All Comments (93)

Spiderman2 wrote:

"And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28

For me it sounded like something beautiful and well written in the bible, and I assumed that must have a profound meaning as S2 explained: "a very deep metaphor".

The trouble is that metaphors need context to be understood, so I went to read the source.

What I found few verses before was that a woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, was misleading "my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols."

Then Jesus says: "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead."

If my interpretation is correct the whole meaning of the metaphor is: behave and you will get "morning stars", that is, good things like eternal life, no trip to hell and even mundane kingdoms, otherwise, bed of intense suffering and killing of your children.

Can anybody please help me with this: did I understood correctly that Jesus was the person talking and that he indeed said that was going to kill her innocent children?

Also, is this the Jesus that is praised as just and pure love?

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

TO SORCERERSAPPRENTICE:

On your post of 4-5-2008 at 5:01 PM you wrote, "Imagine God as a seething infinity of virtual energy with consciousness.", actually God is not energy but is a Being of Love, Pure Love.

You also wrote, "Back on earth, Martin Luther King demonstrated that a good heart is the essence of true spirituality. It is not mind, but heart that defines goodness.", Martin Luther King also used his mind to try to articulate.

Putting into action, in whichever way, that one feels God is guiding someone is at least attempting to do the "Will of God".

We are all different people and we all have different "jobs" to do but shouldn't at least trying to be a decent human being be a part of everyone's "job".

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO GABY:

On you post of 4-5-2008 at 4:33 PM you wrote, "Sounds like mumbo-jumbo....but.....", guess what it might sound like "mumbo-jumbo" to people that have not had an experience like you have referred to, but it doesn't sound like mumbo-jumbo to me.

You also wrote, "One think I KNOW for sure IT is always with my and with everyone. There is no escape from IT because we all come from IT and we will all return to IT."

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO SPEED 123:

On your post of 4-5-2008 at 2:06 PM you wrote, "Who are you to say who is more Christian? This is a chat board for debate not for your evangelical lectures and anti-intellectualism...", I haven't said who is "more Christian", I said it is God, Who can look into the heart and as for a "chat board...", I thought it was for anyone and everyone, not just the ones that you approve of.

You also wrote, "Faith and reason are both gifts from God - and it seems that you reject the latter with false claims of "sola scriptura.", I have heard the term "sola scriptura" many times and I suppose it means different things to different people but one of the things that I have said is, that the bible can lead you to God but that it seems that there are some that the bible apparently does not lead them to God considering that some use the bible to justify plenty that is, to say the least, less than good.

You also wrote, "As for following Jesus, have you given away all of your possessions? Left your family/wife and become a priest to teach the glory of God?

If not, you are being hypocritical.", first off you are not God and I am not God and when God chooses someone and that someone says "Yes", whatever "job" God gives to that person is what that person should attempt to do, and by the way the Divine Commission is to "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS", not to teach the glory of God, is it not?

And it is "GOOD NEWS" not 'good enough news'.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Perspective what it arose out of doesn't matter and that feeling of alienation is common to lower level members of any race based organization. It also appears to be the driving force of a good many Islamic suicide bombers.

What does matter is the fact that responding to hate with hate only multiplies the hatred and blocks any possibility of reasonable dialog between reasonable people. Haters regardless of race creed or color are not reasonable.

Spiderman2 aka CanyonSheare, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

Your comments, "And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28 and

"This is a very deep metaphor and the bible is awashed with metaphors. Unless atheists can unscramble these metaphors in which some already accurately describes our current world events , they should be cautious of their unbelief,"

brings out another reminder:

"Fools are those who have read only the bible. God cannot be proud of such lazy creations!!!!"

also again:

What "voodooer of the hoodoo" blessed you with such stupidity in the field of fortune telling and interpretations of said stupidity???

The reality of it all is that the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are coming to grips with the flaws and errors in their religions and in ten years the religions of today will be unrecognizable or extinct as the "pretty and ugly wingie flying thingies" are finally buried in the piles of utter nonsense.

I believe Jacoby's stupidity derives from her ignorance of religion. She bunches all religions as one and the same. I hope my previous posts from other blogs would help her understand that there are some religions that are not stupid, although they may not be perfect too. (She is smart though to understand that there really are idiotic religions)

"And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28

This is a very deep metaphor and the bible is awashed with metaphors. Unless atheists can unscramble these metaphors in which some already accurately describes our current world events , they should be cautious of their unbelief.

Concerning her belief that the First Amendment was a secular doctrine, she may need to read these :

YOYO wrote : "How many Muslims are given that kind of intellectual freedom do you think? Or Mormons? Or Evangelicals for that matter? "

Baptists (Evangelical) are NOT considered members of their particular churches unless they become born-again and choose for themselves to be baptised as an INDEPENDENT-THINKING individual. Unlike other religions, they don't become members thru their PARENTS' CHOICE (which, by the way, is the root cause of dictatorship in society. Catholic and Islamic countries, historically, are ruled thru dictatorship).

Freedom of Conscience is a primary baptist principle and , thru the years, it has rubbed off to America's political system and even to other nations (Catholic/Islamic included).

Baptist principles have molded this country but you just don't know it. Separation of Church and State was a bi-product of that principle and it was they who insisted that it be put in the First Ammendment.

If ever you wonder why we want Separation of Church and State, it's because if we don't let our parents or church decide for our faith, why would the state? Got it?

Welcome to the United States of America.

(I want to state though that baptist is not a perfect religion. I don't think there is one. But to damn all religions and be an atheist is a very foolish decision.)

*******

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Perspective,

Hmmm, your lists are my lists and vice versa to ensure completeness of thought.

CCNL - I didn't want to steal your thunder. After all, you're the guy with the lists!

The article was interesting. Now I'm more interested how Susan grew up to be an atheist.

My impression of Susan was like a wicked witch. After reading the article, snowhite comes to my mind.

HOW DID SNOWHITE TURN INTO A WITCH? I hope Susan can give us (believers) a favor, by writing about it akin to Anne Rice's article about her conversion from "vampire" to christianity.

Perspective,

On your list of people we should fear, you forgot to include the "tanned" terrorists of Islam and their recent activities as dictated by their founder and his book of "peace" aka the koran:

To wit,

Mohammed was a "tanned", illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/ hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of "tanned terror"? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

A partial, contemporary body count caused by said "tanned" terrorists:

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto,

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured,

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 82,682 – 90,207 Iraqi civilians iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

GARYD - my take is that black separatism as a group movement arises out of feelings of separation and alienation based on a long history of exclusion and discrimination that has occurred and continues to occur in more ways that you or I could imagine - right here and right now.

As to the Black Liberation and Black Muslim movements, we should ask from whence do these come about? Clearly there is a feeling of power, belonging and a sense of common destiny and community that's inherent in most group memberships. People that feel disenfranchised from the greater culture still have these needs as social creatures. Somehow they will be met.

Naturally these organizations that arise in part from feelings of social deprivation often have a political dimension, and a very likely place for these kinds of groups to arise in the black community would be in a church-centered theologically based milieu, given how embedded church related and religiously based activites are in a great many black communities. I say this from the perspective of South Carolina - and also from a purely observational and personally non-religous point of view.

Of course white supremacist groups are infused with 'christian' values and hyper-patriotism that make Black Liberation theology seem pretty tame by comparison.

My impression is that the Black Liberation movement is exceedingly small within the larger black community, as is the Black Muslim movement. My work environment and the surrounding community environment are probably in the neighborhood of 50% black, and yet I hear little or nothing about these movements - although there are a handful of Black Muslims in my work environment that stand out because they're typcially friendlier than other employees. Should I be suspicious??

Malcolm X was as you say was apparently killed by his own people because he defied leader Elijah Muhammed. This murder was politically motivated and singularly rare and as we see today, was not a foreshadowing of anything particularly violant or threatening related to the emergence of the Black Muslim movement in the USA. And while Louis Farrakhan is not a particularly endearing person, so far nobody has successfully pinned Malcolm X's murder on him.

The truth is white folks have little to fear from the black community, and everything to fear from their own white leaders. As to mass murderers and serial killers throughout the decades - ranging from whacked out suicide cults, to domestic terrorists blowing up federal buildings and mail parcels, to school shootings, family planning center shootings, mall shootings, shootings at the local plant and stock brokerage firms and the neighborhood MacDonald's, and from Ted Bundy to the Green River killer.....and last but certainly not least, our devastating and unforgettable political assassinations and near assassinations - all were almost without exception perpetrated by white men.

Yes indeed, let's put things in perspective.

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Perspective since you don't seem to have much perspective, Does the Name Malcom X ring any bells almost certainly slain by His own group. Several cops at least some of them black two subject off a movie some years back.

Preach enough hate murder will be done by some one.
That's the problem with both those groups - actually all four of them - They demonize people and preach hate. You cannot stop the racial divide by filling it with hate.

GARYD - perhaps you'll enlighten us with examples of deaths due to the Black Liberation movement and the Black Muslims?? And while you're researching history so diligently could you provide examples of deaths at the hands of the KKK and various white extremist movements??? There are plenty of these at hand.........

I know your research will be free of any kind of prejudice whatsoever - are you from Texas, by the way???

Your inclinations are apparent to all posters - and you say you're inspired by the Bible??

You have no credibility buster .........

Excellent work Ms Jacoby it is nice that someone else grasps the historical perspective quite probably the single worst event in the history of American Race Relations since Reconstruction.

You missed part of it though. Never forget that there are two sides of the racist coin.It was Martin Luther King who was also the only voice of sufficient stature within the black community that could have headed off the Black Liberation Theology movement and it's Black Muslim next of kin. Both of these are every bit as bad for Race Relations as the KKK and the Aryan Nations movement.

Who would ever imagine that the best of people and the worst of people would emerge from the
Quantum Vacuum?? This is what science will determine to be the source of all things before much longer.

Imagine God as a seething infinity of virtual energy with consciousness. This transcends religion, to be sure. How is it that we should appear at all?? This is the heart of the mystery.

Back on earth, Martin Luther King demonstrated that a good heart is the essence of true spirituality. It is not mind, but heart that defines goodness.

Arminius, my Friend,

You said: "As to my faith. Because of a profound spiritual experience, which I won't go into here, I came to know that God IS, and that He is with me. NOT provable. "

I must have had a similar experience, the only difference is that I did not look to the Bible to explain it to me. I just inherently know. I don't really call IT God because I don't want people to confuse IT with the old religions.

One think I KNOW for sure IT is always with my and with everyone. There is no escape from IT because we all come from IT and we will all return to IT.

IT is what IT is.....

Sounds like mumbo-jumbo....but.....

Have a wonderful weekend.

With the assassination of MLK, we will never know if he would have come to grips with the flaws and errors of Christianity. Considering his intelligence, one would assume he would.

I can almost hear that speech now.

"After careful review my fellow Christians, it is apparent to my mind and soul that we have been fed significant mumbo-jumbo with respect to the life of Jesus.

Brothers and Sisters stop and read about the real Jesus. Develop a new view!!! Jesus was a simple, illiterate preacher man. The Beatitudes are pure Jesus. His giving to Caesar what was Caesars is pure Jesus. The rest was embellishment upon embellishment of the life of said simple preacher man!!! The "miracles" were added to compete with the local "voodooers of the hoodoo", the resurrection was added to compete with Roman and Greek gods and the "pretty wingie thingies" and "demons of the demented added to continue the fear and superstitions of the ancients!!!!!

Free at Last, Free at Last"!!!!!!!!

Speed123,

Thomas Baum is actually pretty decent and polite, I've conversed with him before. I certainly don't always agree with him either, but he is ethical in his posts. I also don't see how he is being anti-intellectual.

Arminius

To Thomas,

Who are you to say who is more Christian? This is a chat board for debate not for your evangelical lectures and anti-intellectualism...

Faith and reason are both gifts from God - and it seems that you reject the latter with false claims of "sola scriptura."

As for following Jesus, have you given away all of your possessions? Left your family/wife and become a priest to teach the glory of God?

If not, you are being hypocritical.

TO SUSAN JACOBY:

You wrote, "Of course, psychobabble (like books extolling religion)", and you also wrote, " But if you spend most of your time writing anonymous screeds on the Web,".

I would like to say something about both Judaism and Christianity.

I do not consider either Christianity or Judaism a religion even tho there are many that do and there are many that have turned them into religions rather than the relationships with God that they should be.

The Jews are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose and formed them, before God chose Abraham there was no such people.

Being the Chosen People does not mean that the Jews are better or anything at all like that, it just means that God chose them.

If Christianity is just a religion to someone then they have missed the whole point of it.

There may be various ways to be a "Christian" but if you aren't ultimately trying to take up Jesus's invitation to, "Come follow Me", then I guess you are just kidding yourself.

As far as writing anonymously, I always put my name at the beginning and my full name at the end unless I forget, even tho I am nowhere near that formal in person.

I was reading thru some of the postings and one of the things that I noticed is that some of the people that have rejected FORMAL religion with it's attendant DOGMA AND RULES AND RITUALS seem to be more CHRISTIAN in their hearts than some who have embraced the dogma, rules and rituals yet don't seem to have any room left for GOD, of course only God can look into someone's heart but if we listen, we can sometimes hear what flows from the heart.

Another thing that I have noticed is that for some people the only way for, other's, to have an open mind, is for the other to only accept what they, themselves, consider open-mindedness, is that being open-minded or just another way of being close-minded and if you think about it, is there also some arrogance involved?

As I have said before and I repeat: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Does it seem rather odd that some of the "religious" and some of the "non-religious" seem to get equally upset about this statement?

Does anyone think the the above question is something to think about or to just dismiss it out of hand because of the preconceived notions that both the "religious" and "non-religious" have formed about anyone that is different from themselves?

If God was anything like what some of the people that believe in Him, who would want to have anything at all to do with Him?

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] at the dawning of the seventh day.

A little from Revelations and a little from Genesis.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Pleazzzze Ms. Jacoby, who are ye fooling self & others when ye call yourselves an 'Atheist' & a writer of 'HiSTORY." [not Philosophy or Religion.?

Remember: If Ye believe in "History", then ye cannot deny Evolution (History, aka OUR Holy Cosmic JURY) via the so called 'Bang'. So

if ye believe in bang then ye believe in Creation.! aka G-D, Being & doing Business via Holy Cosmic Work in and of "ITSELF" (G-D) or Justly just being "IT" (G-D) in and of Us All! Soo

Please do not Be in Denial to self nor others!

Ooppps, almost forgot: To Have HOPE is to Pray (speak) & or Meditate (listen) to ye ECLAt + "i" = LiFE/Photons awareness! There's no Hope If No Prayer and or Meditating!

Ha Ha Susan, ye Have religion, and ye are Making money off of It! And yet ye are in Denial of TRUTH (opposite of MYTH)! Wow!

You should be {ASH}{AMED} to be & or call yourself 'Jewish'!

Pleaze Do not Plagerize!

Think about this: a 60 year old religious person that believes that God exist even if there is no evident proof of his/her existence, but still does this:

1. Attends religious services and prays for 8,580 hours, based in an average of 3 hours per week during 55 years.
2. Has contributed with 10% of his earnings to his/her church during 45 years, which means $300.000 assuming that the person made an average of $50K per year.
3. His time and money supports an organization that he/she knows has made very bad things in the past, and most probably still keeps doing things that are not right.

On the other hand that person feels that what she/he is doing is to follow the faith of his/her parents. They sincerely think that they are being really faithful to his parents and their faith.

In addition, most of the time (not always unfortunately) the person is inspired by the minister and parishioners to do good things. They help each other while sing, clap and have fun making friends.

You could say they are satisfied customers: they get back what they pay for.

If you take away the supernatural and unproven myths, and change the old leadership, in this market space you can develop a new product more in tune with the current world.

This could be good business and no need to kill each other because unproven beliefs.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Arminius,

You have me there and that is an interesting fact that I will use in some morbid cocktail discussion; however, modernity has brought us unrestricted warfare against civilian population (both by conquering armies and by despotic national governments).

Is it progress when non-combatants are killed by the 100s of millions during the last century.

The Romans et al may have triumphed on the battlefield; however, us moderns have mastered whole sale liquidation of our own people...

Ironic that modernity has brought unrestricted "total war," isn't it?

Arminius - Actually the best choir I sang in was my last church choir. I can carry a tune, but am not much in the voice department.

I've never sung the ninth - maybe someday. I've seen lots of operas and always cry at La Traviata.

I got misty eyed recently at a stage production of My Fair Lady.

Jeff P is right about the Faure Requiem. Get his "Cantique de Jean Racine" too. They usually come together.

Speed123,

Being a history nut, I can't resist another addendum here on the unsavory subject of man's ability to kill his fellow man.

Can you name the battle that killed the most men in a single day? This is discounting the nukes on Japan, and the firebombings there and in Germany.

Most likely you would go to WWI, probably the Somme. The Brits lost 20,000 dead in the first day. A good guess, but you would be wrong.

The battle that accurate historical records exist for that is the record breaker happened in 216 BCE. That is correct. Cannae, Hannibal against the Romans. In a battle that has been studied by generals ever since, in one day the Carthaginians killed over 60,000 Romans. Killed, not wounded. And before you dispute the numbers, remember that the victors write the histories. The Romans won the war, and they freely admitted that horrible number of dead.

The lesson is - what have we really learned?

Arminius

E Fav,

Seems that I must look up the Faure Mass. If great music can reduce you to tears, then we have something in common, to be sure. Ever sung Beethoven's Ninth? That one completely shreds me when I hear it! Singing in a really good choir must be an incredible experience. My touch with the power of the human voice has been the few times I have been privileged to hear great opera live.

Arminius

Speed123,

Dresden, Flanders Field, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Iraq... yes, the number of the fallen are greater. We are better at it now. Also, there are more people to kill. But the intent is the same as the cavemen killing off a tribe downriver to gain better fishing and hunting grounds. The problem is not so much technology as us - as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

There is one difference, I will admit: nukes. The ability to destroy an entire nation in 30 minutes does change the equation.

Arminius

Chris Everett:

"The only thing I'm sure of is that I'm not sure of anything."

Are you sure of that?

Just couldn't resist.

Jeff P - I've sung the Faure! and wept in the middle of it - during a rest, luckily, but hearing all the voices around me was overwhelming.

Arminius - If I saved my critical remarks only for people who had written fewer books than I have, a lot of useful criticism would be lost. And I do think that criticism was useful.

But how does that ax compare to the nuclear bombs used on Japan or the machine guns and chemical gas used in WW1 or the fire bombing of Dresden?

Or even the hundreds of thousand killed in Iraq in the name of "progress and democracy?"

Misplaced idealism/progress + modern weaponry = hell on earth...

In my opinion, proportion is key.

Speed123,

Ah, yes, technology. I confess to being utterly fascinated by it. But modern technology has no hammerlock on the double-edged sword.

Consider the lowly stone age flint hand axe. That is a product of technology, primitive though it may be. But have you ever tried to make one? If you succeed (I have not!), you have a marvelous tool that can cut up your hunting kill, harvest edible plants, and shape wood for your fire or a shelter. But it can also be used to bash and slash an enemy.

Be careful what you wish for....

Arminius

Very true; however, modernity has also brought mass depression, isolation, mass unrestricted warfare, anxiety, extensive pollution...

Not to be pessimistic; however, it is also a double-edged sword - like all things.

Well, all I can say is that on a daily basis, I'm thankful that that "unimproved ends" technology allows conscious sedation for kids undergoing painful procedures, hope for parents whose leukemic kid is undergoing inductive chemotherapy with about a 95% chance of 5-year survival based on evidence-based chemotherapeutic regimens, the chance that a vaccine will reduce morbidity or mortality (and thankfulness that we don't still see polio or smallpox or haemophilus or as much pneumococcus due to these current vaccines,)a notification from hundreds of atmospheric scientists who are giving us a "heads up" that we may be causing catastrophic global warming and that we should heed some warning, and many other "blessings" from science that affect all of our lives, all of the days of our lives.

That technology seems to make real differences for real people every day may be spiritually pointless, but I don't see many folks opt to go to their preachers with their diabetic ketoacidosis instead of to the Emergency Room.

And if the "unimproved ends" means the end of life, in the meanwhile I sure have enjoyed being able to talk to you at the convenience of my desktop computer, with a Dr. Pepper in hand and the cat curled up in my lap.

Goodnight all.

Jeff, understandable; however, I always like the Thoreau quote on technology as "an improved means to an unimproved ends."

I lump Jacoby into the militant atheist group, so I tend to get into defensive (offensive) mode when on the threads...I will change my approach next time.

Arminius,

Chesterton does a great job of using logic to explain belief; it is not so much drilling dogma as explaining the sanity found in faith etc.

Happy weekend to all!

Speed:
apology accepted, and I hope you'll accept mine. I hate it when I feel personal about a negative post.

I also have to confess a certain "fanship" to Susan Jacoby, because I celebrate her cause. I truly think she cares about our nation and, through her writing, is attempting to shake us from our mental complacency, and to have us ask the important questions.

I think MLK was also more about that, than about his Christian message.

I am all too aware that there is no infallable "knowledge," and agree there is no infallability of reason. They are both transitory, but there is some utility in realizing that, and being willing and able to always look for a better answer.

As a physician, I spend much of this year's professional reading learning why last year's reading was wrong.

However, I do believe in the process. As imperfect as it is, it's the best we got. The method of scientific inquiry is the best method the human mind has discovered, and it is only by being infallably certain that we guarantee disaster.

Speed123,

Thanks, I'll see if I can find the Chesterton work. Mind you, as someone more spiritual than purely religious, I have no use for orthodoxy and am highly suspicious of dogma!

Arminius

And Arminius, nice pick with "mere Christianity"

Since I am in book mode, can I recommend GK Chesterton's "Orthodoxy"? This is along the same lines as CS Lewis (they were contemporaries); however, I found it much more engaging and it will might change your mind on the idea of "orthodoxy, dogma" etc.

Happy reading!

(although, it seems Susan thinks us plebs too lazy/thick to do so ;)

E Fav,

Please ease up on Susan. Yes, she can be imperious, to a fault. But she has written more books than I have, and maybe you too. Also, I appreciate the fact that she reads our replies and comments on them.

Arminius

From an Emo Phillips routine...

Two men meet.

"Christian or Jew?" asks the first man.

"Christian" says the second.

"Me too ! Protestant or Catholic?"

"Protestant."

"Me too," crows the first man.

And so the questioning continues, until the two men discover
they are both not only Baptists, but Northern, Conservative,
Fundamentalist Baptists of the the Great Lakes Region.

When the first man finally inquires, "Council of 1879 or Council of 1912?

the reply is "1912."

So he cries "Die Heretic!"

Jeff:

Nice answer, although we can agree to disagree and I apologize to all for my earlier aggressive postings (Jacoby tends to get me a bit riled)

Since you believe the infallibility of reason and don't see the threat the exclusive "tyranny of reason" can I suggest reading Giambattista Vico's "New Science"?

A great work of history and philosophy that disputes the claims of empiricists (Descartes et al) and claims the fallibility of reason alone in the study/governance of men.

PS- James Joyce based Finnigan's Wake on this text.

Check it out on Amazon.

Susan Jacoby says, “Those of you who think my books are about atheism apparently spend all of your time perusing blogs instead of reading actual books” and then “But if you spend most of your time writing anonymous screeds on the Web, you probably don't have much time to spend in bookstores.”

Susan, I wish you would spend less time insulting your readers – even if they are just readers of your blog. I saw you twice in person and you did the same thing, commenting on people with “no life” who spend their time talking “anonymously” on blogs. If you think it’s such a low pursuit, perhaps you could spend less time blogging and more time writing actual books.

Jeff P,

Interesting post! Thanks, I think I understand you a bit better. I commend your efforts to help others very much. Also, I am in the process of finally reading C S Lewis' 'Mere Christianity'.

"Reason can exist quite nicely with wonder and awe, instead of faith.". Agreed. To elaborate, anyone, belief, faith, or not, who has no feeling of wonder and awe has not really looked at the universe. But note that wonder and awe are also a driving force of my faith.

It is entirely possible to be spiritual without doctrine. That is where I came from. I am investigating the doctrine, on my journey, and I approach it with doubt and skepticism. As you know, some I accept. But not all, not all!

Arminius

E-Favorite:
I think the most beautiful Choral piece ever written is Faure's Requium. I don't care if he's written about the realms of heaven or Cinderella, it is stunningly beautiful music and I hope you get to sing it someday!

Hi, E Fav,

Glad you're here.

Bach's B Minor Mass is an incredible work. I would consider it an honor to sing it - if I could sing! I have been known to sing along with Carmina Burana, if I have had enough beer first. "O Fortuna, Velut luna, Statu variabilis..."

You are correct in that emotion does enter into my faith. But does not rule it.

Arminius

And Arminius,
I know there are a variety of Christian types. Having been a Lutheran Christian for 46 years, and growing up in Bible-belt Texas, I've pretty much seen it all. "'Preachin' Jesus Cowboy Style" roadsigns on farm roads are not far from "Discover Your Destiny" roadsigns for the megachurches along the interstate.

There are two generational preachers in my family, and I'm married to a person who has completed her second year of post-graduate theology study, and her mom (my dear-old mother in law) is a Presbyterian minister. I'm literally surrounded by "belief." My kid attends confirmation classes. My two best friends are preachers. All of my past girlfriends married pastors... (what does that say?)

I expect I've read as much CS Lewis as anyone who posts here, and have served on as many committees and driven nails into Habitat Houses, scooped soup into bowls at the Salvation Army, and delivered packages to bridge-families as often as many Christians who have posted here.

I think the primary difference in your attitude with that of other Christian posters (Dan in Lion's Den is similar to you) is that you personally confess and acknowledge, even celebrate uncertainty, even where your creed is certain. I think Marcus Borg (who is also an Episcopal panelist here, who I greatly respect) gets around this by suggesting he finds his god in the "thin places," a few of which are the non-thinking repetition of the creeds (that he doesn't take literally) or the immersing of self into the rhythm of a hymn.

Disagreeing with Speed123 once again, I think we can have a very "whole" and meaningful existance without imagining a supernatural realm where in some future all will be made right, the lion lays down with the lamb, and we live in peace with justice served by the supreme judge.

Reason can exist quite nicely with wonder and awe, instead of faith. I've not found many atheists who post here seemingly devoid of wholeness for lack of their faith-component. Is it possible to be "spiritual" without doctrinal? I would suggest yes.

Hi, everyone – nice to see you all here.

I’m singing in a secular choir after about 17 years of singing in an Episcopal church choir. Right now we’re working on Bach’s Mass in B minor – a haunting and very difficult piece. I’ve got a practice tape that I play whenever I can – in the car, in my office.

Even though I don’t believe a word of the Mass, I know the Latin very well and get excited by the words set to such stirring music. Words, for example, such as: “Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculi.” That is, “ And I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” I love the way the excitement builds as each part comes in - “Et exspecto” Et exspecto, -- “I’m hoping, I’m looking, I’m expecting….” I love the thrill of the runs, no matter how difficult, as the five sections bounce over each other to arrive together at the final “Amen.”

I don’t know, Arminius – maybe that’s how you feel about your faith.

Arminius, thanks.

Speed123: noted.

My message was a personal one to Arminius, and though posted on a public site, I think he understands well what I was trying to get across. I have read many of Arminius' posts and, as he describes in his reply, he's considered a heathen by many of his own. I respect and trust Arminius very much.

I'm afraid your earlier comments have bankrupted your credibility for me.

Go read some more, especially about how Christianity has served as the basis of "men" considering themselves equal among each other, or whatever nonsense you posted in that vein.

Speed123,

Your post was a good one. Keep in mind that, early on, you came across much to harshly.

Jeff P's comment was directed to me, and I took no offence at it. I have tried to explain to him that his definition of 'Christian' is a bit too restrictive.

You are right, 'moderate' is hard to pin down. A gray area for sure. I consider myself moderate.

Arminius

Jeff P,

Rest easy, friend. I have a saying that I live by: if you want to hurt my feelings, ya better get up real early and pack a lunch, 'cause it ain't gonna be easy!

You must accept that Christians come in a great variety. I certainly consider myself Christian, but I am progressive - liberal, in fact. We Episcopalians have a gay bishop; I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I am grieved that a schism has developed.

Obviously my own definition of Christianity is a work in progress. Also, like Daniel in the Lion's Den, also on these blogs, I am considered a non-Christian by the conservative gang. I don't lose a minute's sleep over that.

I am in complete agreement with Susan that the loss of reason in America is a disaster not just waiting to happen but already in progress. Please keep in mind that a true moderate Christian has no problem with reason and science. Do not confuse us with the Fundies, that is a classical example of guilt by association. I do enjoy duking it out verbally with the Fundies here, but it is, in the end, a pointless exercise. I'm not sure Spiderman2 even considers me human - he has already told me I am not Christian. Again, no sleep lost.

Arminius

Jeff states: "Sorry to put it this way, but in short I don't consider you a Christian! That's a total compliment!"

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement...it is like someone saying you couldn't be a true atheist, since you are too nice a guy...

As for moderate v immoderate, these are boxes that don't fit.

I am am against preemptive war and against abortion because they both violation the dignity of human life. I am for workers rights and against the death penalty but against gay marriage.

Am I conservative or moderate??

As I said earlier, secularists and materalists are very narrow minded on these matters - as are fundamentalists.

It takes both faith AND reason to make a person complete.

Rationalists cling to reason (look at the communists to see how that worked out) and fundamentalists only have faith.

Catholics (and anyone can be one!); however, have and use both faith and reason.

Andrew,

I hold to my faith, and I hold to the truths of science. Every minute of every hour of every day. I view them both as valid paths, and see no conflict. Further, in the church of my youth, one of our priests (Episcopal) was also a nuclear physicist. He obviously had no problem with it either.

So if you are going to call me nuts, no problem. If I am nuts, then it is a gentle and beautiful madness that harms no one, and I never, ever push it on anyone else. Deal with it.

Arminius

Arminius:

LOL, I was afraid I might have hurt your feelings on that one, and driving back from work already had in my mind how I'd respond if I heard from you; I don't know how you'd take this, but it's meant to be a complement: I haven't ever considered you among the "Christian" group who regularly post here with the intent on either 1) saving us heathen 2) convincing us that our dis-belief is illogical or 3) shaming us into repentance.

Sorry to put it this way, but in short I don't consider you a Christian! That's a total compliment!

Perhaps Jesus wouldn't consider himself a Christian either, if he were to come back and dissect his church currently. In fact I very much doubt he would. And I doubt MLK would rally his legacy around the fact that he "believed" in the right thing, or did the correct church rituals.

As for the deaths of the Christian-parented children, it's not a far-fetched thing to see these folks (as another reviewer described) totally "faithful" and even going as far as demonstrating the faith of Abraham with his sacrificial son Isaac as God says basically, "I'm in control." There are too many "promises" in the Bible to refute their good intentions. They simply trusted God. Same benign-appearing thing in my view as believing that God would choose against childhood vaccines, or blood transfusions, or that there should be a distrust against public school systems because they are godless.

Thankfully, we're willing as a secular society to draw the line where, in at least some cases, parents don't have jurisdiction to perpetrate their religious beliefs onto their kids.

It's a whole other topic, but where I fear the biggest potential disaster lies is precisely where Susan writes about--we can't afford to be so irrational as to begin to distrust the scientific method and empirical thought to the extent it seems we do--we will all suffer the consequences of a nationally decreasing IQ.