be answered is where will all those people live.

Well, we wouldn't want to recover all the dead would we? I mean, there is a better class of people. And, since space is limited then the not so better class of people can be left dead. See, hell has place even when God become a device, a piece of equipment that does all the things we expect from God.

I hope I made that clear. Revelation has a poor man's version of that using supernatural beings and so on. Those with the problem of not being able to understand life after death display symptoms of a lack of imagination, faith that no matter how bad it gets there's a way out. Dead is pretty bad isn't it? But is dead final?

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenents and rituals irrational, archaic and more importantly when it comes to matters of humanity’s long-term survival, mutually incompatible. There are names for people who have beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.’’

Criticizing a person’s faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse. Criticizing a person’s ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.’’

A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy, if not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in the holiness of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the sake of expediting the second coming of Christ believe in the holiness of their cause. Such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their religious texts or ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously, attending to the holy texts on which their faith is built. Unhappily for international community, the Good Books that undergird the world’s major religions are extraordinary anthologies of violence and vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die.

In the 21st century when swords have been beaten into megaton bombs, the persistence of ancient, blood-washed theisms that emphasize their singular righteousness and their superiority over competing faiths poses a genuine threat to the future of humanity, if not the biosphere: ‘’We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation,’’ he writes, ‘’because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.’’

I have a particular ire for religious moderates, those who ‘’have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths’’ and who ‘’imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.’’ Religious moderates are the ones who thwart all efforts to criticize religious literalism. By preaching tolerance, they become intolerant of any rational discussion of religion and ‘’betray faith and reason equally.’’

The human need for a mystical dimension to life like mysticism and other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity.

At this time Islam is the reigning threat to humankind. Much like a gruesome, Inquisition-style Christianity of the 13th century only leads us to believe not all cultures are at the same stage of moral development,’’ I couldn’t help but think of Ann Coulter’s morally developed suggestion that we invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity.

I will say this of Faith: it has been the foundation of every religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches, temples and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of millennium past. Evolution is still howled as the great enemy of faith. It simply has the greatest following of scientists and evidence. It's not scientifically that any religion has ever tried to debunk Evolution. They brought forth no evidence. They claimed no new discoveries. Their only tactic was to point to tattered and very old scriptues -- to flip through the pages, and read the rancid words, almost as if they were pure gold. Faith does not require investigation, or evidence, or demonstration, or observation, or logical deductions. It simply requires that a person believe, in spite of what evidence may say: it requires that a person blindfolds themselves when demonstration is shown, to use earplugs when anyone speaks of logic, and to turn away at every reason for them to believe what Faith tells them is wrong. Those cults and sects which have utilized violence for the realization of their apocalyptic future -- they required nothing but the willpower and a great deal of Faith.

Speaking of death as "the abyss of mystery" you say "I/we have no words, concepts, reaches of imagination to make sense of that in ordinary conceptions."

Physicists Stevens Hawkins gave us a concept that is within the mental grasp of the average person. There's simply billions and billions of universes. Death is the process of rebirth in the next universe. That's as old as recorded history with an obvious twist connecting directly into modern religion.

When the notion of stopping some people, sinners you call them from entering the next world came about the accepted physics at that time allowed the conceptualization of life after death. And the conceptualizers documented what they conceptualized too.

Pictures at http://www.hoax-buster.org taken directly from official Catholic Bible makes perfectly clear exactly what was officially conceptualized. There was this flat earth below which there was at least one more flat earth. This flat earth was connected to the one blow by a natural bridge, the nebol bridge. The dead were assumed to reappear, in physical body form with old memory on the nebol bridge. There's more, objects near the dead body come alone - not regenerated naked on the nebol bridge for example.

The reason you cannot conceptualize life after death is because you know the earth is round, no other earth below. But top physicist Hawkins says that earth presumed to be below is actually in the same space as this earth. Mr Hunt at hoax buster mentioned that life is a set of discontinuous moments. Combine the two and bingo. The nebol bridge is legit connecting this round earth to another round earth right here but at a moment of time offset.

So it's not so hard to understand and it may well be so. Our dead ancestors are removed from our lives by only a nanosecond. And there are cases where time warps have moved people both onto this earth form regions unknown and off of this earth, again to no one knows where. When we learn to alter time you can go to heaven as you call it and come back. Won't that be nice.

Well, not so nice when you say all are not going on to that next earth. Isn't that what religion is all about? Heaven is only for those that do what the high priest says. That high priest must be some kind of dictator that uses eternal death as a threat. Sounds like a terrorists to me with that threat of eternal death. Why am I wrong?