The Gods: Made in Our Image

Sorry I didn't get back to this, had to do some things, yesterday. And, hey, what's with the dates, here, anyway? Ah, this is an old thread, but may as well answer.

"

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

Okay - 2 membranes - M Theory - 13 dimensions. And...they always existed? Like God?"

Eleven, I think, but thirteen's a nice number. :)

"So the Big Bang is a residual effect of the 2 membranes colliding and pow wow a Big Bang occurs and we now exist.

"We are progressing, now you admit there was a "before" before the Big Bang. It is just a matter of time - you will admit that a "before" the 2 membranes existed and caused by God."

Technically, it's not really a 'before,' as space and time would seem to have come *out* of it.

One can hardly 'admit' something one sticks on there as a theory. One could as easily, and more readily, even, say these two branes coinciding represents the God and Goddess coming together and birthing our universe.

Or say that it represents the Cosmic Egg cracking, or the world arising as a manifestation in the multiverse, or any number of other stories.

Sure, there's room to think of your God as existing in the multiverse, but that doesn't mean there's any indication of artifice or authority that one can *demand someone admit* from this.

It certainly fits the Pagan view as well or better.

"I believe that in Bible (Genesis) - The blurb about the firmament - Do you think it is the 2 membranes? After all it said that He separated (Big Bang) it...blah blah..."

Well, I think if you read it as *myth,* then you can see it that way. As a document of scientific reality, it obviously falls down.

"Yeah...I got you. At some point you'll come around that for all explanations you offer up you will cycle back to a greater Being or God created you."

Nah, you don't got me. I don't think of things like you, remember? Just because there's still room for "My God did it and only my religion is ultimately True!" ...doesn't mean anything's changed about the fact that this is human over-reaching, and your derived authority and claims about your book are still tremendously thin, especially if you're going to demand obedience with them.

I don't have a problem with the possibility of Gods existing, but M-theory doesn't 'prove' anything. Especially not your logical leaps: "If any can exist, mine must be the only one and my book must be his commands!"

That just doesn't follow.

It's a big multiverse. Probably wasn't all put here for the benefit of one tribe out of millons on one planet out of billions in one galaxy out of trillions out of one infinite foaming multiverse. :)

I wish you the best life has to offer - and I hope that whether or not there is a God that you have happiness for as long as possible. If you are correct, then I am doomed. Let's hope I am not.

Reply to LUKE:

It is senseless to continue our discourse. You and I are entrenched.

I wish you the best life has to offer. I also will wish that you wake up a second before departing this Earth and be saved.

As a descendant of the first man Adam, you have the breath of God that was breathed into Adam's lungs. God exists within you.

What do animals have to do with technology? Did we build them? Also, if animals have a sixth sense about natural disasters that doesn't prove the existence of God nor does it disprove the wonders of technology (that didn't even make sense). Supposedly many people peformed miracles other than Jesus. Loki birthed Sleipnir, Odin's eight-legged horse. I don't understand what #5 is supposed to mean...ofcourse it doesn't lessen my love for it, but if I have the power to avert it, I would, unlike your God, who doesn't. So who interprets the intent of the Bible correctly? Just you? You have a monopoly on truth, eh? Let's hear it. Do black holes exist? Why? Why are there other galaxies if this is the only one that matters? If God sent me an email, I would believe it, but it would have to be authenticated by the email server here and I don't think God keeps public and private keys backed up, so I would probably just get a jibberish encrypted email. How convenient that God exists outside of the realm of our understanding, makes it kinda difficult to understand him, eh?

Reply to LUKE:

1. God is a spirit and not a physical being or man.

2. Jesus who's is God Incarnate and He came here on Earth and He spoke to us and practically no one believed Him even though he performed miracles. So, even if God was to send you fax or an e-mail or direct you to an interactive web site, you still would not believe.

3. Technology is overrated, an example:
Animals know when an earthquake is coming or a tsunami just like in Indonesia in 2004. So, if we are to use our superior intellect in that light then we are really stupid because we sit there and look at the 30-60 foot wave coming at us while the animals are on high ground.

4. Our purpose is to live and love God. Also, to be fruitful and multiply.

5. Another example: If you rescued a day old puppy and then 4 years later your dog is run over by car does that lessen your care and love towards the dog because you did not jump in front of the car yourself to avert the accident?

6. The intent of the law and the letter of the law is two different things such as stoning. People with good intentions sometimes mis-interpret the intent of the law (Bible). You see it now with the radical Muslims.

Nonsense Tom. What is your purpose in life? Make babies and post on blogs? Good for you - God has done you well. What Creator? God, Shiva, Allah, who? Is it a person, animal, object? My knowledge is not all-encompassing, and you accuse me of being arrogant because I don't bow to an invisible man. I think that it is arrogant of you to believe that a single book has every last bit of knowledge contained within. What does the Bible say about microwaves, quarks, weak gauge bosons, and the like? Oh yeah, nothing. Who says what is lesser and greater? I can't say whether or not someone created the universe, but I believe wholeheartedly that you are wrong. I think that the God of Christian faith is cruel and apathetic to our existence, and I believe that he does not exist - although I think the history of the Bible is important, I don't believe that most of it is true, just as I don't believe that Odin, Zeus, or any other God existed. What makes your God different from them? My "purpose" is to reproduce and survive. If Jesus wants me to do otherwise, I didn't get the memo...maybe since the Bible doesn't say anything about radio waves, he is still using snail mail, so it might take another million years for me to get it. Oh wait, a creator just happens to be able to do anything - a debug code, if you will. How convenient. My point is, that maybe you are right, and there was some guy who made the universe because he was bored - I just think there is a better explanation. I have to think of God in terms of myself, and he doesn't cut it. I get bored easily, and I don't love everything I "fabricate". You think that you understand your world but if we listened to people like you we'd still be in the Dark Ages and stoning people.

Reply to LUKE:

So here we are: You, the cohorts of atheists and non-believers and your science can ONLY prove up to a certain point. The stoppage of your proof is at the elemental level.

As for me and rest of the believing world we also cannot prove God to a certainty and that is why it is called "faith".

As far as I know now is that you probably understand better the difference between create and fabricate.

I hope that you also understand that your knowledge is not all encompassing as to equal the Creator's knowledge. There's always better and worse than you as there's always lesser and greater than you. Once you accept that Someone as God is greater than you and you'll understand your world and your purpose in life.

I agree that science has a lot of holes, but God certainly has plenty of them too, and I hope YOU can acknowledge that. Don't give me that smug "a bit irritated" crap - you are just as irritated as I. Summing everything up to magical, invisible men may suffice for you, but it doesn't for everyone.

Reply to LUKE:

Agreed that a computer engineering degree is hard to get. Though, I would not put it on par as being equal to God's Greatness and his ability to Create.

To me that's one hell of a disconnect.

Reply to LUKE:

A bit irritated are you?

Okay - Science explains that water is Hydrogen and Oxygen?

Science gave you the knowledge of what water is. Now will science give me the knowledge of where Hydrogen and Oxygen came from? Show me in a science book where the elemental materials came from and you'll convince me.

So as you eloquently stated above that Science is "proof" then I ask you proved what? That water is comes from the two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I understand your point of view about science but it does not "fully" explain the Creation of this Universe by God.

You see science has a lot of holes too. At least you can agree with this statement.

So, you also need to put up, or shut up yourself because you're short on answers.

Also, a Computer Engineering degree is not an easy thing to get, my friend. Much harder than any Theology degree, I assure you.

Prove that he created our Universe. See? You can't. I can think of quite a few things I would improve upon in the universe - and give any idiot an eternity to figure something out and they sure will. I think your arrogance speaks volumes about how representative you are of your faith. It's difficult to believe in a master when his pupils are so foolish. Who is fabricating? Science is proof, your old book is not. Explain away it's inaccuracies and lies. Go ahead, once you have an eternity to fix the Bible it won't sound like such nonsense. True we cannot create particles, but how did God? Where is his particle factory. Put up, or shut the hell up.

Reply to LUKE:

Why am I not surprised at your arrogance?

First of all, you said make things and to me is different than to create.

You make things of available "created" by God materials around you and to me that's fabrication just as I would describe your sense of superiority and arrogance, fabrication.

God is much smarter than you and you're right in saying so because He did create our Universe.

So what! I made a couple of typos. I speak French, Spanish, German and English fluently. And you speak what? Americanese?

Tom, God obviously didn't bless you with spelling skills, or self-control for that matter. Where is your God now? Done creating and now hiding from his creations? Sounds like a coward to me, but what can you expect something that MAN made in their own image. What is your degree in...magic or ignorance? You are fluent in both. Obviously not English, or Italian. Your problem is that your diluted religion has you believing that you have a monopoly on truth - but you are just an ignorant person like all of us - I just don't embrace ignorance as the answer. I don't think, "Well I'm smart and I make stuff so someone REALLY smart must have made the universe." So what? You aren't proving anything, just making yourself look a fool. Good luck with your condemnation and misanthropic nonsense. After all, it was your people who invented Hell to quell the shame of your laziness and lack of knowledge. Maybe you should spend some time there yourself?

Reply to CRAIG:

And...the sand you make that too from out-of-nothing, really?

Computer engineering? What you load a CD and run setup? Plug the power cord first then the cat-5 (or cat-6 if using gigabit) cable from the NIC to the router. Set-up TCP/IP using DHCP (that's so haaard boy). Oh...don't forget to plug the router to cable modem too. The if you cannot get out to the internet then run ipconfig /all and troubleshoot. Hmmm.what else is so complex?

Maybe you'll do more advance stuff like setting folder shares and userids. Hmmm...what else is so complex in computer engineering or systems engineering as to challenge the power of God.

Go ahead take solace in your punny computer skills. The market is saturated with computer engineers.

Tom: "Cool your jet engines -- You challenge us believers and now you're challenged, you go off the deep end."

Huh? I didn't challenge anyone.

Tom: "Explain to me how the branes got there to be colliding and forming our Universe? If it the branes were always there then there was no beginning? Did it appear just by magic?"

We don't know yet. Maybe they always were there. Although when you get to that level, even the concept of time as we know it gets pretty iffy, so words like "always" start to lose their meaning.

But regardless, I can just as easily turn the question around: If God was always there then there was no beginning? Did He appear just by magic? Why is God allowed to be eternal but the universe (or whatever it came from) not?

Tom: "You and I are like bottom dweliing fishes in the middle of the ocean"

I am not a fish.

Tom: "and as such probably do not have the capacity to understand humans roaming the Earth with their computer, space exploration and other stuff..."

My degree is in computer engineering. Given enough time and equipment, I could probably build you a computer starting out from raw sand, so I understand computers pretty well, thanks. :)

Tom: "Yes, you're a fish compared to God and you will not be able to create like God..."

How do you know? I will demonstrate my powers as soon as God demonstrates His. :)

Tom: "Cappish?"

It's "capice", fyi.

Reply to LUKE:

Furthermore, you still cannot "create" anything even using a particle accelerator.

First, you would have to create the particles out-of-nothing. After you accomplish that then you "can cause to occur" your miniature black holes.

Also, black holes are part of Creation. The front of the black hole and back is part of the Universe.

As far as I know a black hole is just a tear in the fabric of gravity.

Reply to LUKE:

I believe is name is Lucifer who also thought himself to be as powerful as God.

Correct me if I am wrong here. God gave the devil his own world known as Hell to rule with its own city called Pandemonium?

That's where all atheists and non-believers will end up soon.

Also, Tom, they predict that in a short time we will be able to create miniature black holes in particle accelerators - so God better kill us off fast because soon we will be able to do whatever he can...CAPISHE?

See Tom, you are invoking purpose as truth - purpose is man-made, or is God just wandering the universe looking for those worthy of the "next level"? God didn't invent microwave ovens - man did.

Reply to CRAIG:

Cool your jet engines -- You challenge us believers and now you're challenged, you go off the deep end.

Explain to me how the branes got there to be colliding and forming our Universe?

If it the branes were always there then there was no beginning? Did it appear just by magic?

The power to create life out-of-nothing be it simple or complex belongs to God. You can't understand your own existence and you're going to learn how to create from God?

Just as Moses and other prophets could not look upon the face of God and He appeared in other forms because our "simple" minds would just plainly not understand His Divinity.

You and I are like bottom dweliing fishes in the middle of the ocean and as such probably do not have the capacity to understand humans roaming the Earth with their computer, space exploration and other stuff...

Yes, you're a fish compared to God and you will not be able to create like God...Cappish?

Tom: "Okay - 2 membranes - M Theory - 13 dimensions. And...they always existed? Like God?"

No, because at this point you invoke Occam's Razor. "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily", ie, choose the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions or agents. If we have to choose between the branes always existing, or God always existing and creating the branes, then we might as well pick the first option, because it requires one fewer entity.

Tom: "Man was the last creature made by God. Of course, non-believers would not be able to see God make Man."

Backpeddling? I'm not asking for God to show me how to make Man. I'm asking for God to demonstrate how to make *anything*. A single bacterium would do.

Tom: "Really, you don't see your absurdity in arguing pointless point with round-about sentences."

A pointless point? You're the one who brought it up. If it was pointless, then why did you mention it?

Tom: "You're so hell bent on trying to prove the non-existence of God but you cannot explain anything at all."

Now you're just foaming at the mouth. I'm not trying to disprove God at all. I wouldn't be so pretentious to try. On the other hand, you are hell-bent of trying to prove the existence of God that you cannot explain anything at all. :)

Tom: "Explain away until the moment of your death and hopefully you'll see your error."

I fully expect to see nothing, because I'll be dead; including my eyes and visual cortex. It's not really keeping me awake at nights though.

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

Okay - 2 membranes - M Theory - 13 dimensions. And...they always existed? Like God?

So the Big Bang is a residual effect of the 2 membranes colliding and pow wow a Big Bang occurs and we now exist.

We are progressing, now you admit there was a "before" before the Big Bang. It is just a matter of time - you will admit that a "before" the 2 membranes existed and caused by God.

I believe that in Bible (Genesis) - The blurb about the firmament - Do you think it is the 2 membranes? After all it said that He separated (Big Bang) it...blah blah...

Yeah...I got you. At some point you'll come around that for all explanations you offer up you will cycle back to a greater Being or God created you.

Well, Tom, it would appear that the phenomenon called the Big Bang actually *didn't* occur in the context of 'something from nothing,' but rather, quite possibly, the collision of two 'membranes,' thus only one among a sort of sea of universes.

So, 'the universe' is just a tiny part of a still vaster 'multiverse.'

I'm not sure what idea of 'significance' would please you. :)

Reply to LUKE:

God existed before the Big Bang and He still exists today.

Our Universe started 15 billion years ago according to scientists (maybe you can dispute the scientists?) and by that it never existed before.

The Universe was no always here as some of you guys want to believe. Remember 15 billion years ago.

So go ahead a live your life (about 75 years) and do the most that you can with it.

You see, your life in terms of billion of years is really insignificant as your ill conceived comments.

You know, Tom, I'm not quite sure you know how to *read* that irony meter. :)

I guess the flooding thing wouldn't work anymore with inflatable rafts and boats and stuff. Also, I don't think every animal would conveniently be located right by Noah's house. Hopefully God will keep this promise, he apparently is really good at it, but takes long vacations in between. Wonder what he does when he leaves us to our bidding? Sunbathes in Bermuda maybe? Certainly not a God of convenience, after all, his people have to do everything for him.

Reply to Luke:

You wrote earlier: "I have a better idea. Everyone in the world all at once stop believing in God. If he gets pissed and smites us, then maybe he exists. If not, then he doesn't. I think the idea is sound."

God was angry with Mankind and flooded the Earth.

God made a promise not to flood again.

The next time our destruction will be by fire. I seriously doubt you'll be there to make a comment such as the one above.

Aaaahhhh! the irony meter broke yet again - we can fix, we have the technology. :D

I am certainly not a soulful person. No transcendental experiences, no heaven or hell - just trying to get the most pleasure with the least pain. I don't think that others' experiences are fantasy lands, but I do think that heaven and hell are fantasy. Life is cold and heartless, but oblivion is not.

Well, Luke, I think a number of religions teach that life *is* cold and heartless without, of course, their own beliefs, ...and, also, frankly, a lot of the folks who talk atheism tend to come off like they believe that, anyway.

Frankly, I think the assumption that others' experiences are necessarily 'fantasy land' doesn't win any points for sounding 'soulful,' either. But, perceptions and all. I definitely think it's an overstated case, from some quarters, but I can see it.

Also, why is it that the atheist point of view is viewed as so cold and heartless? I think oblivion is far more beautiful than any fantasy land (although a place with unicorns and vikings would certainly be bad-ass). Life without purpose is beautiful. Life is merely the war between pains and pleasures, and to purpose and desire is the root of it all. What could be more beautiful than life with no purpose? It's OK if you burn me at the stake...you won't be destroying my matter!

Jihadist - As for statistical probabilities, I am a trained and practicing economist…

And here I am telling you about economics and statistics. Actually, we use a lot of economic models in ecology and evolutionary biology, especially game theoretic models.

Thanks for the jokes about statisticians and economists. I actually don’t know any evolutionary biologist jokes, primarily because we are all so well-adjusted, though according to some our morals are poor and many of the monsters of the twentieth century used social Darwinism to justify their behavior. For myself, I have an incredible urge to rape and pillage, but I’m doing my best to resist.

Cheers,

Maurie

Thanks for all the observations and comments re my previous post. It was much too long, done in between looking at the other three monitors, fielding phone calls and naturally unpreviewed before hitting the send button. Women thinks they can multitask better than men.

Firstly, I am not really interested in questioning the beliefs of the adherents of other faiths as all believers knows that organized religion needs to be seriously questioned as per practices and positions that have nothing to do with what the founders of the respective faiths taught or in the name of God.

As is apparent, all organized religions need to look within to "cleanse" them of the man-made rules, positions and practices. I am not in a position, say, to tell the Theravada Buddhists, how their Buddhism needs to be cleansed of practices by monks of getting income from lays Buddhists such as astrology among other things Buddha never taught.

Secondly, I agree with Maurie Beck that Islam is increasingly radicalized by politics, mainly Middle East politics. Even in Indonesia and Malaysia, that used to be benign so to speak, globalization and increased access to international media and the Internet make it possible for Muslims to reach out to one another across borders and sects on issues.

The Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon controversy was facilitated by the Internet and aggravated by the political/diplomatic faux pas apart from the dubious intent of the publishers. Not to mention Muslims never denigrate the founders of other faiths (as Muslim Man explained in his post briefly), but their adherents are another matter and are subject to their points of views and what they do.

The Pope Benedict speech blows up because of Muslim belief that the pope represents and speaks for all Catholics. Never mind the speech is taken out of context and such. Jerry Falwell may say all he wanted, but he does not represent all Christians and Muslims generally ignore his rants.

The Gernman opera director who decided to make a point about religion in Mozart's opera by rolling the beheaded heads of Jesus, Buddha and Prophet Muhammad PBUH etc on stage in Germany was widely know in the Muslim blogs and sites, but hardly covered in the Muslim media. As I read in many Muslim blogs, this antic was dismissed as being German, and not a very flattering view of Germans as such. And it was dismissed with nary a street protest or boycott.

And Maurie Beck

As for statistical probabilities, I am a trained and practicing economist, (apart from getting degrees in international law and Shariah that really helps) to be involved in the Islamic banking and financial services sector. I have no fundamental problems with collating and analyzing stats to (Hitchens forbid), anticipate and presuppose future demands and/or trends. A form of astrology, no? And we don't need to go into gini coefficient or the games theory here:)

Yes, there are many things said about statitics apart from "three kinds of lies, damn lies and statistics" or we won't know there are now 300 million Americans, how many Mormons in the US, who won elections, to calculate GNP/GDP etc. Here are some more:

Have you heard about the statistician who can't swim and got drowned because the average depth of of the river was three feet?

And there was this statistician who put his head in the oven and his feet in a bucket of ice who said, on the average, I feel fine.

And no, I won't be sharing with you too many jokes on economists, or international law, or Shariah scholars/graduates today, but here is one on economists:

And economist, an engineer and an architect were marooned on a desert island. The only thing they had to eat was a can of beans. They have nothing to open the can of beans with.

The engineer said, "I will build a fire, put the can of beans in, and the heat will explode the can open."

The architect differed, "No, if we do that, the beans will explode all over the island and we won't be able to eat it. So, I will be a structure with a roof to capture the beans."

The engineer and the architect remain dubious about their plan's practicality and viability and turned to the economist.

The economist pondered and said, "Assume a can opener."

Best regards as always.

Gee, Frank, now it's 'self-important' not to try and make the whole world obey some rules of mine.

I think you got it backwards, again.

Why do things need purpose? Why would something conscious need human beings to exist? If God made the universe solely for man, why are there endless other planets and stars? If God exists, where is he? Isn't it convenient that he happens to be invisible and outside of the laws of physics. So the Big Bang Theory is nonsense because there wasn't a sentient being to will it into existance? Nonsense. Things don't need a purpose for living. God is man-made because purpose is man-made. By the way, Tom, what is a "wondrous wonder" is open to perception - and since not everyone in the world finds the Crab Nebula visually stunning (every girlfriend I have had thinks it's pretty ugly), I think that makes each person more their own God than anything else. If any of you have the power to invoke God, then do so. I have a better idea. Everyone in the world all at once stop believing in God. If he gets pissed and smites us, then maybe he exists. If not, then he doesn't. I think the idea is sound.

Reply to CRAIG:

Man was the last creature made by God.

Of course, non-believers would not be able to see God make Man.

Really, you don't see your absurdity in arguing pointless point with round-about sentences.

You're so hell bent on trying to prove the non-existence of God but you cannot explain anything at all.

All you have are words limited by your own humanness and they fall short of explaining the wondrous wonders of the Universe.

Explain away until the moment of your death and hopefully you'll see your error.

Aaaaaahhhh...the irony meter is broken again but we can fix, we have the technology -- Scotty.

Tom: "You're funny -- You need proof when proof's abound on the ground you stand, the life you're living and the trees you see.

That's your proof, the entire Universe."

Nope, sorry. Since no one actually *SAW* God create the universe (or anything else for that matter) out of nothing, I'm afraid we have to dismiss all that as evidence.

"Will it be sufficient if God was to manifest Himself before you and shoot lightning bolts from his eyes or yours?"

It would be impressive, certainly, but the challenge was to demonstrate how to create something out of nothing. :)

"You exists and making idiotic statements is proof."

I thought you said you weren't throwing insults?

String theory? Well, it's evolved into what they call M-theory, ...basically the problem with string theory is that there were like six of them that *worked,* which isn't very elegant, till they plugged am all in to this 'M-theory' with eleven dimensions... I think it's pretty promising, certainly functional, in that it seems to be potentially able to account for anything we can observe.

And it's got 'layers' in it. :)

One criticism of it is that though the math works, it may be past the point of being falsifiable with any measuring instrument we can foresee having. (That's been said before about other things, though) All pretty understandings, though. And it may force us to turn around and have a look at the consciousness we're trying to measure with.:) )

One thing I observe about so many of those movies and things that are said to 'glorify witchcraft' and all is that they actually *don't.*

Most of them have the very Christian, idea of a zero-sum universe, ...often populated with 'evil' creatures and maybe an unknowable 'good' supernatural agency, but mostly it's the same old same morality play about magic costing in certain ways cause it's some kind of 'deal with a devil' or something...

In other words, movies like 'The Craft' just take some of the trappings of Wicca and plug them into a Christian sort of world. I think one thing that's missed out on by the people who insist that they have something to do with Wicca (whether to call us 'evil' or to want 'magic powers')

...is that in these stories, it never works out well to deal that way, does it?

Maybe there's characters to identify with there, undeniably, but actually viewing the world that way just doesn't work too well, does it? :)

Some Christians get offended by the idea that 'witches' can be *good guys,* but it's still sort of the same old good guys vs. bad guys world.

No wonder the kid didn't seem to get anywhere. :)

Thank you Paganplace,
It is so hard to explain things to someone that is totally non Pagan and not really wanting to understand. Wicca can not be explained in one easy lesson.

When most folks think religion, they think of their own. They can not understand something so different from what they understand. Frank likes to belittle, that is his protection, his defence.

I had a young woman come to me to be taught. I tried to help her, for more then 10 years I tried. I could not get The Craft movie out of her head.She did not want the truth, she wanted fantasy...it was easier then the real. Frank is the same way...it is easier for him to believe what he is told by haters...hate is easier, you don't have to think, you don't have to care, you don't even have to be empathetic. You just hate. Thinking is harder...understanding is painful.

Wicca is not easy to explain...its an onion that you pull the layers off of...it's self discovery and its layers of living.

How do you feel about String Theory? lol...
Blessed be,
keir

I should add, too, there's lots of versions of any of these words, too. :) Long and short of it is, Frank, if you're looking for an 'Authority' to plug into your worldview and habits, you're not really going to find one.

Not, I think, that that would stop you acting like it. :)

" frank collins:

where is the wicca code. i cant find one all encompasing wicca code. is there a link to it?"

*trying to think how not to confuse you.*

In more concise terms, no.

Watch this get non-concise, immediately, :)

The 'link to it' isn't on the Web, anyway. :) Well, it's not on the *Internet,* anyway... except when it is...

But know that your seeking shall avail the not, unless you know the Mystery: ...and if you find it not within yourself, you will not find it without.' :)

No books. These are about specific things specific groups are doing, anyway.

Frankly, the 'Ordains' would get pretty blank looks from most Wiccans, anyway: (there's some debate on when you actually stop being 'Wiccan' and when you're just a general Pagan: an issue I don't particularly care to fuss about until someone forgets what Traditions are *for.* I have a tendency to just say 'Pagan' among the Pagan community and 'Wiccan' when in the general population, people are talking about 'Wicca' as a *belief system.* :) )

Mostly that's about whether you define Wicca as one of a class of bodies of practice, or more in terms of 'creeds and shared culture...'

Definitions are always tricky, especially since our culture lacks ready *language* to describe what's to us a pretty simple interplay.

But none of this is 'scripture' in the sense you are looking for (something to quote and call 'evil, no doubt, to obfuscate things,) never mind 'all-encompassing:' so it wouldn't do much good.

I prefer to keep anything that sounds like that pretty short and sweet: there's a reason our 'Codes' aren't meant for public consumption: and why Traditionals tend to be cheesed off when some version or purported one gets out there: someone'll end up going and treating em as 'Authorities' and then we're in the same kind of squabbles we're supposed to be avoiding. :)

The 'Codes' are fully-acknowledged to be written by *people,* for one. Carried on by a tradition, where deemed necessary, (many of the traditions involve change there, too: one Book of Shadows won't necessarily be like another.)

If you want what the Wiccan 'common denominator' is, what we call the Charge and the Rede, that's the closest thing you'll find to 'Scripture' out there, and those *could* be posted here, being brief enough: heck, 'Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill: 'An' it harm none, do what you will,' spends almost as many words pointing out the brevity of it as saying it. :)

The 'Charge Of The Goddess' can be seen as encapsulating most of our values 'religiously,' ..if there's an "Inspired Word of the Goddess," for most of us, that's *it,*

...and those of probably a sizeable majority of the 'Neopagan movement' in general: but even how *that's* taken doesn't generally extend to slavish literalism: ...we know it's words, in other words. :)

You've actually *quoted* Starhawk explaining a lot of this, but only to repeat the usual defamation, "All you believe is, 'If It Feels Good, Do It.'"

Said before that's not it. :)

If we thought we had a book that was that darn important, you'd think we might have mentioned it by now. :)

Frank-
"but that does not mean that there are not some who are bad islamics - and as a result thereof, have a chance of being a good person.
being a christian is not, by its very nature evil, so if you are a good christian, you are a good person. but if you are a bad christian you may still be good, but you can also be a bad person."

A "good" Christian is a matter of era, isn't it?
A good Christian at one time meant fighting to keep slavery.
It once meant keeping women from the vote.
It once meant men owning their children.
It once meant burning people alive.
It meant torture
It meant beating
It meant forcing people at sword point and with slavery to convert.
It meant taking children from their parents and beating them for speaking their own language or keeping their own beliefs.
It has meant invading other nations...

Being a Good Christian has meant different things to different people. I can see the actions of the people who claim that religion as being seperate from the religion...but some times its really hard.

Oh Frank, do you watch Fox News?

Do you know anything about history?

terra

Frank,
I am a teacher of my religion. I have been part of this faith ever since before I knew there was a name for it...to find our codes you would have to look under Ethics.

We have The Rede, We have the Creed, We have the Principles and we have the Ordains and we have more...

An overview:

Everything is connected to everything else
Everything must go somewhere
Nature knows best
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
-----

13 Goals of a Witch

Know yourself
Know your Craft (Wicca)
Learn
Apply knowledge with wisdom
Achieve balance
Keep your words in good order
Keep your thoughts in good order
Celebrate life
Attune with the cycles of the Earth
Breathe and eat correctly
Exercise the body
Meditate
Honor the Goddess and God
-------------

Frank, you will notice that commonsence, striving for widom and knowledge is the foundation of our beliefs. You will also notice that careing for ourselves and others comes before Honoring the Gods. Why? because if we care about ourselves and others, that is honoring the godsthat created us.

I could place all our "laws" on this forum, but we do not broadcast our laws of beliefs for a reason. Because as a mystery religion it is revealed through a personal connection and experience with the gods. We do not have the kind of laws that say do this or go to hell. Our religion is one that says you will learn how to live in love and balance. How long it takes is up to you.

And I will say this to you...how long it takes you to release the hate you have stuffed in you, is up to you. Hate can make you blind to truth.

You are again mistakeing religion with politics when you equate Muslims with nazis. I knew a German elder lady whose Mother, Father and older brother was killed by the nazis for being in the underground and fighting them. And they were Germans.

Hate knows hate..if all you can find in any sacred text is hate then that says more about you rather then it.

My Goddess says:

for behold, I am the Mother of all living,
and my love is poured out upon the earth.

I try to represent my faith in a way that is honorable to my Gods...is your God really proud of how you talk about His other children?

Please walk in peace,
keir

I think too many confuse religion with politics.
As a non- Chrstian, Muslim, Jew...I could look to the past and watch the present and say the root of the tree that those religions came from was rotten and needed cut down. Well I do not think that...but I find that those holding Fundamentalist views of all three of those religions are useing their religion to gain power for themselves politically.

In Wicca we have a strict code that we do not manipulate to have Power Over. This is what fundamentalists do...they do what ever neccessary to gain power over others. It gives them monitary gain as well as ego gain.

I have seen the leaders of America use fear mongering to gain power...while our Chickenhawk leader talks to his philosopher god. Muslim fundies use fear to gain their political power. The Zionists attack innocents to gain their own power. All useing religion.

But is it really the religions or the people involved? There are millions of Christians that care about the poor and disenfrangized...there are Muslims that are fighting for women's rights and careing about equality for all people. There are Jews that are fighting to end the attacks and killing of innocents in Palestine. These are also followers of the same religions, but have different understanding of their faith. They only want to share the light that is given to them.

Those in here that are hate mongering are no different then those they are hateing. They are seeing a complicated picture and taking a small portion of it, it is really a prism with factions and colors. It is only a simple mind that sees humanity in simple ways.

One thing that I have lived my life by, there is a reaction for every action..Its called the Law of return. Those that hate will recieve hate, and you can not get truth from a foundation of dishonor.

Blessed Be...
terra

Jihadist,

First of all thanks for your comments on my religion post. I'm glad it was helpful. I've also seen that you are being attacked mercilessly, which is unfortunate, but not unexpected. You seem to be a very tolerant person. However, as Concerned has stated, “Islam needs to be cleansed just like the OT and NT have been in the last 200 years.” Actually, as Concerned knows, it took 1200 years of religious extremism before anyone even thought of questioning much of the ugliness of Christianity and that is still not finished, even today (just look at some of the Christian extremists on this website).

Unfortunately, that does not let Islam off the hook. In much of the Islamic world (especially central Asia and the Middle East), there is no discourse about the excesses of Islam, primarily because any reasonable person is likely to get murdered by extremists with their one true brand of Islam. In Indonesia and Malaysia, there is a more benign form of Islam, since it has had to coexist with other religions. However, there are more extremists in Islamic East Asia today than in the past, probably because of the radicalization of Islam throughout the world due to perceived grievances. I say perceived, because there are countries and people with real grievances against the U.S. and the west, such as the Vietnamese and the Colombians, but they don't use suicide bombers and fly planes into buildings because of the way we "treat our women". In fact, they don't attack us at all. I am hoping moderation will prevail in Indonesia and Malaysia. Nonetheless, even in Turkey and Muslim communities in Europe and North America, many mainstream Muslims often make excuses for obviously dreadful passages in the Koran and the Hadith, much as Christian fundamentalists do in the bible. I think it is incumbent upon tolerant Muslims (like yourself) and Christians and Jews and Hindus to intentionally counter the extremists within their ranks. It is not enough to say I disagree with them or tolerate intolerant people. The only way to make extremist intolerance unacceptable is to oppose them with their own words. If the Koran says it is acceptable to beat women, metaphorically or literally, you must first acknowledge that the Koran is mistaken and then challenge those who continue to advocate such ideas. The same holds for tolerant Christians or Jews.

Finally, I have one more small disagreement. You wrote - Hitchens seems to have forgotten that forecasting by economists, statistical probabilities by matheticians and scientists are also forms of astrology and fortune tellling based on observed human behavior, patterns of behaviors and other factors.

You cannot conflate “economists, statistical probabilities by mathematicians and scientists” with astrologers. Granted, playing the stock market may be a form of gambling, but economics and the use of statistics are viable scientific endeavors, unlike astrology, which supposes the alignment of planets and stars and other heavenly bodies influence human destiny. It is true that the moon’s gravity influences tides and other natural phenomena on earth, but there is no evidence for astrology forecasting human destiny. I will grant you that some of modern economics seems not to be very predictive, but I know very little about economics and so I am in no position to evaluate or pass judgment on it. As for statistics, you probably distrust statistics because of the famous quote “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” and it is sometimes is used to obfuscate the truth. However, statistics is a very powerful tool used throughout science, with a strong theoretical foundation based analytical mathematics (e.g. calculus) and empirical evidence.

"now that we know what causes lightning"

Um... we don't know what causes lightning.

What we know is, lightning should be impossible. A typical lightning bolt has a difference of potential of 100 million volts (can be as high as a billion volts), and averages six miles long.

The problem is, the dialectric breakdown of air is about 3 million volts per meter. Thus a six-mile-long lightning bolt should have a difference of potential greater than 150 billion volts.

No lightning bolt has that many volts.

I'm not saying God causes lightning (I'm an atheist myself), I'm saying we don't know (yet) what causes it.

Ms. Jacoby, this is another case (minor, this time) of not having your ducks in a row before you type.

You're bad about that. And it isn't always minor.

Vern,

Thanks for your post. You are addressing cultural evolution. Although cultural information is not encoded in the genes as genotype and phenotype are, it is encoded in ideas (memes that Richard Dawkins defined as units of information in the brain; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics). Memes can be grouped into larger, more complex ideas that are called memeplexes. There is not much debate about the fact of cultural evolution, but there is debate about memes and memetics, and whether they refer to “real things” as genes do.

Daniel Dennett and others view some memes, such as religion, as cultural parasites, but I think that is rather arbitrary. Memes and memeplexes can be adaptive or maladaptive or have no effect at all on fitness. Science, for example, has clearly increased human fitness (survival and reproduction), whereas other cultural memes such as religion, may be adaptive or maladaptive, depending on the context. For example, the Norse colony on Greenland was wiped out during the Little Ice Age by refusing to adopt Inuit resource acquisition practices (see Collapse by Jared Diamond). In contrast, in Europe, Christianity was plainly adaptive (for Christians) compared to Judaism.

There are actually many byproduct hypotheses. I mentioned the social bonding hypothesis, but others include recognizing agency and conscious intent. Certainly recognizing dangerous “agents” would have important fitness consequences. Most animals that are subject to predation or interact with competitors need to recognize danger as part of their anti-predator defense. For humans, it would be very adaptive to recognize malevolent agents (e.g. the saber tooth tiger that wants to eat you or the human from another tribe that wants to rip your heart out). However, this hyper awareness of dangerous agents could cause humans to ascribe agency to supernatural entities that might “control” other natural dangers (e.g. storms, earthquakes, floods, pestilence, fires, etc.). In other words, applying agency to natural disasters is a byproduct of selection for hyper vigilance real agents.

As I mentioned, there are many other byproduct hypotheses. Dawkins lists a number in his God Delusion book. Byproduct hypotheses are more likely to provide explanations for the origin of religion than for the maintenance of religion. Evolution (evolution is not an entity) needs something to work with before complexity can evolve. Complex vertebrate eyes (and all other complex visual systems in animals such as insects, cephalpods) evolved from simple cells containing pigments that were photoreceptive. These independent origins of complex eyes all share that common feature and ancestry of photo receptivity. Similarly, social bonds and agency might have led to ancestor worship and supernatural beings that are common features shared by many religions or spiritual beliefs. However, the latter is very speculative, whereas there is lots of evidence to support the independent origin and evolution of complex eyes from simpler antecedents.

Hewitt - That is an interesting post, but allow me to poke two holes in the group solidarity theory of religion as evolutionarily adaptive. First, all the social advantages of religion that you list would apply equally as well to a rugby team or bowling league. Yet, rugby and bowling are not religions.

I guess you have never played rugby. It's much like the shipwrecked boys on the island who worship a pig’s head in the Lord of the Flies. In addition, many sports teams, at least in the U.S., invoke intercession by the lord in terms of hitting a curveball, bowling a strike, or beating the other team to smithereens.

Seriously, you make some very good points. Much of what I wrote is very speculative, as is most of the literature on the subject. However, that is not to excuse the assertions, which are not much more than conjecture, on my part.

Your primary point is one of parsimony. In other words, we do not have to invoke religion to explain group solidarity in humans. As I mentioned, quite a few people from many different disciplines (e.g. psychology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, cognition, history, and philosophy) have tried to address the issue for a very long time. The one bit of evidence in favor of religion as an evolutionary response is that many human conflicts, even though they may involve other factors as well (e.g. competition for resources, political power), exhibit ideologically driven religious dynamics. Religion also formally incorporates many of the mechanisms to ensure group cohesion, including policing, hierarchies, narrative stories that often involve perceived persecution, dogma and ideals of moral behavior, status and reputation, and strong social bonds that promote apparent altruism. However, other researchers have suggested otherwise, including Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel, who ascribed differences between the have’s and have not’s among human societies to human biogeography that affect the resources available to those societies.

Hewitt - Second, dogs, elephants, and chimps, your examples, all seem to do well as social animals but do not have any religion that we can discern.

Unfortunately, almost all the evidence is anecdotal in terms of strong social bonds and grief after death. Jane Goodall and others have remarked on chimpanzee behavior during and following extremely large thunder storms, but again, that is anecdotal. If only we could ask other animals what they are thinking?

mo - people of reasonism. they walk around carrying a head full of reasons,but a dead blind heart,...

I was wondering why I run around raping and pillaging. It must be due to my dead blind heart.

You certainly are presumptuous, to suppose that relying on reason makes one an unfeeling blackguard. Just so you know, I have many friends who rely and reason and are simultaneously full of love. I wonder how that happened.

Just so you know, if not for reason, you most likely would be dead by now, killed in a pre-scientific society by some easily curable disease in our modern technological world that was arrived at by reason.

*just happening to be singing,as she reads about 'contemporary insults,*

200 years, eh?

"Change is insane, with eyes that blame
And morals that blank the lines
Of transmissions new
If only we knew
It's not all happening here
There blanks are scarce
And blindness is forgot
Is forgot

The perfect plan
Is not the man
Who tells you
You are wrong

Time has got nothing to do with it
Time has got nothing to do with it

Disappear into the clear
And visions understood
Wrestle now and shout the vow
Illusion is the pain

Time has got nothing to do with it. "

-Peter Murphy

I'll let you know when I'm insulted.

Oh, I did, didn't I?

Maybe I should just say, 'Err, what?'

I'm not sure what you call 'cleanser' but it's stinkin' up the joint. :)

PAGANPLACE et al,

The great contemporary insult to humankind is the koran. It needs to be cleansed just like the OT and NT have been in the last 200 years.

"Aaaaand my irony meter broke."

We can rebuild it. We have the technology. :)

Reply to CRAIG:

You're funny -- You need proof when proof's abound on the ground you stand, the life you're living and the trees you see.

That's your proof, the entire Universe. Will it be sufficient if God was to manifest Himself before you and shoot lightning bolts from his eyes or yours?

You exists and making idiotic statements is proof.

Tom: "Even the most simplest form of life you cannot make with your own hands out-of-nothing (create).

The keyword is create and it means out-of-nothing. So demonstrate your power and then I will shut up."

Tell you what, Tom, I'll cut you a deal. Have God come down and demonstrate to me how he creates something out of nothing (since no one has ever seen Him do it in person), then I will demonstrate to you how I do it. Fair? :)

"The only power you have is the endless arguments."

Aaaaand my irony meter broke.

Someone:

"Apparently your exposure to religion was VERY different than mine has been."

And isn't *that* just the elephant in the room? :) Or was it the gorilla at the dinner table.

We might wanna look to that. :)

Concerned:

Has the past history of your national, ethnic, or belief system caused anyone great harm?

Why would we hound you with updates containing half-truths?

I hope you would expect more from us. If Frank wants to engage the fundementalists who attacked us, then be to the point, don't group moderates with them, and be done with it.

We need to engage eachother with dialougue, not insults.

And, I didn't want to strain the metaphor, but I can't get 'room Full of Mirrors' out of my head right now.

You know what it looks like inside a 'glass house' when it gets dark out? :)

And, Oh, Concerned: presuming you're a Republican:

"wishy wash" continues as you never address the specific issues with your sham religion. You supposedly tour jungles, fly around the world investing millions of "oil money", and scuba dive while members of your religion continue blood baths and terrorize the world."

This is probably why people in glass houses maybe ought just get it over with.... Or, umm, right. Not throw stones.

*laughing.* I just saw this:

" frank collins:

what is your point terra?"

Ain't that the question, though?

Maybe that's 'why' "Terra" isn't *pointy.* :)

GABY,

I do not demean Jihadist. I demean her religion as you also should. Her sham of a religion wishes us great harm.

Concerned,

I really wish you would quit assailing Jihadist. She is a well-bred woman who never is insulting or dishonest. At least, I have never seen that in any of her posts, quite unlike yours.

It is one thing to defend what you believe or don't believe in. It is quite another to spew hatred at the whole Islamic faith because of the misdeeds and cruelty of some fundamentalist idiots.

I,too,find the killing and the cruelty by Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists reprehensible, but to constantly demean Jihadist or other Muslim posters who are moderate and earnest in their belief is equally so!

Frank Collins is being "very frank". His frankness is protected by the USA's First Amendment. There is no such protection in the Koran (criticize the "great profiteer" and you get executed).

Jihadist,

Your Islamic "wishy wash" continues as you never address the specific issues with your sham religion. You supposedly tour jungles, fly around the world investing millions of "oil money", and scuba dive while members of your religion continue blood baths and terrorize the world.

A good start for you would be to admit you were born in Islam and therefore have been "brainwashed" by the ramblings of a hallucinogenic, illiterate Arab whose sole agenda was to loot and pillage the lands of non-Muslims.

Jihadist,

Your Islamic "wishy wash" continues as you never address the specific issues with your sham religion. You supposedly tour jungles, fly around the world investing millions of "oil money", and scuba dive while members of your religion continue blood baths and terrorize the world.

A good start for you would be to admit you were born in Islam and therefore have been "brainwashed" by the ramblings of a hallucinogenic, illiterate Arab whose sole agenda was to loot and pillage the lands of non-Mulims.

Frank Collins is being "very frank". His frankness is protected by the USA's First Amendment. There is no such protection in the Koran (critize the "great profiteer" and you get executed) or the "constitutions" of Islamic states.

Muslim Man wrote:

"No where is the Quran is says oh Muslims do this or do that, it says oh Humanity, oh believers, or oh non believer.. do this or do not do this. So it does include all whoever believe in one God." This is something I absolutely did not know.

"Muslims respect all prophets of God same or better than their respective followers, they does not devide messangers of God as he is high or low but all are equal choosen by God, that's why muslims does not say bad about Jesus or Moses but both the Jews and Christians slanders Muslim prophets - this is out of ignorance." This is something I did not realize. I mean, I knew about it, but I didn't really think about it until you mentioned it here, in this way.

Thank you for your post, Muslim Man.

FRANK COLLINS:

Your post to Muslim Man was utterly despicable. You are the kind of Christian that appals me! Shame on you!

MUSLIM MAN:

I apologize for the insults of Frank Collins, not all westerners are as ignorant as he is!

Someone - sounds like you've belonged to some great churches. I've belonged to at least one like that. The only problem is the supernatural stuff that you're supposed to believe in, or pretend you believe in, to be a part of the community. Also, during every Sunday service, the supernatural stuff is reiterated - in the creed, the readings, often (though not always!) in the Sermon. It was just too much for me to take.

Acrapist:

Apparently your exposure to religion was VERY different than mine has been.

"The money spent on keeping religions alive should be spent on problems we face here on earth and for our children’s future." The churches that I have been a part of are accountable to all members when it comes to what all monies are used for. We know where every dime is going, and the majority of it is for humanitarian purposes, not some "church coffer".

"Tribal animosities perpetuated by the contesting gods and prophets should be replaced by global cooperation." By this I'm assuming you mean the differences between denominations. If so, I agree with you.

"Ignorance required to prop up holy books should be replaced by education in real science." Again, the churches I have been a part of have never downplayed the importance of science, and have even taught classes in how scientific study is important for proper theological study.

"Morality in servitude to an imaginary friend should be replaced by morality in servitude to each other." Morality in servitude to God should go hand-in-hand with morality in servitude to mankind. If you do not honor and serve mankind, then you do not honor God.

"If you need me to spell it out then I am afraid you have not been paying attention." I have indeed been paying attention, but I got a much different message than you did.

"An imaginary friend by any other name that tells you to punish (kill) people is not your friend and easily classifies you as insane. Why is it different when this friend is called god?" God has never told me to kill anyone. All things in the Bible must be read and understood within their context, and for the people that they were written for.

Frank thought processes are a reflection of his adversaries he so bitterly condemns. Instead of spear fishing for reasons for his enemies actions, he casts a large net that encompasses an entire civilization.

I'm sorry for what my civilization did in it's greed to control the resources of the world. I'm ashamed of how we treat and have treated the native peoples and imported slave labour in the name of god and destiny. I regret our propping up governments that abuse their citizens.

How can we not say that there are those amoung us who continue to do what is contained in your list of abuses?

We must admit that before we begin to point our finger.

Vie,
Also in the stories of the Greek Titans, Gaea=form gets with Void/Chaos/Ouranos and Time/Chronos is born. Big Bang!

terra

Vie, Thank you...

Frank, sok7 made a statement that baptism was Christian, while yes Christians use it...the use of water for cleansing spiritually is not exclusivly Christian. In my tradition we call it Blessed Water.

Frank, we all build on what came before us, we stand on the shoulders of those who paved the way. You may not like it, but Christianity has Pagan DNA. I can not think of a thing that is uniquely Christian.

The Hebrew Levite priests had to fight to keep the Hebrew women out of the hills on full moon nights...they liked Dancing and making offerings to the Goddess.

The Muslims fought to end the worship of multi gods... name a nation or a part of the world and Pagans owned it first...it is not anything special, we all have our 15 minutes of fame, and we just got here first.

I wonder what will happen to the cradle of civilization...where oil ministeries are saved and thousands of years old statues and artifacts are rubble. But then that was one way that Christianity survived.

Blessed Be,
terra

Frank
I am not going to answer for Terra Gazelle, who is perfectly and poetically articulate to make her own points.
It is a fact, however, that many of the customs, beliefs and rituals that we consider exclusive to our own faith -- in your case, Christianity? -- come to us from older traditions. Purification with water did not originate with John the Baptist, even if he did put it to good use. The structure and liturgy of Christian communities reflect the pre-Christian norms of each culture.
Early Christianity took over a pan-European community that was still dedicated to their female deity. Why do you think they dubbed Mary the "Blessed Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven?" The virgin birth was a way to explain a mother who gave birth on her own, without known paternal input. (It was also a way to estrange fertility from the sex act, but that's another discussion.)
I point out these examples not in derision but as a fellow, Christian, a Catholic even....
We all have more in common than we like to admit, that is what makes some of us nervous about these conversations.
BTW I think it was Wiccan who mentioned Chinese mythology: You're probably aware that the Chinese creation story is almost a word-for-word description of the Big Bang. Some scholars see this as evidence for human genetic memory of the earth's origin -- also a different discussion.

JIHADIST

God could be neutrinos for all we know? LOL!!!

Love that non-speculation speculation of a Muslim on the nature of God.

what is your point terra?

oops!what happened? Sorry about the double posting.

terra

SOK7,

About Baptism being Christian...

Purification with water -- a venerable Pagan sacrament Purification -- from unclean foods, or acts, or contacts -- is an idea so old it fades into pre-history. Pagans purified themselves with fire, incense, they even purified themselves with a winnowing fan. But the most used, most widespread tool of pagan purification was...water.

Pagan water purification rituals were used in the archaic Near East and are written about in the Old Testament. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water [Iliad, 1.313]. The Greeks even has priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water. After the conspiracy of Cylon in Athens in 632 BC, a fellow named Epimenides of Crete purified the entire city -- with water [Diogines Laertius 1.10.3].

The ancient Church Father Tertullian, noting that Pagan baptism preceded the Christian sacrament, describes purifying water's several Pagan uses:

initiation into the mystery religions -- i.e. baptism

purifying temples and even cities
washing away sin (!!)
"[Non-Christians] ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy [of purification]. ... For washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites--of some notorious Isis or Mithras... Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters." -- I.e. Washing away sin! [Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch 5.] Quote note

Second century Church Father Justin Martyr was also worried to explain why the Christian rite was preceded for generations by the Pagan sacrament. The answer, says Justin, was diabolical imitation:

And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves; and they cause them also to wash themselves entirely, as they depart [from the sacrifice], before they enter into the shrines in which their images are set. [Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch 62]

Here's how the Catholic Encyclopedia describes initiation into various mystery religions in the centuries before Christ:

"These mysteries usually began with the selection of initiandi, their preliminary "baptism", fasting, and (Samothrace) confession." [Paganism, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. "Baptism" in quotation marks because the Catholic Encyclopedia denies it was true baptism -- of course!]

The next time you're in Church, ask yourself, "What about what I'm hearing was new with Christianity, and what was already part of other religions in a culture where over and over again new religions were built with old parts?" When they get to the part about baptism, remember the widespread Pagan practice of water baptism. You'll know they're talking about a initiation rite and sacrament that preceded Christianity by hundreds of years.
---------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/pagan_origins_baptism.html

Pagans today use water to make sacred as their Pagan forbearers did. Baptism was around a long time before Christianity.
I understand that what Pagans did is not on the top of the learning list of non Pagans, so I thought you might be interested.

terra

SOK7,

About Baptism being Christian...

Purification with water -- a venerable Pagan sacrament Purification -- from unclean foods, or acts, or contacts -- is an idea so old it fades into pre-history. Pagans purified themselves with fire, incense, they even purified themselves with a winnowing fan. But the most used, most widespread tool of pagan purification was...water.

Pagan water purification rituals were used in the archaic Near East and are written about in the Old Testament. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water [Iliad, 1.313]. The Greeks even has priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water. After the conspiracy of Cylon in Athens in 632 BC, a fellow named Epimenides of Crete purified the entire city -- with water [Diogines Laertius 1.10.3].

The ancient Church Father Tertullian, noting that Pagan baptism preceded the Christian sacrament, describes purifying water's several Pagan uses:

initiation into the mystery religions -- i.e. baptism

purifying temples and even cities
washing away sin (!!)
"[Non-Christians] ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy [of purification]. ... For washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites--of some notorious Isis or Mithras... Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters." -- I.e. Washing away sin! [Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch 5.] Quote note

Second century Church Father Justin Martyr was also worried to explain why the Christian rite was preceded for generations by the Pagan sacrament. The answer, says Justin, was diabolical imitation:

And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves; and they cause them also to wash themselves entirely, as they depart [from the sacrifice], before they enter into the shrines in which their images are set. [Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch 62]

Here's how the Catholic Encyclopedia describes initiation into various mystery religions in the centuries before Christ:

"These mysteries usually began with the selection of initiandi, their preliminary "baptism", fasting, and (Samothrace) confession." [Paganism, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. "Baptism" in quotation marks because the Catholic Encyclopedia denies it was true baptism -- of course!]

The next time you're in Church, ask yourself, "What about what I'm hearing was new with Christianity, and what was already part of other religions in a culture where over and over again new religions were built with old parts?" When they get to the part about baptism, remember the widespread Pagan practice of water baptism. You'll know they're talking about a initiation rite and sacrament that preceded Christianity by hundreds of years.
---------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/pagan_origins_baptism.html

Pagans today use water to make sacred as their Pagan forbearers did. Baptism was around a long time before Christianity.
I understand that what Pagans did is not on the top of the learning list of non Pagans, so I thought you might be interested.

terra

To: Frank Collins:

Shame on you and I feel pity for your mother who raised you. She did not teach you respect for others, based on your Christian values you should love your enemies.

I was reading the posting of the Muslim Man and his pure discussion but your hateful writing is very disrespectful to felllow human. What kind of Christian values are you reflecting. Which heaven you are trying to go by hating others and commenting is such a way is terrible in a forum in the Washington post.

Editors should black list hate mongers like you on a public forum, every one is telling their experience and reason for faith but you are out of context and I have seen you again and again saying the same old broken record of hate cut and paste all the time is sickness.

Go see a doctor or counceleven with a child molester priest in your Church will not agree with your hate speech.

Shame on you and hopefully your God will forgive your mother for not raising a good Christian boy and idiots like you give a bad name to Jesus.

Peace to you.

*waving to Jihadist* You have a nice weekend, too, there, and thanks for all the writing. (which I'll have to clip for closer reading, tomorrow: it's about the end of my useful day.)

As you may see, in some of these discussions, it's easy for dome forms of faith to get caught in the various crossfires that seem to be being set up right now. I think certainly, in America, the tension between 'faith and reason' has become so politicized in part because it's... time for this to be resolved, really. Or acknowledged, more like.

I think buried contradictions have a way of festering, and much of the zealotry we see all around is in a way a response to a certain pain. Often a destructive one, unfortunately, but I think it can work out. :)

Blessed be. I do enjoy your posts.

You need proof that we did not evolve from bacteria? Why? What does scientific evidence prove to you? If it is proof you want then bring something forward, what proof do you offer that we did NOT evolve from bacteria? Oh, it's in a book? WOW, Why didn't I think of that? Oh, never mind, I've got a book too. It says we evolved from bacteria..... Sir we shall not debate proof with you as you will not accept it as real anyhow. Believe what you like, live in peace;
One thing though. My blood and organs can not be transferred to my own wife... something about our types being too different? So I guess similar does not equal 'same'. Why would god make my blood type so different from my wife's... didn't he know? And since she's asian, her ear wax is flaky and mine is sticky, and my hair is tightly curled and hers is straight, eyes, different...... similar? I suppose, we both have arms and legs, and eyes... It's as if we ancestorally came from pretty different places... I'm baffled... but just bring me some proof, and we'll figure it out...

Paganplace

I don't usually get into a conversion or discussion in On Faith except to throw in "grenades" to read on reactions/responses/clarifications/explanations and leave it at that. Or to hone in and taunt some posters re their posts on Islam and Muslims and make it into a silly word war for sport.

But as you are one of the regular posters I respect in On Faith threads, I owe you a response on what you said re my previous post here. Certainly, I was and am coming from a perspective on God and beliefs that as a Muslim. After all, this forum is On Faith, and we all come from our seperate and different perspectives. I knew then I would offend some for whom man is created in the likeness of God, but proceed anyway as some atheists do make much of such gods as among other basis for the historical antecendents of belief in God and I find that to be irrelevant. No one seriously would consider, say, studying and knowing the history of WWI would cause man to change his behaviors or, if your like, animal instincts on territorial markings, group protection, and aquisitions/expansions by aggression and domination.

Re polytheistic beliefs of gods and goddesses, being from Indonesia and living in Malaysia, I'd like to share with you that both countries have myriad polytheists still- Bataks, Dyaks, Negritos among others. Muslims leave them to their beliefs, but the missionaries/evangelicals seek to wean them from polytheistic beliefs.

Polytheistic beliefs such as all living things from trees to animals having souls are still widely held by Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims and coopted into Islam as we see no contradictions as all are creations of God. And Indonesians and Malaysians were animists, Hindus and Buddhists before becoming Muslims. There is a lot of layering of faiths and beliefs. Some Muslims in both countries are not comfortable with this fact but leave it at that except when some Muslims make offerings to trees for favours.

You do know that Muslims gleaned the 99 Names of God to capture the essence of God but which was not translated into figures due to religious injuctions. Besides, how do you carve out The Great" or "The Allmighty" as a stone or marble figurine.

And you do know that the Kaabah in Mecca is a manifestation of common purpose, a goal, a symbol in seeking truth and towards God. On God, in Islam, as in other faiths that acknowlede there is a God, God is, at once, literal, metaphorical, spiritual and mystical. Left to believers's free will to sort those out.

Belief in God is personal and a faith of the unknown and unknowable. Organized and structured religion is different. I am too, too happy to get on and work with anybody, everybody who are against the abuses of organized religions in the name of beliefs. On matters of faith and belief of an individual, I respect them and take all as personal belief seperate and/or different from the formalism of organized faith, dogmas and structured beliefs.

The best summary on organized religion for me among posters here is by Maurie Beck in his first post of this thread. He neatly encapsulate why and how organized and structured religion came into being for commmunity cooperation, common purpose and survival. Ibn Khaldun, among the first of the classical scholar/historian/proto-sociologist who attempted an all-eveloping view of society, would have been very impressed.

As for atheists, I do set higher standards for them, taking them up on their insistence on reason. Certainly there are calls for "reason in faith" as articulated by Pope Benedict among others. But others contend there is no reason in faith. As for me, reasons of organized religions of any faiths are of primary concern and interest - in what they do and say in the name of and for God.

Atheists such as Hicthens do make some embarassing points on beliefs and believers sometimes. Embarassing for him, such as the article he wrote on astrology here recently. He got a quite of thrashing re that piece and deservedly so. He seems to have forgotten that forecasting by economists, statistical probabilities by matheticians and scientists are also forms of astrology and fortune tellling based on observed human behavior, patterns of behaviors and other factors.

As for God as a belief or an abstraction, matheticians do also engage in abstractions upon abstractions upon abstractions that may become meaningless. Just like belief in God.

My approach to God, or rather, Muslim approach to God is simply that you see signs of God, the creator, everywhere. Science is a way, a method to unravel and understand the mysteries of life and creation, to know and understand why everything has a beginning and an end. To understand the process of our beginning and end in creation and the universe. It is a continuing quest to go above and beyond what we know now of ourselves and God as the lifeforce. And I do really want to go above and beyond to see the "face" of God if I can - the life-given, the life ender of all creations. God could be nutrinos for all I know, and would fit right with the belief that God is invisible and everywhere.

Some atheists' points in dismissing beliefs can be easily taken apart if one wants to, but this On Faith forum is for a "lite" discussions. A start to understand what we and others belief in and why; and the causes, effect and flaws in our beliefs that needs to be addressed to enable us move forward free from the poison, not of religion, but those who poured poison into faiths and beliefs as individuals or through organized and structured religions as groups.

As of now, I see some atheists do poison goodwill among believers who share their views and concerns on many issues (including seperation of church and state) in asserting believers are delusional or moronic. I made light of that here for the obvious stupidity of that opening and consistent gambit in discussions. I teased them back, but seriously, that stance certainly make some believers raise ramparts, dig in, and attack back, suspending possible useful discussions. In spite of all variations, differences and shades of beliefs, most people want to live in peace and security, to make a decent living, have a good life, accept death, and move on with life and focus on the living. The dead will always be with us - in our memories and in our genes. As when we die, the living carry not only our genes, but memories of what we share and teach them in life. Have no fear of death. We have ancestors. We haved descendants. We are, if we look that way - immortals. Until the end of the human race by its own makings or a disaster from the heavens.

Have a nice weekend Paganplace. I am going off to the islands with my family for scuba, snorkeling, eating loads of seafood, and to smell of the sea and sun.

Best regards as ever.

The unofficial poll votes continue to be counted. With over 60% of the poll completed, "Mohammed the Great Hallucinator of Pretty Wingie Talking Thingies" continues to be the choice description of Islam's founder.

Someone,

To focus one’s efforts on getting into heaven, and getting others to do the same, distracts us from critical needs of our species. The money spent on keeping religions alive should be spent on problems we face here on earth and for our children’s future. Tribal animosities perpetuated by the contesting gods and prophets should be replaced by global cooperation. Ignorance required to prop up holy books should be replaced by education in real science. Morality in servitude to an imaginary friend should be replaced by morality in servitude to each other.

Religion is like heroin; you may feel good but your mind is in prison.

If you need me to spell it out then I am afraid you have not been paying attention.

An imaginary friend by any other name that tells you to punish (kill) people is not your friend and easily classifies you as insane. Why is it different when this friend is called god?

Lady Keir Gazelle-

That was a beautiful parable. Thank you.

do you want videos of islam designed, produced and distributed by islam:

islam and mickey mouse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

and immans in the mosques in the west - preaching love the islamic way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8

"Monotheistic religions start with Genesis; how we came into being. People of religion think the lord made us and all that is around us.
Atheists think we evolved from a random big bang."

Well, sorta. Science has been moving since you were taught that.

"This means we evolved from bacteria, worms, etc.
Is there any proof that we evolved from bacteria( no chimps allowed in response)."

Why no chimps? We do share a common ancestor, actually.

There's 'proof' to the extent that proof exists as a concept, though, yes.

" do the numbers make out between the evolution to human beings from bacteria and the age of earth? is there any scientific fact to this? ( no chimps response please)."

Yep.

" are new species evolving too?"

Yep.

"have humanity reached the maximum of evolution or is still evolving?"

Well, unless we've reached an evolutionary dead end, yes, but let's see how we can adapt, if that's OK with you. :)

"why all people in earth are similar? similar blood types?"

Because of an evolutionary bottleneck which is believed to actually reduced our precursors in number to a matter of, tens of thousands, was it?

Most of the variations we see now have actually developed since then.

"how come there are no mermaids, feathered men, etc."

Why would there be?

"the fantasy that atheists attribute to religion is atributed on them too; by me a very skeptical old man, but nevertheless; someone who believes in the lord and his grace."

A lot of people who've discovered these things about our world believe in that, too.

They don't have to cover their eyes to 'see no evil..." Like certain chimps I seem to remember pictured as such. :)

MUSLIM TERRORIST MAN:

we know about the false religion and the child rapist named moho. yes he was a rapist. when you have sex with a 9 year old you are a rapist.

here is what we know of islam and its love for everyone else. but let me say one thing first. why would god spend 2500 years protecting the jews and giving them the promised land, and then fulfill a prophesy and give them jesus [i know the jews dont believe that] and then tell moho to kill the only people on earth that believe in him.

here is islam at its best. want to defend this you terrorist.
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and practice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority."
or the islamics crying over the crusades when they started them. here is a little short history about that:
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

I think, Anglico, that depends on standards of 'justifiable.' Personally, I think a lot of folks in my faith are counting on science to keep us honest, and keep us guessing. :)

If it's about science, that is. If it's about 'non-belief,' well. I think what we need to 'justify' isn't the contents of our heads, so much as what comes out of them. :)

Monotheistic religions start with Genesis; how we came into being. People of religion think the lord made us and all that is around us.
Atheists think we evolved from a random big bang. This means we evolved from bacteria, worms, etc.
Is there any proof that we evolved from bacteria( no chimps allowed in response). do the numbers make out between the evolution to human beings from bacteria and the age of earth? is there any scientific fact to this? ( no chimps response please). are new species evolving too? have humanity reached the maximum of evolution or is still evolving? why all people in earth are similar? similar blood types? how come there are no mermaids, feathered men, etc. the fantasy that atheists attribute to religion is atributed on them too; by me a very skeptical old man, but nevertheless; someone who believes in the lord and his grace.

No Man did not make religoin it is God gave religion to man so he can guide his life on earth.

The writer like most people in the west is in total ignorance about Islam because Islam is not a new religion started with the prophet Muhammad but with the first human created by God named Adam, he was the first prophet to humanity. Muhammad is the seal of the messangers choosen by God to guide humanity.

This chain of messanger began far before the religion we call Islam from 1400+ years ago. All the messangers gave the same message of truth to humanity. No where in the book or religion teaching of the prophet said Jews or Christians are infidel or going to hell but oposite. Quaran has many chapters and lines dedicated to Jews and Christians prophets' stories including Moses, Abraham, Noah, Aaron, Jacob, Adam, Jesus, etc.

Islam is like windows Vista we have today before we call them windows XP or windows 95 etc. Vista is the last version so as Islam is the latest version of the religion of the prophets or rightly guided messanger of God throughout the development of humanity over the ages from the very beginning with Adam.

Quaran explecitly says God (Allah in Arabic) will not judge a nation without a messager sent to them, so under this condition Gautama Buddah for the Buddists or Ram for the Hindus perhaps were messangers of God, what happened their teachings were not preserved over the years so we see a variation today for example the root of Hinduism is to worship one God same as Islam but we have many gods in hinduism today because they has given many atributes of God in shape or idols that Islam does not agree, but the principal teaching of Hinduism or Buddaism or Judaism or Christianity are same as Islam to make a person a better human.

No where is the Quran is says oh Muslims do this or do that, it says oh Humanity, oh believers, or oh non believer.. do this or do not do this. So it does include all whoever believe in one God. Muslims respect all prophets of God same or better than their respective followers, they does not devide messangers of God as he is high or low but all are equal choosen by God, that's why muslims does not say bad about Jesus or Moses but both the Jews and Christians slanders Muslim prophets - this is out of ignorance.

Islam is a natural progression of religion by God to humanity and Quran says as long as you do good and follow justice to be fear of God you will be rewarded regardless of you are a Jew or Christian, but there is no free heaven but you have to earn it with good deeds that is what counts.

Please learn about Islam and you would discover religion is from God I mean major religions not those from the star wars movie etc.

You could learn Islam by reading at www.islamicity.com or check at www.Youtube.com videos and search Islam.

Islam is to submission = submission of the will of God as the creator, the most natural way because we could not control our birth or death because it is from God wish so submission to Gods wish to be a good human is Islam. Who ever uses the name of Islam doing bad to society is not following Islam but some thing else,, read it yourself as the fastest growing religion in the world.

It is not conversion but to return to your soul's root so it is revertion to the natural God - the giver of religion. Thank you.

I'm not sure why I just bothered to read all this, but I did. And now I wish I hadn't. If it deja vu all over and over and over again.

I was hoping for an insight, a new sight, or maybe even an outsight. No such thing.

Believers believe, and have no need of anything beyond that faith to sustain them. Debating the essence of faith is, well, completely insane.

Non-believers (like me) don't believe. Using the illusion of logic to convince a non-believer that faith is justifiable is even worse than insane. We do not have the secret handshake.

Vern:
One more vicious assault b4 I go to work;

Of course, being tasked, there are questions that science cannot answer/will never answer, because they are not scientific at all and merely phiisophical, some in fact so bizzarly contrived as to defy the defy possibility of explanation. Such as 'How will science detect the signature of god?' 'cause you (or someone) made that up. There is no reason or scriptual basis to assert that such a thing actually exists. And without even scriptural reference what is the basis of the question?
"How big is music" "What color is death?" Who would I be if I where some-when else" "What was he thinking a thousand years ago" It's not hard at all to come up with questions science 'can never answer'. but as far as I see, I can't even get an straight answer from theists to the simple questions..."Where is Heaven, Where is God? How old is he? What happened to the dinosaurs? Why did my puppy have to die?
"Is catholicism the right answer, or is it really just '42'?"

gotta go. later.

So, Vern, we may deduce that it's not rational to say that unreliable accounts of the inexplicable are the basis for believing that what the book that mentions them says about pork, wardrobe, and what kinds of sexuality or belief are the Ultimate Command Of The Biggest God Ever? :)

Yeah, possibly.

Easier than trying to pretend you're not a primate. :)

To GABY:
Thank you for posting the article by Einstein that I was refering to i.e.
... "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.

Gaby

Jesus could have whipped out the holy text within the blink of an eye. But…

Before the invention of the printing press in 1455, very few people knew how to read and even fewer people ever had the privilege of holding a book, much less owning one. Hand-copied books were just too expensive before they could be mass produced on the press.

So before the printing press, information was passed on to commoners in the oral tradition. Parables, rhymes, and song are all memory tricks designed to help people retain information that is given to them orally.

The reason that it took so long to write and compile the books of the New Testament is that the apostles believed that the end of the age, the Second Coming, would happen in their lifetimes. It was not until fears of old age or martyrdom set in that they started writing their experiences down for the generation they would never meet in person.

To Gaby -
You say, if true, God (Jesus, whatever) would have proven it to us somehow. Think about the flaw in that logic. What form could such proof possibly take? You're requesting two things
1. Proof would have to be real and not some illusion or something only a few would "get."
2. Proof would ALSO not be "scientifically explainable" it would have to require a God.

But 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

In order for the proof to be fully real, by definition it has to be fully observable. No matter how odd or unusual it was, it would have to be measurable, testable, down to every detail, every applicable law, down to the nth degree. You want fire in the sky? Good, then it has to be real fire, right? I mean, with a real fuel source, real cause, real heat, real light, etc. The moment you find any slightest thing about it that a scientist couldn't detect, you would CORRECTLY deduce that you were mistaken in what you were seeing. It wasn't real fire, just an illusion.

But of course, once you established that is was not fake nor a trick nor an illusion, that would then instantly mean it would be "completely explained" scientifically and thus it would fail your test as proof!

My proof of God is well, um; water, sand, gravity, hydrogen, light, dark, my computer. Take your pick, anything. Jesus said, "consider the lily... or the birds in the field."

Men invented religion to spread the Good Word.

The Good Word was articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each new race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were eventually attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars and assets owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions.

"The average Christian is not very charitable I have found. They are good at preaching it, but when it comes to actually doing it and it attacks their pocketbook, the charity is quickly gone."

Well, not the ones I tend to associate with, but, what's 'average,' anyway. Don't let the mouthpieces fool you. People tend to be pretty good. I don't know if anyone was 'caused' to be charitable by one religion or another, ...hard to tell, anyway, my crowd doesn't tend to accumulate excess wealth in the first place. (When you don't have guilt and conflict about owning a lot of things, maybe the attraction just wears off.)

Let's be fair. We're talking about good people, here. Ideologies can be misleading, is all. Especially if they're saying, 'Give me charity to tell the poor how only Christians are charitable.'

A lot of good folks do stuff without advertising it, either. Maybe not enough. Maybe people think that if they 'support' the right religion, then charity magically happens, I dunno.

People tend to want to help each other. And have to be taught not to, by one thing or another, I think.

Sheen - What bothers me is when a Christian, makes an assertion that something is clearly spelled out in the bible, ergo, is true. Then, when pressed for details, things get fuzzy. It makes me not trust Christians who do this. I already don’t believe the things they do, but I know, from having been a Christian, that they’re not supposed to be deceptive about their religion. It’s another behavior that makes me think that Christianity can’t last much longer.

I know people, especially in the church hierarchy, have been less than honest for centuries – just like people anywhere. But now that so many people are educated and information is so available, it’s more difficult to deceive. I don’t mean to be too hard on you, Sheen. I know Christians are prone to making assertions - about what God wants or means, or whatever - preachers do it every Sunday and parishioners pick it up.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, BAPTISING them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACHING them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” --- Jesus (Matthew 28:16-20)

“Jesus told his followers to spread the Good News of Christianity (Matt28:16-20)” --- sok7

“that’s funny, my copy of Matthew 28:16-20 doesn’t use the word ‘Christianity’. I’m pretty sure it’s nowhere to be found in the Gospels and that Jesus ever used that word to describe himself” --- E Favorite

E Favorite, the TEACHINGs of Jesus Christ are collectively called Christianity by modern society. BAPTISM is a Christian ritual. Don’t be dense.

Great Analogy, Lady Keir Gazelle!

Joy F.

Truce!

I am not saying either that the possibility exists, but I reject the so-called "holy texts" for the simple truth that they were written by men for men. Divinely inspired? I dont' believe it!

There is to much diversity of religion all over the world for any of them to be divinely inspired.

I keep coming back to the fact that, if Jesus truly was the son of God with all the godly powers, he could have whipped out a holy text within the blink of an eye. One that clearly lays out what is expcted, instead of speaking in parables and leaving the task of writing everything down to others long after he died.

Even the earliest prophets expected to be paid for their services and were. For most, maybe all, it was the best job and best life they could achieve. Selling salvation is a good business. The masses however want to believe that God is just like them, same foibels (ego, anger, etc.), same appearance, same genetics, so in each religion God is man and vice versa.

Doesn't it seem that for some religion is like a foot ball game? You have points and touch downs, there are big cheese hats and big fingers...winners and losers...and the winners get to go to Disney World.

terra

"I think the real problem we're facing in America is that some people's religion, which they may turn to in harder times, is being used to cause people to *divorce* themselves from the very tools that can tell us if something *is* in line
with this 'love and compassion stuff' we religious types are always talking about."

How very right you are Paganplace!

The average Christian is not very charitable I have found. They are good at preaching it, but when it comes to actually doing it and it attacks their pocketbook, the charity is quickly gone.

Tom says he's a republican, so am I, but it appears that we are as far removed in our political thinking as we are in our spiritualism. My first priority is the well-being of my fellow humankind, immediately followed by the well-being of every other living creature. Pain and suffering makes me want to vomit, whether in my own neighborhood or in any other place of the world.

Most Christians will give lip service to that, but never actually do anything about it.

Gaby,

Don't take "little mind" as an insult. We all have them - compared to God.

Besides, I'm not saying my mind finds God any more plausible than yours does, initially. Only that, rationally, being able to recognize the limitations of my own mind, I can also recognize that his unlimited existence would be quite beyond my ability to comprehend it - and thus concede the possibility of that existence.

Just consider about what you "keep," Tom.

I know we all want to.

But.

The *people* are in debt up to their eyebrows on things we can't sustain unless we start being very *rational* about it.

This country was kind of founded to *get away* from feudalism: what do you think's gonna happen when the cash cow's milked dry and the ones with the resources call those debts due?

Holiness?

Not thinking so, myself.

Thinking it'll look more like *serfdom.*

Well Joy F, then you must have an inifinitly bigger brain to understand and belief all Abrahamic God stuff. I congratulate you to your infinite wisdom.

Tom's

"Simple solutions here:

1. You pay my extra taxes so we can have a surplus."

Very 'Christian.' How bout we not go into debt to give the rich tax breaks so we can have a surplus to, say, rescue New Orleans with, or anything like that that may turn up instead of spending that and then some on having a 'Crusade.' Oops. Too late.

"2. You give me the extra 10 grand and will save it and maybe buy a lawn mower, TV or something else and the by-product is some of us working will make those products and have a job."

Is money what you want?

A ten grand TV or lawn mower? I don't see ten grand in a *year,* never mind as a bit more tax return.

But then again, I don't have a regular job like that. Oh, *right,* that's cause I didn't get medical care earlier in life, and am now trying to be 'enterprenurial' again through a lot of recurring pain. Not that that necessarily helps: why, if there are more unemployed in America than before, why, just *stop counting them,* and wave a Bible. Let the private sector decide what sick they can and can't make money off of. Caring is Socialist, and Socialist is Communist, and Communism is Godless. Capitalism is Christian. Unmanaged capitalism is *more* Christian. Problem solved.

"3. That's right - I make my money and I want to keep it. And if you don't want yours then give it to me."

OK, Christian. :) (Am I still the one that's supposed to be afraid of your God? I keep losing track. )

"4. Really, I am not rich. It is already hard for any of us to earn money and I do not understand why we have to dole it out."

It's not always a matter of 'have to,' it's a matter of 'is it smart to.'

As the economy goes, frankly, we're largely a service economy now cause so much of the manufacturing and high-tech got outsourced so someone could make more money off poorer people.

Poorer and working class people here *spend* more of any given bit of money out there, cause rich people tend to *hoard* it. Or 'invest' it offshore.

Go ahead, buy your TV, odds are the money goes, not so much to workers, but people who pay other people to tell you to vote for someone who'll just enrich the fatcats and say 'Blame the unbelievers.'

Worked great in Arabia. Why not here.

I think the real problem we're facing in America is that some people's religion, which they may turn to in harder times, is being used to cause people to *divorce* themselves from the very tools that can tell us if something *is* in li
ne with this 'love and compassion stuff' we religious types are always talking about.

And if things get worse, well, that's just a further sign of 'The End is Near.' Or is it.

Anyway, you're obviously having a hard time, just consider that maybe we're all in this together, like it or not.

Blessed be.

You know I am better off with my belief. Yes, there is a god, I call IT, because IT is neither male nor female. IT is pure energy and IT did not create us, we are part of IT. Therefore there is no need to worship IT, there is no need to repent and there is no fear of death because we will simply return to IT. IT or ECLAT is great brilliance shining forth that empowers us to to good to all humankind and nature, whereas those who do harm to humankind and nature their photons (light) will be sucked up by a black hole (Much more humane than the everlasting hellfire, don't you think).

P.S. Gaby:

Do you really thing that a God who is infinity-bigger than your brain will really be "plausible" to your little mind?

Cleve - if you can posit something that a' priori cannot ever be tested, then science WILL say it is a meaningless theory - and it should. Now, good scientists will be careful to say that doesn't mean it's not true, just that it cannot be discovered by science, or at least, "until there's something science can test, then science can't be of help in that question." That's good.

But I think it is obvious there are questions we can ask, that we can pretty quickly deduce are not ever likely to be testable scientifically. I just posted an example, of how would you detect a Creator's "signature" if everything we can ever view had that signature? I'll be the first to admit that is NOT a scientifically testable theory.

So what do we do with those questions? If we can cling to our claim that science is the only way to be sure (i.e. to really know) then we have to be content to not have the answer. Otherwise, we adapt, we use culture, art, stories, and yes religion and/or philosophy to get those answers. Because they were not obtained with Science, they should not be used as Science. But they should also not be considered less "real" than science. Just different.

For example, one of those differences is that they tend not to "converge" the way science does. They do not discover truths that are independent of the person experiencing them. We don't even think of art or music or culture as "getting better" through the ages. If anything, evidence of "cultural progress" is often cited when more and more cultural traditions flourish in the same society - divergent music, stories, art, whatever allow more and more people to put a context or meaning on things. Why should religion be different? Why should it converge towards a common understanding of God?

A ya, Someone, I forgot about the omnipotent, the one word to explain everything. The conscious spirit who can make universes, humans, all of nature, and impregnate virgins by just thinking about it.

Sorry, that does not sound very plausible.

"Anyone who no longer believes in the tooth fairy"? That was a low blow - and a move of weakness. Why would you resort to implying such a blatantly untrue slam against the religious, many of whom have reached their certainty after much painful and intellectually honest searching, unless to destroy their credibility because you fear their arguments?

.. one of which you bring up yourself. In your rush to claim our "inflated opinion of ourselves" as the cause of our God-complex, you've missed the miracle that we are able to have an opinion of ourselves at all. You've failed to wonder and be amazed at our own self-consciousness - and all that comes with it. A Christian or Hindu, with their belief in the reality of the soul and their acceptance of the possibility of awe, would have been far less likely to make the same mistake.

Here's a thought experiment for the scientifically minded out there:

1. Assumption, if there is a purpose to a thing, then evidence of that purpose (evidence of a creator) should be detectable.
2. You could only detect a property of something, by comparing the thing to something else that does not have that same property.
3. But, what if everything had a purpose, everything had the same creator? You could never detect it, because everything you compare it with would have the same traits in that regard.

The old analogy of the person who finds a watch on a beach and knows immediately that someone made the watch is flawed. It only works because humans didn't make the sand, the air, water, atoms, radiation, gravity, and whatever else is on the beach. Thus we can distinguish the watch, the things WE make, because we didn't make everything else.

All that science can confirm is that if there is a creator, it made everything we've ever detected so far - making everything indistinguishable from everything else.

Reply to GABY:

The first Man was not born out of sexual relation. He was made by God.

You're still stuck at 1 second after Creation. You need to be at -1 or at least at zero second.

You are trying to infuse physical aspects to a world created by God. We are talking about Creation.

Vern; What is the source for your 3 point claim about science, that's quite clever.
uh, I don't think it is accurate though.

I'm no scientist, but let me make a stab at it.

Throw out number 1."Science is the only way to know any thing" I don't think that is a likely scientific assumption. If science were only limited to what it KNEW, then it would never find anything NEW. Science is about asking questions, posing theories, then lots and lots of other scientists beating the carp out of that theory till it either fails completely to be valid, or can not be DISproven given current tools. String theory has been around for decades, hundreds of scientists have worked endlessly to prove/disprove it.We are pretty much at the point where it seems to work, if certain severe assumptions are made (folding dimensions (I didn't have a 'dimension folder' in my chemestry set as a kid), but we really don't have the tools to be sure... By your thesis that the answer MUST be scientific (as we understand science) for it to be considered true, it would have been dismissed as complete hogwash years ago.. but rather than say "We don't understand it therefore it can not exist' Science merely says, "We don't nderstand it yet" and the search goes on... Science is about discovery, and questions... It, unlike intellegence-gap-filling religions, does not say silly things like "We can not possibly understand, should not even try to understand, will punish you for questioning our divinity"

Gaby:

Omnipotent = Omni potent!

Reply to GABY:

God is a spirit and exists outside our Universe and time as we know it.

Your rules of physics are true and apply to our Universe but not to God.

Oh, Tom, I forgot, being penis and spermless they also can not impregnate women.

Tom,

Spririts, being non-material, gaseous substance can not create material substance. It is simply not possible.

Reply to GABY:

God is a spirit - I do not know if He is absolute energy and blew up creating the Universe if that's what you're implying.

Acrapist:

I assumed we would. :)

I am however troubled about the destructive things that your religion was telling you. In what way were they destructive?

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

Simple solutions here:

1. You pay my extra taxes so we can have a surplus.

2. You give me the extra 10 grand and will save it and maybe buy a lawn mower, TV or something else and the by-product is some of us working will make those products and have a job.

3. That's right - I make my money and I want to keep it. And if you don't want yours then give it to me.

4. Really, I am not rich. It is already hard for any of us to earn money and I do not understand why we have to dole it out.

Someone,

You and I have different definitions of the word "smarter".

God, being absolute engery, thus must have exploded to create something physical.

"Surplus because of high taxes and the economy was in a recession a full 16-month before Clinton left office."

Is that why Bush was saying 'There Is no Recession' after the California brownouts messed everything up cause his friends in deregulated industry felt safe with him?

Oh, that's 'pre-9/11 thinking,' isn't it. :)

"Yeah...pay tons of taxes now and we can have a surplus. Personally, I would prefer to keep the 10,000 or so bucks and put it in a savings rather than give it to the govt. But, hey that's me and that's why I am a republican."

Ah, pretty rich, then.

Yep, say mean things to everyone that doesn't believe in your Saviour, who said something to do with rich men and eyes of needles, and keep the cash. What a country. :)

The Bible says a lot of things. If there was nothing, then there was nothing, and that includes God. Nothing = the absence of everything. And if God was there then there was something.

Reply to GABY:

I think that you are stuck.

The Bible said in the beginning there was void or loosely translated as nothing.

You need to understand that there was nothing nothing at all until God made the world we know.

And...God did rest on the seventh day and nothing went poof unless he was not asleep when he rested.

Because there was nothing and He created then it was the beginning. That's all.

For Maurie Beck:

The evolution of religion would be no different than the evolution of math and science and culture -- since all of these are in fact learned and not passed on genetically.

The parasite and byproduct hypotheses are by far the weakest, since religion, culture and science have all been suppressed by societies that have already attained the adaptive benefits -- yet religion, science, and culture always return once the suppression ends.

That strongly suggests an adaptive benefit.

Acrapist wrote:

"It is first necessary to entertain the possibility that god does not exist to then explore the question: why we made him up."

What about those of us who grew up and spent most of our lives "knowing" that God doesn't exist, and then got even smarter and found out that He does?

:)

Ohhhh, Someone, don't be sad!!!! I can't stand that!!!

Reply to RUSSELL D.:

Surplus because of high taxes and the economy was in a recession a full 16-month before Clinton left office.

Yeah...pay tons of taxes now and we can have a surplus. Personally, I would prefer to keep the 10,000 or so bucks and put it in a savings rather than give it to the govt. But, hey that's me and that's why I am a republican.

We have plenty of crude. We drive too much and you have global warming hypocrytes like Gore and the Hollywood stars. Yeah...that's a lot of good to drive a Prius but arrive a a red carpet event in a stretch Hummer limo or take a private jet around instead of flying coach.

Braxton is okay but a pain according to the folks at the Flamingo Las Vegas. Sometimes she doesn't want to perform because she wants to go the beach and about 200 people are laid because of her. She's high maintenace.

I was born with a hole in my head that happens to be the exact size and shape of religion. When I put religion into that hole I feel complete. But, by and by, I am troubled by the fact that the religion that I put in the hole I know is made up and just there to make me feel good; kinda like recreational drugs. When I take religion out of the hole, I realize that it did not come without cost. It did not let me think for myself. It told me to do things for the sake of imaginary friends and imaginary places. Some of these things were good, some benign and some were destructive towards the future of our species and planet. Now I have learned to be comfortable in the real world.

When you think that you are a hammer, it is not easy to put the hammer down long enough to examine why the hammer fits so nicely in your hand, or exactly when you made the shift from having it to being it, or why you have spent so much time smashing things with it. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It is first necessary to entertain the possibility that god does not exist to then explore the question: why we made him up.

Well, I tried......

:-/

Since your God is a spirit, non-material entity he could not have made anything out of anything. He could have ohnly thought about making something. In which case we are all nothing but a dream, and the minute he wakes up we'll all go poof.

Tom:

Ok, here are 2 things that Clinton did:

Gave us an actual surplus rather than a defecit.

Opened the Oil reserves rather than letting us get screwed by the oil companies.

And just for kickers......got a hummer in the Oval office. Heck, I'd go for that. Only, I wouldn't lie about it. I'd stand up and say "Hell YEah I did!"

And the economy sucks right now. Especially if you're not rich. Bush is a moron.

Jessica Alba is always a good choice.

I've always fancied Toni Braxton, but hey, thas just me.

Tom:

Ok, here are 2 things that Clinton did:

Gave us an actual surplus rather than a defecit.

Opened the Oil reserves rather than letting us get screwed by the oil companies.

And just for kickers......got a hummer in the Oval office. Heck, I'd go for that. Only, I would lie about it. I'd stand up and say "Hell YEah I did!"

And the economy sucks right now. Especially if you're not rich. Bush is a moron.

Jessica Alba is always a good choice.

I've always fancied Toni Braxton, but hey, thas just me.

Reply to Gaby:

I am not a zealot. I just believe in God and I wish to defend my belief just like you.

In a forum like this it is good to have various point of views and you are strong enough to hear it just like I hear your position.

Reply to GABY:

God made Man of dust, dirt or clay or something. It's in the Bible.

God made the Earth that contains that dust, dirt, clay and something.

So God did have a hand in making the dirt first then Man from the dirt.

" am very proud of never voting for Clinton and I did not vote for Gore or Kerry.

Just err on the side that God exists just in case you're wrong. No harm will come to you."

Unless of course you vote for someone thinking like that, it'd seem. :)

I think I'd rather 'err' on the side of not assuming that if any Gods exist, they'd be much happier about my strident belief than they would be pissed about voting for a guy who waved a Bible and made senseless war. :)

One thing about Pascal's Wager, Tom, is, it's a *sucker's bet.* Our actions and beliefs aren't a simple choice of two options, 'I believe in 'God' or 'There is no God:' that's just a way to get people thinking in certain terms that exclude the manifold possibilities, with the intention of then *scaring* someone into 'compliance' with a *religion.*

One thing I do agree with the more-vocal atheists on is that *that's just getting too many people hurt these days,* and *stands to hurt an awful lot more.*

Cause people in stress and pain and fear can do irrational things. This many Pagans *do* know well.

By observation.

Hey Tom, scientists do the same thing as "assume God, therefore God" only it's

1. Science is the only way to know any thing.
2. Questions about "purpose" or "intent" are not scientifically meaningful questions.
3. Therefore, we have to learn to accept not asking those questions.

In other words "assume no answers, therefore no answers."

Oh, Someone, that wouldn't be much fun when it comes to zealots like Tom. And I don't think we are evil to him. Just a little sarcastic. I believe more in an eye for an eye than turn the other cheek. Of course only if it's not resulting in cruelty.

Reply to RUSSELL D.:

No way in hell is Clinton better. He was inept and lucky at the same time. I bet you that cannot name 2-3 things he did that directly benefited you. And his biggest failing was the inaction in Rwanda resulting in 1 million dead. After all, wasn't he our first Black president. And...he authorized the CIA's extraordinary rendition and signed the Iraq Liberation bill. He did nothing with the Kyoto Agreement either.

The cold war ended (no spending) and the internet stuff combined with the y2k stuff made the economy hum. Now the economy under Bush is better by more than 2,000 points and still growing.

Furthermore, had Clinton taken care of Bin Laden instead of being serviced by Monica then we won't have terrorism. Two embassies, the USS Cole and some other stuff.

God did make Clinton :D :D :D

I second you on your scrumptious choice of Jessica Alba. There's hope for you after all.

It's getting awfully nasty-sounding in here. A few words of peace...

2And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

3For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

15Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.

16Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly Do not be wise in your own estimation.

17Never pay back evil for evil to anyone Respect what is right in the sight of all men.

18If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

TOM,

Your thinking is flawed. God did not make humans out of nothing. In your own words he used dust or something like that.

Tom,

I don't think I am superior to "God" otherwise, I could create universes.

You on the other hand show very obviously that you think you are superior to everyone who doesn't hold your beliefs. That's arrogance.

The Master

Many centuries ago there lived a woman who was a great spiritual teacher. She drew many students who wished to learn what she revealed. They formed a group of devoted disciples. After many years of study the disciples left and journeyed to other lands, hopeing to spread the teachings they had learned.

The years went by and one day the disciples returned qnd sought out their old teacher. Once they found her, the disciples posed a question to the Master. "We have", their spokesperson said," traveled to many lands, and discovered many different teachings that are unlike the ways you have taught us." The master calmly nodded in acknowledgement, and the disciple continued,"Therefore we are confused, so can you tell us what is the true religion?"

The master looked up with a patient smile and replied," All of the religions of the world are like individual pearls. Each of them formed from a different grain of sand, in different waters, under different conditions." Then the Master looked directly at the spokesperson and spoke softly. saying," But if you ask me which is the true pearl, I will tell you none are the one true pearl, the truth is the thread that runs through each pearl holding them together as a necklace, and that is the truth you seek."

anon

Tom:

If you think about it, Clinton did a much better job than Dubya has ever done.

And Carmen isn't all that anymore? BLASPHEMY!
Ok, just for the heck of it, who would you pick?
If not Carmen, then at least Jessica Alba. YOWZA!

Tom:

Your argument drawing an analogy about fish perceptions of humans is a variant on a classic bad argument:

(1) Assume God.
(2) Therefore, God.

You also say, "a friend of mine serving in Viet Nam as a platoon leader said that none of his soldiers died an atheist, yes even an atheist becomes a believer in God." Here is another counter example. I was in the Navy just after Viet Nam, nearly died, but remained an atheist to this day.

BTW, we do a disservice to ancient peoples when we think they used religion because their science was poor. Their scientific understanding was way ahead of what we give them credit for. It wasn't always the same as we might think of it today, but then again, nobody today knows how to use a slide rule any more. Their science fit what they needed - astronomy to tell the seasons for planting, botany for what was safe to eat and how to guess at it well, zoology for hunting and so on. All discovered through repeatable tests, tracking results, and passing it along for "peer review" within the tribe and limited forms of communication of the day.

Yet for all these things they knew so well (better than the scientific understanding many have today in these topics) they STILL had rituals and stories and ideas about all these things. You think a gatherer who knew full well how to tell what plants were poison "needed" these myths to remember it? Come on. They sought these other explanations out because they wanted to know MORE than what to eat and when to plant, and so on.

Reply to JIM:

Hey - that's what happens when you denigrate the power of God and think yourself superior then you need to prove it.

If you're going to rant and minimize the work of God then you need to put up or shut up.

Even the most simplest form of life you cannot make with your own hands out-of-nothing (create).

The keyword is create and it means out-of-nothing. So demonstrate your power and then I will shut up. The only power you have is the endless arguments.

Oh, and I just spotted it above:

"Tom:

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

For all of your pretense of superior intelligence and arrogance, you really yourself don't know anything except for what you physically observe."

*laugh.*

Is that so? If you were so right when you went trying to tell me what my experience is, you'd be *so* psychic.

Or at least very materialist. :)
Maybe, I should return you the assertion? :)

"You are so certain and convicted in your belief and I can only hope that it holds one day when it is your turn to die."

Did I mention I've actually flatlined? Oops. ;)

" Just make sure that you don't show your hypocrisy at the last moment."

It's all about practicing, really. :)

Andrea:

I kinda miss Canyon Shearer. He was always fun to argue with. Marco Polo still owes us a beer.

Reply to RUSSELL D.:

Funny your are. It is best that you speak to God and make your request of Carmen Electra, make sure that you ask that she's the young copy. She's not all that nowadays.

Yes, I am republican but I am moderate. I made the error of voting for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis and then Perot.

I am very proud of never voting for Clinton and I did not vote for Gore or Kerry.

Just err on the side that God exists just in case you're wrong. No harm will come to you.

By Jacoby's argument, the fact that atheists do not all share the same philosophy of life (nor is philosophy "converging" towards anything common) would proves that atheism is false! Talk about flawed logic.

Religion or the secularist version of it -- Philosophy -- is not going away because it's how we try to express and understand the things we can't know scientifically.

Is there a point, a reason, a purpose? Not just for us, but for any of it? Science has wisely realized that it cannot answer those questions. That doesn't mean the questions are unimportant, or that they cannot be answered.

The best example of this is when we look at the obvious and well understood. Would a deeper understanding of paint or vision or even brain bio-chemistry help in your appreciation of art? Christ said it best when he said not to seek the big mysterious things, but to "consider the lilly." It's the banal, everyday stuff that should make us wonder what's all about.

"If that's so then I will meet you in park and perhaps your superior self can make a human using dust and clay." - Tom

My goodness, just a little while ago you said that you were not an insulting person and then you come up with this -"your superior self" - again.

The problem with this statement is that your test is that this person has to prove himself as a god to prove to you there is no god.

Luke wrote:

"Guess what? If the Bible is correct than THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANY OTHER PLANETS OR CELESTIAL BODIES EXIST."

Sure there is - because God wanted them to.

Boosh. (whatever that means)

:)

Tom:

Also, in regards to making things from scratch.......you seem to think it means making something from nothing. May I remind you that there are always ingredients in a homemade block of cornbread. Can't make something from nothing. Not even the Man Himself. He had to have had some ingredients. Surely you should know that.

Tom,

I can't speak for anyone else, but, I don't think I am in any way superior to anyone else. That being said, I have no idea the logic behind your demands that we make butterflies out of nothing. Or people out of dirt. That's not how we believe we were made anyway. You are making me miss Pablo.

"All of the visions of paradise promised by various religions pale by comparison with the tender touch of one human hand on another."

Beautifully said. Perhaps that is the most important lesson of all to be gained from these God debates.

" wiccan:

PaganPlace-

Have I ever told you how much I enjoy your posts? It's kind of like finding a long-lost cousin who knows all the family history. It's so nice to hear from someone who *gets it* like I do. :-)

Posted May 24, 2007 2:28 PM "

And from somewhat independent sources, no less. ;) *curtsey.*

You, too, Wiccan. :)

Kind of the point of this board, folks, is at least in part to enhance our understanding of each other. Maybe not to just rehash the usual philosophical scuffles.

I don't think anyone's going to convert anyone, here, but we do know we really all ought to be living with each other and the world a bit better.

Certainly, Wiccan and I don't believe in Gods who are going to like smite you or something for believing in Them, much less the details and observances. (You know, too, it's actually considered a no-no in our religions to go *try* and 'convert' anyone? It's not really a Pagan concept to begin with.)

We just think it's about *connecting with what is.* Hey, maybe our religion is 'really' something Shiva and Shakti decided one day 'Hey, let's try this again over here with cheeseburgers, and some other cool stuff.' You know, that sort of thing's just not what we're fussed about.

We're certainly suspicious of anything that's going to tell you harmless r even sacred things or people are 'evil' cause a book said so, or that if the oscillating universe theory isn't the best we can do scientifically that we should start attacking 'atheists' ...no one thought their universe was caving in cause someone said (if they needed to say: Pagans calculated the circumference of the Earth pretty well long before it was rediscovered, amid resistance, by Biblical types.) "Hey, the Earth isn't flat at all!"

"Err, well, flat enough for *me,* but that does explain a few things, and kind of fits."

We know the world changes. *We* change. We *celebrate* it. We see our Gods in the past *and* the present. Even you. Even atheists. (Carl Sagan is a personal hero of mine. :) ) There's life and wisdom, potentially anywhere. Maybe Jesus is just another maybe-demigod, a wise fellow, or even a likely-fabrication to a lot of us, but that doesn't mean we have to kneel, fear, or swear to the dude to learn something.

It's an awfully convenient idea to certain kinds of authority to think that progress 'was completed' at some time in the past, and then spend all kinds of effort *fighting* it, but, that doesn't work too well.

"She changes everything She touches, and everything She touches changes," is one of those songs we all seem to know. :)

Oh and God just happens to be outside of the realm of time, space, and all of the laws of physics. How convenient. Sounds like people of faith are just waiting for new scientific discoveries to try to throw God in the mix. Can't blame them...logic always wins. So you think that the new species balance out the ones that disappear? Then you are assuming that the species we discovered are brand new. My point is that the Universe did not always exist but needed no audience to exist - it didn't need purpose. Purpose was invented by man. Nothing in the universe is dependent on life but other forms of life. What did God make the universe from? Where are his tools? So if the universe simply existed and then blew up ala Big Bang, it doesn't make sense, but if a big magician who existed outside of the laws of physics simply waved his magic wand and everything happened, it is?

Tom:

You are still not giving me a solid argument. Are you a Republican? Sounds like it from your responses.

God could not have always been. He had to come from somewhere. I can't prove there is no God anybetter than you can prove there is a God.

We may be stuck in that little quandry, but you could at least put a little more effort into your responses.

Tell you what, ask God, right now, to make me a carbon coby of Carmen Electra and send her to my house(naked and oiled preferrably), then I'll try to put some stock in the rhetoric you spout.

Maurie Beck:

That is an interesting post, but allow me to poke two holes in the group solidarity theory of religion as evolutionarily adaptive.

First, all the social advantages of religion that you list would apply equally as well to a rugby team or bowling league. Yet, rugby and bowling are not religions.

Second, dogs, elephants, and chimps, your examples, all seem to do well as social animals but do not have any religion that we can discern.

Tom:

Atheists are a mixed lot as are Christians. I do care what people think. I live in a society that is 75% Christian. Most of my family, neighbors and friends are Christians. Indeed, how could that not be? I like living in a pluralistic society where there are divergent views - makes for a more interesting life. I just disagree with you - that's not wrong or bad, it just is.

Reply to LUKE:

You die and leave no child behind. Your family line is extinct - Will the Earth survive? Yes.

Also true is new species discovered just about every other month. Hundreds just in the last year.

Your point is that the Universe always existed and dependent on some form of life. And if the life is gone than that Universe always existed and thus was not created, right?

We are talking about before the Universe existed and God had to make it from scratch.

The difference is, ANONYMOUS, that we are working to a better understanding of the universe and a search for truth and divine creation belief is not.

So, it is easy to believe that God has always existed but not that material at the Big Bang did not? Who says that something has to have purpose to exist? Guess what? If the Bible is correct than THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANY OTHER PLANETS OR CELESTIAL BODIES EXIST. Am I right or am I right? Purpose has nothing to do with it. Example: How many species of animal or insect die every day? How many have died? If the world can exist without them, then what is their purpose? Boosh.

TO PETER JACKSON:

Quotes from Einstein on religion:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.

"Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here involuntary and uninvited for a short stay, without knowing the whys and the wherefore. In our daily lives we only feel that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own." ... "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." Einstein's speech 'My Credo' to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, Page 262.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.

D. Oats wrote:

"2 atoms didn't create the big bang. The big bang was a "singularity" of space-time. There may have been others before it, and there may be more after, but it is almost absurd to address these issues in terms of "What came before that?, and before that? And before that?", or even as as "one universe" following another (and always shouting "And something or somebody had to have created it!!), because each "universe" would comply with its own physical laws-- laws that are configured at each big bang, and that includes space-time. It's been shown that it is very possible that the properties of space-time don't need to conform to the human mind's view of "everything was caused by something before it". Space-time actually allows for something akin to the human mind's conception of "infinity". So, the argument that the very existence of the universe is evidence of at least some type of creator is false."

Ummmm.... so, why are multiple bangs, that can't be explained, with their own laws, that change at will, and space-time that we can't understand, any better explanations than a divine creator?

Susan Jacoby:
MEA CULPA TO ALL GREEK MYTHOLOGY BUFFS!

Yes, spring comes when Persephone--not Demeter--returns from the underworld. Persephone was Demeter's daughter, and spring arrives when Demeter stops grieving because Persephone has returned to earth.

And a thank-you to the person who corrected me.

--------
You are forgiven...

terra )o(

All praise to the WICCANS! Yes, you and I have it right!

TOM wrote:

"Okay - I do not approve/condone - same difference and really most of you don't care anyway about what we think."

And why should we care? As long as the Christians are trying to hammer their God and religion into our heads, without at least trying to understand other belief systems, they are hopeless!

"Am I going to persecute you? Of course NO...It's your life and soul to lose - your choice - Free Will and so on...."

My (our) life and sould to lose? What if you are the one who has it wrong? You know, worldwide, Christians a definitely the minority. Could it be that all the others have it right?

What if I told you that the only thing that will survive of precious you is a teensy bit of energy, which will be absorbed by a whole lot of energy and you won't be sitting by the right or the left hand of God?

Reply to RUSSELL D:

Your assumption is incorrect.

God made Man.

I don't think that the dust and clay just formed and crawled together and made the body of man and its brain to think itself to be so superior as to think he is it.

If that's so then I will meet you in park and perhaps your superior self can make a human using dust and clay.

I would take it a step further - I want you to first create the dust and dirt out of nothing then I will shut up. You will not have to continue on and make a human body.

JOHN SHELBY SPONG
Former Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Newark

Quote:
The reason we human beings create religion is that we experience a depth to life, an otherness, a transcendence that we call God and then we begin to seek that which we believe God can do for us. That is where religion is born.
…………………..
Religion dies without mystery and wonder. Mystery and wonder exist when we experience that which is beyond our ability to explain.
Religion is always a human explanation.
End quote.

From the beginning people have had strange experiences they could not explain, it was as if someone or some unseen force did something mysterious. Even today I read that polls show that about 30% of people say they have had an experience, usually unrelated to a church, that they call spiritual. There are many books describing these experiences.

For thousands of years people called mystics have sought through meditation and other means an experience of great peace, oneness, harmony, etc. that we call God. This experience can be very powerful and often transforms our thoughts and lives. Many books have been written by mystics and saints of all religions and times, describing the experience they had. Although these experiences are often totally different there is most often a common thread weaving through them all.

Now the problem begins, how do the mystics describe their experience to those who have not had the experience. It is so vast, powerful and detailed that it is impossible to describe, yet the benefits that could be obtained by each person are tremendous. Of course the explanation must be in the culture, thought-forms and daily-living of the mystic’s people or they will not receive the full depth of meaning. So in an attempt to harness, to use, to contain this power a technique, a method, an experience, using the faculties of the people, namely intellect, emotion, love, and behavior, must be devised and is called a religion.

What are some of these benefits? Here are some of the benefits I listed a few days ago in commenting – 5-13- 2007 – 9:13 PM to an article in the Washington Post, ---- Evangelical Leader Returns To Catholicism ----
----One big reason for doing good deeds is that once you have experienced the Spirit through a relationship with Jesus or through Christian meditation etc. you are living in a different world in many ways. You feel more at home in the world, more in harmony within yourself, with your fellow beings, and you sense more meaning, identity, and purpose in your life. You realize that the world, the universe, is one big whole and we are all inter-related, inter-connected, almost like the particles in quantum science, just as our hands, eyes, heart etc. are one whole person. So everyone is your brother or sister. Also you have a similar feeling re the physical well-being of our earth and animals.

ANYONE CAN USE RELIGIOUS MEDITATION TO GET A LESSER FEEL OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SAINTS AND MYSTICS

Meditation is used greatly by the average person in Eastern religions

The Christian Orthodox Church encourages the average person to have some personal experience of God the Spirit ---as I understand their ways.

Western Christianity has used the life of Jesus to teach and illustrate this power and also to give many specific examples of how to live with others and live within our mind and being in accordance with these experiences of God as had by the saints and mystics.
Christianity also uses meditation

Non-religious meditation is also used with many benefits. Recently Washington Post on-line has had a Transcript which details many of the non-religious benefits.

As Einstein and other notable persons such as Bishop Spong above, have said, there is something mysterious that we cannot explain.

However there is a tremendous amount that we are not able to explain in total or in significant amount, but that should not prevent us from using the limited experience we have to reap all the benefits we can.

KTread:
"Densblty. I wasn't saying YOU did"

Yes you were, you pompous little gnat! (Just kidding, I meant that in a very nice and respectful way)
As I recall we were discussing arrogance/disagreement. By your very words you are saying that to disagree with someone is to look down on them = to consider them fools. How terribly, cosmically, embarassingly, galactically wrong you are. (I say that with all due respect).
To disagree, even passionatly has nothing to do in itself with notions of arrogance or superiority. My wife, probably sweeter, prettier and smarter than yours, loves broccolli. I don't, in fact I despise it to the point of not even desiring to spell-check it. Do I feel superior? No, does She? (perhaps, but thats for other reasons) Do I think her a fool? We disagree on something, that's all... I am as a skeptic, a self aware idiot, constantly trying to understand things around me, so I will test them, make choices and decisions about what I've found, and then try to understand choices, especially opposing ones, made by others, in an innocent effort to understand them. If by discussing and 'observing' someone else happens to come around to my superior point of view (kidding) and agree, fine. if not, oh well.. So sometimes I like to poke the glowing embers of these boards with a stick just to watch the sparks... and if I learn something along the way, fine... it's free, kills time and keeps the gears in my aging noggin lubed up and warm...

E Favorite:

We seem to be going around in circles here regarding the use of the word "religion". Let's see if I can clear things up.

The word "religion" that was used in the Bible was actually the Latin word "religio", which means "reverence for (the) god(s) or conscientiousness".

The word "religion" as we know it, means "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. It does not mean, as some people, and unfortunately, some religions/denominations have made it out to mean, a set of rules and or laws for believers to follow.

Now, if we take the Bible as an example, and if you are familiar with what is written there, I think it is a fair assumption that in the Bible, God sanctions the "religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" of the average Christian. I know there are exceptions to this, and I'm not going to try to account for all of them; I'm just talking about your average, run-of-the-mill, non-fundamentalist Christian. And I'm talking about the strict definition of "religion", meaning their RELIGIOUS attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

So, will you see in the Bible the phrase "God sanctions religion"? No, I don't believe you will. However, will a person who studies the Bible determine that God approves of the "religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" of the average Christian? My experience with both studying the Bible and being a practicing Christian leads me to believe that the answer is Yes. An answer of No can be caused by any number of things: different outcomes from Biblical studies, different perceptions of Christian religious beliefs, or bad experiences with Christians whose beliefs or practices were perhaps misguided.

I've gone on long enough. I've tried to explain my thoughts on this as best as I can. I hope I've shed some light on where I'm coming from. Thanks for lending an ear.... or an eye.... :)

Reply to D. Oats:

Multiple Big Bangs, let's say 10 million Big Bangs each with a different set of physical laws.

I am only interested in the very first Big Bang and where the materials for it came from?

Tom:

I'm still waiting for your insight. See above.

PaganPlace-

Have I ever told you how much I enjoy your posts? It's kind of like finding a long-lost cousin who knows all the family history. It's so nice to hear from someone who *gets it* like I do. :-)

Tom-

2 atoms didn't create the big bang. The big bang was a "singularity" of space-time. There may have been others before it, and there may be more after, but it is almost absurd to address these issues in terms of "What came before that?, and before that? And before that?", or even as as "one universe" following another (and always shouting "And something or somebody had to have created it!!), because each "universe" would comply with its own physical laws-- laws that are configured at each big bang, and that includes space-time. It's been shown that it is very possible that the properties of space-time don't need to conform to the human mind's view of "everything was caused by something before it". Space-time actually allows for something akin to the human mind's conception of "infinity". So, the argument that the very existence of the universe is evidence of at least some type of creator is false.

Reply to Andrew from OR:

Okay - I do not approve/condone - same difference and really most of you don't care anyway about what we think.

Am I going to persecute you? Of course NO...It's your life and soul to lose - your choice - Free Will and so on...

Tom:

Interesting that you say you don't condone my atheism. How would you feel if I said I don't condone your Christanity? That would be pretty arrogant, wouldn't it? Why do you think that's OK? Do you even want to live in peaceful and harmonious coexistence with other Americans who don't share your beliefs?

"Paganism is man-made? I am asking here."

Our *stuff* is, yes? :)

"So, if it is man-made then how is it more divine?"

Cause the Divine's in the world and us, and we're just dancing it? :)

I don't know if 'More Divine' is precisely the way we'd describe it, though, we don't see ourselves as in the same kind of competition as you seem to, not with reason, nor with other religions.

I could use a lot of metaphors, but even those of us who've had visions of specific beings tend to see our *religion* as, maybe more like gardening than passing on and promoting an artifact or revelation.

"Paganism is therefore a figment of some ancient dude or dudette?"

No, it's something alive for us, that has to do with song and story and culture and personal and community experience... There's really nothing to really call 'a figment,' cause it's not based on these constructions as such. It's a way, really, a bunch of similar ways, of living, one might say.

Specific traditions are known for what they are, though, which is really one of the important things about it.

" I don't know but it could be argued the same way you attack Christianity and Jesus himself as a dumb peasant or something like that."

I think you're conflating us with those 'Atheists' you refuse to draw the distinction with.

Certainly, the intention here is not to attack Christianity, but rather to try and defuse some of your attacks on atheists, and us.

You seem so afraid, and I'm sorry for that, but maybe it's not 'atheists' ...or us, or anyone you can label as 'unsaved' or something, that you're really angry at.

No, the world isn't like you say it is. You won't find happiness trying to make it go away, or to make everyone agree with your beliefs, I think, but that's your business... till it hurts someone.

Which in our society, it's been doing for a while, now. The ignorance causes a lot of misery, seemingly-escalating strife, and near-complete irresponsibility in the face of a badly-strained ecosystem.

No, science can't prove a negative... especially about something defined to be unprovable. It's all the other stuff you therefore think *must be the only truth if there's any possibility of it at all* that causes the problems.

And it *can* say that the authority you claim to be speaking for has been wrong an awful lot.

Maybe often enough for you to stop using *it* to try and dominate others in whatever way.

Observer:
The red herring you pointed out was merely a point in which I drifted onto a tangent a bit too hastily. Here is the actual question.(I'll come back to the small tribes in a moment) The moral code of which you speak is apparently common, and in fact predominant in most life forms on this planet. Insects that endlessly brutalize each other would not survive long as a species... Chimpanzees are not equipped with tusks, great speed, and only by banding together have been successful. Watching a tribe/clutch/covey/flock of chimps you will see that they don't passively tolerate and in fact punish murder, rape, theft, adultry and idol worship... Okay, maybe not so much bothered by the idol worship. What I'm trying to grasp is what about the human moral code is so different than every other species in the world? Are we talking about the alleged 10 commandments here? They after all have little to do with morality, half or less as I recall. (I read the book AND saw the movie, just not recently)
Now, about those tribes... they were not even aware that other people existed, yet they had very, very familiar and common basic morality, and they had no concept of a creator. So what you are saying is that god is perhaps either ambivelent or deliberately stealthy, wants us to be good, based on his (god's) set of morals but not necessarily to be aware that he exists? I'm not trying to be argumentitve or petty, I've just not been asked to debate this particular aspect before and want to make sure we're both talking about the same thing....

All praise to the ECLATI-ons!! (Do I have that right?)

:-)

The issue is whether God is a basic desire or only something that we can imagine or project (a combination of two or objects or adding attributes to an existing entity that the entity does not possess) - or both or neither - believers claim two things: a)
that God cannot be denied because He cannot be comprehended - He is a pure spirit and therefore outside the realm of logic, time, and space the categories by which we grasp our world and since He is spirit be cannot be a combination of any thing else - since all other things are material according to the materialists
b) God is the ultimate desire of every human heart

Now Susan like Marx and Feurbach claims that God is the father figure mythologized - and while it is true that parents are like gods to their small children - the notion of God clearly is different from the notion of a powerful parent. While this is a valid description of the Aryan Sky gods it fails to pass muster on the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

So her major premise can be denied.

If we have a basic desire for God then Susan's argument is highly implausible - since nature does not present us with desires that can not be fulfilled. The catch is that we often have specialized desires - chocolate ice cream with no calories - fish that tastes like steak, these might not exist - and the God that I or someone else imagines may not exist as we imagine Him but that does not mean that God does not exist anymore than than the fulfillment of any of our other desires would not exist. Afterall there are objects that satisfy all our other basic desires why wouldn't there be a God?

Tom: Manuals typically come out with new editions when they have new information that supercedes the old, and no longer include the outdated stuff. My car manual won't tell me to torque the wheel lugs to one standard on page 32, then have a different standard on page 112. So, going by the Good Book Human Manual, should I begin stoning people now or not?

Reply to Wiccan:

Well maybe not you in particular but this whole blog.

God is not a figment of someone's imagination. Just look down at your hands and see God's work in your own creation through your parents and their parents and so on back to the very beginning. I am saving you time from having to scientifically explain the whole thing.

Greeks and Romans had idols. Romans even borrowed them from the Greeks and renamed them because they probably lacked imagination.

Hi Paganplace, et al.

I see we have another Christian here who believes he knows the "truth". Or is that who knows he believes the "truth"?

Oh vey! The poor man! I think he is discombobulated! We all know that Jacob Jozevz and I are the ony ones with the "real truth", hehe!!

And how can you call him sarcastic? He just created a "sewer goddess" for you!! I would call that utmost generosity. What would you do without one?

Maybe he needed to do that because he needed to return the fabvor for all those good humans who created a Jesus Christ (who presumably is God in disguise) for him.

Honestly now, I do admire that you don't explode with anger when talking to the ignoramuses of this world. I wish I could be that generous!

That said, TOM, please make sure to pray to your compassionate, all loving God that he forgives you for your haughtiness.

OBERVER: As always, you are a gentlman, and I thank you for it!

That I can agree with. Under duress my mind may change. However, I don't believe in God, so if he doesn't reveal himself to me, and instead sends terrible representatives pushing their hateful agenda on me or forcing me to live the way they think I should - he isn't proving his existence very well, eh? I feel that when I am on my deathbed that my mind will be just as clear as it is now, but who knows, I may be forced to convert even then. If there is a heaven, it isn't helping us.

Reply to LUKE:

You might not be closer to God when the time comes but people under duress and a sense finality will act totally different from their normal self.

You might see the "light", it could be your brain shutting down but you might then become transfixed by God.

It is your choice - Free Will. Your choice no matter if it is good or bad.

I beg your pardon? When did I attack Christianity? When did I attack Jesus? I said I do not call upon YHWH, but there are a lot of aspects of the Divine I do not call on.

I fail to see why my Gods are some man-made "figment of some ancient dude or dudette" and YOUR God is not.

It doesn't matter if one has stage 4 lung cancer or is unaware of their fate (as anyone is). Being close to death doesn't bring me closer to God, because I am just as sure that he doesn't exist as you are that he does. Why is that so hard to understand? You believe so strongly that God exists that you call it truth. I believe so strongly that he doesn't that I call it truth. Truth is based on human perception, and therefore God is as well. Whether God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Dale Earnhardt is irrelevant. I think he is simply not.

Reply to WICCAN:

This entire blog was about how man made religion and not the other way around? Right?

Paganism is man-made? I am asking here.

So, if it is man-made then how is it more divine?

Paganism is therefore a figment of some ancient dude or dudette? I don't know but it could be argued the same way you attack Christianity and Jesus himself as a dumb peasant or something like that.

Sorry Tom, ignorance and weakness are not strength. After I die, my central nervous system shuts down, so why the hell should I care what happens after that? I just hope I can leave some cash for my family, and people will think well of me. More than I can say for most of the Christians I know.

Reply to Andrew from OR:

The superiorness was to highlight that mere humans cannot do what God does. It exposes the arrogance thinly veiled as superior intellect while it is not.

Me too - I don't care what you believe but at least I am not trying to rationalize detectable physical manifestations of nature and say it is not the work of God.

It is sad that there are so many atheists because all of those people are lost forever upon death. Hopefully, when that last hour is upon you and you're still conscious that you will ask for His Forgiveness and live forever and ever instead of just a mere 60-85 years.

Please do not take this as sarcasm because I do not condone your atheism.

"Tom-
A pagan believes in some sort of man-made deity and not the only real God."

Sir, you are not a Pagan, I believe. How do you know what a Pagan believes? WHO is the only real God?

Tom, when you say this:

"I understand your concern but I have not insulted anyone here or used sarcasm."

I don't understand how you can live in that kind of denial of what you're *doing.* You attempted to imply that Wiccan worshiped something like a 'sewer god,' which may not have been *effective* as an insult, but is hard to take as intended any other way.

If it wasn't sarcastic and insulting, means your ignorance goes further than we thought, even from your ample descriptions.

So often we say to Christians, "Ow, hey! that's doing harm!" and hear in response: "No it's not, it's righteous!"

"I try to explain in very simple terms what God is."

Think we've seen how simple it is to *you.*

I'm very sorry to hear about your brother and wish him well, Tom, but implying that we'd become Christians if in great pain or fear isn't only insulting, it's a bit dangerous.

It's *common* for people to get religious in distressing situations, ...the *form* that takes has to do with other things than the 'Ultimate Correctness' of one path vs another.

Who I've called out to when sick and in pain and scared, and received solace from, apparently isn't in your 'simple' universe. That doesn't mean it's nice to talk that way to others.

Tom:

You argue that God is and always was.

Logic would conclude that he came from somewhere or something. Are we not using logic anymore? Or is that more for us atheists and Pagans?

Please regail me with your theories. I'd like to hear them.

And to add a thought: Man made God. God is subserviant to man. Man gave God his supposed abilities. So if God is a creation of the mind of man, then obviously He is powerful, for the mind can create everything from nothing.

Tom:

That's harmonious not harminious.

BTW, my wife is also an atheist, has Stage 4 ovarian cancer and chooses nothing except to maximize what remains of her life.

Tom:

When you call someone 'your superiorness', that's sarcasm. Also, you quite arrogantly denigrate the beliefs of those who disagree with you. I understand that you believe that you have the one truth, but, as a hard core atheist, so do I. The difference, I think, is that I don't care what you believe. That's your business. I have no desire to convert you to my way of thinking, and I assure you that there is nothing you can say that will convert me.

So, what is your goal? There are 15 million atheists in America - more than Jews and Muslims combined - and we're not going anywhere unless you force us to do so. Do you want to kill us, put us in camps, take away our children, etc? If yes, I assure you that we will not go quietly into the night. If not, then why don't you join us in trying to create a society with true religious freedom - not something we have today - and live with us in peaceful and harminious coexistence.

Sheen: “Do you mean religion the way "we" define it, or religion the way "they" defined it when the Bible was written?”
both – I didn’t know there was a difference.

Druvas: adapting your writing: “Well, if there is a God, then I guess believers can explain the why as well as the how. No? Didn't think so. Please, oh mighty believers, explain why Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, the virgin Mary, Jesus, the resurrection and ascension have anything to do with a Creator God. I wish to know.”

Sok7 – that’s funny, my copy of Matthew 28, 16-20 doesn’t use the word “Christianity.” I’m pretty sure it’s nowhere to be found in the Gospels and that Jesus ever used that word to describe himself. What Bible are you using? I’m using the “revised standard version.”

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Allow yourself to be touched by his noodly appendage...

>FSM
/|||\

"The tooth fairy's a dude??"

I think he wears spandex and a bright pink boa... with a very sparkly wand and crown.

Densblty. I wasn't saying YOU did. You know my wife once told me that I thought I was always right. I responded of course I think I am always right, nobody thinks their beliefs are wrong (just like you said). By her response, I don't recommend that answer when you are arguing with your wife!

And regarding the tooth fairy being a dude, don't worry, I don't wear a little outfit or anything weird!

Densbtly,

Thanks for your reply. I'm no expert in philosophy either, but it appears that you have followed a red herring in your argument. The observation that animals may also have a moral code instilled in them does nothing to dispel the argument that God placed a moral code in us. One of the examples that you used actually supports the argument that God placed a moral code in every human being. You said, "Many godless and god-unaware tribes of humans have been 'discovered' in the past hundred years, with no sense of a god or Jesus, or Allah.. yet they lived together and propogated just fine for thousand of years.." The fact that these "undiscovered" people are found with these morals provides support that God instilled these morals into all human beings (and not society).

Why is it that societies and cultures from all over the world agree that rape, child molestation, and school shootings all seem to be universal evils? Could it at least be possible that it's because God has placed these morals in every human being?

Thanks for the discussion!

To PaganPlace. Thanks. Thats probably the most helpful thing I've read today. Oh, if only I were a pundit with a book out, then I could spend my time contimplating the religous implications of the tooth fairy, instead of being an ordinary family man more worried about how not to wake the kids.

KTREAD: I do not 'discount' the beliefs of others. I just don't, won't agree with them. I certainly acknowledge they exist, and outnumber me by a seriously high margin.
And of course I think I'm right, a fool would be someone that subscribes to a belief system or philosophy that he thought was wrong! (Do you not believe YOU are right?)

The tooth fairy's a dude?? OMG! That's messed up!

Observer:
Welcome to the conversation, and thank you for the kind comments. I would indeed like to acknowledge and answer your questions. I am not an academic, nor have I studied philosphy, so I won't be able to attribute POV's other than to say I have been here in my head, observing, watching, asking these questions for many, many years.
I can indeed readily accept that the universe has always (at least in our humble ability to interperet time/space) existed without a reason. 'Reason' requires intent, planning, or cosmic design. I reject that there is any evidence whatsoever for 'design'. That's right, it may have just happened. A bunch of things happened and here we are, then we die and things keep happening. Why? well, why not?
The more interesting statement : "This being also established moral laws placed within the conscience of every human being." Is frankly pretty fun to explain. Once again I'm no mental powerhouse or scientist, so forgive the simplistic analogies/metaphors, etc. Did chimps, cockroaches, ants, and dogs also get this moral code blown into them from the creator? I see much evidence of societal co-habitation among these creatures... A clutch of chimps have social hierarcy, rules, and punishment for the disobedient. Did that also come from the creator? I contend that all animals, some plants, and even a few people on the east coast of the U.S seem to be wired for basic socialization, and quickly learn that to survive one benefits by interacting with others. This I believe is referred to as 'primitive morality' in people. If we were genetically wired to kill everything we see, the species would not last very long. So a form of evolution would see the rise of those pieces of species that have to neurons to socialize and work/live together rising to the top of the pile. Many godless and god-unaware tribes of humans have been 'discovered' in the past hundred years, with no sense of a god or Jesus, or Allah.. yet they lived together and propogated just fine for thousand of years.. Even fish in a small lake seem to follow some basic, inherited code of conduct. Did they get the gift as well? the awareness? Maybe you could elaborate on the moral laws... maybe a list...
Thanks;

Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I just wanted to make you aware that I perceived some of your comments as sarcastic and insulting as a fellow Christian, and based on some of the replies to your posts, it appears that others may have gotten this impression as well. Maybe sarcastic and insulting are not the right terms to describe some of the comments, but regardless of our intentions, we must be careful how are comments are perceived. Just something to keep in mind.

I am sorry to hear about your brother's health. I will pray for him, but I am glad to hear that he's a changed man!

Keep that light shining!

Oh, and for any 'tooth fairies' out there, you could try using something thin like a children's book to get those quarters under there. ;)

Reply to OBSERVER:

I understand your concern but I have not insulted anyone here or used sarcasm.

I try to explain in very simple terms what God is.

My brother who has stage 4 lung cancer was for a while same way as most atheists bloggers, arrogant and thought he had it all figured out.

Today, my brother is a totally changed man because he is close to death and he believes in God. No more of that intellectual brouhaha from him nowadays.

Pagan, with a capital P, Tom, it's a proper name, whether you happen to like us or not.

See, if you're just going to say anyone who doesn't believe *like* you do, that "They don't worship the 'Real God,' " then you're not being rational about the question in the first place.

Could be where the bad logic came from. :)

The universe does not revolve around your book. Not for everyone.

Tom,

No, that's not bad. I'm a fellow Christian. As a brother in Christ, may I encourage you to scale back with the sarcasm and insults when in these discussions? It does not help our Christian witness, and only creates barriers between people. I want to argue just as strongly for the existence of God, but we must do it with love. Thanks, brother!

To Densbtly. I think it is arrogant to discount the sincere beliefs of the majority of people in the world. While the fact that the majority of people beleive in some sort of deity proves nothing, to ridiclue their beliefs says that they are all fools. A person who beleives that the majority of people are fools and that only those who believe like them are not is arrogant.

As a side point, I would point out that the real tooth fairy is a very intelligent and dashingly handsome fellow, but he has trouble getting the quarter under the pillow in the dark without waking the kids.

Reply to ANDREA:

Doesn't suck - An atheist does not believe that God exists.

A pagan believes in some sort of man-made deity and not the only real God.

Again - Same difference.

"I am not superior to God or any other people.

I am not that brazen to deny God and much less arrogant as to think that I can out-think issues like you atheists."

As was pointed out, I'm not an atheist. I'm a ...Pagan. (who could tell? :) )

I do use science, though.

The problem we seem to be experiencing here his that you think the rest of the world is merely trying to 'out think' an 'issue' cause we're out to get your God or something, when really, 'we' who use science, of whatever religion or not, think it's *good to try and understand the observable universe, not try to deny it so that a divine book doesn't seem contradicted.

You use that book to believe you're superior enough to insist your beliefs are more valid than those of others, and be somewhat abusive.

That book is not a perfect authority, *especially* not on the nature of the universe, never mind on *me.*

"The issue here is that you deny God because you think that you have the command of issues and that you think you understand all of it."

I don't 'deny God,' mister. I *experience and accept* a different *view* of "God." And Gods.

We usually say "Goddess."

" What you find is that there more questions than you can ever answer."

Oh, goody. I'd get kind of bored if I ever ran out of those. :) Doesn't mean that you can't do your best at *some,* or that you *need* "The Answers To Everything."

Just to live in it.

"There were tons of atheists before you going back to Classical Greece that tried what you're trying but still they could not answer the question of God."

Oh, yeah, and things went *real* well after people *stopped* asking questions like the point wasn't to confirm the answers you already thought you had. :)

Reply to OBSERVER:

Yes, I am a Christian - Is that bad?

Tom,

Wow. That sucks for you...to not be able to tell the difference between a pagan and an atheist.

Tom,

I'm just curious, are you a Christian?

Reply to Andrea:

PAGANPLACE is not an atheist - Same difference as far as I am concerned.

"Tom:
Wiccan,

Which God? You asked.

God, He who mad you and everything around you including your ability to think and dispute God's Existence.

And not the god of thunder or sewers or whatever you believe."

Well, Cloacina was the Roman goddess of sewers, but I haven't had to call on her yet. Let me help you out, Tom. I believe that there is but one Divine, which is immanent in this world. That means everything in this world, including you and me, are part of the Divine. The Divine has various aspects and attributes, and I call on them as I need.

I do not call upon YHWH, the war god of an ancient desert tribe, but neither do I call on Eshu, the African trickster god. My soul usually resonates with the Celtic gods (and Chinese gods; must have been Chinese in one of my incarnations).

I believe in treating all people with respect, no matter what god or gods they do or do not worship. That is a commandment to me from my Lord and Lady, the two aspects that reveal themselves to me most often.

Hope this helps. :-)

Densbtly,

I hope you don't mind that I join this conversation. You make some very valid points, especially "The only difference is that one point says there always was the universe, and the other says there always was a god and one day he created the rest of the universe, from nothing."

This is a very good point, but I would like to mention that this cosmological argument (that the universe had to have a beginning) is only one argument for God's existence. There are others including the axiological argument (arguing from a moral standard established by God), the ontological argument (arguing for a greatest conceivable being), and the telelogical argument (the Intelligent Designer movement).

However, as others have rightly observed, neither side has ever proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists or He does not exist. But, nothing in life is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Just like in our legal system, we come to conclusions based upon evidence presented that suggests we should come to that conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt. So, which seems more reasonable? The universe has always existed without a cause? Or, an infinite being greater than ourselves created this universe at the beginning of our concept of time? This being also established moral laws placed within the conscience of every human being. This being also designed the earth in such a way that life was possible. It appears that gravity, the earth's axis and distance from the sun, and DNA do not appear to have happened by chance.

So, which seems more logical or reasonable? I would submit that God seems more reasonable. Of course, you are welcome to disagree with this conclusion, but hopefully we can at least examine all of the arguments used in support of God's existence, and then draw our conclusions. Thanks for your intriguing and intelligent comments.

Tom,

FYI, Paganplace is not an atheist.

Reply to Paganplace:

I am not superior to God or any other people.

I am not that brazen to deny God and much less arrogant as to think that I can out-think issues like you atheists.

The issue here is that you deny God because you think that you have the command of issues and that you think you understand all of it. What you find is that there more questions than you can ever answer.

There were tons of atheists before you going back to Classical Greece that tried what you're trying but still they could not answer the question of God.

Tom,

I read that one. Didn't help.

"I believe that your thoughts were created by your brain that was created by God.

Hope this helps..."

Thought you might say that, but in that case, how would it help if I created a "physical" butterfly for you out of "NOTHING." :)

Funny, though, Tom, how you're calling me 'Your Superiorness' while mocking people of other religions and trying to tell me my lineage. :)

PAGANPLACE:

I believe that your thoughts were created by your brain that was created by God.

Hope this helps...

Andrea:

The Human Manual is commonly called the Bible and it is widely published, sold and read.

I think you were too busy inventing Gods of sewers (I'd hate to see an angry sewer God, :) ) to see when someone's trying something kinda Zen.

We can create a butterfly out of NOTHING through *thought.*

What else do we create?

Actually, though, the current scientific theory is that our universe actually may come from the interaction of two much bigger things: why are the 'laws of physics' set up in such conveniently-stable ways?

The mind may imagine an engineer, but all this stuff this may be simply part of the *stable part* of a much bigger thing with many other possibilities: 'Organic,' so to speak.

Not an artifact. :)

Hang on, let me check the troubleshooting section of my Human Manual...there it is, right after the "Must have a belief in God" section.

"If your human malfunctions and begins to repeat, press and hold down power button."

Where's the power button?

Reply to densbtly:

God is outside of his Creation and time as you know it.

God was and is always there.

Tom: Please explain how to create god from nothing. Is that less difficult, more logical, easier to explain than creating a mere butterfly from nothing? (BTW, I do notpersonally believe in nothing, infinity perhaps, but not nothing) Who created god, and more importantly , 'why'?
Either god was created, arose from nothing or always was. 1. requires a higher power predecessing god. 2. Is no more likely to have happened than a butterfly. 3. requires a belief that some things always were, in one form or another. Which frankly is absolutely the same whether scientific or religious. The only difference is that one point says there always was the universe, and the other says there always was a god and one day he created the rest of the universe, from nothing.

Thoughts?

E Favorite

The need to systematize or categorize, such as Christianity being a type of religion or a goat being a kind of mammal, did not exist 2,000 years ago. For the most part, this need for abstract organization is a product of science and the institutions of learning that did not exist prior to the Renaissance. No wonder the word ‘religion’ is not a part of the Biblical lexicon. People didn’t think that way back then.

A simple exercise in logic should make it clear that God did indeed sanction religion.

Jesus told his followers to spread the Good News of Christianity (Matt 28:16-20).
Christianity is a religion.
Therefore: Jesus told his followers to spread religion.

PAGANPLACE:

Your choice, a butterfly or a grain of sand out of NOTHING. You go ahead and make that grain of sand since you're so analytical and so intellectually superior. How hard is it anyway to make a grain of sand, your superiorness?

PAGANPLACE:

Your choice, a butterfly or a grain of sand out of NOTHING. You go ahead and make that grain of sand since you're so analytical and so intellectually superior. How hard is it anyway to make a grain of sand, your superiorness?

"Please explain away God as best as you can. In the end you will stand in wondrous wonder of the Universe."

I stand in wondrously wonderfulest wonder of the Universe, and She didn't say anything about Adam and Eve. :)

"You go ahead a make butterfly out of nothing then I will believe there's no God. The key here is out of NOTHING."

Butterfly. :)

Wiccan,

Which God? You asked.

God, He who mad you and everything around you including your ability to think and dispute God's Existence.

And not the god of thunder or sewers or whatever you believe.

Russell D.,

Good to talk to you again. I had a nice vacation, but as the old saying goes, it wasn't long enough! I am, however, ready to get back into the swing of things and join in some productive conversations. Looking forward to it...

Andrea,

The Universe was created by God.

Your parents are descendants of the first Human created by God just as you are.

By definition, to create is to make something out of nothing and it is beyond our understanding.

Please explain away God as best as you can. In the end you will stand in wondrous wonder of the Universe.

You go ahead a make butterfly out of nothing then I will believe there's no God. The key here is out of NOTHING.

I think the real arrogance is assuming 'My idea of a God and the authority of associated writings and commentary and institutions cannot be disproven, (you can't really prove a negative, logically) ... so that *must* mean my truth is the only truth!

In many ways, the question of *why* the universe exists doesn't seem to be answered very well by Christianity, either: 'God did it, don't ask why,' isn't a 'why,' it's a *how.* Ok, maybe he was lonely or something. Why'd he supposedly make a whole universe for one planet? Doesn't even make a whole lot of *sense,* really.

Science isn't *made* for that kind of 'why,' but we do know that certain ideas of religion are always fearful of more understanding of the physical universe, because those ideas try to make *claims* about a) being perfectly authoritative and b) the nature of the observable universe that keep proving false.

Frankly, our degree of not-knowing doesn't mean that a particular God exists or says the things he's claimed to have. Certainly, you can say, 'Science (and a little common sense, here) can say that religion A or B doesn't have the kind of authority it claims.

Certainly not 'perfect' authority.

Faith and reason, themselves, though, only have to be at odds if you *make* them that way. The problem is when religion demands defending faulty reasoning.

Tom,

Which God do you mean?

DRUVAS spoke thusly:
"Well, if there is no God, then I guess Science can explain the why as well as the how. No? Didn't think so. Please, oh mighty scientists, tell me why the universe exists. Please explain the first cause event. I wish to know. Why did the big bang occur? "
(Yawning) Science is merely the search for answers and explanations, by definittion a work in progress, flaws and exceptions are researched, weeded out and replaced as new evidence is unearthed. It is NOT an explanation or religion By definition it never claims to be complete, whole, or infallable. We aren't sure about the 'big event' that's why we look for it. As to 'why' it occured, I am afraid that implies that there was a 'why' or reason, or plan. That pretense is only valid if one assumes there is a plan or reason. Religions seek to draw a line in the dirt and say "This is what, how and why, case closed, shut up and believe, there can be no other possibility" Imagining that the universe, is in one form or another, dust, particle, gas, or complete nothingness, infinite, is no more difficult than believing that a cosmic magician/deity is infinite. Neither Science nor all the attempts at religion can explain infinity yet both must assume that it exists. Can you explain where God came from? or do you just have faith that he/she/it always existed? Or are you content in ignorance, that 'it can not be known'. You ask us/atheists to prove something when you yourself can offer no proof for your belief, the real difference is that some of us do not think we have all the answers, we question, we observe, we alter our thinking as awareness increases.. we NEVER claim to have all the answers. To an atheist/scientist, 'why the universe exists' has no meaning, so we will never answer that. It is... things happened, lots of things and now here we are....

I was unaware that to be human you must accept God...

Did my parents forget to give me some packet of information when I was born?

Observer:

Welcome back my friend. How was the vacation? You ready for a decent conversation again?

Tom:

The Bible is not a history book.

And as for "atheists argue pointlessly and they know that they're wrong but still argue."

The same can be said for People of faith. But here's the real kicker. Neither side can know for sure whether they are right or wrong.

Stings, don't it?

Wiccan,

You said that you want to be a human - Well, being human means that you accept God as your Maker thus the high road. It is not a hard concept.

"Tom:
Reply to Wiccan:

Good - You are trying to be human. Humans were designed by God to be in the image of God.

Finally, you're taking the high road! Good for you!"

Huh?? Sir, I was unaware that I was on ANY road, much less high or low. What did you mean?

Reply to DRUVAS:

Well said -- atheists argue pointlessly and they know that they're wrong but still argue.

Well, if there is no God, then I guess Science can explain the why as well as the how. No? Didn't think so. Please, oh mighty scientists, tell me why the universe exists. Please explain the first cause event. I wish to know. Why did the big bang occur? Why did physics order itself in such a way that we could understand it (sort of)? Even the most rational and renowned astrophycists, like Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking admit, when they trace time all the way back to the big bang, they have no solution nor do they believe a solution outside of a divine being could have "kicked off" the whole process. This is with one exception, the {"uncaused first cause"... (stunned silence...) Wait, you mean you want me to believe that the universe willed itself into existence (and that it is, thereby, sentient) but not believe in a sentient, all powerful being we call God? Hmmm... No my friends, science may be able to explain the mundane things of everyday life, like why the sky is blue, how does cancer happen, how many molecules make up sugar, but it fails in the most important of all questions, why are we here and what happens after we die? Scientists can guess just like the rest of us, but they have ABSOLUTELY no more evidence that God does not exist than people of faith have that God does exist. Well, that isn't entirely true, either, we have historical accounts of Jesus, Mohammed, Abraham, Buddah, etc... (not to mention the various holy scriptures). What do you have, Richard Dawkins, to prove to us that you are right? Oh yeah, a theory. Sure Ms. Jacoby, you can say that this is all hearsay, but when I look into my child's eyes, or even my dog's for that matter, I see something that no molecules could arrange.

KTREAD Said:" it is the height of arrogance to compare all religous belief to beleiving in the tooth fairy."

I beg to differ/counter. It is the height of arrogance to elevate one's belief in one particular mystical being superior to belief in another, including the tooth fairy. There is no more evidence or popular agreement for one than the other. What proof/scriptural reference do you have that the tooth fairy, in some form that we can not see taste or feel other than in our heart and soul, does not exist? The Judeo Christian god indicated in his/her own commandments that there were other gods, (Shall have no other gods before me) and of course, angels, demons, spirits, beasts and other metaphysical creatures. Could not the delightfully fair and benevolent tooth fairy be one of them? Could the tooth fairy perhaps be a fallen angel, or maybe an exorcised demon form the earliy days, now paying pentance and trying to regain a seat at the father's table? You seem to discount the possibility merely because you yourself have no evidence of the tooth fairy's existence. Ms Jacoby, et al, without arrogance, puts gods and a tooth fairy on the same level, not elevating one above the other.

(Ah, it's spelled with a K, I see.)

"And atheists constantly invoke gods and goddesses such as Zeus, Isis, Thor, Nike."'

Well, more commonly, that'd be *polytheists.*
Though I guess atheists can say whatever they want. :)

"The ones with areas of specialization or responsibilies such as for thunder, for agriculture, for wine, for sports, for war etc. All these gods and goddeses are humans, as apparent from their statues and descriptive texts."

Well, that's not really the idea, Jihadist. More like archetypes, or even anthropomorphizations of what might be seen as bigger entities than that.

The stories can be seen more as how *humans relate to the things the Gods are connected to,* than saying 'The Gods Are Actually Humans or Especially Statues And Stories.'

The lessons of the stories aren't 'Zeus is Perfect As Described In These Stories,' ...the stories *teach* about *kingship and fatherhood and all that stuff:* ...certainly, emulating Zeus in all things wouldn't seem to be the way to marital bliss, would it?

You have to be careful, Jihadist, when evaluating someone else's religion, to not be blinded by your own's teaching *about* the people and practices involved.

"Idolatry" is something that has been demonized by those who feel that having an *abstract *mental* image of an absolute God* is superior to acknowledging the humanity of our relationship to the Divine, say. Pagans, for instance, aren't actually *worshiping statues* any more than Muslims are worshiping the City of Mecca, or, (sorry if I mangle the spelling) the Q'abah.

" Mere humans it seems, with something, something extra. Perhaps and hence the confusion between whether God is man, or man is God, or man created God, leading to notions of God is Not Great. After all, God looks and acts like man."

I think that tends to be the result, whatever form religion takes, whether it's acknowledged or not, really.

Now, it may be against your religion to believe other Gods actually exist as other than the artifacts you may see, but it's not fair to presume that's actually the truth of what others are experiencing.

Ms. Jacoby,

Thank you for your post. May I make a couple of quick observations?

First, is it mere coincidence that you did not answer the May 18th question, "Are you satisfied with where you are now in your life?" The question looks inward instead of outward, and does not provide you an opportunity to belittle Christianity and attack God as you so often do in your posts. Coincidence? Let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.

Also, your opening paragraph states, "If religion were God-given rather than man-made, there would be only one religion in the world." I'm sorry to disagree with you, but this statement screams of philosophical assumptions that need to be addressed. First, you assume that if God exists, then it necessarily follows that there were be only one religion in the world. However, this is not necessarily true. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this God creates human beings with libertarian freedom, or in other words, free will to choose. If that's the case, then how can God guarantee that we would all choose to adhere to the same religion? He couldn't. Also, if God were to ordain that we all adhere to the same, one true religion, would we truly be free to choose? No, we wouldn't. So, this example proves that it is not necessarily true that if religion is God-given, that it follows that only one religion would exist. Therefore, the philosophical presupposition that your arguments are based upon is flawed.

I do enjoy reading your articles though. I may not agree with you very often, however your comments are interesting and often thought-provoking.

"Man has always created God--and gods--in his own image. If religion were God-given rather than man-made, there would be only one religion in the world."

Tell that to the totemists and other animal cultists who still exist in the world.

people of reasonism.
they walk around carrying a head full of reasons,but a dead blind heart,their perception system works fine but doesnot kick to the heart.
reasonism not only epidemic to pragmatism and evolutionism but is as old as man kind.at the era of mosese ,people asked moses to show them god, they needed to eye ball god in order to belive in him.reasonism is no more than a case of human fossilism ,even though it might appear so scientific and so logical.
people of reasonism lack the a b c of simple reason ,if they just look around them .
there is creator for this universe ,there is one true religion ,the religion of the creator god is the true religion.
people of reasonism ,get your own universe if you so truth full.

Ms. Jacoby certainly does appear to be an expert on having an "inflated opinion of ourselves." Whether you are a believer or not it is the height of arrogance to compare all religous belief to beleiving in the tooth fairy.

"If religion were God-given rather than man-made, there would be only one religion in the world."

It's strange how those who have no belief in God seem to know everything about how he should operate. Gods ways are not your ways. When you study and begin to understand that God does have a plan, all these things start to make sense. But what is more powerful than that is the change that comes into your own life and the power that comes from it. Don't try to explain it away if you haven't experienced it. Just try to experience it.

What a nice article ! I wanted to say something to start an argument but I finally couldn't find anything unpleasant to say. How disappointing.

I agreed with much of your article - in particular the notion that the meaning of life is life itself (my paraphrase.)

I do have a somewhat different take on the god-gene. I would suggest that our brains are so good at what they do that we are unaware of what it is up to. And what it is constantly up to is 'defending'. In addition to running 85% of our bodily systems with no 'thinking' required to do it our brains spend their free time defending against anything that is perceived as a threat. The ultimate threat to the brain is 'death'. As the only mortality conscious animals on the planet we have been wrestling with the notion of death ever since the fateful 'day' in the Eden when we ate of the true of knowledge (the knowledge that we are going to die one day.) The brain's answer - afterlife. It's a hell of an idea and one that I don't try to argue away from anyone; especially anyone with kids.

Jihadist - Never knew some atheists feared death.

It's not so much a fear of death as not wanting any part of it. Personally, I think it's a raw deal and I'm totally against it. I've thought of a petition, but I'm not sure who to deliver it to.

Jihadist - Taking out the god gene from someone who believes in God is like taking out the gay gene from someone who is gay. And that is another topic.

The first post of this thread addresses some of that.

"People don't fear death because of heaven and hell."

No, but the threat of hell makes them cling on to religion to save their butts from "never-ending suffering." It's a scare tactic to make people believe.

The article was excellent, well thought out and tightly reasoned. The objections to it that I have read do not follow that pattern. So far I have never seen anyone give a coherent, logical reason why the Bible in a particular English translation is the inerrant word of God and should therefore be taken literally. To use the Bible to argue for a particular concept of a god is a circular argument, a tautology.

Allow me to speculate as to why humans have evolved religions, so to speak. Relating to the fact that we are social critters, a group will do better if the members are not totally individualistic and are able to suppress their personal desires to join under the direction of a leader. This allows the members of the group to prosper and multiply. For early hominids, maybe even early primates, to develop this leader/follower relationship, a certain reverence toward the leader is certainly functional. As with many other characteristics, both physical and psychological, evolution can then take some trait and develop it into something different. What once was respect for a leader then becomes respect for some past leader which then becomes respect for other unseen beings which then becomes religion. During intellectual development, curiosity about explanations for the way the world works acquire a religious character. In every case, the cohesiveness and well-being of the group is benefitted. This is an example of one of the famous just-so stories so common in sociobiology, but it does illustrate that religion does not have to come from some supernatural being, but can be created by humans themselves.

A very fascinating essay by Ms. Susan Jacoby on what some atheists think and feel on mortality. It cleared some questions and raised others in my mind.

Never knew some atheists feared death. Atheists all seem to speak of happiness here and now. To be here and now. All heaven and hell is here on earth e.g. the tender human touch is worth more than post-dead paradise. But there is also the harsh human slap, a very hellish experiece.

People don't fear death because of heaven and hell. It is mere human nature to want to live on to settle perpetually unfinished business in their minds on family, on work, on second or third chances.

Even when people know they are dying, even for believers, it is not so much fretting over whether they will go to heaven or hell, but rather, the impact of their impending deaths on their loved ones. Death is accepted as inevitable. And dying people reflect on the lives they have had, and the lives they could have.

And atheists constantly invoke gods and goddesses such as Zeus, Isis, Thor, Nike. The ones with areas of specialization or responsibilies such as for thunder, for agriculture, for wine, for sports, for war etc. All these gods and goddeses are humans, as apparent from their statues and descriptive texts. Mere humans it seems, with something, something extra. Perhaps and hence the confusion between whether God is man, or man is God, or man created God, leading to notions of God is Not Great. After all, God looks and acts like man.

At this stage of human history and development in every way, we are still finding new species of plants and animals here on earth. We still have not settled on the moon or Mars. We have not gone beyond the solar system. We are in a galaxy among countless galaxies in the universe.

Never mind the prematurely articulated absolute certainty that there is no God, or God is Not Great. After all, if one comes from a believe that man made God and not God made man, one is either:

- rejecting the notion that man is like God and look like God,

or

- man is, in fact, the god of his own puny slot in time and space.

Either way, it is contention perhaps arrived at for man's self-confidence and self-assurance in face of the fact that there is much, much more that we don't know than we actually do here and out there. Perhaps this is also a self-assertion of man over his own destiny, his claiming possession of his own mind and the earth as his realm - lords and gods of the third rock from the sun.

At this stage, man can only either pretend to know, or to understand, or to accept, or to reject, or to be God himself.

And now for an analogy and/or circular logic that atheists hate so much as an irrelevant dig at two sacred gods of atheists whose gospels are holy writs of no God please, for God's sake! We're atheists!

Dawkins and Hitchens, methinks, is somewhat saying, in an adult version, of a child screaming to the sky - "If there is a God, I challenge you to strike me down with lightning." As God ingored that ingnoble challenge, the child surmises there is no God. No wonder God is Not Great for not acceding to a small-minded challenge.

In Dawkin's "The God Delusion", in the preface, he wrote about his wife being unhappy in the school she's in, told her mother so, and her mother responded she should have told her and so to leave the school. Dawkins' wife said she didn't know she could. Dawkins way of saying he didn't know he or anyone could leave belief in God if they wanted to. And I didn't know I could believe in God. Must be that god gene in me. Thank God for that.

Taking out the god gene from someone who believes in God is like taking out the gay gene from someone who is gay. And that is another topic.

SOK7,

Matthew 28:16-20's authencity has been greatly discussed and debated over the past 200 years. For a contemporary review see:

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

18±. Revealed to Disciples: (1) 1 Cor 15:5b,7b; (2) Matt 28:16-20; (3a) Luke 24:36-39; (3b) John 20:19-21; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3.2b-3

and http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/018_Revealed_to_Disciples

An excerpt:

as per Gerd Luedemann,

"Matt 28:16-20 The description of Jesus's appearance is minimal, as attention is focused on the content of Jesus' message to the Eleven. Luedemann notes that "the historical yield is extremely meager." He accepts the early tradition that various disciples had visionary experiences, most probably located in Galilee, and that these experiences led to the founding of "a community which preached the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as the Messiah and/or the Son of Man among their Jewish contemporaries." [Jesus, 255f.]

I would just like to say that I feel my Christian faith makes my life better today, and would even without any hope of an afterlife. Yes, I like the idea of heaven, but I'm not so scared of death that I couldn't face the world without it. Even with the hope of loved ones in the afterlife, death is still a separation from loved ones who are still alive. You pretty much suggest that if we really believed, we'd all jump off a bridge right away. I think it shows how little you understand religion from the inside.

Even if I were dead certain there was no afterlife, and the moment of death would be the last moment I would ever experience, I would still be Christian.

"The only real explanation for the persistence of religion, as Twain observed, is our inflated opinion of ourselves--coupled with unwillingness, as individuals and as a species, to contemplate our own extinction."

That's only a small part of it. There are people - politicians and preachers - who profit from religion. There is extreme social pressure on people to conform to the religion of those they associate with. Probably no one could enumerate all the "explanations" for the persistence of religion.

"Reply to PAGANPLACE:

I am glad that you believe in some divinity.

We could question and question endlessly: why is the tree green? Duh! it's the chlorophyl. But why did chlorophyl choose green."

It didn't. Don't make me go into optics and absorption. :)

"Then the daisy flower asks why wasn't I a rose."

If a daisy did you the service of asking that in front of you, consider it's not about daisies or roses. :)

"Or a white man can ask why not black? We don't know the purpose or design and really who are we to question that?"

We could question who told us a) these things are important in certain ways, and b) if that really means 'design' is what we are tempted to think when perplexed and tired of asking real questions.

"All I know is that there's only one thing we humans all possess and it is our soul. I am not talking about land property or bank account because we do not possess them, we use them."

Unless 'we' are something our *souls* 'possess.'

Any property fixations are on the 'we' part, though.

"Our soul is ours to lose."

Is it? To what? Who said? What's 'loss?'

" If I was to bet than I would bet on the side of God and if He exists than I have everything to gain but if I was to do it the other way then I lose my sole possession which is my soul."

If I were to 'bet,' I wouldn't bet on a self-contradictory book being something that 'God' was really all that spooled up about.

When someone says 'Do something completely ridiculous because we stack up the stakes to be irresistible,' do you know what they call that?

A sucker's bet.

"It is a 50/50 proposition and therefore I am willing to err on the side of God.

Posted May 23, 2007 6:08 PM "

Did I mention bookies?

Who said that out of all the possibilities in the universe, their particular idea was '50/50?'

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

I am glad that you believe in some divinity.

We could question and question endlessly: why is the tree green? Duh! it's the chlorophyl. But why did chlorophyl choose green.

Then the daisy flower asks why wasn't I a rose. Or a white man can ask why not black? We don't know the purpose or design and really who are we to question that?

All I know is that there's only one thing we humans all possess and it is our soul. I am not talking about land property or bank account because we do not possess them, we use them.

Our soul is ours to lose. If I was to bet than I would bet on the side of God and if He exists than I have everything to gain but if I was to do it the other way then I lose my sole possession which is my soul.

It is a 50/50 proposition and therefore I am willing to err on the side of God.

You grossly mis-apply the word 'hate'. I do not hate. There are indeed things that excite, infuriate, and even anger me, but someone's belief in a god, a twig, or bowl of pasta does not. All I have been trying to say is 'I do not agree with religion, and here is why.' Think what you like, please. I do not know how to state it more clearly. However, when that 'thinking' becomes more than believing and feeling I have a problem . I refer to overt or covert mandated intrusions into the lives of voluntary non-believers as most, if not all religious organizations tend to do. Hate is such a harsh word. I disagree, sometimes passionately with many, if not all religious institutions. I have learned to live with them,I understand that I am very much a minority, and the only weapon I shall ever raise against them is this keyboard in front of me, venting some spew on these little boards. I have no delusions of religion going away in my lifetime, none at all, nor that my diatribes will in any way contribute to the effort. I do not wish to tear them down with the level of passion the word 'hate' implies. No, I mereley disagree with just about everything they stand for to the very core.
Much like coconuts. I have no use for them, at all. I tried them I don't like them, and I will indeed put up a toss if they are forced upon me or those in my realm of responsibility, otherwise coconuts mean nothing to me. Is that hate?
Forgive me if I sound angry or spiteful that was not my intention.... well, yes it was.. that's the fun here isn't it? But truly, there's no hate here..

Reply to Athena:

I doubt that you doing more research is going to bear fruit.

People such as Einstein who's much much smarter than you or I by several hundred folds could not answer some questions about God.

Sincerely good luck to you!

I love the "IF GOD THEN CHRISTIAN GOD" leap.

I don't think you can disprove god; instead, I think it's more rational to argue that there's something out there larger than us, something beyond the scope of our understanding. I'm not saying it's god in the traditional sense; I'm emphasizing the 'beyond our understanding' aspect.

In fact, in these dialogues we don't really ever separate the idea out: God implies moral compass, provider of afterlife, creator of the universe, etc. all in one neat package. Why do we always leap to the conclusion that this is the case? Why does 'god' or 'gods' have to do all or any of these functions?

So, like Tom points out, we are completely ignorant about lots of things; the nature of the universe is obviously one of them. Therefore, the more specific your religious dogma is, the more likely it's wrong.

Densbtly:

You are a "Jerry Falwell" for the atheists - loud, and without much backup other than a lot of blame and hate-filled speech for people who don't think like you.

By the way, I'm not an atheist. As it happens, I believe in *lots* of Gods. It's the implied worldview that mostly cheeses me off. :)

While I'm here, I'll say one other thing: If a person were to live by the actual ideals of, say, Christianity, I believe that it would require humility, rather than a feeling of self-importance, to do so.

Posted May 23, 2007 3:54 PM Spencer

But herein lies the problem with the self-contradictory Bible. It says Jesus (or Yahweh) is the ONLY God and that you must believe or else you go to hell. Jesus said you have to spend the word that "I am the only way." One cannot spread the word that "my way is the only way" and be humble about it.

The Bible by it's nature works perfectly with those that desire power by letting them use the words of religious texts to justify/rationalize their desire for power. Therein lies the flaws with these religious texts. If there was a good God who was truly interested in helping those less fortunate, "He" would have seen this and would have made the book a perfect one, not a book with many fundamental contradictions and flawed premises.

"

"Reply to PAGANPLACE:

It was a play on words - ammunition."

Aaah, just play. Yet, it's very important I sbmit to *your* words, and if you just happen to think of it in violent terms, well, boys will be boys.

"And, I am not saying it is a fight or war either."

Actually, that's all you're doing.

"It is just an exchange of viewpoints."

Is it.

"What caused the Big Bang? Two atoms?"

Two multidimensional 'membranes' intersecting is the current theory, actually.

"Where did the two atoms come from? You don't know because it is beyond your understanding."

Actually, it's not. We have the theoretical knowledge to make a universe in our basement at the moment, ...what's beyond my understanding is why existing leads to all this arguing. :)

"You only try to explain the immediate present but you cannot account for much beyond that."

Then why do I need 'Ammunition?'

Tom: "There comes a time that when we run out of answers and that's where God stands."

No, there comes a time when people have to get off-line and get on with their lives. That is, unless they have no other life outside of their computer.

As for me, when I run out of answers, I do more research. I'm not satisfied with a pat answer of "God did it." My Gods gave me a brain and expect me to use it to think for myself, to come up with my own conclusions.

Sheen.. Of course I speak in generalities, and thank you for confirming them all, that there has been, and continues to be movements to mandate christian dogma and doctrine into the lives of every person in the country. Laws, by definition imply use of force, ergo my comparison to the crusades.. If you don't comply with 'laws' in this country, you are punished, incarceration, loss of freedom. That is not the vaunted 'free will' that your god blew into us... this is not 'spreading the word'. I've got no problem with religious people making rules for themselves, none at all, knock yourself out. But apparently that just isn't good enough. This is where I get fired up.
Religious groups and leaders have/do and will abuse their humanitarian high-morality facade for the sake of expansion, coercion and perpetuation. If I stereotype all religions as being this way I do not apologize, as I don't see many exceptions. I am not speaking of good, decent, well intended MEMBERS of that religious faith.I deal with individuals as individuals. I certainly understand and respect the difference.

It is quite the philisophical conundrum, to be religious, to have faith in something you cannot see that demands your praise and recognition, and that will certainly make you suffer to prove your worthiness, only reward you after you die, then only if you've picked the right one, and yet does not punish those around you that harm you or do great evil... It is , I admit a terribly hard thing to do, to wrap your mind around a greatness that you are told you can not possibly imagine, and that proof of it's very existance somehow lies in the fact that it is beyond proof... I have to question everything, especially those things I am commanded to not question. . .

Or, to wit, Tom, would you like to see someone shoot me, then hope to see me, while in horrible pain, cry out for a God you'll take as your own, then take that as a validation for the violence?

It's been tried, actually.

Marx and Engels came to the same conclusion regarding the creation of GOD and the belief in this GOD.

It has been offered that slaves lacking any hope created GOD to create hope for the hopeless.

Hope and religion and two different focai. I would hold out for hope as religion only seesm to create divisive views and not inclusive views. My God versus your God.

For those that wonder I pratice Nichiren Buddhism since childhood. No God, Just life and mutual respect for all life equally.

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

It was a play on words - ammunition.

And, I am not saying it is a fight or war either.

It is just an exchange of viewpoints.

What caused the Big Bang? Two atoms?

Where did the two atoms come from? You don't know because it is beyond your understanding.

You only try to explain the immediate present but you cannot account for much beyond that.

E Favorite:

Do you mean religion the way "we" define it, or religion the way "they" defined it when the Bible was written?

Another suggestion, though:

"There comes a time that when we run out of answers and that's where God stands."

What makes you think you know where 'God' stands while you think you haven't yet dumped all your magazines at the 'infidel?'

Mmmm?

Sheen, again, thanks for the citations - still, I dont see anything in those quotes that espouse religion as being sanctioned by God.

Reply to Wiccan:

Good - You are trying to be human. Humans were designed by God to be in the image of God.

Finally, you're taking the high road! Good for you!

Terra:

I didn't say "religion" was an ancient Hebrew word or a Biblical word; I said it was from the Latin word "religio", meaning "reverence for (the) god(s) or conscientiousness". That is the word that was used in the Bible, not the word "religion" as we know it today.

"Out of ammunition? No answers?"

Believe it or not, Tom, this *isn't* a 'war,' and there are no 'weapons' or 'ammunition.'

I suggest that thinking of it that way leads to bits getting blown off people, but, I see no fight here.

MEA CULPA TO ALL GREEK MYTHOLOGY BUFFS!

Yes, spring comes when Persephone--not Demeter--returns from the underworld. Persephone was Demeter's daughter, and spring arrives when Demeter stops grieving because Persephone has returned to earth.

And a thank-you to the person who corrected me.

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

Out of ammunition? No answers? I understand you.

There comes a time that when we run out of answers and that's where God stands.

No, no, I wouldn't want to get in the way of a suggestion. Why don't you think it through and get back to me. It's OK.

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

Are you suggesting that people who believe in God render our world to be a dangerous place to live?

Last year, in some publications, it was described that more people died under atheists' regimes the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao than died under all religious persecutions and crusades throughout recorded history.

Why don't chew on that a little bit and look inwards to yourself and the like of you atheists who are making this world more dangerous for the rest of us.

"I'm only human is no longer my excuse- it is my goal."

Joan Malerba-Foran

"You are so certain and convicted in your belief and I can only hope that it holds one day when it is your turn to die. Just make sure that you don't show your hypocrisy at the last moment."

You're so certain and convicted I'm gonna give a raven's turd what you think the day I'm out of here.

In the meantime, wanna share a world?

It's not safe, but it's really not that bad.

Not bad enough to justify making it worse, anyway.

*offering hand*

Human?

Thank you, Tom, She did. He's now working his way through the Summerland.

Reply to PAGANPLACE:

For all of your pretense of superior intelligence and arrogance, you really yourself don't know anything except for what you physically observe.

You are so certain and convicted in your belief and I can only hope that it holds one day when it is your turn to die. Just make sure that you don't show your hypocrisy at the last moment.

Susan Jacoby, why is your article so abrasive and belittling? It's unfortunate that the Washington Post invites people like you to comment.

Densbtly:

You scream out about mountains that are really less than molehills.

The Christian Coalition is a dying group of less than 300,000 members, with "the only remnant of the Coalition within a mile of the Capitol (being) a single employee who works from his home." The group is almost non-existant.

Falwell did not represent the majority of Christians, and he did not have the amount of influence that people seem to want to give him credit for. He was just loud.

As for the problem with contraceptives in Africa, my feeling is that it is unfortunate that the Catholic church is against them. I am not Catholic, and I know other denominations work to make contraceptives available to people in Africa. The problem is that among Christians in Africa, a large percentage of them are Catholic, and so they would have to go against their church to get the contraceptives. So you could use this as an argument against the Catholic church, but certainly not against all of Christianity.

You speak in generalities, without the proper backup for your accusations....

Call me *really* old-fashioned, but somehow I think that somehow what happens to people indoctrinated to respond to terror and pain in certain ways *when you shoot or blow bits off them* is a terrible judge of the existential validity of the conditioning.

"A friend of mine serving in Viet Nam as a platoon leader said that none of his soldiers died an atheist, yes even an atheist becomes a believer in God."

There may be 'no atheists in foxholes,' but pleny do cry out for Mother.

Real question might be what the *fox* is up to, when you're in a hole.

sheen,
Religion is not an ancient hebrew word..not biblical. Just like Witch is not a biblical word. They were translated, sometimes very badly, like the word Witch, which is a anglo saxon word brought into pre Christian England in the 5th century.

So if you can not trust the translation, how can you trust the book?

Religio, means to Re-align or Tie Fast.

terra

Reply to Wiccan:

Definitely a YES - Your father had it backwards. May God have mercy on his Soul.

"A friend of mine serving in Viet Nam as a platoon leader said that none of his soldiers died an atheist, yes even an atheist becomes a believer in God."

Tom-

My father was raised a Primitive Baptist, but became an atheist during WWII. Guess he got it backwards, huh?

Spring came when Persephone returned from the underworld, not Demeter. Demeter stopped grieving when Persephone returned each year. That is what brought about Spring. Other than that, great article.

Does a fish at the bottom of the ocean know that humans can perform brain surgery, invent supercomputers, go to the moon and numerous other items that humans do.

Probably not? Why? Because the fish does not possess an intellect to comprehend humans. Oh! some fishes have had encounters with humans when caught on fishing line only to be released to live another day.

Do we humans have the comprehension of nature or the spirit world. Do have the mental capacity to understand beyond what we do not understand. Yes, for all your eloquence in trying to describe God in human terms or in terms of your physical surrounding - you fall short.

A friend of mine serving in Viet Nam as a platoon leader said that none of his soldiers died an atheist, yes even an atheist becomes a believer in God.

Spencer;
No disrespect intended, but you lost me at 'watchtower.org' Sorry.

Sorry for the double post. While I'm here, I'll say one other thing: If a person were to live by the actual ideals of, say, Christianity, I believe that it would require humility, rather than a feeling of self-importance, to do so. It seems that human self-importance is driving many to assert that faith is somehow vestigial and should be discarded.

There is no doubt that religion is being used to foment war and hatred and to deceive people. Nevertheless, the problems in today's world are so deeply rooted in human behavior and thinking that they can't all be blamed on religion. Greed, selfishness, arrogance, intolerance and indifference are traits shared by the religious and atheists alike. The big question is: where will the high ideals come from to overcome these traits?

In the '60's and '70's there was a healthy interest from college students in non-theistic religion such as Buddhism with its emphasis on meditation and rejection of theism, but unfortunately the uneducated masses who weren't in a position to understand that theism isn't all of religion were led astray by the Evangelical Christian charlatans. Those who were able to leave behind theism were able to put religion into a proper perspective, which is to say a much lower priority, than those who continue to live in the shadow of superstition. At this point the distinction between theistic and non-theistic religion is nowhere near as important as promoting science among the young. Science is in an exciting time and will eventually, inevitably, vanquish theistic religion among the masses...

E Favorite:

As the word "religion" comes from Latin, there are a few places in the NT where the actual word is used. For example, the book of James 1:26-27.

26If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.

27Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

The Latin word "religio" was not used a lot back then, so it was not used much in the Bible either; its meaning was "reverence for (the) god(s) or conscientiousness". Instead, the writers of the Bible wrote more about the organization of the Church, and used other words for reverence for God.

TDAY:

So..........how did I take it out of context?

I am sooooo needing to be taught a lesson.

As you can tell, sarcasm is my specialty. I like humor, it's funny.

I tried to be serious once.......wasn't that funny. Go figure. I wasn't kidding about giving the homeless guy a pack of cigarettes though. It really happened.

And if what I say or do makes you more profound in a belief for God, then all I have to say is........ "Damn"

Does anyone have verifiable evidence that man made God? Who is this man/men? We'd like to see that.

Susan's point about wrestling with the reality of death is an interesting one. Here's a good article discussing the matter, and the conflicts raised by the stock answers that a lot of religious teachers shell out about death:
http://watchtower.org/e/20050815/article_01.htm

Susan's point about wrestling with the reality of death is an interesting one. Here's a good article discussing the matter, and the conflicts raised by the stock answers that a lot of religious teachers shell out about death:
http://watchtower.org/e/20050815/article_01.htm

Sheen.. That's all you have? "I feel sorry for you?" That's it? Come on.. don't give up... challenge the arguments! There aren't active religious movements to insert Christian morals, principles and mandates into legislation in D.C as well as many states (creationism / abortion/ ten commandments on the wall)? Ever hear of the 'Christian coalition and it's kids? Falwell did what? The Catholic Church is not blocking the spread of contraceptives to Africa? Come on Sheen, if I'm wrong, tell me. No need to feel sorry for me..

As to Gods existence, it is within ones right to believe or not without having some dimwit ridicule them. A “Death Wish” does exist in many. Sky divers, Bungee jumpers, people who drive our highways. But a race of people who possess too strong a Death Wish will soon be non existent. To ask “why all 80 year old people don’t rush out and suck down a Jim Jones cocktail”, is the same as asking why a healthy young firefighter would run into a burning building to save the life of a child. If ya gotta ask, ya probably would not understand the answer. Which pretty much sums up your entire commentary.

"Religious people haunt the halls of congress"?

"Modern christianity is, even today, even in the U.S. of A, still bludgenoning/forcing others to accept only your version of the cosmos"?

"'Christian charity' that keeps much needed birth control and AIDS prevention out of third world countries."?

Uhhhh......yeah.......

I feel sorry for you.

Nasir - If there is a Creator of the universe, what relationship does this creator have with the God of Abraham, who gave the ten commandments to the Jews, then sent his son, born of a virgin to be killed for the sins of the world, then had him rise from the dead and ascend into heaven?

Russell D.

Im not suprised an atheist would take things way out of context. Very sad.

The comment was just that..a comment..rhetorical (re: if ALL kept the 10 commandments)

A challenge is a challenge..to me, to you, to all...burden is on each of us to prove it wrong.

Teenagers seem to take things personally like your response. If thats the way of the adult atheist world...then that further strengthens my belief in a creator God...faaaaaaaarr over cynical man.

Nasir...
Since you asked.
I, for one, question the 'methodical system' That implies a method/plan/planner and is similar in implied phrasing to 'what is the meaning of life?'.
I would, as a debate, ask you, and it's an old one, where did 'the creator' come from? If your answer is, "There was always a creator" Then is it less hard to believe/posit that in one form or another that there was just always a universe? Billions of years of particles and gravity have given forth a shaky, but for the moment locally stable place to call home, but to assume that it was neat, methodical, architected, engineered or painted by an artist/craftsman is to deny the violence, darkness, and massive, cosmic quaking and erupting that still goes on all around us.

Sok7 and Sheen - thanks for the citations. I notice in neither case is religion mentioned; instead, God or Jesus are commanding that they be worshipped or obeyed. Nothing about setting up a religion, or multiple religions.

Is there anywhere in the Bible where the term "religion" is used?

Nasir,

"Surely it can't be without a creator."

Yes it can. That's what Buddhists believe.

Is it just me, or are Susan Jacoby's responses the only truly interesting ones?

The others often spout the same nonsense that we have heard our whole lives, pretending like it makes perfect sense. "We have sinned against god. God sacrificed himself for our sins. We win if we believe this drivel. Good game."

Her responses are the only ones that don't fall back on dogma to make sense.

How can one deny the methodical system of universe. Surely it can't be without a creator.

Oh, brother.

Sheen;
Yes indeed I do bring up the crusades, Jihads(sp?) because they happened, are happening. The spread of religion has always been violent. It has nothing to do with hate. I do not blame contemporary theists for sins of their fathers any more than I blame contemporary Germans for the holocaust... But I refuse, would be foolish to ignore/forget the events. I can not accept that religion is a happy, warm/fuzzy eutopian, pure, sinless institution. Even now, religious people haunt the halls of congress to try to legislate the belief in the 'one true god (first commandment)' into the lives, homes, coins, declarations of patriotism, and institutions of those who want no part of it. Why do you do that? Why do you need to do that? Is that how you meakly/innocently 'spread the word'? You may have put down your swords and lances, and torn down the gallows and racks, but modern christianity is, even today, even in the U.S. of A, still bludgenoning/forcing others to accept only your version of the cosmos. It is, I believe, 'Christian charity' that keeps much needed birth control and AIDS prevention out of third world countries. It is, in my opinion, at times, still the hideous pursuit and celebration of ignorance.

Religion and science the Big Bang theory are in agreement - get used to it. The psycho babble that Susan is promoting is nonsense

Not everyone has the "God Gene"

Adamic man does have it, but those of Cain do not.

The laws written in the heathen hearts is that gene.....some have the laws, and do not what even the heathen does, becuase they have not this law or "Gene".

The author of the above article has no hope beyond this life, no hope beyond what she can grasp now.

E Favorite

How do I know?

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
--- Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:16-20)

This is one of primary passages wherein Christ gives a mission and purpose to all His followers. Go. Teach. Spread. You have my blessing.

"Such jibberish is why the world is seeing more perverts, derelicts, terrorists and atheists."

More than *what?*

What you are being told you were seeing before by the same sources that are *always* saying, not only *that,* but causing you to never consider that saying 'atheists and derelicts' in the same breath as 'perverts and terrorists' might not be terribly appropriate?

"Read the headlines...its not necessarily me, you or the next person making this world more and more debauched...but that doenst mean it is not happening..."

The headlines don't mean it *is* either.

Are you feeling terribly-debauched right now?

Who *is?*

Asked them for their census numbers lately?

Did your headline-makers?

Mavaddat:

E Favorite specifically asked "does it say that somewhere in the Bible or did you figure that out on your own?" Because of that statement, I felt it safe to use my quote of statement from the Bible in my post.

Russell and Densbtly:

Ummmm, it didn't look to me like Tday was saying that atheists are perverts, derelicts and terrorists. I think maybe you need to re-read that post...

And as for the 10 commandments, they aren't that hard to follow...

Sheen,

It's incredible how often people assume the truth of the antecedent to a hypothetical, isn't it? Notice how 'If God said those things, then religion is sanctioned by God,' is very different from, 'God did say those things, AND if God said those things....' Do you see that?

Consider this: It is also true that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster said those things, then religion is sanctioned by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But the question is, DID God say those things?

If you look at my post above, the answer can never be "yes," because we have no idea what we are talking about when we say 'God.' Please read it and let me know how you feel about it.

Densbtly:

Posters like you always bring up the same arguments, including things like the Crusades. Give me a break! Shall we hate all Germans for the Holocaust, all Japanese for Pearl Harbor, all Mexicans for the Alamo, all Southerners for slavery, or perhaps most Americans for what happened to the Native Americans? You go way back and hold on tight to make an argument...

And you still end up contradicting yourself, as you say in the beginning of your post that you can stereotype people of religion, yet toward the end of your post you seem to concede that it is people from both sides of the fence acting with intolerance.

There is no commission to convert people either; the commission is to spread the gospel to those who have not heard. Converting people by force is not a command from God.

TDAY:

Are you keeping all of the commandments?
I bet you're not.
Think before you speak.
Take the foot out of your mouth and eat some humble pie.

And for the record, yep, I be an Atheist. I am no terrorist, I am not perverted(except for d*** and fart jokes), and last time I talked to a homeless guy, he believed in God. I talked to him about a month or so ago. I gave him a pack of cigarettes and he praised the Lord.

I would like to sock Bush in the jaw, but that doesn't make me a terrorist. Please explain your logic to me so I can have a better understanding of who I am talking to.

Thanks.

"Such jibberish is why the world is seeing more perverts, derelicts, terrorists and atheists"

One out of four ain't bad, so we do agree a little ... True the denial of the (your) bible does indeed lead to atheism. I've got no problem with that... but terroism? You mean the guys comitting suicide so their (your) god will bless them with immortality and virgins? Perverts? There are no perverts running around with church appointed positions of authority? Derelicts? That's a new one.. atheism leads to homelessness? I haven't seen that data..

E Favorite:

Well, let's see....

If God said "You shall worship the Lord your God, and no other gods," and if religion is "the worship of God", then I'd say religion is sanctioned by God, wouldn't you?

Sheen
"You can't just go and make blanket statements like that Densbtly."
Sure I can, easily... The religionists have been doing it for centuries. We (radical atheists) don't see ourselves individually or as a species very much different from other living things. (Are there dogs/cats/ferrets/junebugs in your heaven?) Do they have 'souls'? I believe not, and can find nothing other than dubious ancient mythology to imply otherwise.. I don't think I as an individual or as a superior species have an afterlife, especially one tailor made for my earthly devotion/behavior. I have no egotistical pretense of immortality. The primary motivation for gluing yourself to a religion is faith in a better life/afterlife for yourself and maybe your immediate family. And the only way to do that is to believe that you are more special'er than other people and creatures... Look at what Lisa posted earlier "there is only one true religion " That, Sheen is exactly an egotistical statement. 'I'm right, and EVERYONE else is wrong' 'I'm going to heaven and YOU'RE not." My philosophy/belief merely says 'live and let live' and I have no 'great comission' to convert others.
And to counter your point about atheists feeling the freedom to do what they want; You're kidding right? And the religious folks are bastions of tolerance? Please. PEOPLE do nasty things to each other, religion is as often as not, used as a reason to be incredibly cruel. The whole 'kill the infidel's ' bunch (Crusades anyone?). Some Atheists may do bad things cause they don't fear mystical, post-mortem reprisal, but no more, in any measure statistical or empirical than Zealots do in the name of 'their' version of god(s)

Hi, SOK7, I wonder how you know that "religion is sanctioned by God Himself."

Does it say that somewhere in the Bible or did you figure that out on your own?

Religions are of man, by man, and for man, so in that sense Christopher Hitchens is right, but he stops too soon. The part he misses is that religion is sanctioned by God Himself. God’s intent is that religion nurtures and educates His people into a greater relationship with Him and with each other.

This of course creates a paradox. Man is imperfect and therefore what man creates is imperfect. Why create an imperfect instrument whose purpose is to bring mankind closer to the Perfect? I believe the answer does not lie in God, but in ourselves.

It is not enough to know God in the abstract or from a distance. It is not until our knowledge impacts our behaviors that we have a relationship with Him. Religion creates many roles and many interactions that test us, nurture us, and deepen our understanding of what God wants our lives to be. Involving other people in our relationship with God reinforces these thoughts by turning them into events and actions.

Religion is a community of faith, dedicated to God that reinforces its members as well as planting new seed of Faith wherever it goes. It does not need to be literally made by God Himself in order for it to be, for the most part, a tool that God can use.

Russell D.:
Lisa Leland:

Don't put too much stock in the Bible. Follow your own senses.

Posted May 23, 2007 11:34 AM

>>follow your own senses.

Such jibberish is why the world is seeing more perverts, derelicts, terrorists and atheists. Read the headlines...its not necessarily me, you or the next person making this world more and more debauched...but that doenst mean it is not happening...

Man made God, religion, et. al. in his image when mankind rejected God in Eden. The family of man is living in a world of consistenly denied absolutes...1+2=3 my friends. I challenge anyone to tell me that world wouldnt be a better place if all kept the 10 commandments. And none of this teenage rhetoric of 'Awwww...thats tooooooo hard to do....' Baloney.

...there is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death.

Dear Susan -

Another wonderful column. Thank you.

To Lisa Leland - If I had a nickel for every Xian who has told me "Xianity isn't a religion," I'd be a rich man.

Merriam-Webster's Online defines religion as: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

So, I ask you: in what way, shape or form is Xianity not a religion?

BTW - you owe me a nickel...

Joe Leaphorn! :) A fave of mine.

"Sometimes I think we don't really solve anything: We just rearrange the mystery." --That character. :)

I do think that ideas of 'eternal reward' can be essentially, life-denying... people made to *hunger for resolution* cause they were taught to both want and feel to lack it.

Whether you're saying 'Heaven' is chilling with 72 virgins, (Where'd *they* come from, anyway,) or, like Augustine, I think, said, 'watching the torments of the damned' as your 'chief delight,'

...ummm...

Who wants to live forever?
Especially like *that.*

No, we want to not-die. The rest is surrogacy.

It's kind of our personalities' *job* to want to not-die under most circumstances. Just how we are. How about *living.* In this life, or some other life.

One thing our experience can promise, is, 'It never has to be *boring.* :)

I think, Bobster, that people who 'mock' religious see the part of the board where religion can *impede* the full experience of life, ...people that don't like the 'constructive criticism' and shout, 'God is not mocked!' tend to see the experience of a life they see as corrupt as impeding their God in some way.

I think most people who fear death don't "desire immortality," ...they "desire not-dying."

Would you really want to live forever? Well, as you are, anyway.

I, for one, have a lot of memories I'd rather not carry around for all eternity. Yet our lives right now are our experiences. Interesting.

I think we all have some concept of 'soul,' which is beyond ourselves-as-we-know-us. How do you live with it, is the question?

densbtly wrote:

"because unlike nearly ALL religions, Atheism is not self-centered and self serving."

You are are stereotyping! ALL religions are NOT self-centered and self-serving, and SOME atheists ARE! Geez, just the fact that atheists believe there's nothing later to answer for, gives some of them the idea that they should do whatever they want for their own fulfillment, and damn the rest of the world. You can't just go and make blanket statements like that Densbtly.

Umm, with all due respect, why should anyone else's opinions be important to my beliefs and if they are my beliefs, why do I give a hoot whether anyone else accepts them?

No one has added anything new to any side of the argument as to who, what and whether there is a God in at least a few centuries (though too many people seem to think that they have fresh arguments anyway).

So maybe we can talk about something more interesting, such as whether the US or, indeed, any country, culture or organization, has the authority or obligation to impose its will or way of life on the the citizen/members of another?

Surely this type of debate has more value than a debate about that which is, ultimately, unknowable, at least by any framework we can develop.

Whats worse? A closedminded religious person, or a closeminded atheist? Niether. But they are so similar when you really study their belief systems, and more importantly. What drives them to be so closed minded. And who in their right mind besides wackos, and terrorist are standing in line to be the next one to die? Its a healthy human trait not to want to die. And we all, non-believers, those in the middle, and believers as well have a desire to be immortal. Look at all of our politicians and presidents. All they worry about is their "Legacy". Stalin could not have enough statues of himself made, and erected. And he depised God and religion. The examples of all humans and their futile efforts to remain immortal abound everywhere. Not just christians.
Maybe christians have something that some of us don't have. But thats no reason to mock them. Or is it really jealousy masquerading as 'constructive criticism".

Is religion "man-made"?

Based on analyses of the founders of said contemporary religions, the answer would be a resounding YES, INDEED !!!!!!

As previously noted:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. And the book where we "find" his "biography" is so tainted with myths, none of it is reliable history.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic but even these sayings and ways have roots in prior religions. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian/Gentile/Jewish sects.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

Paul, the Great Embellisher, promulgated the "word" but they were the words borrowed from Cynics and other ancient religions/races. His attempt at "prophecy/fortune telling" i.e. the imminent second coming, failed historically but was quite successful in conversions and financial support. Contemporary evangelists continue to be financially rewarded with the "second coming" scenario. Easy money to say the least!!!!

As per Professor Crossan in his book, Who is Jesus?, the accounts of Jesus' last days are "prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered". A better view would be "fortune telling turned into money, rather than the reality of it all."

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - (from an on-line Hindu site)- "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: Contemporary religion is the evolution of "humankind's" views of good conduct first formulated by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Hittites, Canaanites, Cynics, Persians, various Chinese dynasties and Common Sense.

Note: The On Faith webmaster limits web site references to two per commentary. Added references provided as so desired.

My how time flies; another question already? Seems like only yesterday....

I've begun asking myself the same question as I've recently left the God bubble. Looking upon religion from the outside, rather than looking around from the inside lets me take a much more objective approach.

On an unrelated topic to this discussion, but related to a few discussions back regarding Mormonism - There is a wonderful article in the latest issue of Bust magazine about feminism in the LDS church. I've read it twice. If only I would have gotten this issue a month ago...

Lisa Leland:

Don't put too much stock in the Bible. Follow your own senses.

Bravo! Finally an article that points out publicly that which I've been frutrated to try to explain privately. That a typical Atheist LOVES life, and does not fear death since it will have no meaning, no awareness, no judgement, no rating system.
Beacuse an Atheist believes he has only one swing of the bat, one brief chance at life, then he is probably LESS likely to want to waste time in prison and more likely to respect this fragile life, his and that of others, because unlike nearly ALL religions, Atheism is not self-centered and self serving. Death is the cosmic equalizer, the final and complete justice in itself. There are no degrees of reward, or punishment. Just 'lights-out'. It is in my mind the only perfectly 'equal' state of human existence. Life has no 'meaning' other than what we create ourselves.! Grab hold and run with it, 'cause there's no reset button on this game... Thanks for a wonderful article!

I'll have a go, Anonymous:

"" To me, the absolute certainty and finality of death are what infuse life with meaning.""

"I could not word it any better than you have. I have long wondered what the facination of an afterlife was with people of religion."

Well, whatever else may be said for it, you can't deny it's a *fascinating idea.* :)

"I used to think that only unhappy people wished for another chance. However, I found much later in life that this is not true. Many people who have a wonderful life here on earth are still looking for what they call "paradise".

Ever get off a scary rollercoaster ride, and joyfully go, 'Let's do it again!?' :)

I don't think we need either a 'certainty of finality of death' or a 'certainty of non-finality of death' in order for life to have meaning. We're *humans, right now.* We're *meaning-finders.*

And there's plenty to be found.

I've been close to death a lot of my life, and there comes a time when other possibilities are open, cause there's no sense in having any kind of desperate struggle *to* lend meaning to life. It just has.

Sometimes that's enough to get up one more day, and another, or another, and sometimes it's enough to be, 'OK, we're good.'

I think that happy, or at least *darn interesting lives* have a way of letting one be willing to live with whatever comes next. If we let ourselves.

As the Bible makes abundantly clear, there is only one true religion and it's the religion God gave Israel through the hands of Moses. Christianity is not a relgion; it is a personal relationship with a living Saviour. It does not make Judaism false; rather it represents a dispensational "change in program" by the same God of the Bible.

Thank you Susan for the following statement: Of all the things I find puzzling about faith, the most puzzling of all is the conviction of so many believers that this life has no meaning unless it is to be followed by another life. To me, the absolute certainty and finality of death are what infuse life with meaning.

I could not word it any better than you have. I have long wondered what the facination of an afterlife was with people of religion. I used to think that only unhappy people wished for another chance. However, I found much later in life that this is not true. Many people who have a wonderful life here on earth are still looking for what they call "paradise".

Came someone give me an answer to this which will make sense to me?

Nice post, Mavaddat: All I can say is we'd better learn how for spirit and reason to really get along: both are gonna be with us a while. :)

This post is interesting to me, and I have a strong feeling towards it. I have said many times on this thread and others that God didn't make man. Man made God. Maybe now we can get some intelligent conversation on the topic.

This post is interesting to me, and I have a strong feeling towards it. I have said many times on this thread and others that God didn't make man. Man made God. Maybe now we can get some intelligent conversation on the topic.

Scientology has no God and has no faith that one is asked to believe in. Scientology is an applied philosophy that works and is only useful to you once you’ve observed it works. I have observed that the knowledge found in Scientology works to improve life. It is my opinion that Scientology is the greatest advance mankind has made to date. I offer this because your statements of God, belief and Scientology couldn’t be further from realilty.

Plato's 'Euthyphro' still gives us the definitive proof that any God must have been made up by humans:

Many people think that our knowledge of God flows from God down to us through some religion or messenger or subjective experience. However, if this is true, then it fails to account for how we can recognize a religion as being from God in the first place. It fails for being able to decide who is a messenger of God in the first place. And it also fails to account for how we can determine which experiences are genuinely experiences of God and not just our own minds. If we are supposed to choose a religion based on how well it reflects God's will, then we must have some sense of what God's will is in the first place. Yet, if we learn what God wants from religion, how can we decide which religion is from God? It's like trying to decide whether a certain handwriting belongs to a certain person before knowing what that person's handwriting even look like.

If choosing a religion is an arbitrary process that does not depend on our choosing a good religion, then the only possible standard for choosing between religions is one that man makes up. If it does depend on our choosing a good religion, then once again man must have some sense of what is good and what is bad prior to choosing his religion. In this case, again it is not what God wants that matters, but what the dictates of man's morality tells him to choose.

So ultimately humanity must be the final judge as to what religion he chooses and by what standard he chooses. To say that humanity must abide by God's standard when choosing a religion is to put the theological cart before the horse, since it presupposes that we already know what God's standard looks like, which is the very thing we would want to figure out!

Morality is a collective social construct, but it surely does not 'come from' religion. For if it did, then to say 'my religion is good,' would be merely tautological, since any religion would itself be (by definition) the source of good for its followers and would thus set the standard of right and wrong. If this is the way we're going to speak, then no two religions can be compared, since for the followers of extremist Islam (for example) their religion defines what is good for them. If this is the case, then it means that they have been completely indoctrinated and convinced not to question what they have been told. Indoctrination is an arbitrary process, since any religion at all can be good by definition. It is when we all work with a common standard of good and evil that it becomes meaningful to speak of one religion being better than another. But then if we already have this common standard of right and wrong, why do we need religion? The answer is obvious to me: we don't.

In conclusion, every God must be judged by man, not the other way around. For there can be no imperative for us to obey an unjust tyrant, no matter what claim he has on our creation or however powerful he is. Might simply does not make right, and a God that does not pass our standards of morality does not warrant obedience.

I think it's often a projection of the values and fears of certain *kinds* of religions onto the experience of human spirituality, ...particularly in the presumption that necessarily the *purpose* of religion is to somehow allow for a sense of immortality, and explaining the 'unknown.'

We experience not-knowing all the time, after all, and it's conceptually not precisely possible to *really* experience the idea of our own brains' 'turning off.' There's still an implied point of view involved somewhere.

It seems that, too often, certain forms of religion seem to have gotten turned around to *make* death as frightening as possible, in order to sustain religious authority and images, themselves, but behind it all, there's another, more human purpose, which might ideally be a full human experience of the world *as* limited creatures.

My own faith doesn't appropriate, say, thunder *as* a frightening image of a God we can't control, but maybe to bring us in touch with a world that *is* alive, and in our experience, at least, quite aware and interactive.

With thunder in it. Now, does this mean thunder *is* in some absolute sense, whatever personification we may experience or create? Likely not. But we experience the world as a collective dream, one to which 'we' do return, as, in our experience, all things do.

Does this mean a human idea of 'control' is the really *important part?* Some say this, whether they approve of the idea of some humanlike being controlling things or not. I don't think it's a necessary condition to have a religion.

I tend to say our images of the Gods are *between* us and other, bigger beings. Can images and practices become detached from the world, even maladaptive, leading us to do things which are bad for our experience and those of others? Certainly.

But we have to question our learned assumptions about what religion is *supposed* to be, if we're to *make* things productive.

I think we start thinking the most important thing in the universe is what we believe or think about it, when religion starts asking us to do things that we absolutely wouldn't, otherwise, ...then in order to justify itself, it must claim some 'higher truth' that one absolutely must be correct about in order to, say, not fear death or thunder any more than it's biologically-natural to.

If we start from abstractions, we're bound to find those abstractions coming into conflict with reality. If we start from our experience of the world, and choose what in it to honor, then the forms and images become far less dangerous.

I certainly say if we seek from where we are, there are things to find that'll blow your (rationalist) mind: stuff I've experienced that convinces even that part of me that at least information in some memory-like form carries across lifetimes, which to my present experience is some kind of soul-continuity, even if to call it 'reincarnation' may be just a convenient way to describe the experience.

Unusual, that, but something that we all seem to intuitively live with, whether we 'believe in it' or not. We see relatives who've passed on in the eyes of infants, even, often, recycle the same batch of names over and over because of these connections.

People are always looking for the ghosts and the explanations for ghosts, and the theologies, the miracles, the signs, the wonders, (all reasonably-available,) and, moreover, ...the 'proof,' or 'disproof,' which is all very nice, nice, but, well, what would we do if we all *had* it? Would we need to tell everyone else with the all-fired urgency of blind faith reacting to the 'horror' of 'ego-death?'

I think our culture at large is so fearful of death, and fearful of *each other* because of other fears that have been chained *onto* death, because so much of religion has *made* death a lot scarier than really comes naturally.

Maybe, as artifact-makers, both of dreams and objects and images, mental and otherwise, it becomes less *important* who made who in what images, than what images we make and how we live with them.

Susan Jacoby - The so-called "God gene" is nothing more than the very human longing for immortality.

I realize you are using the "God gene" as a metaphor. However, if there is a "God gene", it is certainly not there to sate our longing for immortality. It must provide some other benefit that actually enhances fitness, besides ameliorating our feelings of terror of the unknown.

On the origin of religion, I don’t think religion would evolve as a mechanism to cope with death. It may help individuals cope with death (as a byproduct), but I can’t think of any reason that natural selection would favor such a coping mechanism or how it might originate. Some people assume that individuals with religious beliefs may face death and hazards with more equanimity than nonbelievers, but whether that would translate into higher fitness (i.e. more offspring) is questionable.

There are six different hypotheses about why there is religion and how it evolved. Some of them are adaptive and some are not.
1) Group-level adaptation (benefits groups, compared to other groups)
2) Individual-level adaptation (benefits individuals, compared to other individuals within the same group
3) Group stability hypothesis (benefits group stability and cohesion and increases both group and individual fitness).
4) Cultural parasite – religion benefits its own propagation without regard to the welfare of human hosts.
5) Adaptive in small groups of related individuals but not in modern social environments.
6) A byproduct of traits that are adaptive in nonreligious contexts.

I’m only going to address one of the byproduct hypotheses (there are many) on the origin of religion.

Humans are social animals and interactions among humans in a social environment probably has a very large selective effect on individual fitness. In fact, just belonging to a group, especially in the past, would most likely be a matter of life and death. Having strong social bonds between individuals, whether they are related or not, would enhance fitness, especially in response to predators, other antagonistic humans, competition for food, or any number of other things affecting survival and offspring. We all know the effect of social bonds among the individuals in our own lives whom we love and cherish. Such strong feelings (i.e. social bonds) often carry on after the death of someone we love. This may result in remembrance of those who have died (e.g. on their birthday) and a wish to see them again. Eventually, this might lead to ancestor worship and a belief in life after death. Religions and spirituality are the outgrowth (i.e. byproduct) of selection favoring social bonds among individuals (See Barbara King, Evolving god: A provocative view on the origins of religion). There is evidence in other animals (dogs, elephants, chimps) of strong social bonds and grief even after the death of a group member. Once religion has evolved, selection then may favor it because of one or more of the reasons listed above. However, it is unlikely that it originated because of those reasons above.

As for the possible selective advantage of religion, I think there is a lot of support for the group stability hypothesis, including …
(1) Social dominance hierarchies (i.e. pecking order)
(2) Policing (formal or informal) is common in groups. The ultimate price would be either death or shunning.
(3) Status. Many instances of apparent altruism are actually shows of status (Zahavi 2000)
(4) Reputation (Dawkins). Important in within-group interactions. Who can you trust?
(5) Social bonding and relationships
(a) Morality.
(b) Byproduct of social bonding leads to group stability. Adaptive for the group after it arises.