There is more evidence in science to believe in "God" than there is not to believe in a "Creator". Believing in a "religion" is different than believing in "God" though, to some extent if you get what I am trying to say. Nevertheless, to your first question, no one should be demonized or harmed because of their beliefs be it Atheism, Agnostic, Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism or any other belief system. People should only be bothered/harmed/restrained when they do something that harms the physical pressence of mankind...in order to presserve physical peace.
on divinely inspired --- i don't know always exactly what i mean by that. i have to kinda talk it out each time. but what i mean is that i don't have a limited view of God. i don't believe that he ONLY cared for the hebrews and thus the only way anyone ever possibly knew of him was through them. that would be extremely limiting of God, I think. You brought up Melchizedek and that's a great example of what I mean...clearly they thought him to be someone who was serving the One, True God they believed in, despite the fact he didn't have their shared experiences as Hebrews and may or may not have had some common text or something that pointed to the same God. I wish we knew more about him to know why they thought that, frankly. But I believe God engages everyone, everywhere. I don't believe you have to have said some magic words at the altar of a church to have some inspiration or connection with God...i could break that down even as simply as talking about the next breath you take and where it comes from. but these are all just statements of my faith....
Great point... I was raised in the church, went 4 to5 times week for many years with my mother. She absolutely adored the church and the religious side of things, which was really a good thing for my mother, it turned her life around, she left the drugs and wild life, and settled down and was the greatest mother i could ask for. But on the flip side of that token, i never FELT religion the way she did, i did(and still do)reading religious text for the understanding and knowledge of it, regardless of the religion. But i never FELT anything for religion, or the need for God in my life. My mother tried for many years to push it on me, but eventually she gave up and realized that for me, I had to come to terms with my life and what I believed in. Which i can understand as a parent, you would want the best for your child, and in following a particular faith or way of life, you think that is the right and best thing for your children. Both of my kids go to church and firmly believe in God, and i have absolutely no issues with that whatsoever, and i encourage them to do so. Because my children aren't me, they need what they feel they need and i'll support them regardless.
So I'm eating my lunch and I had some time to think about this a bit more. Is this your rationale for why you are a christian? If we can come to a consensus that multiple religions/practices/enlightenment contain aspects or even the entirety of the message you find in the bible and jesus - I'm left to conclude that this must be the case. You say you think that these other writings are likely divinely inspired. Ergo the "uniqueness" you mentioned initially way back on page 5 is grounded in Jesus' particular life story and symbology. Certainly you must admit that this is a highly subjective point. Let me rephrase this as a highly incendiary question - do you think a -say- hindu person who follows more-or-less the same ideology espoused by Jesus is going to heaven? How much of the jesus archetype is required or even necessary for "salvation"? You are well aware that this archetype can be found in numerous religions - if the answer is "I don't know", then I'd argue the uniqueness aspect moot. Like I said - "pick up your cross and follow me" seems extremely vague as to who the "me" is - the focus is on your actions, your mindset. Before you argue the context, let me further state that that seems perfectly logical! It's often bandied about that god is infinite and indescribable, impossible for the mortal to understand or even envision. So what's the impetus to choose one particular book's vision of god as "correct"? Wouldn't a great example of god indescribable nature be his/her appearing to everyone in different ways? What do you mean jesus "lived it" and how did he do this more/better than any other supposed supernatural entity? Or conversely, could you, madmax, be born into a culture with absolutely no christian contact and "find god"? My apologies for rambling about.
Regarding the hate coming from both religious and non-religious groups towards one another: I think it is human nature. You don't believe what I believe, so that makes you wrong. I've been on both sides of the fence, and I've concluded that anyone who says you are wrong for believing what you believe...is an idiot. IMO, where religion has gotten it wrong is that they say God punishes those who don't believe. I don't agree with that at all. I think God punishes those who are evil. Judging others for what they believe is a sin. That includes judging those who don't believe in God. I use my faith (not my religion) to help me live a good life, treat people well, and to try and always do the right things. I talk to God because I geniunely feel better when I'm done. It helps me put things into perspective. I believe he talks back. Now whether or not that is my subconscience talking...I don't know, but the thoughts and feelings that I get from prayer helps. I use religion as a way to help guide me in my faith. I don't agree with a lot of the aspects of my religion, so I take from it what I want and what applies to my life. I'm pro-choice, but I don't feel that makes me less of a Catholic. On the flip-side, I can totally understand why atheists need scientific proof to believe. I used to be the same way. I won't go into the reasons why I've changed my mind, but my thoughts on science is that for as much as mankind knows...we still really don't know much at all. We've only really been smart for a couple of hundred years. To assume that "if we can't prove it scientifically, it can't be true" is a bit naive. We just don't know enough yet. I think that if we keep ourselves alive long enough to truly understand everything (which we won't), we might be able to link science and God together. I don't see that ever happening though. To me, the fact is that no one knows for certain who is right and who is wrong. We won't know the actual truth until we die and get to see what happens.
Pardon me for jumping into you and MadMax's lovefest (get a rooom will ya! ) but I think you are hitting on why there is conflict between differing religious, and non-religious, views. Faith is a personal thing and what resonates with one won't resonate with another. For example I was brought up in an atheistic household. I did attend Catholic school for a year though, it was the closest school, and considered Christianity. While I think there are some very good things about Christianity it just wasn't something that I felt a spiritual calling too. Same with Islam, Judaism or any of the other Judeo-Christian religions. For whatever reason Buddhism made the most sense to me on a spiritual level and I can't logically explain why that is. About 15 years ago I had a very rough patch in my life and what kept me going was the Buddhist principle that there is more than my own personal existence and my own personal pain. I am part of all of existence and it is only my own thought process that defines me as something seperate. That's not an easy thing to understand and anti-thetical to many over religious views but somehow I found that idea comforting. Humans are tribal by nature and seek to define ourselves through various views. Being that there is no empiracal way to prove that one religion is right versus another faith is all important and to embrace one faith necessitates the rejection of others.
I wish you would have stayed an atheist so I could pile grief on your sorry existence. But come back to Texas and jam with me, I've been practicing
I was with you up to here. Yes, I think the mentality is (as you remarked) born out of human tribalism, our collectivist urgings to belong. It is, however, further reinforced by religions - the primary goal of a religious structure is to empower the leaders and control a particular culture. (This is all just repetition of many of my past posts). But this is not necessary, by any stretch. While collectivism may be appealing and comforting, it is an enormous source of bigotry, pain, cruelty, and repression. It is perfectly within our grasp as humans to resist this ideology. Likewise, while it may be appealing to think that only your own particular version of faith is "real", there is nothing preventing you from expanding faith in a direction unrestrained by past religious and dogmatic isolationism. Frankly, it seems to me that most spiritual teachings (not religions!) are directly endorsing the opposite of what you just espoused as necessary - they are not seeking division, but union. To summarize, you are wrong. Terribly wrong. Faith does not require you to reject anything - only your ego can take you that direction. Madmax and I were once both sidelinin' as country singers...
I don't get into the "who's in, who's out" discussion or theology at all. Seriously. God has been infinitely merciful to me and I have no idea what mercies He has in store for people. There are people who believe you have one shot to get all this right here on earth...and if you don't, you'll boil in lava for eternity...I don't really fall in that camp. I also...there is a difference between specific revelation and general revelation. even your favorite, Paul, talks about this! saying that we can look around us and deduce a creator from creation...and be grateful for it...even if we don't have specific knowledge of jesus. to me, christianity has been reduced to mental assent. say the right words in time so you can get your pass into eternity. i'm not comfortable with that. i don't see that from Jesus....i think it reduces God down to some combination of a slot machine and fire insurance. there is a change that happens when you're sincere about seeking after Jesus.....i've seen it in my own life and in the lives of others. and its evidenced in someone "taking up their cross" -- dying to your self to live for God and others...a change in priorities, turning them upside down. is that enough of the "church speak"??? nothing like using phrases like "taking up your cross" and "dying to yourself" on a basketball messageboard! jesus living it...to me...means he comes off as a source who didn't just make claims...he lived a life reflecting them. he was affirming to the least....he fulfilled prophecy....he rode in to cheers for a king while riding a donkey...he prayed for the forgiveness of people who beat the crap out of him....and he confounded religious authorities. i find peace in him. i'm prone to worry about things that haven't even happened yet...and i then remember he said: "don't worry about tomorrow...let tomorrow worry about itself..today has enough worries of its own." i find him to be faithful...i find myself to be different because of him. i see that in so many others, too....people who were cold and calculating who have been transformed. yeah, i know there are 1,000 other explanations for all that beyond what i see...but i believe. we all put some sense of faith in something, i suppose...for me, it's him. and i get that that's weird...and i laugh at the spaghetti monster and purple unicorns right there with you!
All right Max - I think we both know that I find your ideas of what constitutes christianity completely different from any version I have ever been taught or experienced. I find that truly invigorating. (cue the country singer bit again...) But..... I think you avoided the fundamental point I was making - is knowing the Jesus story really a necessary component of salvation? If the kingdom of god is in you - who's to say I/you/we need anything but introspection? Cue a twanging guitar... She left me for Jesus.... Now that isn't fair. She says that he's perfect, How could I compare? She says I should find him And give him a chance. But if I ever find Jesus... I'm kickin' his ass.
1. i believe so, yes. i believe Jesus is the only way. i'm just not convinced that has to happen before you die. as i said, even paul talks about a general revelation for people who never heard of Jesus. this is a good test for me, frankly...because i don't relate my faith a lot to "what happens when i die." i know Jesus RIGHT NOW. and even if i'm completely wrong about all, i'm sooooo glad i do. life right now, for me anyway, is far better with him. and when people ask me about my faith...and asking about what it might mean for them...i don't think i've ever talked about heaven or hell. another good book you should read: "The Great Divorce" by C. S. Lewis. i think you'd really like that...it goes to a lot of these questions you're asking. 2. did you just make that song up???? that's hilarious!
General revelation, as I understand it, is not "sufficient" for salvation. Obviously, I don't agree, but it makes me very confused as to what you are trying to say. Hayes Carll. Download this song! Frikkin hilarious. The verse lyrics are even funnier than the refrain.
see..this is a difficult conversation for me because i'm not interested in "sufficiency" or applying that standard to other human beings. i'm grossly insufficient before a holy god. grossly. you know the joke about, "i would never join a club that would have me as a member??" yeah...that's how i feel about "heaven" or the "kingdom of god". i'm not getting there because of me. and i don't mean that just from a "place after i die" standpoint. i mean the change in me...i don't believe or even feel like it came from my effort. there is some degree of give back in the relationship of faith....but a lot of it seems to have just been poured on. i think the Church has spent so much time saying that it's aim is solely about what happens to you when you die...that it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about Jesus with people in the US (followers or not) without coming to this issue. but i don't see a lot of it in the NT. the authors dont' spend a lot of time talking about who's in and who's out....or coming up with some clear, clean line of what it means. there's John 3:16 which opens up salvation to everyone who believes; but even that opens up more questions like, "what does it mean to "believe???" -- in the modern Church i'm afraid it means just parroting some words and showing up for an hour or so on a sunday morning. i have to watch myself, because i'm likely to discount the hour or so on sunday morning (my church meets on sunday evenings, anway!! ) and the meaning behind any of those words as a direct backlash.
I just realized that you were making a point that your faith is not focused on "salvation". I'm cool with that, as I think the idea is a combination of contorted and fictional.
This is an excellent post, and it reminded me of some thoughts and experiences I've had over the years about god. Whether God exists as some external, supernatural entity, to me, is an utterly meaningless question. What's more interesting is the question of what exactly is going on when people experience god. You say talking to God helps you put things in your life into perspective. I have no doubt that it does, because I've had the same experience with meditation and even casual self-reflection. Occasionally, I will experience a feeling so profound and inexplicable that I can't help but compare it to the common theistic descriptions of some awesome diety. In that sense, I feel like I "know god" as much as any theist does. But the god I know doesn't come with so many of the qualifiers and dualisms associated with the Judeo-Christian God. It is, rather, a property of human consciousness that seems to break down the barrier between our sense of self and the oneness/interconnectedness of the universe. If god is an aspect of consciousness, I see no reason why it can't be studied by science. Some here have said that it is closed-minded to think of god within the limits of science. I strongly disagree. Science is a tool that unlocks a limitless potential for knowledge and understanding. To close off a big part of the human experience from science is the hight of closed-mindedness.
