Maybe if there were a new edition of the Bible (I'm thinking 3.5, not 4e)...
You did not just go there. :P
I think we all have these 'aha' moments. It is just if you have them while reading the Bible, you see them as divinely inspired. And if you go looking for them in the Bible…While I do not understand nor agree with all of it, I am getting more out of the Tao-Te Ching than I ever did out of the Bible.
I got a really good one out of a history of Emancipation a week ago. Maybe Eric Foner is God? :)
|
If I can find divine meaning in the Clone Wars, is the Bible really all that relevant to my life.I think we all have these 'aha' moments. It is just if you have them while reading the Bible, you see them as divinely inspired. And if you go looking for them in the Bible…
While I do not understand nor agree with all of it, I am getting more out of the Tao-Te Ching than I ever did out of the Bible.
If you can find a copy of Ursula K. Le Guin's interpretation of the Tao Te Ching, you should pick it up. It's my favorite. EDIT: Amazon link.
|
|
Just to add fuel to the fire for all the trolls here. Carry on with your idiocy.If you cleaned up your previous post, you might actually be able to contribute something to the discussion - I sensed a point in there, something about questioning the definition of "evil" I think.
It'd also help if you refrained from calling us all idiots.
So, either make the effort to make a meaningful contribution, or please resume your boycott of this thread. Insults and deliberate troll-trolling add nothing.
There hasn't been a "point" to this thread in probably 50 pages, other than to give some people a forum to continually insult people of faith. Insults and deliberate trolling are the hallmarks of at least two atheists who post in this thread regularly. Maybe you should take some of the people on your side to task for being rude and condescending.
Carry on. Feel good about yourself. And don't feel bad when someone that had, in so many words, been called an idiot for believing returns the favor.
Just to add fuel to the fire for all the trolls here. Carry on with your idiocy.If you cleaned up your previous post, you might actually be able to contribute something to the discussion - I sensed a point in there, something about questioning the definition of "evil" I think.
It'd also help if you refrained from calling us all idiots.
So, either make the effort to make a meaningful contribution, or please resume your boycott of this thread. Insults and deliberate troll-trolling add nothing.
There hasn't been a "point" to this thread in probably 50 pages, other than to give some people a forum to continually insult people of faith. Insults and deliberate trolling are the hallmarks of at least two atheists who post in this thread regularly. Maybe you should take some of the people on your side to task for being rude and condescending.
Carry on. Feel good about yourself. And don't feel bad when someone that had, in so many words, been called an idiot for believing returns the favor.
Ah, Houston. You always add so much. Bonus points for persistence, though. If at first you don't succeed...
PAY ATTENTION TO ME. RAWR!
|
|
Just to add fuel to the fire for all the trolls here. Carry on with your idiocy.If you cleaned up your previous post, you might actually be able to contribute something to the discussion - I sensed a point in there, something about questioning the definition of "evil" I think.
It'd also help if you refrained from calling us all idiots.
So, either make the effort to make a meaningful contribution, or please resume your boycott of this thread. Insults and deliberate troll-trolling add nothing.
There hasn't been a "point" to this thread in probably 50 pages, other than to give some people a forum to continually insult people of faith. Insults and deliberate trolling are the hallmarks of at least two atheists who post in this thread regularly. Maybe you should take some of the people on your side to task for being rude and condescending.
Carry on. Feel good about yourself. And don't feel bad when someone that had, in so many words, been called an idiot for believing returns the favor.
Ah, Houston. You always add so much. Bonus points for persistence, though. If at first you don't succeed...
** spoiler omitted **
Add what to what? This thread has been a circle jerk for a while now.
Add what to what? This thread has been a circle jerk for a while now.
Ok, everyone: That's it. Shut down the thread.
Is religion truly so divisive? Or is it semi-blind faith that ruffles our feathers so? Is this thread a testment to the failures of human discourse, or the wonders of belief in some greater being(or purpose, for those who wonder as to the existance/nature/benevolence of said being)?
Meditate upon this, I shall.
|
|
Is religion truly so divisive? Or is it semi-blind faith that ruffles our feathers so? Is this thread a testment to the failures of human discourse, or the wonders of belief in some greater being(or purpose, for those who wonder as to the existance/nature/benevolence of said being)?
Meditate upon this, I shall.
I think it's an example of what happens when people's cherished, unquestioned beliefs are publicly examined. When ideas that are near and dear to them are in jeopardy, the instinct is to perceive the inquiry as personal attack. And once one side of a debate/discussion feels they are being personally attacked, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to devolve into trading barbs.
Perhaps it would be better to try some sort or structured/moderated debate format? I don't know.
|
|
Seriously people, you don't have to read the thread if it bothers you so much.
If you don't like the way the thread is going, either leave, or make a constructive contribution. Clogging up the thread with calls to have it closed is not helping the thread get back on track.
Again, which track are you referring to? The Christian bashing fest that has been going strong for months? The religious people who used to enjoy lovely debate on this thread, many moons ago when it actually was civil, have either stopped posting here or are so annoyed with the lack of civility that they're just lowering themselves to Samnell's level of discourse.
That's all I can think of, is that you'd like the religious folk to leave so you, Samnell and bugleyman can get back to the business of belittling those poor irrational souls who may believe in a higher power.
|
|
Is religion truly so divisive? Or is it semi-blind faith that ruffles our feathers so? Is this thread a testment to the failures of human discourse, or the wonders of belief in some greater being(or purpose, for those who wonder as to the existance/nature/benevolence of said being)?
Meditate upon this, I shall.
I think it's an example of what happens when people's cherished, unquestioned beliefs are publicly examined. When ideas that are near and dear to them are in jeopardy, the instinct is to perceive the inquiry as personal attack. And once one side of a debate/discussion feels they are being personally attacked, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to devolve into trading barbs.
Perhaps it would be better to try some sort or structured/moderated debate format? I don't know.
Maybe if the questioners had a modicum of tact it would work out better. And I love how you infer that being called "irrational" and "stupid" is only a "perceived" personal attack.
Maybe if the questioners had a modicum of tact it would work out better. And I love how you infer that being called "irrational" and "stupid" is only a "perceived" personal attack.
Give it up already. Your attempts to shut down the conversation have failed. Or are you just going to keep posting the same message until you get your way?
Is religion truly so divisive? Or is it semi-blind faith that ruffles our feathers so? Is this thread a testment to the failures of human discourse, or the wonders of belief in some greater being(or purpose, for those who wonder as to the existance/nature/benevolence of said being)?
Meditate upon this, I shall.
I think it's an example of what happens when people's cherished, unquestioned beliefs are publicly examined. When ideas that are near and dear to them are in jeopardy, the instinct is to perceive the inquiry as personal attack. And once one side of a debate/discussion feels they are being personally attacked, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to devolve into trading barbs.
Perhaps it would be better to try some sort or structured/moderated debate format? I don't know.
Maybe if the questioners had a modicum of tact it would work out better. And I love how you infer that being called "irrational" and "stupid" is only a "perceived" personal attack.
Not to get too navel-gazing here, but is perception truly reality? Moreover, doesn't rationality leave the room when matters of faith come up? Not necessarily because faith itself is stupid or a waste of time, but because it is faith- by the very nature of its being, it sidesteps rationality, logic, and all the other things many people have built their worlds around. I would imagine faith is in the same boat when rationality and logic are brought up, along with its adherents.
Are they eternally attracted to each other yet refusing to come into contact because they know they cancel each other out?
In the interest of moving back to discussion and respect...
In fact if you go to the wiki we have touched every single criticism of the wager, although pretty poorly, and yet the wager still stands. Because belief is the better option. Notice I said belief not faking it, not going through the emotions. But true belief and if you do not believe fine. Be honest about it and do not talk down to those of us who do. If you actually engage us you may find out a thing or two.What if you try to have faith, and you can't do it? What if you wan't to believe, but you can't?
Belief may be the better option, but the assumption is that it is available. I'm willing to accept and acknowledge that you experience it. Would you be willing to accept and acknowledge that I either have not experienced it or am incapable of experiencing it?
The response may be to read the Bible, but I have not found that to be effective. When I read the Bible, I don't get the sense of a greater meaning or truth. I get the head scratching puzzlement that I experience when I watch anime - the cultural background is so foreign to me that what happens doesn't make any sense.
Strangely enough, the greatest sense of divine power I've experienced in recent months came from an episode of the Clone Wars. They have cheesy little messages at the beginning of each episode, and the one I watched had the message "Who a father was is less important to a son than the memory of him." (or something like that). Having just lost my father, it hit me hard. Was that an act of divine power or just a coincidence? If I can find divine meaning in the Clone Wars, is the Bible really all that relevant to my life.
I guess that's something I circle around a lot. As I've said, I'm willing to entertain the notion of a divine being, I'm willing to accept that the television was the intermediary for communication with the being. I just can't figure out how a collection of archaic and culturally foreign words can be...
Interestingly, though many of your contemporaries may scoff at your T.V. experience, it's amazing what a few hundred years does for credibility. It's very odd, but it's almost as if ideas that endure for long periods of time somehow accumulate credibility for many people simply by virtue of being old.
|
|
Maybe if the questioners had a modicum of tact it would work out better. And I love how you infer that being called "irrational" and "stupid" is only a "perceived" personal attack.
Give it up already. Your attempts to shut down the conversation have failed. Or are you just going to keep posting the same message until you get your way?
Considering that you, Samnell and others have been posting the exact same "message" for pages, I feel free to do the same.
What amazes me the most, I think, is that you somehow think you're a rational person capable of intelligent discourse. Honestly, you've been the same mildly insulting, condescending person you've been ever since your meltdown way back when WotC kicked your puppy and you had a hissy fit over it.
You just bring out the worst in me, I guess.
Is religion truly so divisive? Or is it semi-blind faith that ruffles our feathers so? Is this thread a testment to the failures of human discourse, or the wonders of belief in some greater being(or purpose, for those who wonder as to the existance/nature/benevolence of said being)?
Meditate upon this, I shall.
I think it's an example of what happens when people's cherished, unquestioned beliefs are publicly examined. When ideas that are near and dear to them are in jeopardy, the instinct is to perceive the inquiry as personal attack. And once one side of a debate/discussion feels they are being personally attacked, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to devolve into trading barbs.
Perhaps it would be better to try some sort or structured/moderated debate format? I don't know.
Maybe if the questioners had a modicum of tact it would work out better. And I love how you infer that being called "irrational" and "stupid" is only a "perceived" personal attack.
Not to get too navel-gazing here, but is perception truly reality? Moreover, doesn't rationality leave the room when matters of faith come up? Not necessarily because faith itself is stupid or a waste of time, but because it is faith- by the very nature of its being, it sidesteps rationality, logic, and all the other things many people have built their worlds around. I would imagine faith is in the same boat when rationality and logic are brought up, along with its adherents.
Are they eternally attracted to each other yet refusing to come into contact because they know they cancel each other out?
At the risk of quoting myself:
"Faith (i.e. belief without proof, at least according to Webster's) is by definition illogical. If, from that, you wish to infer that I am insulting all religous people, or declaring them unworthy human beings, then I suppose I can't stop you."
I do believe that faith and logic are diametrically opposed. If Houston is to be indulged, then we must endorse the idea that such a statement is so vile that it has no place in civil discourse. In fact, people advocating such a position are, apparently, to be silenced.
People are certainly free to base their lives on whatever experiences they deem valuable. In the case of religous belief, however, those experiences aren't objectively verifiable, which means they do not meet the definition of evidence. This is not to say that they don't have a right to believe what they will, and practice their religion any way they like (as long as they don't victimize others). It doesn't mean that peole of faith are bad, or unworthy, or anything else. I don't, however, see why we should be obligated to pretend that their position is supported by data when it isn't.
|
|
Is religion truly so divisive? Or is it semi-blind faith that ruffles our feathers so? Is this thread a testment to the failures of human discourse, or the wonders of belief in some greater being(or purpose, for those who wonder as to the existance/nature/benevolence of said being)?
Meditate upon this, I shall.
I think it's an example of what happens when people's cherished, unquestioned beliefs are publicly examined. When ideas that are near and dear to them are in jeopardy, the instinct is to perceive the inquiry as personal attack. And once one side of a debate/discussion feels they are being personally attacked, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to devolve into trading barbs.
Perhaps it would be better to try some sort or structured/moderated debate format? I don't know.
Maybe if the questioners had a modicum of tact it would work out better. And I love how you infer that being called "irrational" and "stupid" is only a "perceived" personal attack.
Not to get too navel-gazing here, but is perception truly reality? Moreover, doesn't rationality leave the room when matters of faith come up? Not necessarily because faith itself is stupid or a waste of time, but because it is faith- by the very nature of its being, it sidesteps rationality, logic, and all the other things many people have built their worlds around. I would imagine faith is in the same boat when rationality and logic are brought up, along with its adherents.
Are they eternally attracted to each other yet refusing to come into contact because they know they cancel each other out?
At the risk of quoting myself:
"Faith (i.e. belief without proof, at least according to Webster's) is by definition illogical. If, from that, you wish to infer that I am insulting all religous people, or declaring them unworthy human beings, then I suppose I can't stop you."
I do believe that faith and...
Wow, way to try and clean up the "Oh, Samnell, stop beating your head against the wall, the stupid Christians will never see our logic and acquiesce..." statement.
Considering that you, Samnell and others have been posting the exact same "message" for pages, I feel free to do the same.
What amazes me the most, I think, is that you somehow think you're a rational person capable of intelligent discourse. Honestly, you've been the same mildly insulting, condescending person you've been ever since your meltdown way back when WotC kicked your puppy and you had a hissy fit over it.
You just bring out the worst in me, I guess.
I appreciate your input, but I think I'll stick with the overwhelming objective evidence that I am, in fact, capable of having an intelligent conversation.
Wow, way to try and clean up the "Oh, Samnell, stop beating your head against the wall, the stupid Christians will never see our logic and acquiesce..." statement.
The whole thread is here for everyone to read, Houston. Or is it that you feel people can't be trusted to understand without Houston to guide them?
I have a proposal. Let's agree not to engage one another any more, shall we? I'd be happy to abide by that if you will. I've grown very tired of your continued references to unrelated conversations of years past. You clearly have an axe to grind; that's fine. You don't like me; I get it. Can we stop cluttering up threads with it now?
|
|
I appreciate your input, but I think I'll stick with the overwhelming objective evidence that I am, in fact, capable of having an intelligent conversation.Considering that you, Samnell and others have been posting the exact same "message" for pages, I feel free to do the same.
What amazes me the most, I think, is that you somehow think you're a rational person capable of intelligent discourse. Honestly, you've been the same mildly insulting, condescending person you've been ever since your meltdown way back when WotC kicked your puppy and you had a hissy fit over it.
You just bring out the worst in me, I guess.
I'm sure you are. I just haven't seen much evidence of it here. I don't even think you realize I post in a less sugar coated form of your mildly insulting, "intellectually" superior tone, mainly as a reaction to said tone. My posting style isn't much different from yours, it's just more honest in the derision and dismissive nature.
|
|
Wow, way to try and clean up the "Oh, Samnell, stop beating your head against the wall, the stupid Christians will never see our logic and acquiesce..." statement.The whole thread is here for everyone to read, Houston. Or is it that you feel people can't be trusted to understand without Houston to guide them?
I have a proposal. Let's agree not to engage one another any more, shall we?
Oh, but it is so much fun.
Oh, but it is so much fun.
No, it really isn't.
As it happens, I apologized for my tone several pages back. You probably missed it. That's fine, but I've been trying to be more respectful (I guess you would call it "sugar-coated") since then. But I stand by my assertion that faith (i.e. belief without proof, at least according to Webster's) is by definition illogical. If you'd care to discuss why you believe that is incorrect, I'd be happy to do so. But I don't think that's your objective here.
|
|
Oh, but it is so much fun.No, it really isn't.
As it happens, I apologized for my tone several pages back. You probably missed it. That's fine, but I've been trying to be much more respectful (I guess you would call it "sugar-coated") since then. But I stand by my assertion that faith (i.e. belief without proof, at least according to Webster's) is by definition illogical. If you'd care to discuss why you believe that is incorrect, I'd be happy to do so. But I don't think that's your objective here.
I don't disagree at all. Even Christians admit that faith isn't logic. Faith, by definition, is belief in spite of a lack of tangible evidence. But calling someone "illogical" because they have faith is always insulting, no matter how you couch it.
And, you're right. My objective here is to shut down a forum a particularly vile form of humanity uses to insult and belittle people of faith. Is this person you? No. But I am tired that the particular person gets away with being the most insulting person on these boards, more likely than not because a particular moderator agrees with him 100%.
So, I will continue to try and get this thread shut down so said person no longer has at least this particular forum to paint people with his moldy, diseased brush.
Senior Software Developer
|
Seriously, nearly 9,000 posts on this thread and you're going to single-handedly get it shut down? That is a pretty unfriendly thing to do, whether you agree with what other people are saying or not.
And the personal beliefs of Paizo staff do not come into play when deciding what threads to close and which to leave open. If you have a problem with what someone posts, flag it and move on.
|
|
Moving on to an actual conversation, since Gary summed up my thoughts nicely.
Not to get too navel-gazing here, but is perception truly reality? Moreover, doesn't rationality leave the room when matters of faith come up? Not necessarily because faith itself is stupid or a waste of time, but because it is faith- by the very nature of its being, it sidesteps rationality, logic, and all the other things many people have built their worlds around. I would imagine faith is in the same boat when rationality and logic are brought up, along with its adherents.
Are they eternally attracted to each other yet refusing to come into contact because they know they cancel each other out?
Your navel gazing, as it were, reminds me of the debate over whether science and religion/faith are compatible. FWIW, I'm of the opinion that they are not compatible, since they are designed to do different things, and are very often at cross purposes with each other.
Your navel gazing, as it were, reminds me of the debate over whether science and religion/faith are compatible. FWIW, I'm of the opinion that they are not compatible, since they are designed to do different things, and are very often at cross purposes with each other.
I mostly agree. They're certainly methodologically incompatible, and in fact they're methodological antitheses of one another. But I think they both originally engaged in the same project: trying to explain the universe. Religion is full of myths to explain how cultures formed and why, to justify social arrangements, to explain why the run rises and the rain falls.
What are these if not primitive, groping attempts at anthropology, sociology, astronomy, and meteorology? And that's nothing to be ashamed of either. As I said about the Tower of Babel story pages back, this is in the running for the best intention of humanity. It just happens that they got the methods all all wrong and thus couldn't much help getting all the wrong answers.
I removed a post. Really folks, let it go.
|
|
the debate over whether science and religion/faith are compatible.I mostly agree. They're certainly methodologically incompatible, and in fact they're methodological antitheses of one another. But I think they both originally engaged in the same project: trying to explain the universe. Religion is full of myths to explain how cultures formed and why, to justify social arrangements, to explain why the sun rises and the rain falls.
What are these if not primitive, groping attempts at anthropology, sociology, astronomy, and meteorology? And that's nothing to be ashamed of either.
I agree. The fables and myths that gave rise to what we know as religion were originally attempts at explaining the universe around us. That was religion's original purpose.
However, I'd posit that religion has moved beyond that purpose - science is now the tool we use to explore and explain our universe. Religion serves a different purpose now - it's more of a social, communal network and resource system, and has psychologically therapeutic aspects to it (NOTE: this is what I perceive as the "positive side" of religion, YMMV).
I think problems arise when people continue to use religion for its original purpose, or there are remnants of the old purpose still sticking around mucking up the new purpose, or people mistakenly believe that the benefits of religion are inextricably tied to the negatives (that is, they think that you must use aspects of the old functionality in order to gain the benefits of the modern functionality).
|
What if you wan't to believe, but you can't?
To Sebastian and/or CF:
This really hit me and I didn't want to lose it. I'm still on vacation now --
-- but I just wanted you to know I'm thinking about this one.One question though -- Why did you/would you want to "try"? I'm trying to get into your mind(s) -- a dangerous place, I know -- and I'm having a difficult time understanding why you would do this or what "try" looks like to you.
...and with that, I'm back on vacation...
|
|
What if you wan't to believe, but you can't?To Sebastian and/or CF:
This really hit me and I didn't want to lose it. I'm still on vacation now -- ** spoiler omitted ** -- but I just wanted you to know I'm thinking about this one.
One question though -- Why did you/would you want to "try"? I'm trying to get into your mind(s) -- a dangerous place, I know -- and I'm having a difficult time understanding why you would do this or what "try" looks like to you.
...and with that, I'm back on vacation...
Re: Moose: Very cool photo! Was there also a squirrel nearby? ;D
Re: Wanting to believe: I've never been in a position of wanting to believe, but I think I can see the gist of it. It's kind of like the situation many LGBT people find themselves in, in a way. There are many benefits to believing - you get to be a member of the majority, many exclusive clubs/groups are open to you, most people are more likely to trust you when they first meet you, you have a pre-made social net/community you can lean on wherever you go, etc. Even the lack of the atheist stigma (never mind the benefits of being Christian (or Majority Religion X depending on the locale)) is enough to cause many many atheists and nonbelievers to stay in the closet, call themselves Christian, and occasionally go to church.
There are some atheists who honestly wish that God was real, just for the peace of mind it would give them to know (or believe) that there was someone in charge, and there was a reason for all the evil in the world. I don't think I quite agree with their position, but I can understand it.
However, I'd posit that religion has moved beyond that purpose - science is now the tool we use to explore and explain our universe. Religion serves a different purpose now - it's more of a social, communal network and resource system, and has psychologically therapeutic aspects to it (NOTE: this is what I perceive as the "positive side" of religion, YMMV).
I'm probably just quibbling, but how do we assess progress in religion? I'll agree with you that some religious groups have decided that resurrections, talking shrubbery ("God just flamed Moses!"), global floods, and cows jumping over the moon are just fables. They certainly seem to me to be almost infinitely more advanced than the alternative, but I'm a bit at a loss to find some kind of internal-to-religion metric that would let us say that it's moved, as an aggregate, beyond X or Y. Obviously revelation is out, since even people who agree there's a deity or deities disagree vehemently about what their desires. We can do opinion surveys, but the kind of ultra-metaphorical takes on religion that you're describing take huge beatings there.
I ask about a metric that operates inside religion because it's difficult for me to say to a fundamentalist, for example, that he's doing religion wrong because he believes that God really did create the earth in seven days and nights. I can say that he's wrong on the facts, of course, but if religion has progressed then why do so many of the religious not think so? I know what progress in science would look like. But what would progress in religion look like? I really don't know.
Also I'm not sure if I'm expressing this well. I guess we'll find out.
I think problems arise when people continue to use religion for its original purpose, or there are remnants of the old purpose still sticking around mucking up the new purpose, or people mistakenly believe that the benefits of religion are inextricably tied to the negatives (that is, they think that you must use aspects of the old functionality in order to gain the benefits of the modern functionality).
I can't argue with that. Certainly people gain the same benefits from a healthy family life, being members of fraternal organizations, hanging out with friends, etc. In principle it seems like a trivial task to extricate the good from the bad. Surely religious groups have plenty of sticky bad bits that don't drop so easily, but the same could be said of any group of people. Community can be a wonderful, healthy thing. (If you're not an asocial, hyper-introverted freak like me, anyway.) But it can just as easily be a cruel, controlling, authoritarian engine of endless bitterness and oppression. That's true whether it's secular or not.
Why did you/would you want to "try"?
I was raised Roman Catholic. My grandmother was Eastern Orthodox. I wanted to be a priest. I was never the victim of something bad which I believe to be caused by any church. Nor did I have a bad experience which I blamed on god.
I left church/religion/faith because the answers to my questions (and I have a lot) seemed suspicious. My own conclusions made more sense (don't they always?).
Why would I continue to 'try'? I would think it obvious. I could be wrong. I do not know everything and I do not have all the answers. It would be nice to know there is someone who loves me unconditionally and that has some plan for me. However, wanting something to be true and believing it is are far from the same thing.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What if you wan't to believe, but you can't?To Sebastian and/or CF:
This really hit me and I didn't want to lose it. I'm still on vacation now -- ** spoiler omitted ** -- but I just wanted you to know I'm thinking about this one.
One question though -- Why did you/would you want to "try"? I'm trying to get into your mind(s) -- a dangerous place, I know -- and I'm having a difficult time understanding why you would do this or what "try" looks like to you.
...and with that, I'm back on vacation...
Howdy Moff. Hope you're having fun on your vacation, and love the picture of the moose. How close were you to it?
I made a sincere attempt to become Christian when I was a teenager. I tried to set aside my doubts and attempt to feel/sense something. Nothing happened then, and, I suspect, nothing would happen now. I can't see any way to resolve the "logical" arguments that lead me to believe the Bible is not a true, accurate, or complete depiction of God or that Jesus is the true son of that God. I think the best I could do would be to have a sort of loveless relationship with Christianity, one where I go through the motions and profess what I want to feel/be true, but not actually feel it or believe it.
So, I ultimately think, I'm not interested in trying to be Christian. Barring some fundamental change in the way I think, I don't think any attempt would be successful.
In terms of trying to sense any diety, that also has borne no fruit. I can attempt to characterize my aha moments as divine communion, but I think they are more readily explained through the natural forces of brain chemistry and coincidence.
I think I saw that Star Wars episode on Saturday, but it might have been Sunday. Why do you ask?
It would be nice to know there is someone who loves me unconditionally and that has some plan for me.
You mean like a sit-com Jewish mom?
I too have often tried to understand or experience faith.
But I have so fair been unsuccessful (with experiencing it) and any understanding I think I may have ... well Ill leave that alone for now.
|
|
However, I'd posit that religion has moved beyond that purpose - science is now the tool we use to explore and explain our universe. Religion serves a different purpose now - it's more of a social, communal network and resource system, and has psychologically therapeutic aspects to it (NOTE: this is what I perceive as the "positive side" of religion, YMMV).I'm probably just quibbling, but how do we assess progress in religion? I'll agree with you that some religious groups have decided that resurrections, talking shrubbery ("God just flamed Moses!"), global floods, and cows jumping over the moon are just fables. They certainly seem to me to be almost infinitely more advanced than the alternative, but I'm a bit at a loss to find some kind of internal-to-religion metric that would let us say that it's moved, as an aggregate, beyond X or Y. Obviously revelation is out, since even people who agree there's a deity or deities disagree vehemently about what their desires. We can do opinion surveys, but the kind of ultra-metaphorical takes on religion that you're describing take huge beatings there.
I ask about a metric that operates inside religion because it's difficult for me to say to a fundamentalist, for example, that he's doing religion wrong because he believes that God really did create the earth in seven days and nights. I can say that he's wrong on the facts, of course, but if religion has progressed then why do so many of the religious not think so? I know what progress in science would look like. But what would progress in religion look like? I really don't know.
Also I'm not sure if I'm expressing this well. I guess we'll find out.
I'm not necessarily saying that religion has progressed. More that the society around it has progressed.
I wasn't entirely accurate by saying that the community aspect of religion is new and the explaining-the-unexplained aspect is old - both aspects have always been there in various ways. It's just that the explaining the universe part is obsolete - we have mechanisms that do that far better than myth ever has. The community part of religion is still valid, but it's weighed down by the obsolete portions.
My prediction is that ,eventually, community building and social support methods will be developed and popularized that fill community roles better than religion does, and religion will become almost entirely obsolete, except as a source of inspirational myth.
I'm not necessarily saying that religion has progressed. More that the society around it has progressed.
Ok, then we're agreed. :)
My prediction is that ,eventually, community building and social support methods will be developed and popularized that fill community roles better than religion does, and religion will become almost entirely obsolete, except as a source of inspirational myth.
One can hope. Certainly that seems to be happening in Europe.
|
|
I left church/religion/faith because the answers to my questions (and I have a lot) seemed suspicious. My own conclusions made more sense (don't they always?).
Thanks guys. Sometimes from talking to you, (figuratively) it seems like you and Sebastian have truly (at least in your eyes) tried to figure it (religion? Christianity?) out. And in different ways you were disappointed. You seemed to be looking for real answers that you never got -- for some reason it seems like you felt that religion should have an answer for everything, while Sebastian ... I'm still not entirely sure what Sebastian was looking for. I guess he was looking for some kind of magical experience. Not entirely sure.
I'm still trying to understand this. What does "try" look like to you? I've pretty well grown up with this stuff so I don't really feel like I have the same ideas about this as you. I've never really tried to be a Christian. And truth be told, I've learned in the past 20 years just how wrong I was about a lot of this stuff and I feel I have a better understanding about how it all fits. Almost to the point where talking to other Christians is often times difficult. But I've never felt like I've had to try to be a Christian.
and...
Of course, I was having difficulty getting that "perfect" picture. It was a little dark. So the ISO setting (I figured out a little later) was a little too high to get a good detailed picture. So I forced the ISO to a lower setting. But then the shutter had to stay open longer because there wasn't enough light, but the moose wouldn't stay still. Add to all that and they were wet and so there was some odd reflections in their fur and antlers that were significantly contrasted with their dark fur.
Long way to say that I'm not sure if I liked any of the 30 pictures I took of it.
<runs naked through the thread>
At the risk of quoting myself:"Faith (i.e. belief without proof, at least according to Webster's) is by definition illogical...."
Sure. So is there anything wrong with this?
…for some reason it seems like you felt that religion should have an answer for everything…
Maybe when I was younger. I do not feel that way any more.
No, it is not that religion does not have the answers for everything. It is the answers it does have do not add up. I do not think I was looking for answers when I started to drift away. In fact, I felt I had all the answers. I believed. It was more of a 'hang on a minute' moment. I began questioning the things I took for granted. In my opinion, they just did not stand up to any amount of scrutiny.
What does "try" look like to you?
First of all, that was the word you chose. I think I would use 'explore'. Being raised a Christian and believing in all of it and even wanting to dedicate my life to it…I think that is a fair exploration. I feel that I continue to explore by reading the Bible and talking to people of faith.
Let's see, I have been to Catholic mass, Lutheran, Babtist and Quakers (I really liked the Quakers, I keep meaning to go back). I know that is not every flavor of Christianity, but it is not like I tried one church, had a bad experience and decided to label all Christians as evil.
I still question myself nearly every day. Quite frequently someone will say something that resonates with me. You might be vainly pleased to know you have said a few things, Moff. I do honestly (in my eyes) consider it. I keep coming back to the same conclusion, though.
I explore other religions and philosophies as well. I do believe the truth remains the truth regardless of where you here it from. So if the Devil tells you the sky is blue, it does not change the color of the sky. Therefore, everything must be investigated on its own merit. Just because a book says it does not make it true or untrue.
If you were asking me more specifically how I have tried to be a Christian, I do not think I can say, since my falling from faith, that I have tried to live by all of the Christian traits. I do try to treat others as I believe they wish to be treated (I fail miserably, but who doesn't). I try to treat others with compassion. I try to stand up for what I believe is right. I try to remain humble. I do not do these things because I believe Jesus is my lord and savoir and that he will reward me in the afterlife. I do these things because I believe they are the right thing to do. And, perhaps naively, I believe that if everyone lived this way the world would be an incredibly better place for it.
Moff, if I may, you seem to take up a defensive stance and ask how you would be a better person if you were to give up your faith. I find this a little insulting because it seems to imply that you are somehow better than people of faith. I do not mean this as some kind of calling you out. I am beginning to wonder if it is possible for two people who believe strongly in two different things not to be a little insulting. If it were easy to empathize with the other position, would you be so firmly in your own? I digress.
My question is, how would losing your faith make you a worse person?
...Moose
** spoiler omitted **...
Moose Facts:
Moose do not tend toward natural aggression. Their size betrays their generally passive demeanor. Feeding off plants and tree bark, these herbivores munch on willows, birches and grasses by the pound. During the barren winter, when moose can't get their lips on these natural foods. Like humans, moose often turn grumpy when hungry and if there isn't any food around.
If you notice its hairs raised, head down and ears back, that's your cue to hightail it in the opposite direction. And when a moose licks its lips that's your signal to move away.
The number of moose attacks spikes in September and October during mating season and the early spring when mothers are protecting their young calves. However, moose often do not confront people unless they feel provoked.
When you see a bull, or male moose, charging at you, there's only one thing to do -- turn and run to avoid getting trampled. Although moose can outrun humans at their top speeds, many times, they won't chase you far if you run away from them. If you don't get away fast enough, and a moose knocks you down, don't struggle. Curl into the fetal position and cover your head with your arms. Trying to move or beat it off will only cause the moose to continue kicking and stomping you.
I suppose I could be called a Christian, but I don't always see eye-to-eye with a lot of Christians.
I was raised a Christian by my single mother. She started off "normal" enough, but after years of physical/emotional abuse from her then-boyfriend, she started transfering her abuse to me--the eldest child--and, eventually, my sister. Due to her increasing break from reality, she went from a fairly "standard" Christian-lite to a crazed, violent, "D&D is of the Devil" fundamentalist. I don't know if this shift was a way of her dealing with her own horrible existence or not, but I can assure you: it altered my view on the whole "God" concept after years of suffering my own abuse, all in the name of "God".
Needless to say, by 15 I was an athiest (although I eventually became "agnostic", for lack of a better term; it was just too depressing to me to think that there was nothing out in the cosmos that cared). I figured that Christianity was broken, but possiblynot the concept of a deity.
Long story short, my teenage/young adult years were filled with self-destruction and, eventually, alcoholism: my way of coping with the extraordinary loneliness I'd become swathed in. After years, at around 30, I did the "unthinkable": I begged God to take me out of the mess I'd created of my life and asked him to help me love others and myself.
It's been 5 years, since then. I call myself "Christian" now because I believe that the inherant values that Christ taught have worked for me. Notice I said for me. It was a personal choice I made, not one shoved down my throat by a crazy mother or an established religion. As it's a personal choice, I find myself at odds with other Christians who would tell others that they're going to hell, that their ways are "wrong", or what have you. So, I rarely feel comfortable in "churches" (an interesting designation, since Christ himself said that people are the church, not buildings. I practice my own spirituality, and believe that people should follow what works for them. Am I a Christian? Yes; I personally honor the teachings of Christ, and try to apply it to my own life. Am I religious? No; I do not follow a religion. I follow my heart, and think that everyone should follow their own hearts.
After all, are we all not human? And, if I am to follow Christ, shouldn't that mean that I practice loving and accepting others, regardless of their beliefs or lifestyles? I think so.
Besides, Christ himself spent much time with prostitutes, tax-collectors, and other "undesireables" (at least in Judea's culture, at the time). I think this means he was accepting of those that were hated, a champion of the "sinner" and the downtrodden.
That's my take, my personal take. I'm a Christian, and I believe that everyone should have the freedom to find their own path through life, without persecution and hatred from the "saved".
...Moose
** spoiler omitted **...Moose Facts:
** spoiler omitted **
More moose facts