|
|
This is an archive of past discussions from the Secular Philosophies
boards that have not been active recently, or have grown too large and
have been honorably retired. They are preserved here as a record of this
community�s history.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 1 - 16 (91 total)
|
|
johnbigboote
5/12/2003 6:22 PM
|
1 out of 91 |
|
|
Is a person in a one-person religion considered Sectarian?
Or, does only one person constitute a sect?
I've talked to some of these people. They are not Atheistist,
Christians, Moslems, Wiccans, or anything else that fits neatly into one
of the Belief-O-Matic classifications.
They are: Independent, Reasonable,Strong Willed,
Charitable, Tollerant, and opposed to any kind of tyranny.
But. . .They believe in a god.
Although, it's certainly not the same
God of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ.
It's their own god.
Who are these guys?
(Who are you guys?)
In spite of our theistic difference I think they
occassionally hang out at AC&C because we
have one thing very much in common. The
major religions treat us the same--like dirt.
|
|
|
fler0002
5/12/2003 7:08 PM
|
2 out of 91 |
|
|
" Or, does only one person constitute a sect? "
Most definitions of a sect use the word 'group', thus requiring plurality.
I'd be inclined to compare them to voters who decline involvement in a political party. They are classified as independents.
Depending on the arguments used to support or distinguish their beliefs,
it is possible they could be classified as theistic agnostics.
|
|
|
slimtim336
5/12/2003 8:58 PM
|
3 out of 91 |
|
|
The catch-all name would be "freethinkers." But with additional
information, they might be classified as "non-congregational Christians"
or "non-congregational Theists."
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/12/2003 9:41 PM
|
4 out of 91 |
|
|
johnbigbootie,
I would love to think that I fit your description. I should print it up and hang it on my wall as a goal to strive for.
I consider myself a free thinker. I am very reasonable, up to a point.
As for stong willed, I'm at least stubborn. Does that count? I am
tolerant with those who are tolerant. I give more respect than I get,
but I have no respect for those who give none. Even so, I think I tend
to be too charitable, if anything. As for opposing tyranny, my first
reaction to anyone who tries to tell me what to do or what to think is
to tell them what they can do with their opinions.
YEs I do believe in god. Nevertheless, if I talk about (G)god with
other devout believers, we would probably more to disagree about than to
agree upon. Try to tell me about what god I believe in, or to make
assumptions about that god, or about me because of my belief in god, you
can refer back to the paragraph above. Odds are, whatever concept of
god that an atheist rejects is not a concept that is even remotely
attached to the god I believe in. A favorite quote comes to mind: "Tell
me what kind of god you don't believe in, chances are I don't believe
in it either."
I am uncomfortable with labels and snappy catch-phrases; even more so
when it comes to things that are important. This makes it difficult to
sum up the god that I believe in in short sentences, so I won't bother,
at least not all at once. If you have any questions, ask away. You
asked who I am, and that's the best way to find out.
GD
By the way, that should be "bigboo-TAY!"
"Remember, wherever you go, there you are."
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/12/2003 11:42 PM
|
5 out of 91 |
|
|
fler and slim:
Thanks, this helps. I have a practical need for this information and I
prefer to go directly to the source--my fellow posters at bnet.
GD:
Thank you for the complement, It's always good to chat with another
Buckaroo Bonzai fan. I am as fond of being labeled as you are.
I have recently observed a repeated and quite unexpected result when discussing my atheism.
It goes something like:
"Your an Atheist? I never would have guessed.
You know, I'm glad that you've brought that up
because you probably didn't know that I. . ."
And then they proceed to describe their very
personal views of spirituality using pretty
much the same items I mentioned in post #1.
Then they thank me quite sincerely for being
someone who they can speak with openly about
such matters. Go figure.
Sure beats the usual:
"Aren't you afraid of going to Hell?"
Charisma? I'd like to think so.
But, I a more reasonable explaination is that my lack of a god and their belief in a personal god puts us both in harms way.
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/12/2003 11:52 PM
|
6 out of 91 |
|
|
John,
Open-minded people are almost always delighted to meet others of like
mind, regardless of what other aspects of their lives might differ.
Such individuals are all too rare, and should be appreciated when you
find them. Once that similarity is established, there are very few
differences which matter, because they can all be discussed, and both
parties will come away the wiser and enriched by the experience.
GD
When I lived in Japan, I had a prairie dog named Buckaroo Banzai.
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/13/2003 12:20 AM
|
7 out of 91 |
|
|
GD
Going to Kamogawa and Tokyo, for the second time, this fall.
What is the bone of contention between
a devout believer and an open-minded theist
(not my attempt at a label) such as yourself?
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/13/2003 9:26 AM
|
8 out of 91 |
|
|
*The* bone of contention? You say that like there's only one.
There are many points that come between myself and the stereotypical
fundie Judeo-Christian-Islamic theist when it comes to the concept of
God (capitalization provided as a coutesy to those who use it, not as a
matter of my usage, minor bone right there). The main issue would be
that one of the central concepts of God professed by these faiths (again
at the fundamentalist level) is that of primacy. "There is only one
God..." and futhermore "...I am a jealous God." This is one of the main
reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses eventually leave my porch, never to
return. We can talk pleasantly up until then, but I do not accept that
tenet of their faith.
A second concept that is a fundamental issue is that this one God
demands obedience, and has the will or the right to dictate and ensure
moral and "right" behavior. I reject the elaborate system of ethereal
rewards for being "good", and especially the dire and eternal
puunishments for being "bad." It is in my own best interest to do the
right thing, whenever and wherever possible. Be it karma or social
conscience, I believe that it is an inherently obvious point that one
should treat others as they wish to be treated, and it doesn't take a
divine mandate to figure that out.
I realize that I am predominately preaching to the choir here.
However, I can find places to agree with them on "evidence" that we can
point to for our beliefs. I too believe in miracles. I am one, as are
you, dear reader. The very planet that supports us is a miracle worthy
of any god, let alone the universe than dwarfs us in scale and
magnificence. This is not to say that I believe that God created it
(another bone). The fact of its existence is enough to inspire in me an
awe and wonder so akin to worship as to make no difference. I find god
in the mystery that has always, and *will* always lie beyond the
boundaries of our knowledge. God is in the void between the stars and
within the atoms. Whether it is the force that created the universe, or
the universe created it, I neither know nor do I care. I believe in
its existence, because I live, breathe and eat it every day.
This is not a summation of my beliefs, by any means, but it is a central aspect of them.
For me, this concept has fit into few molds that have been comfortable.
There is a little Tao, a little Buddha, a little Humanism, and a lot of
introspection. I was very uncomfortable with the word "god" for a long
time. I felt that it carried too many of the negative connotations so
often attached to it, a few of which I have already mentioned. I
believed that referring to "god" in discussing my beliefs suggested to
people that I believed in something that I did not, and was dishonest. I
found other words to use, but none of them were comfortable either. My
epiphany came with the realization that disallowing myself the use of
the word "god" was to abdicate to the tyranny of those who had hijacked
"God" for themselves as their own exclusive property. I no longer do
so. God is a word that reflects what I feel, and any associations that
others bring to it is their problem.
GD
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/13/2003 9:34 AM
|
9 out of 91 |
|
|
John,
"Going to Kamogawa and Tokyo, for the second time, this fall."
I would love to go back. Can't afford it yet. I lived up on the
northen end of Honshu, in Aomori prefecture. Beautiful country,
wonderful people. I would have stayed forever if I could have. I'm
assuming Kamogawa is near Tokyo? I am not as familiar with the south.
What brings you there (beyond the obvious attractions of Tokyo)?
Yours in jealousy,
GD
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/13/2003 11:26 AM
|
10 out of 91 |
|
|
GD:
Kamogawa is out on the Boso peninsula, south
and east of Tokyo Bay. Parts of the area remind
me of Hawaii.
So, if you and I were at a picnic with a group of Evangelical Christians
(this would require significant amounts of alcoholic beverages on my
part) who do you think would "catch more Hell" from the other guests,
me, the dammed and doomed Atheist, or you, who has taken their God and
turned him into GD's Version of God?
(God v1.1)
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/13/2003 11:35 AM
|
11 out of 91 |
|
|
GD:
I forgot some things. We have a Sister City program with
the City of Kamogawa. It's been active for about 10 years. There is a
regular exchange of students, local government leaders, business
leaders, and, this year, a citizen's delegation. The kids, 9 and 6, go
too. It's their second trip as well.
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/13/2003 1:01 PM
|
12 out of 91 |
|
|
I don't think I've turned anyone's version of God into anything.
Aside from the spelling, I more or less started from scratch. And it's
closer to god v8.11b.
As for that barbecue, I have a feeling we'd wind up back to back... at
the stake. ("How do you like your heathen, rare or extra crispy?")
Most fundamentalists don't take any kind of rejection well, so I don't
think it would be a matter of degrees. Let's skip the barbecue and go
get a beer.
Misawa, the town that I lived in, has a sister city, too. Somewhere in
Washington. The first non-stop trans-pacific flight began in Misawa and
ended in Podunk, WA, or wherever (no offense to the residents thereof, I
just can't remember the name). A lot less famous than the Spirit of
St. Louis (ever hear of the Miss Veedol?), and it didn't make anybody
famous and rich, but the folks in Misawa are very proud of their piece
of history.
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/13/2003 3:37 PM
|
13 out of 91 |
|
|
GD:
So, there are no parts for Satan or Jesus in v8.11b?
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/14/2003 12:08 AM
|
14 out of 91 |
|
|
Well, Jesus was, for his time, a fairly righteous dude (in the
Ferris Bueller sense of the word, please don't quibble over details; all
of us can be and have been royal pricks at some point) His teachings
rank in my consideration with those of the Buddha, the Dalai Lama and
Ian Anderson. Lots of people have pieces of the Truth Acording to Me.
Sometimes you have to weed through a lot of extraneous crap to get to
it, but folks will sift though mountains for just one speck of gold.
As for Satan, humanity has proven to be capable of such hideously
atrocious acts and thoughts that we need no other model for evil than a
history textbook. I think that the figure of Satan is a convenient
crutch which allows people to deny that part of themselves which can
give rise to psychopaths and genocide. It's easier to externalize it
and say "Satan made them do it." Truth is, they's just plain folks,
perhaps lacking some of that veneer of inhibitions which we call a
conscience. I have seen the enemy, and they is us.
GD
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/14/2003 9:29 AM
|
15 out of 91 |
|
|
Uh, Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull fame?
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/14/2003 10:32 AM
|
16 out of 91 |
|
|
Why not? It's GDs spiritual way. (GD?)
I'm surprised the lore of Jesus and his
abilities does not include musicianship.
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
|
This is an archive of past discussions from the Secular Philosophies
boards that have not been active recently, or have grown too large and
have been honorably retired. They are preserved here as a record of this
community�s history.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 17 - 32 (91 total)
|
|
Gooddogma-sit
5/14/2003 12:16 PM
|
17 out of 91 |
|
|
jb1,
Yep, that's him. Many of the songs on "Aqualung" constitute a religious
manifesto, and the philosophy of "Thick as a Brick" has been very
influential to me. He was not only a brilliant musician, but a serious
thinker about life and our relation to it, as are all great artists.
I tend to include him exactly because of your reaction. It gets
people's attention and reinforces the fact that not only those who deal
exclusively with philosophy and religion are capable of brilliant
insight. Too many people quote from established "authorities" thinking
that this lends weight and substance to their own insubstantial
arguments. In my opinion, if what they are saying doesn't stand on it's
own, then they're full of crap, and should just shut up.
GD
|
|
|
Thomasina
5/14/2003 12:27 PM
|
18 out of 91 |
|
|
Gooddogma-sit - you're frightening me -- someone else who sees the "religion" in Aqualung...
In my youth, "Aqualung" was the traditional album played while my brothers and I put up the Christmas Tree...
My brother's thought it appropriate after all the sentimental and
religious themed Christmas songs from the "Happy Holidays" albums my mom
made them play as we assembled the holiday trimmings...
Thommy
|
|
|
Ishie-1013
5/14/2003 12:48 PM
|
19 out of 91 |
|
|
Thick as a Brick! Yeah! Beginning to think no one else appreciated that album.
Ishie
|
|
|
Gooddogma-sit
5/14/2003 1:05 PM
|
20 out of 91 |
|
|
Thommy,
I think that the religion in "Aqualung" would be obvious to any but the most oblivious listener.
Your association of Jethro Tull with Christmas strikes a parallel in my
life, too. My dearest friend maintained that "Thick as a Brick" was a
Christmas album, only to be played during that time of year. Now this
may have been because he had heard it too often and wanted to limit its
playtime to one season, but nevertheless...
GD
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/14/2003 1:12 PM
|
21 out of 91 |
|
|
Jesus sang and danced at his last supper. The psalms of David are
pure song. Song is considered one of the highest forms or praise and
prayer. Music/ song is amazingly powerful, I am a fan. In fact Rolling
Stone recently published an article about the psychological impact of
music and lyrics.
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/14/2003 5:26 PM
|
22 out of 91 |
|
|
jb1
I think with modern instruments, "Jesus Unplugged: Jamming On The Mount" would be a brisk seller even today.
GD:
A "big thumbs" up to any religion daring enough to incorporate Jethro Tull as a spiritual reference.
So, are the works of Jethro Tull: Ian's, or God's, because God is
"speaking through" Ian? As an Atheist, I've always had a problem with
someone giving God credit for every cool and creative thing a human
being does on their own. I think there is a difference between "God
created Mozart" and "When Mozart plays--that's really God playing the
piano."
Your god may also prefer Tull over Mozart or Gregorian chants.
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/14/2003 6:14 PM
|
23 out of 91 |
|
|
Any work of religious significance represents purely the author(s)'s
insight into and perception of the nature of god (creation, the
universe, whatever).
I consider Stephen Hawking to be as much of a prophet as Mohammed (or
Ian Anderson). He disseminates the truth as he sees it and makes it
accessible to the masses. He seeks to enlighten us as to the nature of
the universe which created, sustains, and destroys us. He celebrates
its mysteries along with his understanding of it. If any human being
can, he may possess the kind of mind that can truly concieve of such
enormous spans of time, distance and scale. Just because there is no
mention of god does not mean that a work has no spiritual or religious
significance. Even if a work specifically mentions god, that is not
necessarily a part of what I will take away from it.
Truth is where you find it.
Some of my other "secular" sources of inspiration are: Madeline L'Engle,
Antoine d'Saint Exupery, Tolkien, U2, Amy Ray, John Lennon, George
Harrison, the films of Hayao Miyazaki, Dogma, Japan (yes, the whole
country), the mountains where I live... the list goes on. All of these
things have, to a greater or lesser degree, influenced my perception of
the world and my place in it. This is, to me, the essence of religion.
GD
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/14/2003 6:22 PM
|
24 out of 91 |
|
|
I got so carried away that I forgot to mention:
I agree with you, john. People giving "God" all the credit for human
brilliance is as cheap a cop out as giving Satan credit for all the evil
in the world. Humanity is capable of creating works of beauty that
rival anything else in the universe, from an orchid to a nebula. We
deserve a little credit for that.
GD
|
|
|
fler0002
5/14/2003 6:49 PM
|
25 out of 91 |
|
|
Any H.P. Lovecraft fans out there?
One of the things I enjoyed about his fiction, was that he did not
operate under the presupposition that the deities he created were
benevolent. In the universe he painted, about the best humanity could
really expect was indifference.
What grounds do the free thinking theists have for expecting anything different?
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/14/2003 7:13 PM
|
26 out of 91 |
|
|
Fler,
I love H.P. Lovecraft. As far as expecting indifference at best, I
think that his mythos was far more actively malevolent, or at the very
least predatory.
As for your other question, I can only speak for one free-thinking theist. Besides, who said I expect anything at all?
GD
|
|
|
fler0002
5/14/2003 8:25 PM
|
27 out of 91 |
|
|
As for the disposition of Lovecraft's deities, I suspect we are
fairly close to agreement. If indifference was the best case scenario,
anything less could well be malign or predatory.
And I may well be guilty of a generalization. Happens to the best of us
sometimes. But on the whole, it has been rare to come across even free
thinking theists who regard the idea of deities as entities to be
regarded with suspicion. The personal gods of others I have spoken to
are certainly not as threatening as the traditional Judeo/Christian
deity, but I have yet to come across one who regards their personal god
as something to regard with fear or dread.
Why not? Do you have any conclusions or theories at all as to the
disposition of your deity? On what grounds? Regard the questions not as
confrontational but as more inquisitive. I am curious of the logic that
paints the picture of your god.
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/14/2003 8:50 PM
|
28 out of 91 |
|
|
Speaking of U2, Bono is an interesting individual to me not only for his
talent (the sum is greater though in that band) but as a man who lives
his faith. He has done much work trying to help relieve debt of poor
countries. He also wrote an introduction to the publication of
selections from the book of psalms.
An introduction by Bono
As far as giving credit for creativity I am of the belief that an
individual deserves credit for developing talent and the giver of the
gift deserves praise for providing it and the inspiration we feed off.
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/19/2003 3:48 PM
|
29 out of 91 |
|
|
Fler,
Wow. You guys ask really good questions.
I was a classics major, with a minor in religion, so I�ve studied a lot
of gods, both contemporary and long dead. Back in the beginning, most
gods were deifications of powerful realities in the world (cave bear
cults, volcano cults) or of forces of nature (Norse and Greek
pantheons). These gods behaved accordingly. Both feared and revered,
they could destroy as easily as provide. As man tamed his environment,
the natural forces became less of a threat to his existence. The gods
no longer existed out of a need to appease, so it began to be believed
that more than just preventing harm, one could gain favor from these
gods. Gods became not only protectors, but advocates.
But there is another aspect of gods that developed out of less
self-absorbed interests than simply averting harm or gaining favor.
Gods represented mysteries, and the unkown. Not only fearing the
effects of natural forces, people sought to explain them. They did not
know the cause of thunder, so they created stories, sometimes along with
gods, to explain the phenomena. Some more brilliant and introspective
souls along the line wondered, not only about the origins of wind and
mountains, but of themselves: �How did I get here? I, too, am a force
of nature. I can create and destroy. Did a god then make me?� From
this question there developed the figure of the Creator. This is , in
my opinion, a more enlightened concept of god. It developed from an
interest that is less immediate, and more representative of the true
nature of the human mind. It is a result not only of our will to
survive, but our ability to imagine and our desire to understand. This
is not an evolution from the previous concept, but a parallel
development.
My concept of god stems more from the latter than the former. As a
representation of the greater unknown, whether it is to be feared of not
is a matter of perspective. The voids in our knowledge and
understanding could be filled by anything. New discoveries could either
be harmonious with an established world-view, or in direct
contradiction to the very foundations of our understanding. Since
religion is defined in part by me as the way in which we understand the
universe and our part in it, then you could either fear or anticipate
the revelations that lie beyond the boundaries of our current knowledge.
To further answer your question, even to attribute a �disposition� to my
own concept of god is to anthropomorphize it to an unacceptable level.
My god is amorphous, having no shape or form unless it is all shapes
and forms, and that of the spaces between them. There is room,
nevertheless, in my view of god for many other conceptions of it, and
even for those who have none. Symbols and archetypes are powerful
things in themselves, and represent aspects or conceptions that are
easily contained within my own religious view. Some might even expand
upon it or add to it, so I try to approach my continuing spritual
journey with an open mind.
jb1,
Thanks for the link, loved it. It deals with a lot of the same stuff
that I often think about. Another text to add to my sources.
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/19/2003 4:24 PM
|
30 out of 91 |
|
|
GD:
When your life on earth ends, hopefully a long and fulfilling time from
now, do you join with your god in "heaven"? Or, what is supposed to
happen in the next chapter?
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/19/2003 5:20 PM
|
31 out of 91 |
|
|
Johnny, I've got no flippin' clue. I can think of what I hope, or
what I wish, but I've got no idea. I came up with an idea a while back
and posted it on a different forum:
I think that I may have come up with a truly atheistic vision of the
afterlife. This thought is just a mental exercise and represents neither
an advocation of atheism or life after death. It is just a thought.
This was all inspired by a dream I had in which I died. In this dream,
after the last conscious thought that I can remember, there was just
nothing. Black, quiet, peaceful, like floating in a sensory deprivation
tank. There was no fear, no thought, no sense of time or loss. One of my
greatest fears at the time was that after death the was just nothing.
Like piper, it seemed a waste, and was a frightening concept. But here, I
had seen my worst vision of afterlife, and it wasn't frightening at
all.
This got me thinking about the relativistic perception of time while
dreaming. According to the scientists, we dream during REM sleep, a
state that lasts at most five minutes of so. In spite of this time
limit, most of us have had dreams that seem to last for hours, or even
days. Dreams can also seem very real. As the Guru said to Peter of the
Monkees: "the human brain is unable to distinguish between the real and
the vividly imagined experience." In my dream, the peaceful darkness
lasted for what could have been seconds or forever, I couldn't tell the
difference.
Now if we consider that REM sleep is really very similar to waking
consciousness in terms of brain activity, then we can see that it only
takes a small removal from the tyranny of time's relentless march to
free the brain from its limitations. Therfore, if we look at the moment
of death as being about as far from waking consciousness as you can get,
then it stands to reason that that moment of time could be stretched
out by the brain to be as close to infinite as makes no difference.
In this view, your afterlife is literally self-created. Perhaps you
could retreat to some core memory of joy and comfort, only to linger
there for a percieved eternity. Of course, the downside is if you have a
nightmare down there in the core of your lizard brain...
GD
|
|
|
johnbigboote
5/20/2003 11:41 AM
|
32 out of 91 |
|
|
GD:
As a countermeasure, I will try to live a life that continuously
replenishes the supply of "happy memories" in the core of my brain.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank you for sharing your
thoughts and say that this is indeed a most pleasant conversation. We
have much in common.
We are both ultimately responsible for the stewardship of our individual
minds and we do not delegate or allow others to undermine this
authority.
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
This is an archive of past discussions from the Secular Philosophies
boards that have not been active recently, or have grown too large and
have been honorably retired. They are preserved here as a record of this
community�s history.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 33 - 48 (91 total)
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/20/2003 1:08 PM
|
33 out of 91 |
|
|
Thank you, john,
I am also very much enjoying this thread. Unlike so many others on this
site in general, it has managed not to degrade into a shouting match.
Perhaps that is accounted for by the fact that the traffic has been
relatively low, at least in terms of the number of posters.
I would in turn like to thank you for providing me with the opportunity
to fully express some of the thoughts that have been percolating below
the surface for many years. I am pleased to find that I do indeed have
answers for the questions that have been posed. I am also delighted in
that I have managed to not be caught out in any blatantly contradictory
arguments, at least as of yet.
Who would have thought that you could affirm your faith by talking to a bunch of atheists?
Let's see how long we can keep it up :-)
GD
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/20/2003 7:16 PM
|
34 out of 91 |
|
|
Good Dog,
In my opinion Bono is asking real questions and making real statements
about his belief(s). Since returning to organized religion a few years
ago after twenty years of barely dabbling in it I have been struck by a
couple things.
First, counter to popular belief, I am not told what to think, I can
openly express my feelings about everything and am taught not what to
think but to consider how to think. Life is simply not black and white. I
am taught, willingly, to take in account the impact of my actions on
others and to put others first. Second I am challenged personally to
challenge societal views. To consider counter-culture views. To consider
the rights of others above my own "needs". To consider the true meaning
of money and wealth and life and human rights. To consider my purpose.
Second, I am taught to continually question my beliefs. To understand if
they are real. To truly attempt to understand faith. To question my
beliefs otherwise they just become beliefs. If it�s true it will be. To
me if Christianity was not true, if it was simply a theology forced on
people for 2000 years, then would it not have run it�s course by now?
Why are the number of believers increasing and why do people believe?
Huksters come and go but truth grows.
Can organized religion become corrupt? Of course. Are humans at the
helm of a mechanisn that attempts to explain God? Yes. Have we got it
completely right? No. But to me it�s the best we got and for me
personally it�s better than the alternative.
|
|
|
fler0002
5/20/2003 8:13 PM
|
35 out of 91 |
|
|
" To me if Christianity was not true, if it was simply a theology
forced on people for 2000 years, then would it not have run it�s course
by now? Why are the number of believers increasing and why do people
believe? Huksters come and go but truth grows. "
If Mohammed was a huckster, why does Islam linger? If Sidhartha was a
huckster, why does Bhuddism linger? Why are there still Hindus?
When you claim that the numbers of Christians are growing, are you
claiming that as a percentage of the earths total population, or just a
simple increase in the body count? There are a lot more Jews, Moslems,
Bhuddists and Hindus than there were a hundred years ago. Atheists too.
Has the Christian truth actually grown? Ever since the renaissance in
western Europe, Christian organizations have been forced repeatedly to
re-interpret their bible. Attempts to reconcile the the assertions of
Christianity with the truths of the world have led to such radical
actions as the rise of Mormonism. The infallibility of the bible, the
source of most Christian
truths, has been discredited by all but the most absolute
fundamentalists. Liberal theologians now face the task of trying to
resolve ever more blatant conflicts between what the text of the bible
says, and facts we face on a daily basis that are contradictory. What
part of the Christian truth has grown?
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
5/21/2003 8:50 AM
|
36 out of 91 |
|
|
fler,
In jb's defense, I am certain that he did not mean to play down the
significance of any other religion in talking about his own. We all see
the world primarily through the lens of our own beliefs, even you. The
measure of our open mindedness does not lie in surrendering our own
perspective, but in recognizing the validity of others.
You mentioned the repeated necessity of biblical reinterpretation over
the years, but how many times have scientific texts been rewritten over
the last couple of centuries? Established "truths" constantly need to
adapt to new environments and changing circumstances. While I agree
with you that the bible has an ever increasingly hard time of
maintaining an absolute authority, just pointing a finger at its
continual reinterpretation is a flawed argument. It is a double edged
sword that can just as easily cut against you.
As for Christian truth, its essence has changed very little over the
thousands of years of its existance. It persists in spite of constant
refutation of the bible, and stems not from a rejection of reality, but
the acceptance of a "higher" reality. The comfort of knowing that you
are watched over by an agent of God who will accept you with all of your
flaws and can love you in spite of them is understandably compelling. A
religion is better appreciated by trying to understand its appeal to
the believer, rather than listening to the arguments and threats
sometimes applied to the "infidels," or even to its own members, in an
effort to convert or control. These are the actions of temporal
authorities, not necessarily the foundations of faith. I am
definitively not a Christian. Nevertheless, I can appreciate its
message, and understand its appeal to its adherents.
jb,
I too come from a religious tradition that expressly encouraged me to
think critically about my own beliefs (Unitarian Universalism, by the
way). It is certainly not necessary for a religious faith to be a
mindless, cultlike institution of following creeds and edicts, although
it is easy for it to become so.
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/21/2003 10:54 AM
|
37 out of 91 |
|
|
If Mohammed was a huckster, why does Islam linger? If Sidhartha was a
huckster, why does Bhuddism linger? Why are there still Hindus?
Good question. Maybe there is truth in those religions. My belief is in
the way of Jesus, Christianity. That is my only way. That is not to say
there is truth in anothers. The wife of the missionary who was slain in
the Phillapians made a very bold statement when she said she believes we
(Christians and Muslams) pray to the same God. Christians and Jews pray
to the same God. Who am I to say God doesn't speak in some way through
all or most religions.
And Firstly, (to follow the chronological order I set in my previous
post : ) ) my belief in regards to religious growth (including
Christianity)is as population grows it would make sense that theistic
beliefs would dilute. Certainly there is organized religion keeping
these beliefs alive but as I have said I am also free to believe what I
believe. If people are forced to believe something they will ultimately
rebel. I have to say my faith has grown with the aid of religion for
sure but has been made real by witness. By personally experiencing the
power of God not only in my life but in the life altering change I have
witnessed in others. Example after example of a life saved. Examples of
an atheistic mind coming to know a supreme being not by any logical
proof but just simply because. That is mind blowing. If it were not true
it would not continue and not have the positive impact (faith not
religion) it has.
What part of the Christian truth has grown?
For me all of it. I am in complete agreement that we have to interpret
biblical teachings again and again. The truth in the text is proven to
me by the constant revisiting that takes place and with each visit
scripture takes on new meaning for me in my life.
|
|
|
SHUAJ
5/21/2003 3:05 PM
|
38 out of 91 |
|
|
JB1knobe:
You have an intrguing stance. I think it is true that Christianity has
grown, just as Islam has grown. You need only look at the Christian
converts in China and Japan to see this. Clearly these are people for
whom Christianity is completely novel. We could look at Africa, too,
but there the missionaries and colonial masters played good-cop/bad-cop
until the people gave in, which I think is not what you had in mind.
But this is an odd way of going about establishing an empirical fact.
The same sort of logic ("If everyone believes it, it must be true") once
lead to the "fact" that the world was flat.
More importantly, we cannot use the "test of time" concept to establish
the truth of a supernatural hypopthesis. Supernatural concepts cannot
be tested empirically (nor would you want them to be), so repeated tests
over time don't signify. All we can conclude from the test of time is
that Christianity is comfortable, or that societies that adopt it grow
faster than others. This might mean that something in Christianity is
"good", but I don't think you can use it to prove God's existence.
Please forgive my neurotic need for logical consistency, here.
I do not mean to say that God does not exist. As I said, we cannot
prove or disprove the concept. Personally I suspect that he/she/it
doesn't, but that stance doesn't amount to anything better than the test
of time. However I do applaud those (like yourselves) who think for
themselves about what kind of God is consistent with what we _do_
observe. For example, GD sez:
"To further answer your question, even to attribute a 'disposition' to
my own concept of god is to anthropomorphize it to an unacceptable
level."
Which makes sense, because if you take a look at the world (especially
in Uganda, &cet), you'd have to conclude that any anthropomorphic
God is one sick puppy.
GD: tell me about the message in Thick as a Brick. I was always too stoned to listen to the whole albumn...
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/21/2003 3:57 PM
|
39 out of 91 |
|
|
But this is an odd way of going about establishing an empirical
fact. The same sort of logic ("If everyone believes it, it must be
true") once lead to the "fact" that the world was flat.
I don�t see these ideas as the same and it is not my intention to imply
because people believe it it must be true. No way. People believe a lot
of weird stuff. The evidence for me is based on its growth instead of
decline and also on personal experience. A belief in God is not the same
as a belief in a physical idea.
More importantly, we cannot use the "test of time" concept to
establish the truth of a supernatural hypopthesis. Supernatural concepts
cannot be tested empirically (nor would you want them to be), so
repeated tests over time don't signify. All we can conclude from the
test of time is that Christianity is comfortable, or that societies that
adopt it grow faster than others. This might mean that something in
Christianity is "good", but I don't think you can use it to prove God's
existence. Please forgive my neurotic need for logical consistency,
here.
But it is evidence because it is based solely on a belief on God. I
agree that simply because something survives does not make it good.
Something that not only survives but grows and as you point out has
something �good� about it must have some substance to it or must be
worth exploring. It could quite possibly be more than comfortable. And
if there is something �good� about Christianity what is it?
|
|
|
SHUAJ
5/23/2003 3:59 AM
|
40 out of 91 |
|
|
jb1knobe:
(Can I call you Ben? and why "jb-" rather than "ob-?")
Ah. I've had arguments like this before. You're trying to say that
Christianity is "true" in the sense that it is good. I originally
interpreted it to mean right in the sense of "empirically correct." For
me, hypotheses are right or wrong, but actions are ethical or
unethical. Beliefs are just hypotheses held by a certain person to be
correct.
If this is correct, then I suppose there may be something true (in the sense of good) about Christianity.
But this is a strange way of using the word true.
As for your assertion that belief in God is not the same as belief in
physical ideas: why? What can you mean by "existence" if not physical
existence? I suppose you could mean existence in some metaphysical way
(i.e. you could declare by definition - or by repeated, ad hoc
redefinitions - that God exists in a way that is not subject to
testing). But testing is testing. If you cannot test God's existence
then you also cannot use historical evidence to show that he does exist.
If you want to define God so that I cannot disprove his existence, you
have to be content with a God that you cannot justify beyond emotional
arguments (i.e. "it feels good to believe in him/her/it").
Finally, you've ignored my argument that the increase in Christianity is
the effect of emotional or historical artifacts. My example of the
flat earth was not trivial. When you cannot examine evidence, people
will believe what they want to believe.
But listen, this whole argument is straying from the friendly intent of
the thread. The idea was one-preson religion. What do you believe that
is _different_ from Christianity?
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/24/2003 12:55 AM
|
41 out of 91 |
|
|
SHUAJ,
To be honest I was under pressure to pick a screen name and jb1knobe was
one of the first things that popped into my head. I�m really not much
of a Star Wars geek but have enjoyed the movies I have seen. And of
course I am a fan of � the force.
There is no way I can engage in any logical argument that would prove
the existence of God. Wismer has done an excellent job doing so but in
the end what�s the point arguing evidence based existence of God to an
Atheist. Even with all the evidence we have around us there is none
convincing enough and it is based in logic. There is more than pure
logic otherwise we would be emotionless animals.
What is interesting is your statement about a certain goodness that can
be associated with Christianity. So much wrong has been committed in the
name of organized religion it is good to hear the term �good�
mentioned. I am not making any argument at all. I am asking a question.
If there is good associated with Christianity then why? I see this good
possibly being associated with truth. It looks like you may not agree
with me on the definition of truth. I see truth and goodness related. If
everything we define is ultimately relative then of course so is truth.
Definitions are constantly changing based on experience. But if
something exists that at it�s core is good or �the� then this could be
the ultimate definition of truth. Really Wismer has done a much better
job than I explaining with some logical order.
To the original post I have no personal God as defined by JBB. I don�t
buy the argument that organized religion treats Atheists as bad as
inferred by him (or her). Most of the truly religious people I know are
very accepting of everyone. Also it should be expected that theism and
atheism are at an opposite so disagreement should be understood.
|
|
|
SHUAJ
5/24/2003 2:03 AM
|
42 out of 91 |
|
|
JB:
If you do not accept logic as a basis for determining truth, you will
forever be held captive by whatever snake charmer comes your way.
Furthermore, we have no basis for communication. In fact, I don't know
what you were thinking when you began to post over here. Did you
seriously believe that people who have devoted their lives to using
their minds rationally would simply give up their beliefs because you
have a mystical feeling in your left toe?
You may not have noticed this, but everyone else on this thread - theist
and atheist alike - are trying to seek a logical resolution to their
issues.
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/24/2003 10:44 AM
|
43 out of 91 |
|
|
If you do not accept logic as a basis for determining truth, you will
forever be held captive by whatever snake charmer comes your way.
It could also be said that if one requires pure (speculative) logic as
the basis for truth then they are limiting reality. I do accept logic as
a way of determining truth but not the only way. We have hearts and
minds. I choose to listen to both, the mind can be fooled as easily as
the heart some times and the belief that intellectualism reigns supreme
is wrong. This is a basis for a potentially destructive pride. The
belief that my intellectual �truth� is correct because it has been
proven leaves no room for others reality.
I am aware of the nature of argument that is implied on this board. I
don't buy it. This is religion, this is belief in the unseen, this
defies logic. It can only be proven by other means.
JB
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/24/2003 10:45 AM
|
44 out of 91 |
|
|
Did you seriously believe that people who have devoted their
lives to using their minds rationally would simply give up their beliefs
because you have a mystical feeling in your left toe?
It wasn't my toe, it was my heart.
JB
|
|
|
kannbrown65
5/24/2003 4:38 PM
|
45 out of 91 |
|
|
Ok, chest. Other people have 'equally mystical in feeling and contrary in content' feelings in their hearts too.
|
|
|
kannbrown65
5/24/2003 4:46 PM
|
46 out of 91 |
|
|
Basically, there's just as much pride (and alot less objective
oversite) involved in using your 'heart' or feelings. Because, if the
feelings in your heart are contradicted by the feelings in someone
else's heart? So, who, then, is right? It's your heart, of course,
right? Well, the 'feeling in my heart' says the god concept is not only
implausible, but rather horrific in the details, and I have no emotional
connection to it. So, guess my heart trumps your heart, right? And
since it's my 'heart', I don't have to bring any objective facts or
evidence or anything else to the party. Just what I feel.
|
|
|
jb1knobe
5/25/2003 10:12 AM
|
47 out of 91 |
|
|
My heart and mind are called upon to try to understand God. I do try hard to reconcile the two.
In reply to a "feeling in my big toe" I have to say I experienced a
physical sensation in my heart unlike any other. This was critical in my
understanding that God existed because in my mind I was asking, loudly,
the question directly to God or whoever was listening whether or not He
existed. The answer was in my heart. : )
|
|
|
kannbrown65
5/25/2003 1:29 PM
|
48 out of 91 |
|
|
The thing with that is, that others have asked, and gotten nothing,
or a different answer, or an answer from a different God. That's the
thing with the whole 'heart' business. The same 'organ' that tells the
abused wife 'Oh, he really, really loves me. He's doing it for my own
good'. It's notoriously unreliable, and non-transferable.
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
|
|
|
This is an archive of past discussions from the Secular Philosophies
boards that have not been active recently, or have grown too large and
have been honorably retired. They are preserved here as a record of this
community�s history.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 49 - 64 (91 total)
|
|
curmudgeon
5/25/2003 1:40 PM
|
49 out of 91 |
|
|
I consider my heart to be no more a cognitive organ than my colon or
adenoids. They each have a function, but understanding the cosmos is
not one of them.
Man's primary tool of survival is a rational mind. Depend on it.
|
|
|
frenchiegk
5/25/2003 2:41 PM
|
50 out of 91 |
|
|
How is the gut (or heart) instinct of Jb less valid than your logic?
I understand that logic is king here (on this board). But there are
times when it doesn't work, and really doesn't even apply... For
instance - anyone of you ever been in love? Did it seem logical to you?
Could you have empirically explained it to another who wasn't in love at
the time? Could you write a thesis about it, prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt? Convince others that this love that you felt was true,
actually did exist, and could be quantified?
Really now... I am not drawing a comparison between being IN LOVE and
being A BELIEVER, but I am pointing out that it's really quite
single-minded and rather ... convenient ... to ignore that entire aspect
of the human experience. (the aspect being 'the unexplainable') We've
all shared that experience in one way or another. To some, these
experiences amount to a biological or chemical reaction in the brain or
body, to others, there is something mystical - to still others, it
doesn't matter whether it's mystical or biological, it just IS.
|
|
|
kannbrown65
5/25/2003 2:54 PM
|
51 out of 91 |
|
|
Because, let's compare it to being in love. Certainly, alot of the
time it works out just fine. But the same emotion the poets praise is
the same thing, as I stated, that makes people take back abusive spouses
again and again, inspires stalkers to believe that, somehow, if they
leave threatening notes and dead flowers at the doorstep of their
beloved, it will gain their love in return. Love isn't always returned,
it isn't always smart. People fall in love with people already married,
with people who are abusive, and can have love become toxic. And if
you're going with your 'heart', how do you tell when, no matter how much
you love them, being with someone is impossible, or bad for your
health?
|
|
|
kannbrown65
5/25/2003 2:56 PM
|
52 out of 91 |
|
|
Oh, and the same 'heart feeling' that tells someone 'Jesus is the
Truth' also tells someone else that 'Allah is the truth' and someone
else that 'Gaia is the truth'. And sometimes, it isn't telling another
person a darn thing. I'm not 'denying' JB's experiences, they're just
/his/ experiences. I'm not having the same ones. I'm not denying my
'heart', my 'heart' isn't telling me a thing, so you could say that I'm
following it, since it /isn't/ telling me to believe in God. So,
where's that fit in?
|
|
|
frenchiegk
5/25/2003 2:58 PM
|
53 out of 91 |
|
|
"It's notoriously unreliable, and non-transferable."
In addition - no emotion, no feeling, no instinct, no reaction, is ever reliable, or transferable.
I don't know how many theists you've ever heard try to make the claim
that God is logical, or that believing in God is logical. Maybe a few. I
guess I would counter that though. It's not a question of logic, for
me. And perhaps for others. It's a question of belief, of knowledge, of
understanding, of a personal experience. I make no claims that my faith
or anyone else's is transferable, or even applicable to anyone else. I
don't think it is.
The key here is to be able to acknowledge that while your conclusion may
seem the most logical to you, mine may simultaneously seem the most
logical to me. That doesn't make you wrong or right, or vice versa. It
makes us different. It's important to not go under the assumption that
everyone who believes differently than me is going to make every effort
to sway me to their 'side of the fence', because I don't particularly
need anyone to justify my faith for me, that's God's job (in my mind).
My expressing my experience does not make me obliged to convince anyone
else of the rationality of it. That's only necessary if I'm trying to
convince another to believe as I do.
|
|
|
frenchiegk
5/25/2003 3:07 PM
|
54 out of 91 |
|
|
"Oh, and the same 'heart feeling' that tells someone 'Jesus is the
Truth' also tells someone else that 'Allah is the truth' and someone
else that 'Gaia is the truth'."
As it should be, has been, and always will be...
My point was that my perspective, beliefs, or heart are no more, and no
less, valid than anyone else's. I would never imply that you don't
follow your heart - I don't know anything about you, how could I say
that?
And the love analogy... you might have missed what I was trying to say
there. I was making the claim that love is NOT logical. Emotions are NOT
logical. Feelings, beliefs, and opinions are often NOT logical.
Sometimes they lead us astray. It's the balance of logic and heart that
makes things work. It's the willingness to acknowledge the value of
things making sense to us, and to simultaneously be able to acknowledge
our feelings about something. This is why it is so important that you do
things the way you do them - you DO listen to your heart, it tells you
something, and then you THINK about it, and respond to it as you see
fit.
The difficulty with what is called logic is that it often has a hidden
agenda - one believes that they possess logic in their argument, and it
therefore somehow removes validity from the argument of another. It
doesn't work like that when it comes to feelings, thoughts, or beliefs.
For whatever reason, biological or mystical, we were not constructed
that way. We don't follow a perfect, structured, quantifiable path, in
thought, in deed, or in word. There's just something about human beings
that makes that very difficult, if not impossible for us to do. My
suggestion would only be that we leave room for that reality - in our
own minds and beliefs, and also for others.
|
|
|
kannbrown65
5/25/2003 3:12 PM
|
55 out of 91 |
|
|
But at least, if we claim to be using logic, we have to present
/some/ kind of hard fact to back it. If I'm claiming that it's
verifiable that 'God is Good', then I need a clear definition of 'god',
and 'good' and a chain of evidence that points to God doing things that
fit under the defintion of 'good'. But if I feel it, then no matter
what this being does (if it is provable it's doing anything), from
ordering me to slay my neighbor to tossing my parents into hell, because
I 'know in my heart He is good', then whatever he does, it is given the
best light possible, no matter how little sense it makes.
|
|
|
jcarlinbn
8/11/2003 2:10 AM
|
56 out of 91 |
|
|
Hello "guys"
Before anyone gets offended, guys like god is a gender inclusive term
and takes the gender inclusive personal pronoun, hesh (pronounced
"heesh" please).
What about those of us that believe in God when Hesh is helpful for
other people, whatever name they give Heshm, but have no need or
interest in believing that God is necessary personally.
Far be it from me to castigate, criticise or even refuse to worship and
or pray to god (or God, or Yahweh, or Allah) in the appropriate context.
I feel no hipocracy in reciting the Lords prayer (Douay Version, I
just stop early in a Protestant Church), if I am attending a mass or
other religious service. Communion was harder, I had to sit that out for
many years.
I refused to participate when I was still insecure in my lack of belief
in a personal god for myself. But like the White Queen, once I learned
how to believe six impossible things before breakfast, and yes it does
take practice, I have no trouble believing the Credo as I sing it. I
can even feel the joy and wonder of the "Et Expecto" although if you
asked me in a different context if I believed in life after death, I
would certainly say no.
But I'll be damned (probably in any case) if I will pass up an
opportunity to feed the non-logical exhilaration of fine music and art
by refusing to believe in the God that the artist obviously lived with
intimately. I see no way to appreciate Michelangelo's Pieta without
believing in the Virgin Mother ministering to her Miraculous son.
Although I have disappointed many by being unable to accept Jesus as my
personal savior, and I can't say I think they are better than I for
being able to, I am able at times to suspend disbelief if necessary to
learn or to grow.
Where does that leave me?
J'Carlin
|
|
|
johnbigboote
8/11/2003 12:36 PM
|
57 out of 91 |
|
|
J'Carlin
I would say your spirituality is highly personal and unique. It also
sounds like you are happy doing things your own way, even if other
individuals or groups do not accept your approach.
What we share is the self-determination. Each of us will establish and
maintain our connections to the world outside of our physical selves on
our own terms.
If you like only a couple of things Jesus did or said, and you have no
use for the rest of the Bible, that's no threat to me. If you sample the
"good parts" of all the major religions to create a blend that works
for you, that's great and I would give you added points for versatility,
especially if this allows you to experience music and art at a much
deeper lever.
I have no gods. Is this a threat to you? Probably not.
If you and I were both in a cathedral or museum, would you think "John
you can't possibly enjoy this religious artistry--your an atheist"?
Probably not.
We both think for ourselves.
Is this a threat to some people?
Definitely.
|
|
|
jcarlinbn
8/12/2003 12:30 AM
|
58 out of 91 |
|
|
John,
I have no gods, personally, but I can't claim to be atheist or agnostic,
as I believe God is real and influential for others, and therefore
cannot be denied either logically or especially philosophically.
If we both went to a cathedral or museum, I would be sure you would
enjoy the art, as for many years I was in the same boat. In fact I tap
danced around a lot of religious issues the first time I saw the Pieta
live. I reinterpreted to archtype mother and fallen son, to avoid
looking at what Michelangelo created. It was nevertheless incredibly
beautiful and moving. No shame on me. I did the best I could.
Choral music has been a major component of my life since childhood, and
that meant singing masses whether you believed in them or not. I
certainly know what it is to enjoy the art and yes, to interpret the
art, without confronting the God behind it. In fact I had sung
Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis" many times, and studied the "et expecto" to
exhaustion as art, until it finally convinced me that I had to learn to
believe impossible things if I was going to understand it.
Which led, finally, to my recent post. Thank you for the qustion that helped me articulate it.
J'Carlin
|
|
|
jcarlinbn
10/15/2003 2:50 PM
|
59 out of 91 |
|
|
I can't claim to be atheist or agnostic
So what is someone who believes in God doing hosting Atheism boards? By
one definition of Atheist, �A person who does not worship or believe in
a personal God� I have been an atheist all my life. I have also
learned most of what I know about managing a life without God from
atheists.
I have also learned a lot about managing my life from religious groups.
The best thing about being an atheist, is that you can participate in
the warmth of the community without feeling the need to join the line
behind the pulpit. I always throw my admission ticket in the plate when
it comes by, and will congratulate God�s mediator at the coffee hour,
particularly if I learned something, but so far I have been largely
immune to buying into their belief after the coffee.
Please note: My belief in God (as interpreted by whoever I am talking
with or studying) is in no way ironic or metaphorical. If they have
experienced God, I am not arrogant enough to believe that just because I
haven�t, their experience is not valid. I will do my best to believe
in God their way for the duration, in the hopes that I can learn more
that way.
J�Carlin
|
|
|
AciraZade
1/30/2004 12:10 PM
|
60 out of 91 |
|
|
This thread REALLY deserves a BUMP!!!
John, it's really refreshing to see a post discussing individuals who
sound like me. I've played with a variety of BS (Robert Anton Wilson's
favorite acronym for Belief Systems) in my life... Christianity,
Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, ah, the list could go on and on. I
stopped playing with them altogether when I realized just how much they
have in common. And I see similarities between religious and SOME
atheists, but not all.
I finally figured out why BNet has been annoying me so much lately. You
get all these people with different beliefs together, and all they do
is argue over who is "right". But they all sound the same! And they
all seem stuck to me... like they just stopped after one spiritual
experience and went, yep, this is it!
As for me, my goal is to have no beliefs, meaning no yes/no attachments
to any ideas. I'm on the right path, but there are still ideas that I
really believe in (or just really like) and there are other ideas I
absolutely reject.
But how many people *believe* in not having beliefs? Not many. And
boy, do those who have beliefs freak out when encountering someone whose
goal is to believe nothing. I get accused of having no meaning,
assigning no meaning to life, no greater purpose, I'm told my "beliefs"
are simply a convenient way to do whatever I want (since when is that a
bad thing?), etc.
But you are right: I have a lot in common with atheists, even though I
don't fully call myself one... (I can't give a yes or no answer in
regards to a God, only a "highly unlikely and really silly-sounding").
We get a ton of crap from those who believe something so strongly they
don't even stop and think about it.
Acira
|
|
|
Thomasina
1/30/2004 1:47 PM
|
61 out of 91 |
|
|
AciraZade: You get all these people with different beliefs
together, and all they do is argue over who is "right". But they all
sound the same!
Yep, it's like a bunch a people argueing about which coffee or flavor of
ice cream is the best. Makes my head spin sometimes. Sometimes you
need to take a break from it all and simply enjoy which every flavor of
coffee or icecream you like -- even if it turns out to be diet soda or
sorbet :)
(I can't give a yes or no answer in regards to a God, only a "highly unlikely and really silly-sounding").
LOL! that's exactly how I describe my response to gods. I've taken on
the atheist label though. Sometimes I put on the Secular Humanist hat
as well.
We get a ton of crap from those who believe something so strongly they don't even stop and think about it.
Don't discount the people with strong believes so quickly. I think many
times the "believers" have given their beliefs alot of thought.
For me it's like ice cream...
you try all sorts of combinations and flavors of the month until you find one you like more than all the others.
Or sometimes you focus on comfort - which one reminds you something nice - or familiarity.
Or sometimes you focus on texture, visual appeal, or calories (you might
not like the taste, so well, but it compensates by being great in an
area you find appealing.)
It's hard to find the perfect balance of texture, taste, calories,
social acceptability, general warm fuzzy feeling in a single scoop of
ice cream, but when confronted with 33 (or more flavors) you go with the
one that meets most of your criteria for perfect icecream.
Every now and then, you find someone who likes to "dabble" and will
continuously try new variations of ice cream (shakes, sodas, or other
additions like cookie dough...), or will pick a type that best suites
their mood at the moment. I've never met anyone who wouldn't eat ice
cream (except a Lactose intolerant friend who goes for the frozen Ice
treats!)
And just like with your favorite flavor it's really hard to convince some else that it should also be their favorite flavor!
Thommy
(who's off to the Diary Queen for a Tropical Blast...)
|
|
|
ctcss
1/30/2004 4:12 PM
|
62 out of 91 |
|
|
Thomasina
Don't discount the people with strong believes so quickly. I think
many times the "believers" have given their beliefs alot of thought.
Bless you!
(And hopefully, those of us who have given it a lot of thought will also
remember to regard others who believe differently, just as
thoughtfully! :) )
|
|
|
johnbigboote
2/2/2004 1:55 AM
|
63 out of 91 |
|
|
Acria:
You sound like a spiritual maverick--and I'm glad you are.
Bnet could create a space for One Person Religions.
Selfishly, I hope they don't because I prefer the company of
people with unique and interesting viewpoints.
In a nation that prides itself on "rugged individualism",
"expressing yourself" and "doing it My Way",
why can't we have millions of religions here?
Maybe we do?
(I can only speculate that the Catholic Church and other name-brand
religious enterprises would not be so enthusiastic.)
During casual conversation when my ears hear the familiar:
You don't believe in God?
My brain immediately translates this to:
You don't believe in MY god?.
(Sad. Things were going so well until this point. . .)
I'm guessing that it must be the same when you
discuss with others your connection with something
beyond the boundaries of your physical self.
You have a god--but not theirs.
At this point people can sometimes "freak out" as your mentioned
for a number of reasons:
People crave validation and most do not handle rejection very well.
Perhaps they lack the conviction, or at least curiosity,
to try to understand the ways of those are different.
Or, much worse, they may have been trained to be repulsed. (You don't
like Jay-EEE-zus. So, why should I waste my time talking to someone who
going straight to HAY-el.)
I feel very sorry for these people and of their small operating envelopes.
I do NOT feel sorry their teachers.
People who teach bigotry to others are a "ton of crap".
I will step off my soapbox long enough to say that there
are the rare Christians, very comfortable with their spiritual
and personal selves, who will ask about my Atheism--to Learn.
They are interested in knowledge. Knowlege about how others think.
It is no accident that some of these same people are close firends.
We are very different spiritually.
But together we eat, drink and make merry--
just like Ecclesiastes says we should.
Thommy:
Cookie dough is "best" when it's
eaten without ice cream ;-)
|
|
|
jcarlinbn
2/23/2004 11:45 AM
|
64 out of 91 |
|
|
One of the reasons
gooddogma-sit
has been missing recently is that he has been helping his family get ready for the arrival of
Gabriel !
A boy.
8 lbs. 1 Oz. 19 in.
for the astrologers lurking, born at
3:31 pm EST Feb. 22, 2004.
The entire family, including gooddogma-sit, survived the experience with no lasting trauma.
Congratulations Gabriel.
Welcome to Beliefnet and this wonderful world we live in.
J�Carlin
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
|
|
|
This is an archive of past discussions from the Secular Philosophies
boards that have not been active recently, or have grown too large and
have been honorably retired. They are preserved here as a record of this
community�s history.
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
Messages: 65 - 80 (91 total)
|
|
nycbonvivant
2/23/2004 2:35 PM
|
65 out of 91 |
|
|
Can I have my own god too? Will he smite everyone else?
|
|
|
f451in84
2/23/2004 9:10 PM
|
66 out of 91 |
|
|
I could see myself as possibly fitting into this one person religion
thing. Every �one person theist� has their own legitimate belief.
Thought maybe I should add mine for increased variety.
To me God isn�t a religious entity, but embodies the concept of the
�universal.� All �religions� seem to me to strive towards an
understanding of this concept, each in their unique way--and I by no
means view this in itself as a bad thing. There is certainly much of
life, ourselves, and our environment that is still a complete mystery.
As one trivial example: There exists no explanation of how acupuncture
works--never tried it and I�m not saying it�s a cure all--but to me its
empirical evidence that we still lack vast quantities of knowledge in
terms of how our bodies work.
Its a perspective issue: to reject the notion that we are still very
ignorant at large is to risk suffering from the hubris of �I already
know everything there is to know.� [not too uncommon--irrelevant of
theistic belief/disbelief--and, to me, a poor form of empiricism]
My personal presumptions (absolute causality included) lead me to
believe that we are still gravely ignorant of much, which I find a
beautiful thing: wonderment, mystery, probability, randomness, chaos,
and, underneath it all, absolute predetermined order. Everything falls
into this order, even art, music, the most robust of �free� will power,
and the most sublime subjective experiences. (Its not in the least bit
denying their existence, objective or subjective: its having awe at the
often inconceivably vast greatness, complexity, and mystery that is
potentially fully explainable, hidden within as of yet unknown,
fully-causal, absolute laws of physics that gave rise to all other forms
of fully-causal organized energy--life, consciousness, etc.; as of yet
not fully understood absolute laws of pure physics, chemistry, biology,
psychology, etc. emerging from and imbedded into energy in perpetual
motion that was once fully contained in a single infinitesimal
singularity which �was the first ultimate cause� and which �recreated�
its non-sentient �self� into everything that is.) Unfortunately, the
only words that can be employed to convey the overall
concept/connotations of this belief/perspective are those of �God and
the Universe are one and the same thing.� Its a strictly metaphorical
usage of God to someone who holds a different concept of �God,� [namely,
almost everybody] but the concept/perspective of pantheism is quite
real (subjectively speaking) and no other �definition� comes close to
conveying it. Its the same thing as when I use soul, as in �She has a
beautiful soul,� to mean that she�s got beautiful emotional and
cognitive character traits comprising of both learned and inherited
components which ARE the behavior of her total, fully-biological,
nervous system and which will some day die with her inevitable
biological death. �Soul,� in this sense (i.e., what a Christian would
call �soulless�) is a quite real thing to me, and to a few other atheist
alike--and only the word soul can communicate this concept adequately.
�Personality,� �character,� etc. have different connotations. (Though,
just like other atheists, I will openly assert with conviction that no
such thing as �a soul� exists--it�s not at all contradictory when viewed
at from the perspective of semantics.) So, technically speaking
(although there�s no rule book for it) pantheism is atheism that employs
a specific set of perspectives (not shared by all atheists) in
addressing objective reality--which can only be communicated in our
imperfect language by �God and Everything are one and the same thing.�
|
|
|
f451in84
2/23/2004 9:11 PM
|
67 out of 91 |
|
|
con�t
In my younger years, I also discovered that if I indulged
fundamentalist, evangelical Christians in their unwarranted
solicitations--and eventually caused them to doubt not only their
specific faith-based beliefs but their morality as well--they either
seemed to enter a nervous fit or a major crisis. A few of these
intrusive solicitors even acted as though the devil was working through
me to �corrupt them.� It was funny/sad to me but then they�d act as
though they�d passed a �test of doubt� and it seemed as if I�d
inadvertently increased their faith ten fold. If I�d explain my own
meaning of the word �God� and then started talking in their own language
about what �God� really is, wants, decrees, etc., I found that at least
I could nudge them towards not being so anti-Semitic, anti-empiricist,
anti-evolutionist, etc.
Personally, I could hardly care less what others believe in, but bigoted
behavior and the like I never cared much for--no matter how
self-righteous/�God-ordained� it gets.
Just one more perspective.
|
|
|
worldwary
2/24/2004 1:04 PM
|
68 out of 91 |
|
|
To those who believe in a non-conventional god:
As you use the term, what characteristics must a thing have in order to qualify as a "god"?
I've always assumed that, at a minimum, a god must be sentient--that is,
capable of making purposeful, conscious choices. After all, why worship
something that can't even recognize you?
I guess more to the point on this board--why even refer to something as a
god, if it could just as easily be categorized in more accessible and
recognizable terms--as a physical force, or an emotion, or an abstract
concept that you hold dear?
Is the gravitational force a god, for instance? Is the speed of light in
a vaccuum a god? Is the biological emotion of love a god?
|
|
|
jcarlinbn
2/24/2004 6:14 PM
|
69 out of 91 |
|
|
nycbonvivant -65
Can I have my own god too? Will he smite everyone else?
I'm only johnsmallberries on this thread, but I don't see why your god
can't do anything he wants to just like the regular gods.
However, keep in mind that most of the people on the atheism board are
pretty disgusted with the smiting behavior of the Abrahamic God in
particular. I'd be pretty quiet about believing in a smiting God.
J'Carlin
|
|
|
f451in84
2/24/2004 8:47 PM
|
70 out of 91 |
|
|
Maybe I�m getting this wrong and post 68 is in no way addressed to
me. Something tells me that this isn�t the case :) So, simply overlook
the following if I�m making an incorrect presumption in responding to
that post. :) [and I�ll offer �my bad� in advance]
As for me, I could simply say, �please read my posts a little more
carefully.� But because I don�t want this to draw on indefinitely:
What part of �no such thing as �a god� exists� is not understood? Where have I ever referred to the universe as �a God?�
Are there difficulties in comprehending that in our imperfect language a
word may convey equally-valid, multiple, implicit, context-related,
subjective semantics which can not be �just as easily� communicated
through other words? If I were to honestly tell you that there�s �magic�
in rock-n�-roll, would you then go assuming that I practiced wicca? But
please inform me: what other �more easily communicated word� can I use
for the existentialist concept of the �universal� from which we are all created and of which we all are a part of
which--irrelevant of details and labels--has been equally shared by
numerous ancient and modern atheistic philosophers, scientists,
Buddhists, Judaists, Muslims, Hindus, Paganisms, Christians, Voodooists,
Warlocks and Witches etc., and which can also be readily understood
from within a primarily Christian culture? I�d love to discover this
�more accessible and recognizable term� which I could then state �is one
and the same thing with �the universe� itself.�
As far as why employ the concept, 1) its my belief--is there an
inquisition on the horizon I�m not aware of?-- 2) not only can I defend
it logically and empirically to people that bug me about it (trust me on
this one) but, personally, I also find it to be a quite beneficial
belief for both my personal and scientific life, and 3) the added bonus
of a beneficial, utilitarian, pragmatism within my current cultural
context. [again, read above posts a bit more carefully.]
As for the other two people that I�ve noticed have also offered their
perspectives--I haven�t read through the whole thread--to the best of my
current understanding, the questions given are equal nonsensical,
fallacious, and non-applicable to their �system of beliefs� as well. One
seems to me to fall on the extreme end of a spectrum called
�agnostics,� and the other seems to have a commendable sense of respect
for what other people hold as sacred (this, to the extent that other
peoples beliefs do not become destructive in nature).
Not that this has occurred, but--on a related topic--what reason would
one have to cause descent among a group of people that--irrelevant of
details--share a common overall viewpoint which is loosely labeled as
�atheistic/agnostic?� (it would sort�a remind me of religious
self-righteousness/omniscience and the quest to outlaw �heresy�--same
darn difference) Don�t atheists have more pertinent/beneficial things to
talk about other than �who holds the �truly correct� atheistic
viewpoint?�
|
|
|
Andvari
2/24/2004 11:39 PM
|
71 out of 91 |
|
|
Well... I don't think you could consider atheism to be a sectarian
religion because its only defining precept is a shared one therefore you
would have to extend it to a more granular level. However, I would
question wether or not a religion was a cult when everytime one of its
members refers to God it adds a long list presumptious qualifiers. Like
our and lord
|
|
|
worldwary
2/25/2004 10:08 AM
|
72 out of 91 |
|
|
f451,
My post #68 was not addressed specifically to you or to any other poster
on this thread. I apologize if my careless phrasing caused you offense.
My original post was an attempt to raise a serious question that I've
been mulling over for some time. "Theist" and "atheist" are emotionally
loaded terms that may conceal more than they reveal, and maybe it's time
to shelve the terms in favor of something else. As I see it, the
question of atheism vs. theism--a heated political and social issue in
contemporary society--boils down to a matter of definitions. But,
ironically, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what a "god" is,
so people end up "choosing sides" based on a subjective, maybe even
illusory, target.
Even though I don't believe in what I think of as a god, maybe I do
believe in something that you think of as a god. To facilitate
discussion, maybe there should be a term for beliefs like ours. But
there's no point in creating such a term, until we pinpoint what those
beliefs might be.
So I'll pose my questions again: Are there any characteristics that
something must have, before you would call it a god? Do you believe, for
instance, that your god is sentient? Does it matter to you whether or
not your god is sentient?
|
|
|
f451in84
2/25/2004 8:53 PM
|
73 out of 91 |
|
|
No problem. :) When I fist got here there were some commotion going
around about �crazy� new age atheists or something like that :) Didn�t
even come to this board to talk about it--but it seemed that just by
coming here I inadvertently caused some problems with some: since then
seems like I�ve wanted to at least remedy the problems I caused a bit
before I check out. :)
Well, my personal take is like this: I deal with the word differently
based on context. E.g. although Christians and Jews both use Genesis,
they actually have drastically! different meanings of what �God�
is/represents, etc. So, I absorb the meaning of the word from the
context I�m in. If I�m discussing classics, Gods are sentient but
quirky, rather dumb sometimes, and always limited in power--and are in
no way the �universal� which, in classics, is Chaos: the �nothingness�
that span around itself until it created an egg which cracked giving
birth to deities that gave birth to other deities like Titans ect.
ultimately birthing the Gods of Olympus--heaven for them is
literally �sky�; the afterlife is spent in Hades: both �hell� and
�heaven� in Christian semantics, which often incorporates notions of the
Egyptian river Styx as well as other barriers such as the �river of
fire�. The Judaic God has �sentience� only in a metaphorical sense by
Christian standards: for their God is not /typically/ conceived of as a
deity, but more akin to ultimate existence itself lacking true �name,�
shape, etc.--heaven often is meant to mean existence on earth during
life. Christian God is a mix of Judaic God and Pagan God: heaven becomes
afterlife in the sky; hell in the world below which now becomes
conceived of as the �river/lake of fire.� Mary was impregnated by God in
the form of a dove, just as Leda was impregnated by Zeus in the form of
a swan, etc. �Holly Ghost� represents aspects of the Judaic God;
�Father�/God represents a mix of Holly Ghost and a sentient Zeus-like
God; �The son� is the son of the Zeus-like God (of course, all three are
also one God). Many eastern religions tend to conceive of �God� as
�nothingness,� existence itself, yin/yang, forces of energy; to attain
zen is to realize that you are one with everything and that everything
is, in fact, nothing. This is their �notion of God,� which is why from
the semantics of western culture they have no God whatsoever but,
rather, an understanding of the �universal� aspect of existence itself.
And there are many other faiths/notions of �God�. So, for me, God
becomes whatever the context defines the notion of �God� as: each notion
is equally sacred and subjectively real within its proper context of
cultural belief. Also, I find that each �notion� of �God� must be fully
understood from the unique semantics of its own context. Labels carried
from one culture to the next often cause grave fallacies in
understanding.
Obviously we are currently living in a predominantly Christian culture,
and so our notions of �God�/theism are constantly overshadowed with the
Christian semantics: God is a sentient deity like Zeus while
simultaneously being �everything that is existence�. I.e., in our
culture the word God is simultaneously loaded with the intertwined and
inseparable semantics of both �a deity� and the notion of �the
universal�.
To me, to be �atheist� is to hold the belief that no such thing as
deities, i.e. �a god/gods,� exist. I think all can agree on this.
It seems as though the notion of �the universal� also encompassed by the
semantics of �god� is what�s causing some of the problems you�re
referring to.
|
|
|
worldwary
2/26/2004 2:51 PM
|
74 out of 91 |
|
|
It seems as though the notion of �the universal� also encompassed
by the semantics of �god� is what�s causing some of the problems you�re
referring to.
I guess so (although I'm not totally convinced that concepts like
"universal nothingness" are god-concepts). Thanks for your
thought-provoking post.
Let me take a step back and attempt to explain what I believe (or, more
accurately, don't believe). When I say I am an atheist, what I mean is
that I don't believe in incorporeal, sentient beings. I believe that
sentience is strictly a biological phenomenon. I also believe that
crediting non-biological forces with intelligence and purpose is an
unwarranted leap of anthropomorphism. In other words, humans are
purposeful beings, and many of us naturally (but illogically) assume
that the rest of the universe must be purposeful as well. To me, this is
like a group of triangles concluding that the universe must be
triangular.
This isn't to say that my beliefs are set in stone. If I were to see
solid evidence of incorporeal intelligence--a god, a demon, a ghost,
whatever--I'd believe in it. Until that happens, however, I'll regard
sentient god claims with suspicion.
That said, I don't have a problem with the concept of a non-sentient
god. After all, I believe in many things that are non-sentient--the
universe, rocks, viruses, the force of gravity. If one of these is
"god," then so be it: it's a god that can't damn me to hell, that
requires nothing from me, and that doesn't even know I'm there. A god of
indifference. There's something vaguely comforting in that.
To some extent, though, I wonder if using the word "god" means anything,
when you apply it to something that is non-sentient. Does the label
"god" have any practical effect?
Take pantheism. I believe that the universe exists. Does that make me a
pantheist? Apparently not, because I don't assign the "god" label to the
universe. But what's the difference?
|
|
|
f451in84
2/26/2004 9:20 PM
|
75 out of 91 |
|
|
Thanks for the reply :) --and opportunity to /try/ to explain �pantheism� a little better.
The meaning of God in pantheism is not objective. So, the way you
address �god� has no meaning within the pantheistic perspective. Its the
subjective cultural meaning of God that is then changed by having it
equated with �everything/universe/nature/etc.�
Another way to put it: Pantheism is a philosophical perspective (and in
no way a religion) that addresses strictly the transcendental concepts
which are culturally ascribed to notions of �God.�--and this in a way in
which the transcendental concepts become fully empirical, causal,
explainable, �material�, in a sense become fully nullified since they�re
no longer transcendental. :) Funny, but true. :) . . . I�m serious:
Think of Pantheism and Nihilism as being two different atheistic
beliefs. Both hold the exact same atheistic tenets--there is no absolute
objective purpose; no deities; no supernatural; no �duality� btw.
mind&brain, spirit&body, etc.; no sentience, intelligence,
consciousness outside of biology; etc.--but the two atheistic
philosophies have different outlooks/perspectives/interpretations of
these tenets.
Nihilism then is the exact atheistic bipolar opposite of Pantheism. [And
to be a nihilist, I strongly feel, is to be an absolute hypocrite (not
to mention nincompoop): of course life and existence has value to you, because you�re alive and living and you exist. �Nihilism should commence with itself�--I think--is a rather apt quote. :) ]
BTW, I doubt that �pantheists� have ever had any need, inclination, etc.
to �convert� atheists to pantheism, any more than �atheists� have
wanted to convert humanists to atheism.
But we�re living in a religious world: the prevalent reality of God in
the cultural sense is very real. Pantheism transfers all the awe,
reverence, �divinity� of �God� onto the universe itself. There is no
sentient, intelligent deity; what there is is the universe itself. Don�t
worship it, cuz its a waste of your time, life, and existence. But have
reverence for it and everything it encompasses: yourself included.
Here�s another way of looking at it: By saying/conceiving God and the
Universe are one and the same thing, you attain an open-minded,
empiricism-driven atheism where materialism has no nihilistic, nor
�materialistic,� connotations.
Again, pantheism is an atheistic philosophical perspective: a subjective means of ascribing value to existence itself.
|
|
|
worldwary
2/27/2004 6:25 PM
|
76 out of 91 |
|
|
f451,
I appreciate your deeper explanation of pantheism. I think, in many ways, that I am a pantheist, as opposed to a nihilist.
Your previous post brings out one implication of the "god" label that
had escaped my attention: a god is something that is deeply important,
so assigning that label is a value judgment, even a sign of respect. And
I do believe that the universe--and many specific parts of it in
particular--are deeply important.
Have you given any thought to the possibility that a pantheist's sense
of reverence is to some extent motivated by self-interest? I.e., "I am a
part of the universe, therefore it must be important." I reject the
notion that this universe is important to someone who doesn't reside in
it, and is completely unaffected by it. This is the only thing that
(potentially) sticks in my craw about what you have described.
But I do really like the concept of the transcendental merging with the natural, without losing its importance.
|
|
|
Thomasina
2/27/2004 7:39 PM
|
77 out of 91 |
|
|
:: Thomasina blantantly ignoring the rule about proselytizing::
Worldwary:
A god of indifference. There's something vaguely comforting in that.
Ah, a man after my own heart!
Why not join my fledgling Church of the Great Cat Goddess. She could
care less if all humans lived or died. She's ignoring you right this
very moment! Your nobody until you've been ignored by the Cat!! She's
a perfect fit for your outlook on gods!
Come join me! I'll be happy to send you a complimentary Lucky Cat
Whisker to remind you of the indifference of the Great Cat Goddess!
Do I feel a conversion about to happen?!? :)
Reverend Thomasina
Seated Most High
Church of the Great Cat Goddess
|
|
|
johnbigboote
2/28/2004 12:28 AM
|
78 out of 91 |
|
|
With all due respect to the Great Cat Goddess, people who follow a
personal spiritual philosophy frequently describe gods who seem to have
no compulsion to smite and destroy. This is refreshingly different from
the Wrath Of God behavior of mass-market gods who apparently
need to go on a rampage now and then to keep the flocks attention.
Indifference would be more effective.
"johnsmallberries":
Thank you for sharing the news about Gabriel.
gooddogma-sit: (when you do get a chance to read this)
CONGRATULATIONS!
|
|
|
worldwary
2/28/2004 1:39 PM
|
79 out of 91 |
|
|
Thomasina,
I have a great (well, at least fat) cat goddess of my own. Great, fat, and orange.
She's good at ignoring us, but only sometimes. Sometimes she crawls on
our chests at night and screams until we wake up and pet her. Her moods
are fickle. Not too different from that grumpy sourpuss in the old
testament...
(What is a worship service like in the church of the Great Cat Goddess, I wonder?)
|
|
|
gooddogma-sit
3/13/2004 8:18 AM
|
80 out of 91 |
|
|
John,
Thanks to you for sharing in the joy of my family. Gabriel's a pretty
cool little being, even if "being" is about all he does right now. He
is falling asleep in my lap at this moment, allowing a brief respite in
which I can actually type with two hands. My children are my own little
proof that miracles do indeed happen every day.
It was great to see that this thread has kept itself going (with a
little push here and there from Jcarlin). It lacks a lot of the
acrimony and contentiousness that all too often pervades other threads
on this forum.
That being said:
f451in84
Are you talkin to me? Are you talking to me?
Who you calling an agnostic, pal?
If I had to label my beliefs, I would call myself a pantheist, as well.
You and I both seem to have a reverence for the larger universe and the
myteries and wonders inherent in it, as well as a respect for ourselves
as an expression of that mystery.
In the words of another of my personal prophets:
I am made from the dust of the stars
and the oceans flow in my veins
-Neil Peart
My new son is my reminder of that precious legacy, and the responsibility to that legacy, that we all share.
GD
|
|
|
|
<Prev |
Next>
First Page |
Last Page
|
|
| This is a read-only area. |
|
|
This is a read-only area. |
|
|
