Removing Labels

A person who is moral (not moralistic) without being religious is more worthy of respect than one who is religiously observant but flouts what is morally right or decent. But in my view religion is not synonymous with hypocrisy or irrationality.

What about people who practice Zen Buddhism? Are they religious? They don't really have to believe in the "existence of God" or pray or believe in after life. Yet they look beyond the material aspect of life and seek peace and harmony internally and externally.

Dear Sally:
Maybe you can discuss the word "spiritual" too. It seems so often in this country, if you are not "religious" - church going, believing in "God", or align yourself with one religion or another - then you are also assumed to be not "spiritual." Would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

"The existence of God" - How do we define God? It can range from a white-bearded grandfather figure to an abstraction of supernatural power (which includes any kind of power beyond our comprehension).

mwe, you are certainly welcome. Hopefully I've helped make Christianity make sense. I encourage you to read the Bible with an open mind. I hope to see you again on these "On Faith" blogs.

Nedbrek: Yes, it is easy to find examples of people who have been dishonest or worse. Given that most of the people on earth are religious, clearly the challenge of morality is the same with or without religion or a belief in gods. Although I think the superstition of religion causes far more problems than it solves, you and I both care about helping make the world better. Biblical teaching emphasizes that life is suffering and humans are essentially sinful, but I think this is a sad exaggeration. People are generally good -- which is why you and I can go about safely and enjoy interacting with complete strangers from all cultures in this world. Many are exceptionally good -- people whose ethics and contributions I aspire to. Making the world safer and better for future generations is a never-ending effort, one that gives life meaning.

Thanks for giving so much time to this discussion. My initial reason for contributing to this blog was to challenge Ms. Quinn's arrogant and intellectually vacuous claim that "we are all agnostics." You and many others are unquestionably certain in your belief, while I and a considerably smaller percentage of people are unquestionably atheists. We have both thoroughly explained our reasons why. Thanks again for your thoughtful contributions that helped bring out so many associated ideas.

The OT nation of Israel was a living example of the nature and demands of God. It was a way for God to demonstrate that no one can be good (enough). These were people who had seen God, and miracles, and had an exact formula for behavior. Yet, they failed.

This was intended to show them to look forward for a savior, just as we are to look back to our savior. The book of Hebrews is an excellent source for this. Also the book of Romans talks a lot about how the law cannot bring about salvation (which should include a better world).

Regarding morality, I encourage you to watch the news with an eye toward sin. Consider the case of Eliot Spitzer. Here is a man who was famous for his tough stand on prostitution. Yet, the entire time, he was doing the same!

Or the situation in Zimbabwe. I'm certain Mugabe believes himself to be a good person, who is just doing what he needs to satisfy himself.

These are big cases, but they are symptoms of life everywhere. Everywhere there are people suffering. Our problem is not religious disagreements, or low self esteem, or anything like that. It is little things, little bits of selfishness - all adding up. It's sin.

And you can't get rid of sin through lectures, or laws, or appeals. It takes an appeal to God.

Hi Nedbrek: Your dismissal of Old-Testament punishments surprises me. Did God change his mind? Are the rules the same, but the punishments different? Didn't Jesus say to uphold the old laws on numerous occasions (e.g. Mark 7:8-10 in which he includes the punishment)? I'm pleased that you reject OT punishments, but unfortunately many Christians do not.

Regarding morality, I personally know no one who avoids committing crimes only when the risk of getting caught is too great. Who do you hang out with? Yes, exceptions exist, but not in my circles. And those exceptions, by and large, have short and/or miserable lives, testifying to the irrationality of that lifestyle.

I don't think I'm noble, I think I'm normal -- average. I, like most of us (religious or not), try to do what is right and good. Those of us lucky enough to have (had) nice parents and a decent education learned the difference between right and wrong, as I'm sure you did. I imagine your parents saying, "Would you like to be treated that way?" and you recognizing and internalizing the logic of that statement.

Forgive me, but I find it hard to believe that you won't steal from me, or murder me, merely because Jesus died "for [your] immorality." That would show no concern or compassion for your fellow humans, and it would dishonor your parents and their teaching.

I simply cannot believe you feel it's logical to act like Stalin. On the contrary, I'm confident that if you discovered Jesus was a myth, you would continue to be the good, moral person that you are.

mwe, your morality is very noble, but there is no logical reason for it. It is far more logical to behave like Stalin. "Do unto others, before they do unto you" (Not sure if he said that :)

If we are genetic machines, with only a legacy of genes to propagate, morality is a tool to manipulate others for our purposes ("the only crime is being caught"). Wouldn't you agree this is how most people behave?

I am not moral because I fear God's wrath. I try to be moral because I understand the price Jesus paid for my immorality.

Also, the Old Testament punishments no longer apply. They were given to those people (Israel) at that time (the theocracy).

Hi Patrick: Sorry if you thought I was being offensive or irrational. I try to be very clear and straighforward. If we disagree on what is logical, you are right to end the discussion. No hard feelings.

CTCNL: Nedbrek asks if you are a good person. I think I can answer. Anyone who has gone to the effort you have to research biblical literature is very likely a good person. My guess is that you do the research because of your desire to be good – although your sense of humor can be a bit condescending (i.e. "mwe1951, mwe1951, mwe1951,") ☺

Nedbrek. "What does "moral" mean, without God?" I'm assuming you are asking if there can be morality without the Christian god. Certainly doing good to avoid God's wrath is no definition of morality. If one gets their morality from doctrine, such as the Bible, that is morality by number -- from without. Morality is not following orders -- it is being able to distinguish between right and wrong, from within. Laws are valuable, but I don't avoid stealing because there are laws against it, enforced by punishment, nor do I avoid stealing because it is prohibited by the 8th commandment. I avoid it because I understand that it is wrong – I don't do what I don't want others to do. Those who understand right from wrong have internalized morality – they are moral. If you use the Christian god Jehovah as your model of morality, it will be moral for you to kill me – since as an atheist I have "spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God" (Deut. 13:5) and I regularly break the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14). That's the danger of morality by religious doctrine -- which is no morality at all. Many stories about Jehovah convince me that he is an immoral deity (e.g. Gen 19, Num 31, Exo 7-12). So to answer your question, morality has deeper meaning and greater value without God. Of course there are many Christians and people of all faiths who are wiser and more moral than I. But I believe that is because they too have internalized real morality, and they don't simply follow biblical precepts. Fortunately, most Christians ignore many of Jehovah's decrees.

Sad and pathetic piece written by an empty woman.

CCNL, are you a good person?

mwe: What does "moral" mean, without God?

E Favorite, sorry I do have to work sometimes :)

The problem with your analogy is no one claims those bodies are missing (I'll skip Mary...), and no one is trying to destroy an upstart "cult".

The Jewish authorities would of loved to disprove Christianity, and the Romans would of liked to have kept the peace by silencing these odd Jews (which all the first Christians were).

MWE,
You assert:

"2nd, the number of people who believe something has nothing to do with the validity of that belief. Billions once also believed the earth was flat, the sun orbited the earth, etc. etc. Finally, your correlation of atheism with bad people and bad behavior, as if it were a cause, is also illogical."

You speak in ipse dixits. I prefer rational discourse. I see no particular reason to credit anything you say. MWE is just another Internet Oracle.

You also judge God and find Him in the wanting ("why worship such an immoral character? He is the most unethical, cruel, emotionally unstable and dangerous personality I have ever encountered in fiction, and far worse than history's most savage tyrants combined. "). I disagree with your contention that He is the immoral one. I am not going to get into your silly effort at judging God. That is your particular folly.

Wow – you guys are entertaining!

Patrick: 1st, who said anything about murder being a function of a deity? If you make stuff up, there can be no rational discussion. Other fictional deities might be sweethearts, but yours definitely is not. Joe, Mao, Genghis, and Adolf were terrible too, but rank amateurs compared to Jehovah.

2nd, the number of people who believe something has nothing to do with the validity of that belief. Billions once also believed the earth was flat, the sun orbited the earth, etc. etc. Finally, your correlation of atheism with bad people and bad behavior, as if it were a cause, is also illogical.

CTCNL: Your concept of "historical reality" sounds fishy, as if it were somehow different than, well… reality. I still don't know whether you believe in god or not, given your "common sense" and other caveats, but since you included the word Christian, I'll assume you also believe in the Bible's Jehovah.

P&C: So I ask you both – even though you believe in Jehovah, why worship such an immoral character? He is the most unethical, cruel, emotionally unstable and dangerous personality I have ever encountered in fiction, and far worse than history's most savage tyrants combined. Are you so afraid that you fell compelled to bow down to this disturbed brute?

MWE,
You write:

"Patrick and Nedbrek: Although you and your 2-billion brethren all accept the existence of, and pray to, an imagniary genocidal deity, none of you (as you both so ably demonstrate) can agree on the details for obtaining the biblical myth of 'salvation'. With a scriptural tome so replete with contradictions and errors, is it any wonder?"

Two responses: First, if genocide is a function of deity, then Joe Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung must have been atheistic deities because they were as genocidal as they come.

Second, of the 2 billion of us christians, a majority (the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) agree on the details of salvation. The Protestants disagree. Such disagreement is hardly unknown; it tends to happen when humans are given free wills. Even in the wonderful world that Atheism gave us known as "Behind the Iron Curtain," the atheists fell out amongst themselves with the Chinese at daggers drawn (actually thermonuclear missiles) against the Russians, and both of them at odds with Josip Broz and his Yugoslavian conglomerate, which has now splintered into seven separate entities. The USSR, of course, has also split into many parts. And the funny thing is, once a sliver of the Atheistic Empire has gotten free, it no longer wants anything to do with "Scientific Atheism."

mwe1951, mwe1951, mwe1951,

You must be a "newbie". As noted many times, I am what you might call a "Crossanized" Catholic/Christian with common sense, historic reality and rational thinking as the guiding lights.

CCNL: I think we get your point, but one doesn't have to do much research to reject an artificial edifice founded on fiction, no matter how complex or detailed. Even after your reams of quotes, web links, denials of obvious supernatural myths, and even class notes (please spare us!), I still have no clue where you stand on God (the subject of the blog). Are you just anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon, or do you ascribe to some other form of religious superstition? It seems that way since you argue that Patrick's Catholicism is "flawed by the embellishments of non-witnesses…" It seems that you, like Nedbrek and Patrick, know the true religion – only yours is the one without embellishments. Please describe it, and the god or gods involved. If, on the other hand, you are an atheist, why not say so?

Patricksarsfield, Patricksarsfield, Patricksarsfield,

A Five Step Program for curing your Three B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Catholicism.

Step 1. Come to grips with the fact that there was no physical resurrection of Jesus, the simple preacher man.

2. There is no blood and body in the Eucharist. It is simply a low calorie wafer.

3. There was no Adam and Eve and therefore there was no original sin or immaculate conception or limbo or need for baptism.

4. The pope is simply another human being. He has no better contact with the Singularity than anybody else.

5. Delete the "pretty wingie connections" in the the NT. There is/was no Gabriel or Archangel Michael or guardian angels.

A quick guide to the "history" of "pretty/ugly wingie thingies:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Patrick and Nedbrek: Although you and your 2-billion brethren all accept the existence of, and pray to, an imagniary genocidal deity, none of you (as you both so ably demonstrate) can agree on the details for obtaining the biblical myth of 'salvation'. With a scriptural tome so replete with contradictions and errors, is it any wonder?

Patrick, although I referred to you and Nedbrek, I didn't exclude nor do I deny the existence of the 2 billion Christians you mention. Thank you for conveying how widespread this plague of irrationality remains – due in large part to the cult of Christianity and the unwillingness of rational people to openly challenge it.

CCNL,
As an introduction to the list of 35 writings you recommend to me, you note:

"The problem is that your theology and religious history are flawed by the embellishments of non-witnesses and "celibate", old, European white guys. I recommend starting over by reading the following references used by NT exegetes to put reality back into religion...."

In essence you want me to review a group of writings, most of which are designed to undercut the Canon of Scripture derived by the Church over a four hundred year discernment process. I decline to do so. I have looked at the Canon of Scripture issue and read a number of books based on the Nag Hammadi and other finds. I have concluded that there were a lot of charlatans in the first few centuries and there are still plenty around. I have determined that the most reliable testimony is that given by the Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church. I think there are many better things for me to spend my research life on than another attempt at defining the canon of Scripture.

MWE,
Rather parochially, you claim:

"While Nedbrek and Patrick joust with their personal crosses that only they recognize..."

WRONG. Whether you realize it or not, some 2 Billion + people in this World are Christian, and the issue of salvation is quite important to them.

While Nedbrek and Patrick joust with their personal crosses that only they recognize, Sally refuses to say that their genocidal deity doesn't exist. While suicide bombers kill the innocent in hopes of being rewarded by their own genocidal god because a Crusader president sent by his own genocidal god is doing battle with them, Sally refuses to say either is wrong in their beliefs. While Nedbrek and Patrick discuss how best to prevent their god from torturing them along with the rest of us in a molten lake for eternity, Sally cannot say for certain that such a fate doesn't await her and her children, instead feebly lamenting "After all, how could I possibly know?"

I agree with Sally that we can't tell others "what is in [their] own heart and soul." But when others openly admit to harboring in their heart, soul, and mind fantasies of genocidal gods, isn't it dangerous not to challenge them? Failure to do so has led to humanity's worst crimes, from multiple Crusades and Inquisitions to witch burnings and the execution or imprisonment of some of history's most creative free-thinkers. The God-promoters aren't gentle, delusional Kings in the buff – they are telling us how we should live our lives based on something as non-existent as the King's new clothes. The fact that Sally is afraid to call herself an atheist does in fact matter. Atheists should come out of the closet and take a stand while it is still relatively safe to openly promote rationality, for our children's sake.

Patricksarsfield, Patricksarsfield, Patrickarsfield,

The problem is that your theology and religious history are flawed by the embellishments of non-witnesses and "celibate", old, European white guys. I recommend starting over by reading the following references used by NT exegetes to put reality back into religion:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

Nedbrek – thanks for your thoughtful and concerned reply. But you warn us about an immoral god that no ethical person would worship, based on a reference (the Bible) so rife with errors no rational person would cite it, filled with stories so horrifyingly grotesque no child should ever suffer the abuse of listening to an adult read it or being taught to believe it. I wish you the best.

Viewed from an outsider's perspective, the beliefs of Christianity are exceedingly odd.

Folks otherwise well grounded in a concrete day-to-day reality seem to subscribe to the most faniciful beliefs imaginable when it comes to their religious 'faith'.

Just below the surface of many a man lurks a pre-industrial, pre-scientific soul! How can Christianity criticize the folk beliefs of third-world primitives in all good conscience?

Nedbrek - any comments on this:

Where is St. Peter's body? where is Caesar's body? Pontius Pilate's? your great-great grandfather's?

Bodies have a way of getting lost over time. This doesn't mean they ascended into heaven.

Patrick, I think the whole debate between Catholics and Protestants is pretty well documented, and I doubt we have anything new to add here.

My concern is with the Gospel, and it appears we share a common Gospel (we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works). Works are a necessary part of saving faith, we agree. This includes forgiving others. Someone who is well and truly saved will do these things, or will do them when their error is pointed out.

Nedbrek,
You resapond to my question with:

"Patrick, I believe the whole Bible, which includes James. Of course a Christian cannot continue to live in a life of sin (see also 1 John). The difference is, are you trusting in good works or in the saving power of Jesus? If you are trusting in works (confession, penance, weekly communion) you are boasting."

You did not answer my question. If a christian cannot continue to live in a life of sin, what does he do when he commits sin after becoming a christian? You claimed in an earlier post that all his sins past present and future are forgiven by his faith. That means he can keep on sinning and still go to heaven.

You try to paper over that discontinuity with an "of course" but you never try to explain why Christ conferred the power of forgiving OR retaining sins on His Church, if forgiveness of all sins past, present and to come were automatic when a person accepts Christ as personal Lord and Savior. There would ber no need for the Church to have that power, yet John 20:21-23 demonstrates that Christ wanted it to have that power. So, your construct of what is needed for later committed sins is clearly inconsistent with Christ's position.

Likewise, you have not explained why Jesus taught that our sins would not be forgiven if we failed to forgive those who sinned against us. If forgiveness of all sins past, present and to come happens automatically when a person accepts Christ as personal Lord and Savior, why would Christ inconsistently teach: "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt. 6:14-15). That forgiveness of others is clearly a good work that Christ says we must engage in if our sins are to be forgiven.

As to your question: "are you trusting in good works or in the saving power of Jesus?" I trust Jesus; I believe in Jesus. Not just His saving power but His every word. When He told us to listen to the Church (Matt. 18:17), I believe He meant that. When He commissioned the Church to teach all the World (Matt. 28:20), I believe He meant that. When He conferred the power of forgiving or retaining sin on His Church (John 20:21-23), I believe He meant that too. So when the Church teaches me that its bapttism did NOT give me a free pass on all later committed sins and that I need to live in a way consistent with the commandments and to do good works, I believe what it teaches.

Patrick, I believe the whole Bible, which includes James. Of course a Christian cannot continue to live in a life of sin (see also 1 John).

The difference is, are you trusting in good works or in the saving power of Jesus? If you are trusting in works (confession, penance, weekly communion) you are boasting.

Good works follow from a saving faith. They are a result of gratitude, not an attempt to earn God's favor.

I'm not saying which it is for you, only you can know...

MWE, teaching children if very hard. Much of Christianity is PG-13 (if not R or X). I am not even comfortable talking about Noah (a popular favorite). This is a story of God judging the whole world and destroying it!

That said, the Bible commands us to teach our children. It can be done properly. Focusing on discipline, respecting parents, singing songs, etc. Also, focusing on parts of the New Testament. Parts are best left until age 10-13 or so.

God is scary, for the unsaved. The Bible says the fear of God is the _beginning_ of wisdom, but love drives out fear. A mature Christian no longer fears God, but we must remember what awaits those who are lost. It is so important to warn everyone!

We do not decide what is true or untrue. Falling from a plane at 30,000 feet is terrifying. The truth is, without a parachute it is fatal. Christ is our parachute. We will all have to jump.

The Old Testament wars were driven by God directly (Moses' face glowed after he spoke with God). People do not hear from God today (the Bible is sufficient). Anyone who says they hear from God is a liar or ignorant.

The New Testament (Old vs. New is significant) tells us to love our enemies, Godly love is sacrifice and limitation of our own freedom. This is mixed with truth, standing up for what is right. I don't think a nation can be truly "Christian". A Christian nation would not defend itself, or even collect on debts! So, a Christian can fight for his country, but other than that, Christians should not be involved in war making.

Also, a proper soteriology comes into play here. If people are saved by works (being baptized, attending church, other ceremonies, etc) then these outward actions can be enforced at gunpoint. The Bible teaches us to proclaim the Gospel, it is God who saves. It explicitly says some will hear and reject the message.

So, laws cannot force people to be good. This is why prohibition failed.

I'm rambling now... :)

CCNL,
Once again: Taussig and Crossan, or the Catholic Church? Taussig and Crossan? The Catholic Church? The Catholic Church!!

Now you tell me that they disagree with more of the scriptural support I have quoted, basically for the same reasons previously noted? Same answer. As I previously noted:
"Thanks but no thanks. I--and hundreds of millions of others--find a lot of validity in the Church's shriving process. Given a choice of spiritual mentors between you and the Church Christ founded, I will stick with Christ's Church. As the Internet proves on just about any subject, all kinds of people with all kinds of credentials have all kinds of ideas about everything. I regard credibility based on an historical record as a far surer guide to authenticity than the ability to get some press in the here and now."

Once again:

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/375_Binding_and_Loosing gives evidence that the "forgiving sins" reference was not said by the historic Jesus but was a later add on to embellish the life of a simple preacher man.

The Timothy references are also in doubt since many contemporary NT exegetes believe the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were written by pseudo Pauls.

i.e. An act of contrition with repentance and life style changes by anyone of any faith or even no faith should be sufficient for soul cleansing.

With respect to Luke 14: 27, there is some disagreement as to how authentic this passage is. Professor Crossan says it is. The Jesus Seminarians say it is not. See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/044_Carrying_Ones_Cross for added commentary.

With respect to Matt 7:21, Professor Crossan after much research rates this passage as not being authentic.

With respect to Matt 6: 14-15, there is some minor disagreement as to the authenticity of this passage. See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/027_Forgiveness_for_Forgiveness for added commentary.

An excerpt:

from Hal Taussig

"Taussig [Jesus Before God] develops his thesis that the Lord's Prayer is a collection of several prayer lines that were significant to the early Q community. His discussion of "Forgive us our debts" occurs on pages 89-92. He concludes:

Situating this sentence prayer within its social context makes clear that it arose from certain specific situations in which Jesus found himself. It did not, within the lifetime of Jesus, belong to the Lord's Prayer, which was the product of the generations after Jesus. ... after Jesus was gone his followers in Galilee formulated a general prayer in his name, combining fragments from Jesus' own prayers with other material to create an institutionalized prayer in Jesus' name. As the various versions of this Lord's Prayer from the second half of the first century were passed on, the meanings of the individual prayer sentences were generalized and taken out of context. The sentence prayer about forgiveness made a gradual transition from forgiving one another's debts to forgiveness of sins."

Nedbrek,
You respond to my question of how you get newly committed sins forgiven with this claim:

"Patrick, all of my sins were in the future from the time of the Crucifixion. Christ died once for all, that sins may be forgiven. Thus, all my sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven.

When I sin, why should I appeal to some third party? I have been given the right to approach God, is it not an insult to not do so (as He commands), yet approach another for forgiveness?

Re-examine your soteriology (theory of salvation). If you need to keep the commandments, but don't, then salvation is some other way."

IOW, according to you, once they "have accepted JC as their personal L&S," christians can go on sinning with no need for forgiveness in the way that Jesus established in John 20:21-23? That would be cheap grace indeed!!

Your "soteriology" is the immoral one that stems from the false dogma of "Sola Fide." In hopes of picking up a lot of followers, the early protestants tossed out Christ's clear message that we need to take up our crosses and follow Him if we are to be his disciples. (Luke 14:27 ("Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple")) That is the real Christian Message not the false Sola Fide Message which renders superfluous all Christ's teachings that He does want us to observe the commandments.

Sola Fide is clearly in contravention of the clear language of James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " As Christ Himself taught us: not all who have accepted Him as Lord will go to Heaven; it is those who have done the will of His Father. (Matt. 7:21). Works too are expected. Jesus told His own disciples that they could not expect to be forgiven their sins unless they too forgave others their sins: "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt. 6:14-15).

Clearly, Jesus did not believe in the false dogma of cheap salvation that you are preaching, nedbrek. I also find it telling that you are citing to no Scripture to support your position. Ironically, it is I, from the supposedly unscriptural Catholic religion, who is supporting all his points with Scripture.

Nedbrek, Nedbrek, Nedbrek,

As per Aquinas and JPII, Heaven is a Spirit state. No physical bodies abide so where are the bodies of the simple preacher man called Jesus and his mother Mary????

Various commentaries: From the class notes of a graduate theology class at a major Catholic university:

Jesus and Mary's bodies are not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and many other contemporary NT exegetes' conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

According to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

"Reimarus (1774-1779) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus very possibly would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, in a shallow grave covered with lime, or under a pile of stones.

Professor Crossan is an On Faith panelist and a historic and NT exegete.

Nedbrk wrote: "The "genocides" of the Old Testament reveal that God will not sit by and allow people to rebel... True love requires punishment for wrong doing."
Let me say, in the mildest language I can muster, that interpreting genocide as an act of love is horrifying. How can such a deity merit worship? Would you teach children to worship such a deity? Wouldn't it be wise to relegate such a deity to the realm of myth -- like Zeus and Shiva? Aren't such viewpoints, when considered true, primary sources of violence and war?

Where is St. Peter's body? where is Caesar's body? Pontius Pilate's? your great-great grandfather's?

Bodies have a way of getting lost over time. This doesn't mean they ascended into heaven.

MWE, many people will die for a lie - believing it to be truth. But why die for a lie when knowing the truth?

Questions like "where is Jesus' body?" must be answered, and answers better than "the apostles stole it" are needed. This is a serious matter, do not dismiss it so readily.

EH, thank you for allowing me to clarify. There is righteous anger, and improper anger (or hate). It is right to hate what is wrong. I am, of course, referring to improper hate.

God hates what is wrong. The "genocides" of the Old Testament reveal that God will not sit by and allow people to rebel. There is judgment coming, that is a clear message.

True love requires punishment for wrong doing. The opposite of love is not hate, but apathy - doing nothing when wrong is done.

Patrick, all of my sins were in the future from the time of the Crucifixion. Christ died once for all, that sins may be forgiven. Thus, all my sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven.

When I sin, why should I appeal to some third party? I have been given the right to approach God, is it not an insult to not do so (as He commands), yet approach another for forgiveness?

Re-examine your soteriology (theory of salvation). If you need to keep the commandments, but don't, then salvation is some other way. Righteousness (being "not guilty" in God's court) does not come through the commandments. Rather, the commandments show us our need for salvation, through faith in Christ.

MWE1951 - You're welcomed - and same to you -- and for taking on Nedbrek as well.

CCNL,
You prove yourself obnoxious as well as smarmy here:

"Pass on the good news to our your fellow brainwashed millions."

Patricksarfield,

Well now at least when are trapped on an island and have been naughty, God can absolve you without a faulty intermediate.

Pass on the good news to our your fellow brainwashed millions.

Dear nedbrek: I'd like to address your question: "The apostles believed something happened at the resurrection. A small group of fearful people suddenly became bold proclaimers of Christ. They were willing to be persecuted, jailed, and even killed. How do [you] explain that?" The apostles were no different than the many obedient and submissive followers of other cults. It is very sad that people can still be so easily convinced to trade their rationality and even their lives for primitive mythology.

To EH, E Favorite, and Ted Ellis: Thanks for your refreshing attempts to clear up the waters muddied by Ms. Quinn's essay -- and particularly for challenging her to appreciate awe-inspiring reality over endlessly repackaged fantasy.

CCNL,
You suggest we disregard what the Catholic Church teaches about the forgiveness of sins because "An act of contrition with repentance and life style changes by anyone of any faith or even no faith should be sufficient for soul cleansing."

Thanks but no thanks. I--and hundreds of millions of others--find a lot of validity in the Church's shriving process. Given a choice of spiritual mentors between you and the Church Christ founded, I will stick with Christ's Church. As the Internet proves on just about any subject, all kinds of people with all kinds of credentials have all kinds of ideas about everything. I regard credibility based on an historical record as a far surer guide to authenticity than the ability to get some press in the here and now.

Nedbrek states that he “learned that god’s standard is perfection. That god is so against hatred, it is like murder to him. That lust is the same as actually committing adultery…”

It would seem that Nedbrek is not really awake when he reads the bible.

Hate is a bible virtue. A few of the may examples:
Those who marry the same person after divorce – Deut 24:4
The proud – Prov 16:5
Women who wear pants – Deut 22:5
Hate/abandon your family – Luke14:26, Mat 10:35-36, Mat 19:29
Not to mention the many genocide attempts on other tribes in the Middle East.

One can even go to hell for just calling another a fool– Mat 5:22
Jesus explicitly came, not for peace, but war – Mat 10:34

Lot gives his daughters to the crowd during a riot.

Each chapter details another abomination and evil perpetrated by god. And the book is explicit that god is the source of evil – Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6

It can hardly be perfection to put Adam and Eve in a garden before they know as much as a 3 year old, and put magic trees in reach and tell them not to touch. This is like putting an open bottle of poison or alcohol in the playpen with your 2 year old, and then punishing them, and all generations after, for your being a bad parent.

This is not a moral standard of perfection. Anyone who really acted like this god, or did as directed in the new testament would be in jail for multiple felonies. The authors of the bible were more like a street gang, than anything worth emulating.

Sally Quinn, as a professional writer, you do your audience a grave disservice. You do us the disservice of muddying the language and making these topics less clear.

An atheist by definition does not believe in gods, and has no one to pray to. Being human, they have hopes and dreams and are likely to talk about them just like everyone else. But if one prays to a god, they are by definition not an atheist. These are folks that need to be more exact, not less.

Defining terms is important. Exacting use of language allows us to sort out our legal contracts rather than just be the victim of lawyers. Clear use of language empowers us, and obscuring words is a step toward Orwell’s 1984.

If you want to empower your readers, encourage them to read not just the books of the major religions, but also works on atheism, philosophy, critical thinking, and biology. It does not take long to see that morality is not dependant on religion. And awe and wonder can be found in studying the world around us, without the skewed lens of religion.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/375_Binding_and_Loosing gives evidence that the "forgiving sins" reference was not said by the historic Jesus but was a later add on to embellish the life of a simple preacher man.

The Timothy references are also in doubt since many contemporary NT exegetes believe the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were written by pseudo Pauls.

i.e. An act of contrition with repentance and life style changes by anyone of any faith or even no faith should be sufficient for soul cleansing.

Nedbrek,

You ask rather pointedly:

"Patrick, have you kept the commandments? Have you ever lied, stolen (regardless of value, even taken off work early?), lusted?"

Rather personal questions there, Nedbrek. You are not my priest. He has the power to forgive sins through Christ's conferral of that power on His Church (John 20:21-23) and the laying on of hands that confers spiritual powers as noted in the Bible (see, e.g., Acts 13:1-03; 1 Tim. 4:14-16; 2 Tim. 1:6). What's more, the Church enjoins him to maintain anything I tell him under the seal of confession.

By contrast, you ask me to confess to you (and the whole world) on the Internet. I don't think I need to do that. Turnabout, though, is fair play. Have you kept the commandments? Have you ever lied, stolen (regardless of value, even taken off work early?), lusted? at anytime since you came to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? If so, how are you getting those new sins forgiven??

Patrick, have you kept the commandments?

Have you ever lied, stolen (regardless of value, even taken off work early?), lusted?

Nedbrek,
You ask:
"Patrick, how does one attain eternal life?"

Christ answered that one for us:

"If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments....You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself....If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me....it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God....For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:17-26).

Now to help us in attaining life, God has given us aids such as the Eucharist. As Christ said on another occasion:

"unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever." (John 6:53-58).

An atheist who prays is not an atheist.
Atheists don't believe in gods, or anything supernatural, and think that praying is very silly because there's nobody up there to take your call.

I am an atheist and have atheist friends; we giggle at the idiocy of prayer and belief in superstitious mumbo jumbo.

An atheist who prays makes as much sense as a vegetarian who eats meat. The behavior cancels out the label.

I'm not aware of anyone who treats the Odyssey as anything besides a fictional adventure story.

The apostles believed something happened at the resurrection. A small group of fearful people suddenly became bold proclaimers of Christ. They were willing to be persecuted, jailed, and even killed.

How do explain that?

Hi nedbrek. I find your source (the Bible) insufficient for consideration as evidence for a supernatural deity since it provides no more evidence (historical or scientific) than the Odyssey does for Cyclops.

I take it you don't accept that species evolved and are evolving. I also assume you do believe the literal order of Creation in the 1st chapter of Genesis. If so, you agree that birds and marine mammals were put on earth by God before insects (which actually evolved long before birds or mammals, and which many bird species require for survival) and before land mammals (from which whales evolved).

Thanks for your comments and answers to my questions.

E Favorite, ok. Bishop Spong, and Bart Ehrman claim to be Christians. CS Lewis is generally considered one. Russell grew up in a Christian country. I assumed when you said "your faith", that is what you meant. Sorry.

Nedbrek - I don't know why you ask me that. I'm no longer a Christian.

I suggest you ask someone who is Christian and has said they feel strongly about it.

Patrick, how does one attain eternal life?

Sorry, I first posted this without my name, by mistake:
Nedbrek,
You write:

"Patrick, I don't mean any offense. But I can tell you, growing up Catholic, I was no Christian. I called myself a Christian, but I was really blaspheming God.....Jesus did not establish any one organization. The "true church" is invisible...."

Quite to the contrary, Jesus did found an organization. He commissioned the Church to go out to all the world baptizing and teaching (Matt. 28:18-20). As the Father had sent Him, so He sent them. (John 20:21). And He conferred on them the power to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). Whatever sins they forgave were forgiven and whichever sins they retained were retained (a power they would not need if all sins were forgiven upon acceptance of the LJC as personal L&S). Whatever their head Peter bound on Earth was bound in Heaven and whatever he loosed on Earth ws loosed in Heaven. Matt. 16:18 et seq. And Peter exercised that power as Head of the Mission to the Gentiles when Paul brought the issue to the Jerusalem Council reported at Acts 15 (Acts 15:7-12). Then James the Judaizer acknowledged that Peter's position rather than his was the proper one, and the Council adopted Peter's answer as the Council's position in the first of all encyclical letters of the Church (Acts 15:23-29). That letter was taken by Paul and Barnabas back not just to Antioch but to surrounding local churches which were also bound to observe the Council's decision. Acts 16:4. As a result of the delivery of the Council's decision, the local churches became strengthened in the Faith. Acts 16:5.

So clearly, the Church Jesus founded was an organization right from the start. Thus, the Church Jesus founded was not an "invisible" or otherwise amorphous agglomeration of like minded individuals, it was a teaching and baptizing entity with a hierarchical structure in which the apostles gave orders to the bishops (or if you prefer the term the overseers) that the apostles left in their wake as they went from city to city.

Clearly, in his three epistles directly to them, Paul was writing to his bishops Timothy and Titus as a superior writes to a subordinate. Likewise, when Paul was passing through an area and wanted to address the local overseers, he had the authority to call them and teach them. See Acts 20:17 . He made it clear that as he had authority over them, so too they had authority over the flocks entrusted to their care: "Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God " (Acts 20:28).

You ought to review the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. It is a chronicle of the earliest days of the Christian Church. Far from being invisible, it was a functioning working organization. That organization did not disappear from history and be substituted by some invisible organization. It has been with us for 2000 years now. HINT: C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C....

Nedbrek,
You write:

"Patrick, I don't mean any offense. But I can tell you, growing up Catholic, I was no Christian. I called myself a Christian, but I was really blaspheming God.....Jesus did not establish any one organization. The "true church" is invisible...."

Quite to the contrary, Jesus did found an organization. He commissioned the Church to go out to all the world baptizing and teaching (Matt. 28:18-20). As the Father had sent Him, so He sent them. (John 20:21). And He conferred on them the power to forgive sins (John 20:22-23). Whatever sins they forgave were forgiven and whichever sins they retained were retained (a power they would not need if all sins were forgiven upon acceptance of the LJC as personal L&S). Whatever their head Peter bound on Earth was bound in Heaven and whatever he loosed on Earth ws loosed in Heaven. Matt. 16:18 et seq. And Peter exercised that power as Head of the Mission to the Gentiles when Paul brought the issue to the Jerusalem Council reported at Acts 15 (Acts 15:7-12). Then James the Judaizer acknowledged that Peter's position rather than his was the proper one, and the Council adopted Peter's answer as the Council's position in the first of all encyclical letters of the Church (Acts 15:23-29). That letter was taken by Paul and Barnabas back not just to Antioch but to surrounding local churches which were also bound to observe the Council's decision. Acts 16:4. As a result of the delivery of the Council's decision, the local churches became strengthened in the Faith. Acts 16:5.

So clearly, the Church Jesus founded was an organization right from the start. Thus, the Church Jesus founded was not an "invisible" or otherwise amorphous agglomeration of like minded individuals, it was a teaching and baptizing entity with a hierarchical structure in which the apostles gave orders to the bishops (or if you prefer the term the overseers) that the apostles left in their wake as they went from city to city.

Clearly, in his three epistles directly to them, Paul was writing to his bishops Timothy and Titus as a superior writes to a subordinate. Likewise, when Paul was passing through an area and wanted to address the local overseers, he had the authority to call them and teach them. See Acts 20:17 . He made it clear that as he had authority over them, so too they had authority over the flocks entrusted to their care: "Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God " (Acts 20:28).

You ought to review the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. It is a chronicle of the earliest days of the Christian Church. Far from being invisible, it was a functioning working organization. That organization did not disappear from history and be substituted by some invisible organization. It has been with us for 2000 years now. HINT: C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C....

E Favorite, can you tell me in a sentence or three what it means to be a Christian? Thanks!

Please excuse the 4 part serialized post. It was the only way I could get it to register. I don't understand the problem, because it is not longer than other posts here.

Part 4
Let me end by thanking you again for this forum. It's a wonderful venue for understanding how people think and talk about religion.

Part 3
Of course, not everyone is like you and me and the more avid essayists and posters here at On Faith. Many people, and probably many of the respondents in the Pew Study, think and know very little about religion, just as you and I did a few years ago. To understand their views, we need to do more than ask them a set of prepared questions and try to discern their meaning through their aggregated response. We need to hear them talk in an open-ended, in-depth way using a legitimate research methodology. Lacking that, analysis of the pew study is pure speculation. >continued

Part 2
I’m all in favor of people knowing more about religion. Since I first realized I knew very little about my own faith, I’ve read voraciously – Albert Schweitzer, Bart Ehrman, Burton Mack, CS Lewis, Bertrand Russell, Mark Twain, Robert Ingersoll, Tom Paine, St. Augustine, Finkelstein and Silberman, the Bible (authors unknown), Karen Armstrong, Bishop Spong, Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan and more. I’ve surfed the internet and taken Christian education classes at my former church. I started listening more closely to sermons and the words of the liturgy and prayers I recited all my life, and to the hymns I’d been singing with gusto. I talked to clergy and seminary professors. I did much more research than needed to realize that religion is man-made and that there is no evidence for a supernatural god or any of the miracles of the Bible. But like you, I became fascinated by religion. I still am, and thanks to On Faith, I have a ongoing source of information and expression. >continued

Part 1
Sally – I’m very glad you and Jon Meacham had that lunch, because without it, there would probably be no On Faith Forum. You’ve created a magnificent opportunity to bring readers and thinkers together in an ongoing dialogue.

As seminal as that lunch was, I wish that Jon hadn’t told you and you hadn’t believed that you were defining yourself negatively simply by calling yourself an atheist. As journalists, you both know about words and thus know that there are many words and phrases to describe a person who lacks a belief in gods that are not negative, e.g., realist, rationalist, naturalist, freethinker, free of supernatural beliefs, among others.

Besides, what’s the problem with being defined negatively, if the negative definition is accurate – e.g., non-rapist, non-murderer, non-racist? As you know, one word cannot completely define a person. Certainly the term atheist defined only your attitude toward gods. You’re also a woman, a journalist, a mother, a wife, an American and a non-smoker (as far as I know).

You also report that Jon said you should study religion before deciding you were an atheist. I wonder if he has admonished contented religious believers with only a Sunday school knowledge of their religion to study atheism and other religions before deciding that they believe in God. I would love to hear of a church that does that – and to know exactly how they carry out that education. >continued

Patrick, I don't mean any offense. But I can tell you, growing up Catholic, I was no Christian. I called myself a Christian, but I was really blaspheming God.

Because I was no different than a non-Christian.

I disrespected God, I was outwardly moral, but inwardly corrupt. I went to church each week, but the rest of the week I was like everyone else (not bad, but not perfect).

Later, I learned that God's standard is perfection. That God is so against hatred, it is like murder to Him. That lust is the same as actually committing adultery. To steal one thing makes you a thief for all time.

This broke my pride, and drove me to the foot of the Cross. I cried out to Jesus to save me. Since then, I have trusted in God, and my life is different.

Jesus did not establish any one organization. The "true church" is invisible. All those who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus' death and resurrection have a new life. We are the church. We meet together in local churches, to read the Bible and encourage one another.

There are many Christians in Catholic churches. But don't assume everyone there is. There are wheat among the tares (Matthew 13:25).

I cannot join a Catholic church, because they teach salvation apart from faith, and contradict the rules for elders ("presbyters" - priests) given in 1 Timothy 3:2 (and Titus 1:6). As well as the un-Biblical notion of Purgatory (and Mariology).

Test

Folks,
Nedbrek proves too much with this:
"Also, the Bible has survived roughly a thousand years of safekeeping in the hands of the Catholic Church - despite contradicting several Catholic dogmas and failing to support several others (sorry, my Catholic friends! Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith! - 2 Corinthians 13:5)"

Why would the Bible have to "survive" in the hands of the Catholic Church for over a thousand years? Because the man-made protestant churches had not yet been invented. It is the Catholic Church that is the Church Jesus founded in the First Century AD, and not any protestant church. So, the only church that can claim to be the true Church in the Christian West is the Catholic Church.

Folks,
Nedbrek writes:
"Growing up (not a Christian, although Catholic)...."

WRONG. By definition, if one is Catholic, one is a christian. Later groups have come along and tried to claim that Catholics are not christian, but those are groups founded by men in the Sixteenth Century or later. Christians, though, have been around since the First century AD when Christ founded His Church. That church is the Universal (in Greek "Catholic") Church, and it has been called that since before Ignatius of Antioch used the term in an epistle written around 107 AD.

Thank you.

I have access to the Greek in Textus Receptus (built off a handful of Greek texts) and Wescott-Hort (a minor update based on the discovery of many more texts), with Strong's annotations (my Greek is nearly non-existant :). I prefer a KJV or modernized KJV for word-for-word translation (NASB is also excellent). I'll also use a Living translation for easy reading.

I am what might be called paleo-orthodox (see "The Rebirth of Orthodoxy" by Thomas Oden). I would be comfortable in most any Bible teaching local church which teaches salvation through turning from sin and trusting in Jesus for salvation. My current church is non-denominational.

I believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally, in the same way any literature is. That is, if the Miami Herald says, "Dolphins Slaughter Bears!" There is some symbolism involved :) But yes, each word is examined and compared in context to form a total picture of the entire Bible (systematic theology, see Wayne Grudem's excellent book).

The question of Old Earth and Young Earth is interesting, and contentious. Growing up (not a Christian, although Catholic), I learned evolution and an old earth. Further investigation has led me to doubt the solidity of this stand, although I know respectable Christians who hold to an old earth. I am comfortable in either framework (if I had to pick, I think a young earth fits better).

Hope that helps!

Hi nedbrek. I thought your comment in an earlier post -- "The question should not be knowing, rather is the evidence sufficient for some consideration?" -- was very well stated, and I will judge your evidence in that light.

Your best evidence for the existence of God (in this case Jehovah) is biblical documentation. You suggest that the translation can be trusted since it has been verified by "thousands of ancient transcripts." Although you have not given me the particular version you are using (King James, New Revised, etc.) let's assume that the Bible you are referring to is accurately translated from the earliest sources. If so, I have 4 questions:

1) What religion do you follow?
2) Do you believe the Bible is the word of God and literally true?
3) If so, do you believe God created all the fish, marine mammals, and birds on the 5th day, before he created terrestrial animals (insects, cattle, etc.) on the 6th day?
4) And do you believe that the earth is less than 6000 years old?

I ask so I can understand your position on the validity of the Bible in order to know how you judge historical evidence. Thanks.

Something happened 2000 years ago, and it is documented in the Bible. The modern Bible has been verified against thousands of ancient manuscripts (the most famous being the Dead Sea scrolls, which contained a complete copy of the book of Isaiah - any public library should have a book on that. Also "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman [not a Christian] has a good introduction to "textual criticism", the art of reconstructing the Bible).

Before the Dead Sea scroll discovery, the oldest copy of Isaiah was from ~800 CE. The Dead Sea copy was from before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE). They matched nearly exactly.

Also, the Bible has survived roughly a thousand years of safekeeping in the hands of the Catholic Church - despite contradicting several Catholic dogmas and failing to support several others (sorry, my Catholic friends! Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith! - 2 Corinthians 13:5)

Hello nedbrek. Please provide the best example of your historical evidence for the existence of god -- evidence more useful than "something happened ~2000 years ago" or how we mark our calendars. Old dating methods certainly couldn't attest to a King's divinity nor Caesar's, so why would the Gregorian Calendar attest to the divinity of Jesus?). Also, please include the source of your evidence, and I will be happy to give my view of its validity. Cheers!

MWE:
I'm curious how you can assert there is no evidence for God. Something happened ~2000 years ago, serious enough to cause Western civilization to divide all time into Before and After (technically "Anno Domini", the "year of our Lord", since ancient societies counted the time since the king took reign).

We must not confuse scientific evidence, and historical evidence.

Ms. Quinn, why do well-educated people speak like immature children when the subject is religion? A long discussion on the definition of 'atheism' is neither necessary nor interesting for such a patently simple idea. This is the Washington Post, not 3rd grade composition. And you promote your views with condescending arrogance: "we all are agnostics", "I don't know and you don't either", "Believers… don't know any more than non-believers", "God is something different to everyone", etc. Fiercely proud of your ignorance, you've chosen to argue everyone is just as ignorant (or dishonest) as you – hardly an effective, intelligent, or tolerant position for a moderator of a blog on faith.

Many believers do know, and many have experienced God. I think they are misled and some are delusional, but I don't deny their certainty or their sincerity. Many atheists are truly without god, since he simply doesn't exist for us – there is no evidence that any god has ever existed. "How could I possibly know?" As others have said, if you make that statement you must make the same about Zeus, Leto, the Holy Ghost, Poseidon, and Amen-Re, not to mention Big Foot, ET, Nessie, Shirley McClain, and cooties. Furthermore, you must make the same statement for your string of arrogant comments listed above.

No, it doesn't come down to "semantics". You believe a god exists or not. You believe the Tooth Fairy exists or not (there is considerably more evidence for the latter). It's telling that Jon could talk you out of being an atheist without bringing up the subject of evidence, which you don't mention anywhere in your 'composition'. You still don't know what an atheist is. But you do have a dictionary!

"Today I would not call myself an atheist. I don't have a label." You certainly are not an atheist, but you can't escape labels. You are an agnostic regarding a supernatural, all-powerful god. Your failure to think rationally about deities makes you easy to label as such.

boko:
Can you truly "know" anything (beyond any certainty of doubt)?

The question should not be knowing, rather is the evidence sufficient for some consideration?

Have you looked at the evidence behind historical Christianity? (Rather than any particular denomination).

I guess it was lost...

Ted makes a good point. You don't need to search the world for evidence of the supernatural, or investigate every religion.

There are only two fundamental worldviews:

atheistic/humanist: The universe is ultimately meaningless. Humans make meaning for themselves, and should live however they please. This includes most religions, even some who call themselves "Christians".

theistic: The universe has a Creator, and this Creator determines the purpose (which could be none - deism).

I can't know whether a 'god' exists or not so I'm a-gnostic.
I figure that the chances of the universe being created by some sort of 'entity' are from slim to none so I live my life as an atheist.
No fuss, no muss.

Was my earlier comment lost or deleted? Feel free to edit it as necessary...

Thanks!

Sally, it's unfortunate that as a professional writer you don't have a solid grasp of atheism, but as a human being it's not surprising, since most people don't and it's vastly misunderstood. Many of the the comments here are evidence of that.

There are standard definitions of atheist that are more complicated than the one you listed, which was: 'one who denies the existence of God.'

How about this one?

Atheist: One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I simply don't believe, (I disbelieve), in the existence of God since I see no evidence to support that position.

It seems to me that might describe your view as well.

Jon Meacham's points are weak or non-existent. I'm amazed you weren't talked out of your position sooner since you are poorly informed regarding atheism, and therefore unprepared to defend what you don't know much about.
'First, he denied that I was one.'

As I said, clearly you weren't able to do so, but you don't elaborate. It's a child's argument 'No you're not!' - 'Yes I am! - well, maybe I'm not since you said so'. Very impressive.

'Second, he said that I did not want to define myself negatively.'

Because a word is against something, that is enough to alter your worldview? That strikes me as more a matter of the strength of one's character.

'Third, he said that if I did decided to be an atheist I first should learn more about religion.'

Why? Clearly you needed to learn more about atheism, not religion.

But, to paraphrase E-Favorite's post, 'is there enough evidence to believe in the supernatural?' If not, you're atheist or agnostic.

You said for you there's nothing more exhilarating than the study of the meaning of life and how beliefs manifest in everyone's existence.

Wow, I'm not sure I believe you. How about seeing a rhino for the first time, or learning about what the Hubble Telescope has seen? Or seeing dinosaur research? Or reading about DNA evidence freeing another prisoner who was on death row for years? Now that's exhilarating for me.

There are countless things I'd rather learn about than religion, unless it is related to world affairs.

It's useful to learn about religion when John McCain repeatedly states incorrectly that Al Qaeda is working with Iran to undermine Iraq, when Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shia. Those ideas can get people killed, so that's when I get interested in learning about religious groups. However, in that case I had already done my homework and knew McCain was wrong. How can he not have known that when he paints himself as the foreign policy candidate who claims to know about the Iraq war situation? But I digress...

Learning about religion is a waste of time compared to learning about what actually goes on in this universe, because it isn't the supernatural. Reality is amazing and wonderful and I rejoice in it.

When you see the world "faith" in the Bible, it is a translation of the Greek word "pistis". Pistis is better translated "trust" today. To say, "I don't have trust" doesn't make sense. Everyone trusts something (be it your own mind, money, your job, your parents, etc.).

Christianity is not about being good, and going to heaven when you die. It is about admitting you are not a good person, and stopping trusting in other things, and trusting in God (as revealed in the Bible, and Jesus).

You cannot know about God in a scientific (that is, repeatable) sense. You can, however, investigate Christianity's historical claims. These claims are very well tested, and very solid.

Hope that helps!

Folks,
I had shown in my July 3 10:20 AM response to B Man that most Christians do not believe that a Christian is automatically forgiven later committed sins once he/she believes in Jesus Christ. I had also noted that only those Protestants that believe in the unbiblical dogma of Sola Fide ("By Faith Alone") believe that. Matt responds:

"The Bible clearly teaches "solo fide" saved by faith alone. "

Not the Bible, Protestant interpretations of the Bible. In truth, James refuted this false dogma before the Bible was even completed (James 2:14-24):

"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? ....You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. "

Ms. Quinn, you say you "have been on a mission to study and learn more about all religions." Have you ever read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"? Wouldn't that be the place to start, when "studying" and "learning" about Catholicism?

Atheists don't believe in a life after death? It's more likely that it is biped animals that don't believe in life after death because their brain structures haven't evolved to the point where there is a spiritual consciousness created in the mind and body. Any study of humans might generate a bell curve where ten to twenty percent of a 'group' has properties of spiritual awareness such as belief in a holy spirit, prayers or meditation focusing on that spirit and incorporating values that aid awareness of a holy spirit. Why should that be a surprise? If you made a larger bell curve that took into account ALL spiritual manifestations including ALL religions, biped unconsciousness might register as less than one percent of the curve and atheists four or five percent of the curve. In that case, proof of spiritual awareness in some form would be a given in the same manner that 'time' and 'space' are givens.

“Jon Meacham talked me out of being an atheist. First, he denied that I was one. Second, he said that I did not want to define myself negatively.”

Sally,

This argument is absurd. So if he denied the existence of Zeus, your friend would be defining himself negatively???

In BOTH cases, you and your friend do not know if a general deity-- or Zeus exist.
Instead you both ascribe a very low probability to the event.

Why is this difficult? It is generally agreed that belief in Zeus has a very low probability -- of a scale that his existance is improbable.

For atheists, the exact same applies to a general deity.

I would argue few people have 100% belief in a deity. Ask them to give all their money to the poor for a test [much more humane than asking them to drink poison which I saw a Buddhist prankster pull on some Evangelists, at least per his telling.]

If most deists don't have 100% belief in a deity, who are atheists required to 100% disbelief in ANY deity or force?

The fact is no one REALLY knows for sure -- because there is NO proof out there of a scientific rational nature.

My friend prays to the "Lady of acceleration" before he takes off in his airplane.

He did this when he was a believer and continued late on when he became an atheist. He does this with a wink and a smile.

He sees this as like a four leaf clover -- ie it won't hurt....

It just helps set the mind at ease. Therefore he would have answered he "prayed" if he had taken the Pew survey.

But he thinks all the world religions are hooey.

My friend prays to the "Lady of acceleration" before he takes off in his airplane.

He did this when he was a believer and continued late on when he became an atheist. He does this with a wink and a smile.

He sees this as like a four leaf clover -- ie it won't hurt....

It just helps set the mind at ease. Therefore he would have answered he "prayed" if he had taken the Pew survey.

But he thinks all the world religions are hooey.

Yeah anon. And put price tags on'em while you're at it. Gettin' harder and harder to tell what some of these politicians can be bought for. Preachers are dime a dozen while presidential candidates are really high. Tag'em and price'em I always say.

Awe shucks. Let's put some labels on people so we can tell who they are.

Patricksarfield,

The Bible clearly teaches "solo fide" saved by faith alone. While not an expert in Church history (and for the record not anti-Catholic), this is one of the main reasons that the Protestants broke away from the Catholic teaching of things like indulgences.

below taken from an article on www.monergism.com a great website for Christian doctrine.

"Paul was emphasizing that a person's only basis for salvation is in the merits of Christ. If one wants to add circumcision, almsgiving, baptism or anything else, Paul says Christ will then be of no profit to that person, and "he is a debtor to do the whole law," (Gal 5:3) "

Grace and Peace,
Matt E.

"On matters of religion the Pew foundation is pro christian by their own admission. Their study, by design, produced results giving the false impression that atheists are believers."

Could be so. Frankly, the very questions are arranged such that non-monotheists will probably produce throwout data in the samples, or lead to the wrong conclusion. Trust me, I've taken polls like that, and the 'multiple choices' aren't exactly comprehensive.

Still, they apparently returned a result of there being 1.2 million Pagans in the country, which is a lot closer to reality than the 'couple thousand' the press likes to cite.

No surprise that they weren't equipped to deal with 'atheists' as anything but 'doctrinarian disbelievers,' though. The reality wasn't really in the multiple choice, one might as easily say.

Sally from what I read, it appears you were never an atheist, but something else perhaps an agnostic, deist, etc.

Atheist (a-theist), in its simplest definition means, non-theist or without-theism.

Anyone not an atheist is on the believer side of the believer/non-believer divide.

Since logically one cannot be both a believer and non-believer, one cannot be an atheist and something else (agnostic, etc.) at the same time.

The Pew study was fatally flawed in this incidence, because atheists were not eliminated from questions about of their belief in something, by definition, they didn’t believe in.

On matters of religion the Pew foundation is pro christian by their own admission. Their study, by design, produced results giving the false impression that atheists are believers.

Oh by-the-way, religion get its morality/ethics from us: not the other way around. That’s easy to understand since the supernatural (deities, etc.) doesn’t exist: humankind does.

"For days complete of sk and sun
And miracle of summer sea,
And all the singing rapture won
Through thought's completed ecstasy,
For these I thank with reverence meet
The Deity of things complete.

"But still for things more dear and far
The sunset slanting through the rain,
The face of some adventurous star
That hailed me from the plashy lane
For these, with deeper love I thank
The deities of lesser rank
The rulers of the things apart,
Masters of gleams and vanishings
The Guardians of the utmost marge
The Lords of uncompleted things,
Who had my questing thought in charge
When, through dim brain and wearied heart,
And overweighted spirit, thrilled
The rapture of the unfulfilled."

-Seumas O'Sullivan

For ages now I have told everyone that
"there is no God, but I believe in Him."
.
There is nothing unusual about this--This
is the case with everyone. (It's merely
that I'm more honest than most.)

Knowledge of God's existence, or lack
thereof, is beyond the scope of human
knowledge. We can but guess, or "hope?"

In other words, "Everybody believes in
God in spite of the fact that NO ONE has
knowledge that God exists." Or does not
exist ... for that matter: Therefore the
statement, "God exists" is the exact
equivalent of "God does not exist" because
we have no "knowledge" here either way
(in effect, both statements are lies). And
that's the Truth.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com

.

"For most of my life I considered myself an atheist..."
"...I never denied the existence of God. After all, how could I possibly know?"

Uh, then you've never been an atheist.

Sally,

Your definition of agnostic is incorrect. An agnostic is someone who believes humans can not know if their is a God. By that definition you are an agnostic. The Pew study I think reflects a similar confusion of Americans about religion. Atheists praying?! Maybe old habits die hard.

I'm an agnostic too, but I prefer to call myself a freethinker. If we must label ourselves, let us choose interesting labels!

For many though, religion is very much about labels, or rather identity. It defines us and them. I'm often envious of Jewish atheists. Too me its the best of all worlds. Identity, tradition, community, ritual, a whole rich world of wisdom and stories that you can call your own - but ultimately you don't have to let anyone tell you want to think. Sometimes just going through the motions - an atheist praying - maybe all you need to tap into it that world.

Where there is language, there is ambiguity.
Where there are labels, there will always a be tension between the need to conform to those labels, with all this implies, and the need to challenge the labels' limitations in order to grow beyond.
Mystery always holds an opening to renewed interpretation, likewise infinity and eternity, Spirit and Source, God and Man.
If we insist on specific definitions to any of these, we're insisting on the tyranny of stasis,
and any dynamic impulse to create anything new and any questioning of authority must become taboo.
All established order is threatened to some degree by the idealism and vigor of youth.
Otherwise we would have nothing new in our world.
Renewal is a thoroughly radical exercise when engaged without precondition.
This is a central principle of any meaningful faith or spiritual practice.
Renewal and transformation, the transcendence of limitation, of defined parameters, of the old conditioned self, the re-visioning of reality and of personal experience; these go to the heart of what our personal evolution calls us to,
regardless of label...

Well ... it's certainly very PC to say "I don't believe in labels ..."

But as a writer, a professional writer, do you believe in words? That they have meaning? That you call a thing by what it is and not what sounds the least objectionable to the most people?

Do you believe in a powerful, conscious entity that created this universe and our species? If you do, you're not an atheist, if you don't, you are.

Sorry if that's 'labeling' you, but don't shy away from honesty.

"the argument always comes down to semantics"

Yes, but the semantics always comes down to ideas. Here is an idea: "a white-haired old man sitting on a throne in heaven." Here's another: "the essence of the human spirit." And another: "the origin of all that is." People choose an idea based on the attitude they have about the problem of existing. Obviously, not everyone's attitude is the same, so ideas always come down to attitude. But what is a "good" attitude? Aaah, that is the question.

Ryan Harber writes: "I may be mistaken, Ms. Quinn, but I am not in doubt about my knowledge."

Classic.

Just wanted to point out that I think Sally got the standard definition of 'agnostic' slightly wrong here. At one point when searching myself I looked it up a few times and was surprised that it uses the term 'unknowable'. So, it states that the agnostic also believes that no one else can know for certain.

Here it is from Dictionary.com (says it's based on Random House):

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

I very much respected Susan Jacoby's blog on this question because of its honesty and commitment to truth. Both are lacking in Ms. Quinn's piece.

Ms. Quinn has done nothing more significant than, in her mind and in the mind of her appreciative audience, obliterated the possibility of (1) distinction; (2) communication.

As Patricksarsfield wrote, there are hundreds of millions, billions of Christians worldwide, and large groups of them believe the same thing on any particular question. How do I know? Simple, I ask them and they answer. I say to someone, "Say, when you recite the Creed, do you mean that Jesus of Nazareth REALLY rose bodily from the dead?" And he responds, "Yes, I do." I take him at his word. If I am still unsure, I say, "By bodily, do you mean that his corporeal, material body, the selfsame that he had during his life, that THAT body is what got up and walked out of the tomb, THREE DAYS after it had stopped breathing and kicking?" To which he responds, "Yes, that's what I mean." I can see that we are in agreement. Wittgenstein, the father of the concept of incommunicability, denied the possibility me taking what is inside my brain and sharing it with you by means of language in such a way that I can be sure you understand and have in your brain what had been in mine alone. Toward the end of his life, sitting on a bus in London, he looked around and saw all sorts of people: maids, immigrants, dockworkers, young ladies, children, each talking to the others with different vocabularies and accents, and it occured to him, "Great scott! They DO understand each other!"

That Ms. Quinn bothered to post asserting that we cannot know what the others REALLY believe, because presumably such things cannot be shared with clarity and certainty, shows her dishonesty. Why did she bother to post if she thought nobody would take her meaning? Only two possibilities are reasonable - (1) because she wanted to get paid or publicity for doing so; and/or (2) because she doesn't really think that nobody would understand her. Either motivation is dishonest.

On a deeper level, Ms. Quinn has denied that things have names that really mean something. She is essentially arguing that to be an atheist is fundamentally the same as to be a not-atheist (I HATE the word "theist" - it is as if that were a religion or a real group. I feel zero affinity with a Brahmin who thinks that there is a god and that he is part of it). She is arguing not only do none of us really KNOW whether there is a God (how can SHE be so sure), but only believe, and that moreover, none of us really knows what we believe. She is saying that our beliefs are too finely distinguished, one's from the next chap's, to be grouped into meaningful categories. She is essentially denying that some things are similar enough to be grouped together in a way that excludes other things lacking the similar qualities.

Ms. Quinn is wrong about that and she knows it. Because she might stand on a table in order to reach a high shelf or cupboard, she does not suppose for a minute that the table is a footstool, because it has served that purpose in a makeshift way for a moment. Because she has used an umbrella, say, to startle and ward off an intruder in her home does not convince her that it is really basically the same sort of thing as a rifle or shotgun. People don't have much of a moral vested interest in denying that shotguns are different than umbrellas, though, and so they routine make such distinctions.

In order to rationalize something (I can't guess what specifically), Ms. Quinn has decided that a personal God (as the Jews and Muslims suppose), a tripersonal God (as Christians suppose), an impersonal yet transcendent life force (as Buddhists often suppose) or an impersonal and immanent life force (as Hindus suppose) are all the same thing, more or less. Because she doesn't know. It shows a smug contempt for all those people, those literally BILLIONS of people who agree with each other, and who disagree with each other, those people who have the audacity to think that their beliefs reflect objective reality, and that contrary beliefs are false, or at least fail to reflect reality as well.

"An agnostic is one who doesn't know whether God exists, so from my point of view we all are agnostics."

No, Ms. Quinn, I do know that God exists. I would be foolish to organize my entire life - relationships, daily routine, finances, occupation, personal conduct, around a principle that I thought might be true. Nobody in their right mind would buy a bridge they thought MIGHT be there. I may be mistaken, Ms. Quinn, but I am not in doubt about my knowledge.

Ms. Quinn rightly points out that some religious people have behaved monstrously, and that some nonreligious people are happy and get along well in life. Bully for them! Does she think that is the purpose of religion? The Enlightenment rationalists all certainly did. That might be the purpose of many religions. It is not the purpose of the Christian religion(s), nor is it so pretended by Christians. The purpose of the Christian religion(s) is to bring us into right relationship with God, from which the rest hopefully follows as a biproduct. Because we humans are broken and have messed up hearts, sometimes pieces don't follow as well as we'd like. So the churchgoer does his best on Sundays to be a Christian, and blows it, or even stops caring, much of the rest of the week. It means he lacks complete integrity. Fair enough, so do I. It means that his religion hasn't accomplished what was hoped. Fine, that happens all the time too, in all sorts of walks of life.

The one thing that Mr. Smith's failure to be a good Christian doesn't prove is that Christianity cannot make people good.

Ms. Quinn closes her philosophical piece by a nice assertion that our beliefs don't matter, but only how we live. Upon what, I ask her, does she suppose we base our actions, if not upon our beliefs. Driving down the road, I brake if there is a car ahead braking, or a stop signal, or a pedestrian crossing my path; without those things, I do not brake. I brake because I believe there is a reason to do so. I stop walking when I believe there is reason to stop - a wall, a change of plans, whathaveyou. No person has ever acted based on anything other than some belief they hold, even if only subconsciously and inarticulately.

What we believe matters very much, Ms. Quinn, and different beliefs yield different sorts of actions. I doubt very much that you would like to marry a man whose family thought that widowburning was an acceptable way to handle an oversized family with economically unproductive members. You might think that such a belief would put you in danger, and that such a belief is different than believing widows and orphans should be cared for as a religious duty.

And you would be right - and much safer in your old age, too.

I am constantly amazed how easily such phrases as "I'm not interested in labels" is applied in the field of religion but from a pragmatic point of view, one could not function in the world if this were really a deeply held core belief. Our entire system of science is based on the idea that labels are good; i.e., the periodic table of elements. I once accidently mixed H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid) with HCL (Hydrocholric acid). Thankfully I wasn't hold the container when it exploded. Or think of going to the 7/11 and buying a bottle of clear liquid thinking that is was water, only to discover that it was in truth acid. Or perhaps going to your surgeon and he needs to remove your appendix but heck, he doesn't care about labels, so he removes your left kidney. This label nonsense is just sheer foolishness.
I really don't believe in atheists. They are so inconsistent, saying one thing then living another way. One might say, what about all the damage "organized religion" has made? I will see your damage and raise you millions and millions of people killed by atheistic governments (hello Mao, Stalin, etc).
This is NOT to say that atheists are immoral people, or that ALL atheists are immoral. They clearly are not. Ghandi, though not an atheist, said that he loved Jesus, but not his followers. It is to our Christian fellow's shame that he/we do not live more consistently with Christ's commands.

Great piece. I enjoyed this read.

ArchdukeFranz, if you need a "religion" to dictate your morals, then I think you are a person of low intelligence.

Rebel... that's what you can call yourself. See isn't it just like the high and mighty press to set up a newspaper column for others to opine on faith matters and have it headed by an atheist?

Thank you for this great article. I got talked out of calling myself an atheist as well, because, semantically, it doesn't fit. I personally don't believe in a higher power, god, spiritual being, grand scheme for the universe, etc. I don't have any problem with anyone else believing in those things, though. I also don't have a problem with organized religion - I mean, even if religion never existed, people would still be fighting with each other and doing horrible things to each other. Religion does seem to help some communities band together and support each other, though I'd like to think that would still happen without religion. Anyways, whether you believe or don't believe, there's no reason not to be a good person and be kind to one another.

What we need is a word for people who don't believe in man made organized religions.

Seems to me there might be a god, or a whole lot of gods, or maybe just all sorts of aspcest to reality that we cannot yet perceive clearly so we take our impressions and label it "god". What we think of as "god" might be equal to what traditional ethnic groups in rain forests would make of seeing an airplane the first time.

I don't know what to make of "god", but I totally know what to do with organized religion - stay away from it, and teach my kids better. My 6 year old is proud that he's the only kid in his kindergarten class who doesn't believe in god, and all my kids are happy not to be lugged to church every Sunday. I am happy that they are not burdened with the illogic and prejudice that comes with man made religions.

I agree with British writer/comedian Andy Hamilton, whose "Old Harry's Game" is a classic. In one episode, Satan observes, "Basically God views agnostics as atheists with an element of cowardice."

B Man,
You write:

"For example, to a Christian NOTHING trumps accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, even if you're a wife-beating drunkard who cheats on your taxes. Accept Jesus Christ and all will be forgiven. If you don't accept him, well, then, have fun in eternal hell."

Those are not the positions of most of Christianity. Per the Catholics and Orthodox (who together represent almost 2/3 of Christianity), if we continue to sin after we have come to the Faith and been baptized, we will not be forgiven absent confession which requires a firm purpose of amendment. Conversely, if one lives a good life, one can go to Heaven even if one never becomes a Christian. It is only among Protestants who believe in the unbiblical dogma of "By Faith Alone" (or "Sola Fide") that the two sentiments you express above hold sway.

There goes the voice of another post modernist who doesn't believe in absolute truths. The article in my opinion is ridiculous. Either there is or there isn't a God, and if there is, then God is not what you make God out to be, but what God REALLY IS, universally true, the same. There are absolutes in the world, you know.

Folks,
It is sad how childish the obsessional hatred of anti-Catholics can be:

"is Rat-Singer the flute player that collects the rats out of the village, the folk tale?"

to Bill GAtes please

i have developed a ginger, and the two wheels have their motors. i am not able to provide with sufficient torque to drive, in Turkey.

the two wheels, two governments in Turkey, dont know they are a ginger. can Sally QUinn apply a ginger to mow the EL-ones in the laboratory?

ANONYMOOSE,

inflated ego reminded me Dow Jones Index. do you have any lots in the market? if the index falls down, why should a world war begin around Anadolu : )

have you watched Brother Bear? is St Matthias brother of St Matthew?

is Rat-Singer the flute player that collects the rats out of the village, the folk tale?

you mean, we must reconsider the heist, in this "atheist" subject?

we have better think in German. Wie heisst er?

you mean, we must reconsider the heist, in this "atheist" subject?

we have better think in German. Wie heisst er?

Interpreter Native:

Susan Jacoby is not a good example of an informed, even lucid atheist. For the closest approximation on this blog, look to Daniel Dennett. Next in line would be Dawkins and Harris, whatever you may think of the latter's politics.

Susan Jacoby is a tedious bestseller writer with an absurdly inflated ego. Don't judge all atheists by her.

in these days, with Susan JAbocy, we have come to decision that one cell is the seed tha was sound first, then with nitrogen, thunder and storms it appeared, or this is completely "one seed in the heart shall grow" and inheritance of folks case, at least within scandinavian mythology.

i shall be NOBEL awarded by King of Sweden, and Pope Benedictus didnt let any other student cheat, at least in the university He was Rector of : )

Sally,

You are absolutely correct, "The last thing that matters is what you call yourself. It's how you live your life."

Unfortunately, if you belong to an organized religion, this sentiment just doesn't wash.

For example, to a Christian NOTHING trumps accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, even if you're a wife-beating drunkard who cheats on your taxes. Accept Jesus Christ and all will be forgiven. If you don't accept him, well, then, have fun in eternal hell.

Your essay, accurate as it may be, only makes sense to non-believers.

Beyond the Label writes:

Do speak up against those who would improperly stereotype or politicize these terms however. It's more work but in the end it is the only thing that actually will work.
------------

Amen
Selah

I have to agree with Carol.

Sally, stick to moderating, you are too much of a lightweight.

patricksarsfield

I think Sally's remark is more true than yours is.

You do not know what hundreds of millions of people believe, you only know what you believe. I think that that was her point.

How do you know the things you know?

Visualizing truth is an art. Sally is quite refined, in this respect.

Folks,
I don't know whether Sally Quinn is an atheist or an agnostic any more than she does. I do know, though, that she is a solipsist from this assertion:

"God is something different to everyone. We all have our own definitions and visions of what and who God is."

In fact, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people accept the Christian Church's teaching that Jesus Christ is God. Sally doesn't. She has her own definition and/or vision.

"I Believe"

It is apparent that everyone, including 'the Adams family, believed in something long before organized religion came into existence. In a post-modern human world I have noticed more and more that everyone believes in something whether it be God, a Sovereingty, a God Equivalent, a not God...!

In spite of the efforts by a myriad of religious groups throughout history who sought to force everyone to accept a common belief system (the one that they typically believed in), we all have something in common, each one of us possesses a belief system. So why must divergent belief systems be mutually exclusive? That sounds like a phenomenon of human origin to me! A truly wise sovereignty would recognize that it is impossible for all people to believe the same thing.

Some secularists don't believe what I believe while others do, and more and more I don't have a problem with it either way! I am happy that there isn't anyone, except at the church, trying to control my thoughts or what I believe. When you get right down to it, faith appears to trump human religious schisms anyhoo!

Forget labels -- do you believe in the supernatural or are you free of supernatural beliefs?

Do you believe there are invisible beings out there somewhere, having some kind of influence on your life - maybe directing it, maybe answering prayers, performing miracles, getting you out of tight squeezes, or maybe just created the universe then walked away?

Do you believe in any of that - not all, but just any of that?

Do you believe in none of that?

TO me, that's the big difference between people, regardless of whether or how they label themselves: belief in the supernatural or free of belief in the supernatural.

I'd love it if you responded to that, Sally.

Thanks

I'd like to reiterate:

Religion-Atheist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim,

Sexuality- Asexual, Bisexual, Heterosexual, Homosexual, Pansexual etc

Race- African-American, Black, Bi-Racial, Multi-Racial, Moreno etc

Language- Anglophone, Allophone, Francophone, Bilingual (very poitically charged labels in Quebec, Canada)

All of the above terms have resulted in the abuse of labels for some particular groups in certain areas of the world. We can say that like religion the labels don't really matter (Categoriing race is much more absurd then categorizing religion) Your argument to not use religoius labels can be applied to these terms too but in the end we see that these labels like religious ones do serve some purpose. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Do speak up against those who would improperly stereotype or politicize these terms however. It's more work but in the end it is the only thing that actually will work.
-Austin

I'd like to reiterate:

Religion-Atheist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim,

Sexuality- Asexual, Bisexual, Heterosexual,

Homosexual, Pansexual etc

Race- African-American, Black, Bi-Racial, Multi-Racial, Moreno etc

Language- Anglophone, Allophone, Francophone, Bilingual (very poitically charged labels in Quebec, Canada)

All of the above terms have resulted in the abuse of labels for some particular groups in certain areas of the world. We can say that like religion the labels don't really matter (Categoriing race is much more absurd then categorizing religion) Your argument to not use religoius labels can be applied to these terms too but in the end we see that these labels like religious ones do serve some purpose. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Do speak up against those who would improperly stereotype or politicize these terms however. It's more work but in the end it is the only thing that actually will work.
-Austin

I used to do a tolerance workshop in high schools and one of the mini-subjects was labels.
We talked about how labels can't tell the whole story but that they are generally effective way that people use to explain there preferences to the world.

To take the vegetarian example you have many subgroups
1.Vegan (no animal products)
2.Ovo-Lacto vegetarians (will eat eggs and diary)
3.Pescatarians (eat fish but no mammals or poultry)
4.My friend Melissa who only eats meat at her matriarchial grandmother so as not to disrespect her.

All these groups generally classify as vegetarian so they can fuction in the world (ie. get the right meal on an airplane) but that doesn't mean that it is the whole story.
The same is true for the way many people define their sexuality (Gay, Straight, Bisexual) We have certain ideas that are attatched here but often people adopt them for simplicities sake. The gay person who is actually a little bisexual or the straight person who had some same-sex experiences they enjoyed but now married to an opposite-sex person they don't see the point in identifying as bisexual.
The list of examples goes on and on.
That this should be the case for religious/atheists is no surprise. People adopted that label because it best fits how they exist in the world not because it is a perfect definition of who they are. People need to understand the usefullness and limitations of labels in all these and many other arenas.

On this note I wouldn't suggest people not use labels whether it be atheist or otherwise but instead that they take on the burden of reminding people what labels can and can not be used for.
While I understand Sally's argument I think it is short sighted, you can't have an indepth conversation with everyone you meet and there for you need a label. It sounds as though Sally doesn't believe in any of the typical definitions of God so Atheist is entirely appropriate. If she doesn't like the connotation religious people have given it then go with Non-Religoius and if you subscribe to some non-god system of belief like Humanism go by that but don't let people off the hook. LABELS AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE, we need them to function in society so our only option is to insist that people don't abuse them.

Respect there is a reason people choose a specific label but also respect that a person is not their chosen label.

Sally, you think too much of yourself....the faith column is WAY beyond your finite scope of thinking..stop attempting this.

A couple more thoughts. Paul Tillich wrote that religion can be defined as one's "ultimate concern."
That we have an ultimate concern, and that we can differ on what this ultimate concern is, even choose a more conscious concern as we mature and re-consider, this is the dynamism of religion.
Tillich also defined God as "Being Itself".
This also encourages thinking and reflecting for oneself, engaging one's mind and life in the adventure of awakening.
The destination of our awakening is spoken of differently by many teachers and leaders, but it is always to something larger, something even more mysterious and profound than we imagined.
Again we may differ on the specifics, but that life has this capacity to be immeasurably sacred, as in the finest art and music, and that we can experience something stirring that moves beyond the immediate circumstance, these qualities of knowing, even without any clear evidence in the outer world, this is where our spiritual and religious paths are calling each of us to a greater sense of purpose and sensitivity to the lives of others.
Tillich is too often overlooked for his visionary insights and provocations to greater exploration.

Christian writes: "I KNOW my life was transformed when I accepted Christ as my savior. I am a new person and would hate to think what my life would be like now had I not had that conversion."

But was it this Christ character doing the transforming or was it you yourself doing the transforming? You say that your life was transformed and I can believe that easily. What I'd like to know is how, exactly, you've determined that you didn't give yourself a Jesus placebo that worked.

Bucky Fuller titled one of his books, "No More Second Hand God" indicating the profound responsibility we all have to engage the world we see, and the unseen world as well, on our own terms.
It's almost a truism that most religious denominations and sects were founded by a single inspired individual who then sought to teach what cannot be taught precisely - the personal and often ineffible experience of the transcendent.
Roadmaps of this experience are all over the ballpark in their specific prescriptions, yet they all share a directional urgency - there is a larger reality, and the experience offered by seeking its blessing can be profoundly transformative, even healing of our most wounded aspects and memories, even our bodies.
That we have this impulse to the divine, this is clear, that we distort this impulse by our culture and our historical privilege, this also is clear.
Ant discussion of religion, of 'reality' or 'truth' loses legitimacy when it dismisses all other arguments as ill informed.
We need to listen more, to validate more, to connect more, and keep the discussions open from polarizing insistences.
I write this, knowing my words here can be seen as carrying their own bias, and this is one of our central problems - the ambiguity of language, the distortions and limitations of translating experience into discourse.
So we need to extend our diplomacies and tolerance to one another as openly and as freely as we are able.
Thanks for offering the opportunity.

"To know" something is the question. How do any of us know any of the things that we believe to be true, are true?

Visualizing truth is an art, that anyone can learn, if interested, but that some people are better at than others, meaning, that some people are talented at visualizing truth. And some people are not.

But it is more than merely observing facts, which can be deceptive, or doing scientific expereiments, because few of us do that. It is a complex way of searching, thinking, and anylyzing, of gathering up bits and chuncks of knowledge, that one finds in the landscape of experience, along the way, and then arranging them, this way, and then that, to make something of the world that seems, at least, sensible and true.

It seems to me that Sally Quinn, by this article, is doing a pretty job at cultivivating the art of visualizing truth.

"To know" something is the question. How do any of us know any of the things that we believe to be true, are true?

Visualizing truth is an art, that anyone can learn, if interested, but that some people are better at than others, meaning, that some people are talented at visualizing truth. And some people are not.

But it is more than merely observing facts, which can be deceptive, or doing scientific expereiments, because few of us do that. It is a complex way of searching, thinking, and anylyzing, of gathering up bits and chuncks of knowledge, that one finds in the landscape of experience, along the way, and then arranging them, this way, and then that, to make something of the world that seems, at least, sensible and true.

It seems to me that Sally Quinn, by this article, is doing a pretty job at cultivivating the art of visualizing truth.

I disagree, Sally, that Chrisitans don't know if there is a God anymore than nonbelievers do.

I KNOW my life was transformed when I accepted Christ as my savior. I am a new person and would hate to think what my life would be like now had I not had that conversion.

Yes, we Christians have "faith," but it's not a faith as in "hoping" something might happen. It's much more real than that.

I think the key is you must really seek God. The Bible tells us that if you seek, you shall find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Anyone who truly seeks God will find him -- no doubt about it.

Sally:

It is obvious the god that you worship is yourself. You say that you live a "moral and ethical" life -- by whose definition? Your own of course.

This is a very nice sentiment, which I can easily understand, much better than what is often written about religion.

I think of "God" as the providential foudation of all being, which is too complicated to say, in a normal conversation; but, if I ever do get a chance to say it, really means, that I just don't know.