Muslim fighters

Hello ThomasBaum,

I like these last posts of yours, and have at least several things to comment on. I am, however, fully preoccupied and am not sure when or if, in a timely fashion, I can respond to you. It would not be until 24 hrs. at earliest, me thinks. I hope that can work.

Peace.

justillthennow

This is in response to posting on S Ahmad's Act of one man, that posting stopped taking comments.

You wrote, "Love, at the core. Love of if you prefer."

No, I don't prefer. Some do things for love of money, love of power, love of ..., thinking that all people do things with Love in mind seems to me to iqnore reality and Jesus was a Realist.

You also wrote, "My stance is that God can be and Is anything, and everything, and is not limited by "Trinity","

You are the one that says God is limited by being God, I haven't. The only "limitations" on God are those that are self-imposed such as God giving us free will.

We have all heard many times: Why did God let someone do such a thing or words to the effect, haven't we?

Free will is not free will unless it is free. We all screw up but we don't all accept "personal" responsibility this side of the grave and God knew we wouldn't and that is what God's Plan is about.

If God "can be and Is anything, and everything", does this mean that God can be "nothing"?

Someone once said, "If one believes everything then one believes nothing", sounds accurate to me.

I am not saying that your "experience" is not of God and I am not saying that God can't have many ways of "relating" to humans but what I am saying is that God Is God and God has a Plan that is better, to put it mildly, than many believe and much more sadly than many seem to want.

I used to believe what Jesus said about God and God revealed to me in God's Time that some of what I believed about God Is True.

For instance, I used to believe that Jesus died for everyone except me, well as they say, close but no cigar.

You then wrote, "So, what is True? We don't know, but personally. There is as yet no validation that proves any particular way or belief or religion has got it right."

Yet, it is reported that Jesus did not put forward about a "what" being true but that a Who is Truth when He said, "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...", Jesus also put forth the question, "Who do you say that I AM"?, that question is just as valid today as when Jesus first put it forth.

You also wrote, "I recognize that you have taken on a "job" that you take seriously, and that is good. My discussion with you is in no way meant as a negation of that, or an attempt at invalidating what is true for you. Perhaps it has been informative, and certainly I trust positive. I am glad that you are doing what is important and fulfilling for you to do, and I am sure that God is pleased by that."

And I thank you for saying this.

As I have said many times, God looks at the person, not the "label", and I mean this in the very simple way that it is written.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

justillthennow

You wrote, "I rather think that life and this evolutionary process of consciousness is an ongoing thing"

Do you really think that man's nature has changed one iota since man became man?

Our "toys" have changed, we have been "inventive" but has the "bloodthirst" of man changed any? Has man's quest for "power" changed? Has man's desire to run other people's lives rather than living their own, changed?

Look around.

People talk about "evolving" all the time, if anything, it seems as if man has devolved in his treatment of others, especially with man's capacity for such fancy weapons of destruction and also with man's capacity for destroying our very home, earth.

I don't just mean "blowing it up" or purposefully destroying it with chemical, biological, radiological or even "more sophistical" methods but with the "degradation" that come hand in hand with our "better living thru chemistry..." type things.

Have you ever thought that the "wrath of God" could come thru God letting us do it to ourselves?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello ThomasBaum,

I am understand that you have faith in the Biblical version of things, and that is fine. I don't take these metaphors as literal, or even close to literal. Specifically the belief that man in made in God's Image, not to mention that woman was made of Adams rib. I do not believe that God is anywhere close to imaged, much less like we are. Men wrote these stories to prop our own sense of self up. Self validating, these stories, to me. Not that we should need propping, being master manipulators and great critical thinkers, etc. We clearly are on a different level of consciousness and awareness than the other creatures of this world, but looking at human history we do not live to a positive realization of that heightened awareness.

I know many animals whose company, and spirits, I would far prefer over many of the humans I have come to know. Humans who are fashioned in Gods Image.

God as a whale or a mountain or a sequoia tree makes far more sense to me, image wise.

Be that as it may, your metaphor of the seventh day upcoming is a fine thought. I rather think that life and this evolutionary process of consciousness is an ongoing thing and does not have a rapture or armaggedon or 1000 years of blissful rule by the returned Christ before Darkness descends again.

But what do I know?

Peace, Thomas.

justillthennow

You wrote, "If we are made in Gods Image then Creation is in deep pooh."

Since God is Love and we are made in God's Image then if Love shines thru then God's Image is shining thru, if not then it is not shining thru.

The world is a mess.

As I have said, the night of the sixth day is coming but the dawning of the seventh day shall surely arrive in due time, God's Time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello ThomasBaum,

"Actually, an "eye for an eye" means that the punishment should not exceed the wrongdoing.

That is a fine interpretation, Thomas. And from one viewing point correct, I am sure, though it does not take a wide angle perspective. In other words it is a narrow view.

Likewise one could say that an eye for an eye means that the punishment should not be any less than the crime. This gives no allowance for the Forgiveness of the message of Jesus. Not to mention Compassion.

Another definition could be that the punishment should be nothing other than exactly the crime or wrongdoing. Take and eye, your eye gets taken. It was seen, (and still is by some), as a Biblical commandment that this is the way to sentence and punish criminals.

As to your second point, that "of God "nudging" people to "rise above" their shortcomings", I am sure that is true. Alongside passages of God commanding the laying to waste of enemies of the Jews. It is a bloody book, Thomas, filled with all forms of 'encouragement'.

It is a far different read, and message, than the New Testament.

If we are made in Gods Image then Creation is in deep pooh.

In my opinion. All these sacred writings are of and by humans, from their limited ability to conceive of and relate with the Infinite God, and have it transpose into base human consciousness. Th

justillthennow

You wrote, "OK, Thomas, I'll bite.
Eye for an eye means like for like. Life for a life, wife for a wife, shekel for a shekel.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Actually, an "eye for an eye" means that the punishment should not exceed the wrongdoing.

Man has shown a great propensity for "escalating" the punishment dealt out, has he not?

In other words, we are a "bloodthirsty" lot, human history is littered with this reality, is it not?

The Old Testament is loaded with examples of God "nudging" people to "rise above" their shortcomings.

The Old Testament is also loaded with people that are spoken highly of by God that are despised by at least some of the people of the day, has things changed?

Jesus, Himself, pointed this out to the people of His day, did He not?

Even in this A.D., year of Our Lord, the whole year not just the "present year", some of the people of the past that are looked upon as "saintly", I mean in a good way not a "plasterized" way, were despised by "some" of their "religious contemporaries", were they not?

As I have said, God looks at the person, not the "label".

One of the things, in the bible, that some that seem to put the bible above God seem to ignore is: "Let Us make man in Our Image...", it does not say "some" and man in this case means mankind, humanity, ALL OF HUMANITY.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

OK, Thomas, I'll bite.

Eye for an eye means like for like. Life for a life, wife for a wife, shekel for a shekel.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

justillthennow

You wrote, "The Old Testament is the bane of Christianity. It drags the Message of Love and Forgiveness, an evolutionary leap, back into the Stone Age of an eye for an eye, Thomas."

Do you know what an "eye for an eye" means?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello ThomasBaum,

Me: "The fundamental message of Peace, Brotherhood, Love and Compassion, and the Wisdom of Forgiveness."

You: "This is part of it but it goes well beyond this."

And you are the One that Knows?

"Many people thru the ages and presently have twisted what Jesus was/is all about."

And you are the One that shall Clarify?

"The Old Testament flows right into the New Testament..."

The Old Testament is the bane of Christianity. It drags the Message of Love and Forgiveness, an evolutionary leap, back into the Stone Age of an eye for an eye, Thomas. It allows Christians that have been taken by the Message of Jesus to believe that first, Now They Are Forgiven, and second, an eye for an eye STILL is justification for their own darker natures to use as cover.

The Old Testament is a horrid bloodsucker of the potential growth forward that could be experienced if it did not continue to exist, for Christians, as a pressure relief valve.

The OT has no right to be in the Christian Canon. E

Another thing that Jesus said that is rather intriguing is, "I have not come into the world to abolish the Law but to fulfill the Law".

Do you realize what "Law" Jesus is speaking about?

So one of the powers of myth is to allow one to explore oneself more deeply, like koans, etc.

TBaum found god in the form that he was trained to find him. William James did a study of this almost a hundred years ago and found that people have religious experiences based on their cultural background. Thus the Buddha warned, you can not rely on mystical experiences, they too become an ego attachment.

Truth is greater than any person's experience. It is when a person stops seeking what is beyond what one has already found that the search for truth becomes idolatry of the OT / 10 commandments, and when men put an image of god before the god in the image.

The catholics, Trappers, point out that mystical experience is as good as it makes a person behave differently afterwards. That is measurable.

I like the measure of the spirituality of a man in the Manus smrti (not considered a scriptural source, but a historical thing to consider) viz the best brahmin is the one with no property, even no bowl of rice. As that person has surrendered to whatever God gives him/her that day.

The scriptures do not disqualify a wealthy person from being spiritual but they do offer the attachment to god as precedent to the attachment for materialism (see Janak).

But all books, all names, all qualities are idolatres of the Brahman beyond form. And yes, we need them to help us on the path, but they are neither the path nor the end.

hariaum

justillthennow

You wrote, "To me 'essential Christianity' is very much connected to what I posted to John Mark. The fundamental message of Peace, Brotherhood, Love and Compassion, and the Wisdom of Forgiveness."

This is part of it but it goes well beyond this.

Many people thru the ages and presently have twisted what Jesus was/is all about.

When Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", He was not just referring to the "world to come" but the "world to come" is included.

Jesus was very much a "Realist" and even tho the Apostles seem to pretty much not "have a clue", one thing that they did grasp repeatedly was, "these are hard sayings", as I have said, "watered-down Christianity" is not Christianity at all.

Think about the "story of Jesus" whether you or anyone else believes it to be true, if it was not for the "obedience" of a few, Jesus would not have been conceived, would not have have lasted thru conception to birth, would not have made it thru His earliest Childhood to grow into Adulthood to do what He became One of us to do.

This is at least part of why I say that one can not divorce the OT from the NT.

The Old Testament flows right into the New Testament, God's Plan did not start with the Incarnation, God's Plan started before Creation itself.

Another thing that Jesus said that is rather intriguing is, "I have not come into the world to abolish the Law but to fulfill the Law".

Do you realize what "Law" Jesus is speaking about?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

But if the bible is to not be taken literally, then isn't jesus just a figment of a collective imagination?

Isn't Promethius just as valid as a teacher of love and caring?

Aren't the teachings of Aurelius just as good, if not better with their emphasis of love as action in this world of difficult choices.

Once I deny the source partially, how much of what I believe can come from it - does it not become what I put into it -what I want it to be?

hariaum

Hello ThomasBaum,

I have several comments in response to your two posts to me on this thread. I hope they serve to answer some of your questions of me.

To me 'essential Christianity' is very much connected to what I posted to John Mark. The fundamental message of Peace, Brotherhood, Love and Compassion, and the Wisdom of Forgiveness. It is a diversion, detour, alteration in the route, that was taken (and perhaps is continuing to be taken) by Judaism.

Jesus founded a new Path which became variations of His Teachings, manifest as diverse but related religions. None of them I trust or believe in as perfect reflections of what Jesus taught. Some are perhaps closer to that original message.

I am not a believer in the literal Bible, or that it is the direct Word of God. It was written by devotees of early Christianity. Perhaps the authors did know Jesus, perhaps not. Perhaps they were written from an oral rendering by the Apostles themselves. Perhaps not.

They were written by those whose whole world revolved around this new Way, this early Christianity. They were written by those whose worlds insisted upon the beliefs that they held.

The New Testament is a tiny collection of writings, unfortunately, but that is what is the foundation of the extant Teachings of Christianity. It is amazing that so much has come from so little.

But it is the New Testament that is what we have of what Jesus taught. For me, it should stand on it's own. The inclusion of the Old Testament is to me a dilution of the message of Love, and retroactive related to the evolutionary leap that Christ offered to the common human.

"Not only was Jesus a Jew, but the Jews were chosen and formed by God in the first place."

"Considering that "Christianity" and God becoming One of us and God choosing and forming the Jews are three parts of God's unfolding Plan.......it is ludicrous to even say that "Christianity should stand on it's own"."

"You said, it is "your opinion" that the "Christian bible has no business being connected to the Old Testament"......... can you not see how absurd this statement is?"

You may believe all you want of these stories. I do not believe them as inerrant, of even ingenious. It makes all the sense that Church hierarchy would assert these teachings, even write them, to forward a new religion. Worse has been done.

Jesus still stands Pure, in my mind, although perhaps not the statements attributed to Him. And the aspects that maintain the greatest purity are those that I have called essential Christianity. They hold true in life and are translatable to some of the worlds other religious traditions that I have great affection for as well.

I hope this is useful in understanding my meanings to my comments.

Peace, Thomas.

justillthennow

You wrote, " Although Jesus was a Jew, his message was a marked diversion from it. Essential Christianity should stand on it's own. The Christian Bible has, in my opinion, no business being connected to the "Old Testament". It is a pollution of the essential Message of Christ."

Not only was Jesus a Jew, but the Jews were chosen and formed by God in the first place.

Was "His message" a "diversion from" or an "unfolding of"?

Considering that "Christianity" and God becoming One of us and God choosing and forming the Jews are three parts of God's unfolding Plan which God has had since before creation, it is ludicrous to even say that "Christianity should stand on it's own".

You said, it is "your opinion" that the "Christian bible has no business being connected to the Old Testament", even if one does not believe that Jesus is Who He Is or that the Jews are the "Chosen People", can you not see how absurd this statement is?

What do you think the "essential Message of Christ" is?

Since "Christ" is a title and not Jesus's last name, I imagine you are speaking about Jesus, aren't you?

Remember the question posed by Jesus, "Who do you say that I AM?", could this have something to do with the "essential Message" that you refer to?

You then wrote in reply to J. M. Reynolds, "In this sense I agree with you that Christianity is the "most right" of the monotheistic religions."

Christianity is not the ""most right" of the monotheistic religions.", as a matter of fact, it is not a "religion" at all but an acceptance of an invitation to "Come follow Me" and be an active participant in God's Plan which is not only for All of Humanity but also for All of Creation.

Sad to say tho, Christianity is looked upon by quite a few "believers and non-believers" alike as just another "religion", a bunch of "rules and regulations" whereas the bible says that True Religion is taking care of widows and orphans.

Kind of interesting that one can have "True Religion" and not even believe in God, don't you think?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

justillthennow

You wrote, "And it does so in accord with the essential message and teachings of Jesus, as well. In my view. Without limiting me to the constraints that are common in todays Christianity and Evangelism."

Jesus said, "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life..."

Kinda strong words and these words do seem to be very much a part of the "essential message and teaching" of Jesus, considering that Jesus did not say, here is a way but did say the HE IS THE WAY, big difference, don't you think?

People do seem to take a lot of "wiggle room", so to speak, with what Jesus actually said or, for those that rip these pages out of the bible, what Jesus is at least purported to have said.

Another thing that Jesus said, "Come follow Me", He did not say follow those that say that they are following me.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

JMR

There is no organized secularism; secularism has no central authority, neither written nor a physical location; secularism has no budget, no bank account, no financial assets, nor any money raising campaigns.

There is no such thing as a secularist doctrine or creed to stamp our religion.

What you are doing is observing individuals, whom you judge to be secularits and anti-religion, and then you are collectiizing them in your own mind as being some sort of "force to contend with."

I will admit that there may be a social phenomenon that could be called secularist or secularism, but it is not consciously directed by any organized effort than can be compared to religion. There are no secular texts, rites, meetings, or prayers; there are no secular houses of worship.

Also, it is also your illusion that atheists worship reason. (For again, I will restate for the umpteenth time, that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God). To acknowledge the value and worth of reason and to respect reason is not even remotely the same as worshiping a deity.

For one thing, I think that it is almost universally acknowleged that reason is one of the highest defining qualities of what it is to be human, but sadly and tragically, has little influence or control over the progress of history.

If all people were reasonable all the time, I hardly think we would have all the problems we have in the world today.

I cannot think of a single solitary person who puts all their faith in reason as the salvation of man. That is you, projecting what you think other people think, who is making this assertion.

Again, I will restate my orignial comment, that you are using the word "secularism" in an almost passive aggressive way to attribute characteristics to people that they do not themselves believe, but which you falsely or mistakenly believe about the.

John Mark,

Just a couple more thoughts on my last post. Your statement of Christianity being the "most right" I appreciated and found some conditional agreement with. I realize that I did not write some parts of what I thought.

Christianity is an evolutionary leap from the Judaism that came before and, in my narrow view, Islam that came after, of the larger monotheistic religions. It is a narrow interpretation as I am not so schooled in Islam and the Quran, and I am not one for the sensationalized interpretations of the Quran that are being spouted from this side and that. Too much investment, as is usually the case, for the individual or group to justify their own predetermined perception and stance.

It is a weakness in Scripture, though a strength as well, that so much latitude is divined from the same lines, based on the perception of the reader.

But then that is a different dialogue, and I haven't the time for the first points. Ah, well.

The essential power of Christianity for me, and it's advantage over some other religions, is the focus on Love, Forgiveness, Compassion, Peace (and Pacifism!), and Communion (and communalism!). It puts your relationship with God, and All, in your own hands.

Much has distorted present day Christianity from the original gift of it, I believe. Much of that is owed to where you gave credit, Judaism. Although Jesus was a Jew, his message was a marked diversion from it. Essential Christianity should stand on it's own. The Christian Bible has, in my opinion, no business being connected to the "Old Testament". It is a pollution of the essential Message of Christ. Because of this, Christianity has distorted over the centuries.

For that matter, true Christians have no business supporting a war, the death penalty, aggressive and destructive foreign or domestic policy, and on and on.

In this sense I agree with you that Christianity is the "most right" of the monotheistic religions. And yet, that more pure version of Christianity is not practiced much, and particularly by the militarily aligned Evangelical community.

With all respect.

Hello John Mark,

Thank you for your comments. I am enjoying them.

"Hoop-lah! I do not suggest only Christianity is right, just that Christianity is most right. It is the culmination of the truths in the world's faiths."

I like the way that you said that. As you must know I am not a Christian in practice, though I was raised Catholic and came back to Christianity in late teens though an outreach program. (Does this make me a 'bad Catholic', but still a Catholic? :-) ) It is not my way, though I continue to have a love of many essential aspects of Christs message and it plays a part in my daily life.

I am much more the Buddhist, and I consider Jesus a great Buddhist as well.

In many ways Christianity, in it's more original intention and form, has a lot that may well be "most right" when considering the worlds religions. But then as is true for all life, there are different times for different knowledge. To me Buddhism is a far superior form to pursue evolving and growing myself and my relationship with God.

And it does so in accord with the essential message and teachings of Jesus, as well. In my view. Without limiting me to the constraints that are common in todays Christianity and Evangelism.

As to the "threat" of Evangelism, my jury is still out. I keep a wary eye even as my eyes are far warier of some of their other 'Abrahamic' kin. It is not many decades ago in our history that Evangelicals and Christians in general were very active with some very destructive intentions and action. Still to this day, even. We need not be reminded, (as I remind), that the evangelical and neo-con previous Administration marched us straight into a swampy mess that has no clear path out, yet. These men believed strongly what the did, and there are many in the Evangelical community that have equally strong feelings about how the rest of the world should govern as well as worship.

Those beliefs are extremely costly, in my view.

With appreciation.

"If there was a group of Christians who hated our republic and decided to undermine the Constitution, then these Christians could not serve."

Reynolds, are you saying your fellow "Conservative Christian" Huckabees who follow their messaiah Reverend Mike should be denied military service for his stated agenda of "undermining the Constitution" by changing it to his twisted, cherry-picked Leviticus "God's standards"?

I had a class break so a last comment or two:

1. Christianity owes a great deal (almost everything) to Judaism. It owes a good bit (see my new book "When Athens Met Jerusalem") to Greece and Rome.

Hoop-lah! I do not suggest only Christianity is right, just that Christianity is most right. It is the culmination of the truths in the world's faiths.

Of course, your mileage may vary with that claim.

As to terrorism: We have been so dominant in Western civilization that you can probably blame us for most of what is good and most of the bad as well. Just do both.

However, I think in today's world you need not fear your local Evangelical church nearly as much as you need fear other groups as far as terror goes.

So to be clear, I am not concerned in particular that Evangelicals in the military would have a conflict of consciousness in what they serve, God or "Caesar". Yet it is interesting to note that the "Give unto God..." guidance was coined, (sorry, couldn't help the pun!), during a historical time when the Emperor was considered the embodiment of Deity on Earth, and the growing belief of early Christians was that Jesus Was the Embodiment himself. Again, the conflict was much more dramatic then.

We do not have any belief that the President, be he Obama or Bush or Lincoln, is an Embodiment of God. We do, however, have a neigh on religious belief that American Democracy is as close to governmental Heaven on Earth as currently exists! There is not real conflict for Evangelicals in the military.

It does bring up the obvious question, in the case of Maj. Hasan, of what happens when the Caesar/Lord equation is at odds. And when do you know.

I am clear that one need not be a Muslim for the American governmental form to be seen as evil. We have plenty of domestic terrorism and violence done by Christians. Of course, John, I recognize that they are, by your new definition, bad Christians but still Christians! :-) Regardless of lynching or shooting up a Jewish museum or synagogue, I would guess that 'Christians' have been the more prolific domestic terrorists in this country.

Food for thought.

As I have said, God looks at the person, not the "label".

See you all in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"A nice atheist usually worships something they call Reason which tends to look a good bit like the platform of their favorite political party or conform to their tastes!"

Nicely said! And agreed! We worship what we love, or what we fear will do us (what we love!) harm!

"Under that definition, my atheist friends who borrow moral ideas from their Christian childhood (to their good by the way!) are really Christians."

"When Christians do bad things, they have not stopped being Christians, they are just bad Christians..."

This has possibilities! We can in a few short leaps recognize that Everyone is a Christian! Then all our problems will go away, (or they will be all in the Family, so just common dysfunctionality, which is acceptable as long as it causes no Family Feuds!).

Of course part of the problem with the "we are all Christians deep down" theory is that we are not just the product of the Christian influences in our upbringings. Worse, much of the Christian morality and beliefs are borrowed or mutated from philosophies that predated Christianity.

Damn!

In his comments, Just is worried when I say Christians will not say Caesar is Lord, but since most members of the Armed Forces (overwhelmingly) for all of American history have been Christian (of one sort or another) and NO Christian group has ever said Caesar is Lord (ask the Roman Empire!), I doubt there is much to fear from us.

We are not (and have not been) headed toward secularism (in the strong/philosophic sense). Some parts of the world (see Western Europe) have had a brief secular period (so far lasting about sixty years) and other parts of the world have flirted with it to great cost (Soviet Union).

The notion that bad forms of secularism, decaying cultures that in Western Europe or tyrannical ones in North Korea, are not really secular is amusing. It means there has been no real secular culture, that any mistakes made don't count, and that we are given a promissory note of some Awesome Secular Society to come.

We can ignore that most of the attempts have led to tyranny and others have led to a lack of cultural confidence and an inability to defend self.

This will probably be my last post in this thread since I have to participate in a Charles Williams seminar this weekend. (What larks!)

I once again thank my thoughtful commentators for helping me grow and clarify my own thinking.

Secular has many uses. In the Middle Ages there were "secular" clergy! Secular can also mean not part of the church as in "non-ecclesiastical government." In that sense, I certainly support secular government.

In philosophy "secularISM" is often used to describe a doctrine that gives no value to religious doctrine or ideas in all of life. It is in that sense I am using secularism.

Really we should try to realize that words can be used in several different ways and that the context can give one a clue.

I certainly AM a secularist in the Dante sense that Church and State should be separate even in a overwhelmingly Christian commonwealth.

I am certainly NOT a secularist (like most Americans) in seeing no value to religious truth in life.

As for government secularism of the Dante sort (church and state) did not traditionally mean that the individual left his religious knowledge at home when he was in government. He did not. He used all he knew to make decisions. For a longer defense of this idea check out the work: "The Naked Public Square."

If the claim is that atheists frequently create other gods for themselves (including Themselves or the State), then I agree. By that definition, I have never met an atheist.

Man is religious by nature . . . and if you argue that Lenin and Stalin were not atheists (because they created an ersatz religion), then any replacement absolute, even nice ones, is "god" and even replacement to worship is just worship.

Or is it just that whenever an atheist creates an alternative to God that is nasty it is religion, but when he creates an alternative that is nice (or has nice results) then he is a Real Atheist.

This is just bigotry against religion where religion equals: worship of non-reason or faith is defined as belief in the unbelievable.

I know there are atheists that believe this, but really this is not what many religious people believe!

A nice atheist usually worships something they call Reason which tends to look a good bit like the platform of their favorite political party or conform to their tastes!

Under that definition, my atheist friends who borrow moral ideas from their Christian childhood (to their good by the way!) are really Christians.

When Christians do bad things, they have not stopped being Christians, they are just bad Christians . . . and lame attempts to argue that x the bad Christian was really something else should be dismissed. They were failures, but still Christian.

In the same way, creating your own social order and moral order as an atheist must do is hard work, the fact that some did it badly does not mean that they were not atheists.

part one

I am in agreement with Compchiro on his main point, that the 'atheistic' communist and socialist regimes did nothing more than supplant historical religions with the state as the only valid religion. This is not an unnatural progression, in some ways. Hitlers fascism seems, effectively,. god worship. They were pursuing what they thought was their rightful place as the perfected race, and Hitler was their guiding light.

Civilization has a history of including the head of state as incarnate God, and so government as divine form and direction for the lives of the people. This was clear in ancient Egypt embodied by Pharaoh, and in ancient Rome through the Emperor. Ancient China, the Shogun of Japan, in the Mayan and Aztec cultures.

Jesus was effectively sentenced to death by association, either by himself or zealous disciples, who considered him the Messiah and Son of God. Doesn't work well, in ancient Rome, to have two claiming that Title.

He was the first God Incarnate that was a common man, I believe, and was a harbinger of a sea change in the peoples personal relationships with God as well as governmental form. From him monarchs still for some centuries claimed a divine mantle, but will less and less credibility.

We have been going toward secularism for a long time. That is not a bad thing, and not the state of moral depravity that Mr. Reynolds repeated use of the word implies.

part 2

Whether it is a God that is held at the apex of a society or organization, or a monarch in a 'atheist' regime, or a President or physicians creed or military code of honor, the attributes that are desired and demanded of the participant are often the same. Loyalty to that path, fealty to the titular head of that way, subservience and submission to the power and righteousness of that leader and the path (government, military service, religion,fill the blank), willingness to disregard personal needs to serve the needs of the greater whole.

Stalin and Mao required these things, as did Pharaoh and as does Jesus, (or those that assume to speak for what He demands!). It is human nature, and perhaps more to the point part of a deep historical conditioning that humanity has participated in for as long as we have written history. We continue to evolve these paths. The leap that was made when America was founded was of huge consequence. As Mr. Reynolds suggests, Americans have a history of resisting loyalty to the Republic over loyalty to God. I am not altogether sure of that, or if they just were tired of being forced to serve monarchies that are aligned to a church and leapt at chance to serve themselves first. To this day there is a rebellious streak that is very me focused in the American psyche.

"In the same way, Christians serve Christ before they bow the knee to Caesar."

Perhaps this is the truly scary thing. If so, the allegiance of the many Evangelicals in the military enlisted and officers ranks is not to the state they are sworn to serve but to a God whose desires and demands the believers themselves cannot be in agreement on.

I am (sadly) not a professor of religion. My degree work is in philosophy and my use of "secularism" is in line with standard usage.

Even a google will tell you that!

john,

"Secularism has at least one doctrine: namely the rejection of all religion and religious doctrine. "

That is not a valid assertion. Secularism does not reject religion and religious doctrine for all of society. It rejects it for government. Big diffeerence. Many secularists have no problem with individuals having religous belief, or with religious organizations having non-governmental influence. But they want he wall of separation between government/laws and religion, usually for the protection of BOTH.

"Not all secularists are communists (see Rand!) and not all communists were secularists (see Owen!), but all Marxists (both communists and secularists) were secularists. "

No arguement.

"The idea that somehow atheism was not the belief system of those responsible for the monstrous deeds of the Soviets or communism is laughable. "

Not true. As I stated, (and what I put forth has been agreed to by many political theorists and theologians that I hve talked to) is that what the Soviets, China and North Korea have created is NOT an Atheist society. Just becuase they may claim to be atheist does not make it so. The way their socieities function, with the state and leadership effectrively made as deities, is not atheism. It is like a Jew for Jesus claiming to be religously Jewish. They can say the lies all they like but the fact is that they are practicing the Christain religion. Nothing wrong with that, except that they are either intentionally or unintentionally commiting fraud when they tell others that their religious views are consistnet with Judaism. The USSR and the otehrs can CLAIM to be atheist, but their actions prove otehrwise. They have created their own religion and deities. They are not Atheist.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Kims did not strip themselves of religion. They stripped themselves the old religions and gods and created brand new ones. The very fact that the Soviets treated Lenin's corpse the way they did effectively deifies him, as if even in physical death he is still the influence of the state. Religious worship, plain and simple.

To call secularism a "creed" is ridiculous. One should think a "professor" of religion would have studied some history 101 to know better than to pour everything incompatible with his superstitions into one evil pot and stir well: Communism, atheism, socialism, fascism, Lenin, the left, secularists.

Institutionalized stupidity, with a huge number of followers because it feels so good and warm.

It was said:

In our present situation America is endangered by some christians, some muslims, some hindus, some buddhists.

I say:
I feel that the amount danger of terrorism from atheists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists in the United States is pretty minimal. There are nuts in all groups, but not all groups have equal numbers of dangerous lunatics.

The atheist regime in North Korea is, for example, a far more pressing danger to the US than the scattered "reconstructionists" that so exercise parts of the extreme left.

Edit:

Instead of:
I know more blame all secularists for this than I blame all Muslims for the terrorists or all Christians for the excesses of the Inquisition.

Read:
I no more blame all secularists for this than I blame all Muslims for the terrorists or all Christians for the excesses of the Inquisition.

Secularism has at least one doctrine: namely the rejection of all religion and religious doctrine.

Not all secularists are communists (see Rand!) and not all communists were secularists (see Owen!), but all Marxists (both communists and secularists) were secularists.

The idea that somehow atheism was not the belief system of those responsible for the monstrous deeds of the Soviets or communism is laughable.

While I agree that atheism does not have to lead to mass murder, it did in the case of Lenin et al. Read their writings. These were men who stripped themselves of all religion.

I know more blame all secularists for this than I blame all Muslims for the terrorists or all Christians for the excesses of the Inquisition.

In our present situation America is endangered by some christians, some muslims, some hindus, some buddhists. That is a lousy argument to base any conclusions on.

It is stupid to believe that thousands if not millions of christians in America want to christianize the nation and thus destroy its secular roots.

It would be a better day when christians and muslims served god first, humanity next, then their nation and community... and their church, mosque, bible, koran, etc last.

hariaum

Well said Danielinthelionsden.

Additionally the writer, as is his normal mode,confuses secularism with atheism. The two are not the same. The majority of people who oppose any religious influence on US law and government are actually people of religious faith.

Additionally, there were belivers in God who supported the USSR and were barred from military service I know because two of them lived in my parent's old neighborhood.

Additionally the notion that Soviet/Maoist/Kimist (North Korean)country was atheist is invalid. Those countries ALL created theri own religions and deities by demanding that their people both effectively worship the state and the leader (the often supernatural abilities attributed to those leaders is part of the deification.)

The fact that those countries DID try to remove the influence of established religions does not make them atheist. Remeber the saying was never "God is the opiate of the masses" it was RELIGION is the opiate of the masses" which was referring to the othen murderous influence of corrupt churches and church leaders in Europe and Russia.

Dear Sir!

"Secularism" IS NOT a synonym for "Communism."

Right off the bat, you are rude and insulting.

With regards to "secularism," there is no "there" there.

There is no philosophy, ideology, or belief system that can be called "secularism." It is rather, an observational word, refering to "things apart from relgion, or not religous."

If secularism is a religeon or a belief system, or a philosophy, then tell me what it is, not what you think it is, but what the actual "secularists" say it is.

For example, quote for me the "Secularist creed."

I don't think you can, because there is none.

Please stop using these insulting generalities to make your points. Your essays are long enough, so that if you would delete them, there would still be plenty left.

OK?