How to get to heaven

[endplusone]

Thanks for linking Jesus Camp. I had wanted to watch it, but it completely left my mind until you posted that. It's kind of weird for me to watch on the outside. I'm not kidding, I have attended "Acquire the Fire/Battle Cry" events.

[osito]

His kingdom would never be denied to one who has done good works simply because they are not of a specific faith or didn't have some water splashed on their head. The notion is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the idea of redemption being nothing more then accepting Jesus. The singular idea that baptism and faith alone will save your ass is a Protestant notion and is one of the biggest defining factors between Protestants and Catholics. It is far from a universal idea within Christianity.

I'm going to agree with an earlier poster- if I am going to hell for being the 'wrong kind' of Christian, than so be it. I strongly believe that fundimentalist religion is not the right way and that it deviates from the true and important parts of the Bible- the ones that tell us to love one another and that we are all God's children. I also agree with whoever it was that said that non-fundie Christians need to stand up for beliefs like love and tolerance. The world hears entirely too much from these people who want to condemn others and not enough from right-thinking sensible people.

Thank you, ProdeFemme and that_american_kid. We really do need to hear more from Christians like you in threads like this one. I certainly would like to.

At that point she went totally out of controll and my friend began calling me and other friends for help. Between us Pagans (anyone not a fundie) and Jews, it took hours to calm her daughter down. My friend was obviously very shaken up and had no idea that her daughter would be subjected to such scare tactics at that camp. It didn't end there. Her daughter continued to have nightmares and was taken to a therapist. The therapist said other kids had also been affected. The camp organizers were contacted and said they had done nothing wrong, that they were a "Christian" organization as was their summer camp.

This is classic spiritual abuse; I would go so far as to call it terrorism. And it has become so "normal" in fundieland that the perps have this "huh? who, me?" response to it. It's unconscionable. It's frickin' evil.

Lady Matilda, I would love to hear your story sometime about how you evolved away from fundamentalism and onto your present path, and what specific advice you have for fundamentalists when you encounter them. Since you are reading Jung's autobiography, I assume you got a good laugh out of his childhood dream in which God drops a monster turd on the cathedral...:)

Osito, I've be quite interested to hear more about your 'off-the-wall' theism, and how you came to said conclusion.

Fish...that's a tall order; in sum, it kinda dropped into my lap in one swell foop on the night I first ate peyote, in Seattle in 1964 (it was legal then; we had it shipped from San Antonio). There's been much refinement and detail added since then, of course, but that was my rocket-ride out of atheism into ecumenical mysticism. I've said various things about it all in many posts, most of them probably in this forum.

[Sally]

Fish...that's a tall order; in sum, it kinda dropped into my lap in one swell foop on the night I first ate peyote, in Seattle in 1964 (it was legal then; we had it shipped from San Antonio). There's been much refinement and detail added since then, of course, but that was my rocket-ride out of atheism into ecumenical mysticism. I've said various things about it all in many posts, most of them probably in this forum.

Peyote! "One swell foop!" 1964! Ah, Osito, Redoutable Limerick Mistress, I think you are basically of my generation! :lol:

[niku-bot]

Thank you, ProdeFemme and that_american_kid. We really do need to hear more from Christians like you in threads like this one. I certainly would like to.

I agree with this comment very, very much!

[Anti-stud]

Thank you, ProdeFemme and that_american_kid. We really do need to hear more from Christians like you in threads like this one. I certainly would like to.

I agree with this comment very, very much!

I concur as well

[ProdeFemme]

Well, when it comes to me at least, I should say be careful what you wish for...:lol:

[Shadow girl]

I don't think Shadow Girl is proselytizing. I think she's expressing what the Christian viewpoint says. It's a shame that every time a religious person opens her mouth, everyone must accuse her of preaching.

Even if she is preaching...so what? No one is hurt. And if people convert because of what she says, what's it to you? Do you just want more people on your side than on hers? Well, then, what right have you to criticize those who proselytize?

Why does it have to be sides, anyway? What if a conservative Christian, a liberal Christian, an atheist, and an agnostic are just four people who've found four different ways of coping with a universal fear of mystery/change/uncertainty/death?

Exactly.

Besides you should all be happy I'm able to tell you this because out there in places like North Korea and China I could get a death sentence for telling you this although I would do it anyway. The reason is that unlike them I rely on God and not the Government or the world for comfort and support.

Wouldn't a message as such even slightly give you hope?

[Shadow girl]

I strongly believe the choice to be provoked belongs to the one provoked. I mean, of course some provocation is inexcusable, like physical harm, rape, intentionally hateful and abusive language, etc. But most of what I'm seeing here is just a person making controversial statements that tick people off. That's not inexcusable provocation in my book - I don't know about other books. I think we're all old enough to put up with controversial statements, without calling people poopyheads and getting all upset.

But is the proper response to simply shrug and walk away? Does everything else count as 'being provoked'? I have tried to discuss these matters in various of these threads with respect, with a commitment born of my own experience to honor the Christian worldview, to appreciate its capacity to strengthen, heal, and mediate the raw experience of life, but also to point out the damage caused by its extremists (cf. my expositions on John Calvin and Michael Servetus in another thread). I have repeatedly linked the PBS program on Carlton Pearson, whom S.g. dismisses with a statement "I have heard him and he is wrong" (end of story, amen). One of the problems with her posts is that she will not rise to the challenges she receives in response, I assume because she is incapable of tackling deeper stuff. This, I would very much like to discuss, not out of provocation, but in a quest to expand my own understanding and find common ground. I am an anthropologist with a long interest in comparative religion. I haven't worked through all the wrinkles in my own tumultuous atheist upbringing. I am not an atheist, but my theism is off-the-wall from anything mainstream: it's a mix of Native American shamanism, Jungian psychology, a Sufic approach to Baha'i' teachings, what I would call 'ecumenical mysticism', and years of entheogenic research. So if a lucid fundamentalist comes along who does not spew brimstone off the bat, I'll have a cup of tea and try to sort it out, as I have done many times. I once did a Jehovah's Witnesses' home study course to that end. Are the fundies I engage trying to "convert" me? Of course. Am I trying to "convert" them? Well, probably. But a better way to put it would be a mutual search for common ground, setting aside any assumptions that either person has all the answers.

The OP does not take this approach.

My father was a fiery atheist who felt he had to stamp out any theist temptations in his children. He was a good dad in many ways, a shitty one in others, and I never doubted his love, but I quickly learned to keep my early religious explorations to myself. I think that for people raised in atheist families who go probing the borderlands, it's a rather different journey than for those raised in a church and who then either stay and personalize their faith, or break free and do something else. We all have, and are making, different maps. I am fascinated by the maps, and by our shared spiritual geography.

Why do I bother engaging in these discussions? I enjoy the dialogue with other members, for one, but I also think it's important to rock the fundie boat due to the enormous influence (for ill, in my book) these people have over small children. On the one hand, they claim that children haven't the maturity to make a true commitment of faith (debate ensues over the age of consent) and on the other, they steep young children in this literal heaven-and-hell crap, terrorizing the innocents with their own fears of death. I have seen plenty of it over the decades, and regard it as inexcusable provocation. Do I see Shadow girl doing that here? No. If she gets this far into this post (I often think she doesn't read my posts at all because she never responds to them) maybe she'll reassure us that she does not indoctrinate small children. But I'd wager that she knows people who do.

I agree with pretty much all you've said here, and I, too, have always had a fascination for how people, as you say, draw their maps. I've been dabbling in Jung's autobiography. I call myself an eclectic Catholic, and I enjoy Catholic ritual in the way people who love life enjoy theater and dance, but I'm so non-Catholic in my ideology that I often wonder why I don't just choose a different way to describe myself. Ah, well. Words, words, words.

I wonder how old SG is.

I am almost 21.

[Sally]

Besides you should all be happy I'm able to tell you this because out there in places like North Korea and China I could get a death sentence for telling you this although I would do it anyway. The reason is that unlike them I rely on God and not the Government or the world for comfort and support.

Wouldn't a message as such even slightly give you hope?

Nope.

I guess you don't rely on your parents, or your employer, or your doctor, or your landlord, or your government for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, psychological care, or anything else? Because they are "the world." Just God? I'd like to know how to get all that stuff from God, since up to now I've been paying for it.

[that_american_kid]

I'm glad you have the right, absolutely. I am definitely proud to live in a country where we can discuss this openly and where you are as free as anyone to say what you want.

I have to say, as much as we'd all like to think we'd stand up in situations like that, I think it's quite an assumption to be sure you would. I also think that it's not a fair thing to say about people who live in those countries. They deal with a reality that you and I don't understand. Staying underground is sometimes what helps these people maintain places of worship and continue to serve God. Getting yourself shot isn't always the option which most glorifies God, in my opinion.

I've lived in a country where situations like that were once the case, and I have incredible respect for the people who held on to their faith even though they were in danger for it. I am in awe of that kind of strength and I think anyone would be. Just saying, I think it's hard for someone who's never been there to understand what those people are living through and to assume anything about their actions.

By the way,everyone, I think that there is a point where being honest about what one believes and not being afraid to tell people what that is becomes shoving ones beliefs on others. That point comes a little faster whenever the speaker starts describing who's going to hell. That kind of talk does not convert people. It does not convince anyone that the speaker is right, and it does not bring anyone closer to God. In fact, it drives people away because they get a distorted idea of what God is and what believers stand for. That's not doing God or anyone any favors. I bet it feels pretty good to the speaker, though.

I get this from both sides- not just the very religious members of this forum but from the very non-religious members as well. For the atheists, hearing that my beliefs are 'fairy tales' and that they are ridiculous just makes me angry. That doesn't constitute reasonable discussion, nor is it the kind of tolerance that we are all asking for from the opposite viewpoint.

[EricK]

I get this from both sides- not just the very religious members of this forum but from the very non-religious members as well. For the atheists, hearing that my beliefs are 'fairy tales' and that they are ridiculous just makes me angry. That doesn't constitute reasonable discussion, nor is it the kind of tolerance that we are all asking for from the opposite viewpoint.

As a non-religious person, if I were to ask you in all seriousness how I am meant to differentiate between religious beliefs and fairy tales, would that constitute reasonable discussion?

[that_american_kid]

I get this from both sides- not just the very religious members of this forum but from the very non-religious members as well. For the atheists, hearing that my beliefs are 'fairy tales' and that they are ridiculous just makes me angry. That doesn't constitute reasonable discussion, nor is it the kind of tolerance that we are all asking for from the opposite viewpoint.

As a non-religious person, if I were to ask you in all seriousness how I am meant to differentiate between religious beliefs and fairy tales, would that constitute reasonable discussion?

Yeah, I'd say so. Cause you're serious about it... I just don't like when people just toss aside the idea of religion. Not that anyone has to believe in it and I'm totally fine with atheism. It's just when people say outright that anyone who has faith of some kind is delusional, or believes in fairy tales. To a believer, these are very real.

Since I feel like that was also a question, I'll do my best to answer it. I'm not infallable, of course, and this is a pretty heavy topic, so I'll try my hardest to be coherent and make sense. (Edit: this is taking me a while, but I'm finding it's very fun to think about!)

I think if you're trying to differentiate, I'd define a religious belief as whatever a person believes about a higher power, life after death, whatever they believe about how the world works and why. I think it's safe to say that any religious person, whether you agree with them or not, will be offended by being told their religion is silly. I'm not saying don't think it- it's none of my business what you think. But saying that a religion is fake is like telling an atheist that they're going to hell. It's the same kind of rude because it just dismisses something a person has, presumably, given real thought to. I don't think it's rude to question what a person says, but I feel like there's a real difference in the language that gets used when a person has genuine questions and really wants to talk, versus when a person is just interested in making someone else believe what they believe. You see the same tone, if you will, in atheists making fun of organized religion and in fundamentalists trying to convert the masses. It really strikes me how similar those two groups can sound. (My best friend is a formerly hardcore atheist. Used to drive me nuts because he'd make fun of anyone with a religious belief. He sounded like a fundie.)

Now, how you decide whether what they are saying is real, I guess that's very much up to you. I'm not going to pretend that everyone doesn't have their own definition of which things are real and which things are fairy tales- I know there are a lot of people who consider my beliefs to be silly, just like I don't take Scientology very seriously. That's okay- I understand where they're coming from. But the same way I would respect the beliefs of a Scientologist or an Atheist, I want to be respected. I try hard to give that respect, even when I feel insulted.

For me, the things I believe are very real. I think that there are aspects of my life, things that have happened to me, that make me believe there is a God. But that's a really personal thing, what you believe and why. It's different for everybody and it's never okay to just tell someone that they believe a fairy tale. If it weren't a religious belief, the person wouldn't be saying it.

Does that answer your question in any way? I like talking about these things, at least in respectful discussions, so debate away! :)

[osito]

Peyote! "One swell foop!" 1964! Ah, Osito, Redoutable Limerick Mistress, I think you are basically of my generation!

Indeed! I wonder if our paths ever crossed back in those days. I was an undergrad at UW, hung out with cavers, hippies and (gasp!) socialists, and lived mostly in the U District and outlying 'hoods--several apartments and a house near Ravenna Park.

[EricK]

I get this from both sides- not just the very religious members of this forum but from the very non-religious members as well. For the atheists, hearing that my beliefs are 'fairy tales' and that they are ridiculous just makes me angry. That doesn't constitute reasonable discussion, nor is it the kind of tolerance that we are all asking for from the opposite viewpoint.

As a non-religious person, if I were to ask you in all seriousness how I am meant to differentiate between religious beliefs and fairy tales, would that constitute reasonable discussion?

Yeah, I'd say so. Cause you're serious about it... I just don't like when people just toss aside the idea of religion. Not that anyone has to believe in it and I'm totally fine with atheism. It's just when people say outright that anyone who has faith of some kind is delusional, or believes in fairy tales. To a believer, these are very real.

These are not mutually exclusive things. When children believe in Father Christmas, They are believing in a fairy tale, but to them the belief is very real.

Since I feel like that was also a question, I'll do my best to answer it. I'm not infallable, of course, and this is a pretty heavy topic, so I'll try my hardest to be coherent and make sense. (Edit: this is taking me a while, but I'm finding it's very fun to think about!)

I think if you're trying to differentiate, I'd define a religious belief as whatever a person believes about a higher power, life after death, whatever they believe about how the world works and why.

I'd agree with you about a higher power, or life after death; but if their belief about how the world works and why does not involke any sort of higher power or supernatural agents then I wouldn't call it a religious belief.

I think it's safe to say that any religious person, whether you agree with them or not, will be offended by being told their religion is silly.

That is true. Some people are also offended if you tell them their belief that the moon landing was faked is silly, or that their belief that the holocaust never happened is silly.

But generally one doesn't just tell them their beliefs are silly, one explains why those beliefs are silly. If they are offended by that then so be it. But what is the alternative when it comes to discussing their beliefs? I can ask questions about your beliefs to find out what they are - but that isn't a real discussion. And as soon as I explain why your beliefs don't make any sense I am going to offend you.

And I think deep down eveybody knows that religious beliefs are in general silly - they surely must believe that other people's religious beliefs are false which is pretty much the same thing - they just manage to kid themselves about their own, or engage in some sort of cognitive dissonance.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you are an anthropologist who is studying a remote tribe. You get to know their language, their way of life etc and then ask them about their religious beliefs. There are a couple of things I am fairly certain of (and even if they're not true of you, then they are true of most religious people):

1. You will not seriously weigh up their religious beliefs against yours to see if theirs are more sensible and whether you should convert.

2. Even if you don't tell them so, you will think their beliefs are at least a little silly

I'm not saying don't think it- it's none of my business what you think. But saying that a religion is fake is like telling an atheist that they're going to hell. It's the same kind of rude because it just dismisses something a person has, presumably, given real thought to.

But when I have talked to religious people it is normally apparent that they haven't given real thought to it. For a start how many of them have weighed up as many different religions as they can find to work out which one best explains how the world works? For another thing, if you ask them questions of the form "If God is all powerful and could presumably have created the world any way he liked, why did he...?" two things become clear.

1. They have never considered that sort of question before

2. They are not even interested in coming up with an answer that makes sense. They will eventually resort to a statement like "who are we to question God's ways" or "God moves in mysterious ways". Sometimes they will do that immediately, and sometimes only after you have pointed out the obvious flaws in their attempted explanations

I don't think it's rude to question what a person says, but I feel like there's a real difference in the language that gets used when a person has genuine questions and really wants to talk, versus when a person is just interested in making someone else believe what they believe. You see the same tone, if you will, in atheists making fun of organized religion and in fundamentalists trying to convert the masses. It really strikes me how similar those two groups can sound. (My best friend is a formerly hardcore atheist. Used to drive me nuts because he'd make fun of anyone with a religious belief. He sounded like a fundie.)

Making fun of them is rude. But eventually it's all you can do. Like conspiracy theorists, hardcore religious believers are immune to logical discussion about that aspect of the world. They can be make complete sense about everything else, but as soon as the topic turns that way, they seem to use a completely different set of logical rules.

Now, how you decide whether what they are saying is real, I guess that's very much up to you. I'm not going to pretend that everyone doesn't have their own definition of which things are real and which things are fairy tales- I know there are a lot of people who consider my beliefs to be silly, just like I don't take Scientology very seriously. That's okay- I understand where they're coming from. But the same way I would respect the beliefs of a Scientologist or an Atheist, I want to be respected. I try hard to give that respect, even when I feel insulted.

I don't even know what it means to "respect someone's belief". It seems to only ever be used to deflect criticism away from religion. I've never heard it used about political beliefs, for instance. Or to take another example, if you frequent any mathematics forums, you will eventually come across someone who tries to claim that 0.999... is not equal to 1.000... Now you can give them any number of proofs of why they are the same, and point out all the errors in their purported proofs as to why they are different, and it has no effect on their beliefs. Why am I supposed to respect that belief? What does it even mean?

For me, the things I believe are very real. I think that there are aspects of my life, things that have happened to me, that make me believe there is a God. But that's a really personal thing, what you believe and why. It's different for everybody and it's never okay to just tell someone that they believe a fairy tale. If it weren't a religious belief, the person wouldn't be saying it.

But if I didn't genuinely believe that a certain belief was silly, I wouldn't be saying that.

Does that answer your question in any way? I like talking about these things, at least in respectful discussions, so debate away! :)

I expect you don't consider what I have said to be respectful. But I'm not sure how to make the points I want to make in a respectful way. It is important to say that even if I think your beliefs are silly, I don't think you are silly.

Atheists, at least atheists who care about other's feelings, are at a great disadvantage in discussions about religion. It is clear that religion plays an important role in many people's lives, satisfying some "spiritual" need. But it is also clear from studying the wide variety of religions in existence both now and historically, that any religious belief can suffice equally well in that regard. What follows from this observation is that the actual truth of the religion is irrelevant for it to fulfil its function. On the other hand, it can only fulfil its function in someone's life if the person believes it to be true. Now this puts the kind-hearted atheist in the same boat as the doctor who knows that the medicine which is helping his patient is just a placebo. He simply can't have a geniune discussion with his patient about the true nature of the medicine without risking damaging the patient in some way.

[Anti-stud]

Cool post Eric - you are like an analogy ninja.

I dig it

[that_american_kid]

These are not mutually exclusive things. When children believe in Father Christmas, They are believing in a fairy tale, but to them the belief is very real.

That's true. Whereas I can't point to the person who started telling people that there was a God, so it's harder to disprove that there's a God, my parents don't really believe in Father Christmas- when I found ashes on the carpet, when the cookies I left out were gone, there was concrete proof that it was my parents who had spread the ashes and eaten the cookies. Also, Santa Claus had the same handwriting as the tooth fairy. :)

That is true. Some people are also offended if you tell them their belief that the moon landing was faked is silly, or that their belief that the holocaust never happened is silly.

But generally one doesn't just tell them their beliefs are silly, one explains why those beliefs are silly. If they are offended by that then so be it. But what is the alternative when it comes to discussing their beliefs? I can ask questions about your beliefs to find out what they are - but that isn't a real discussion. And as soon as I explain why your beliefs don't make any sense I am going to offend you.

Again, I think part of it is being able to offer concrete proof. Though you can't technically take someone to the moon, NASA could prove to them that the Moon Landing was real. Technically, you could take them to Europe to dig up graves, although I don't know anyone who actually *would*. But the proof is there. Part of the problem in debating religion is that, in the end, I don't have any more concrete proof that there is a God than you do that there isn't. We just can't prove it to each other. (There, I said it!) It's true, there is no 100% concrete proof that God exists. I choose to believe that he does, but I can actually understand why people choose to believe that he doesn't. We just take the same "evidence" and come to different conclusions.

And I think deep down eveybody knows that religious beliefs are in general silly - they surely must believe that other people's religious beliefs are false which is pretty much the same thing - they just manage to kid themselves about their own, or engage in some sort of cognitive dissonance.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you are an anthropologist who is studying a remote tribe. You get to know their language, their way of life etc and then ask them about their religious beliefs. There are a couple of things I am fairly certain of (and even if they're not true of you, then they are true of most religious people):

1. You will not seriously weigh up their religious beliefs against yours to see if theirs are more sensible and whether you should convert.

2. Even if you don't tell them so, you will think their beliefs are at least a little silly

No arguments here! I realize that my religious beliefs sound pretty nutty. They make sense to me, but I realize how they look when you hear them from a different background. It's just something I've gotten used to.

But when I have talked to religious people it is normally apparent that they haven't given real thought to it. For a start how many of them have weighed up as many different religions as they can find to work out which one best explains how the world works? For another thing, if you ask them questions of the form "If God is all powerful and could presumably have created the world any way he liked, why did he...?" two things become clear.

1. They have never considered that sort of question before

2. They are not even interested in coming up with an answer that makes sense. They will eventually resort to a statement like "who are we to question God's ways" or "God moves in mysterious ways". Sometimes they will do that immediately, and sometimes only after you have pointed out the obvious flaws in their attempted explanations

Again, no argument. I guess I forget (or ignore?) that just because I think logic and religion are not mutually exclusive doesn't mean that other people think that way. Just because I think about what I believe, instead of blindly accepting what I'm told, doesn't mean that other people like to use their brains in church.

As to the 'God moves in mysterious ways' response, I try not to use that phrase. I don't understand everything God does, and it ocurrs to me that maybe what that really means is that he's not as active in everyone's lives as we tend to think he is. Perhaps, for example, he can affect the lives of people who are open to it, and can't affect the lives of those who aren't. So I see God in my life, basically, because I want to see him. Whether that means that he's there or just that I attribute things to him more often, is then irrelevant because the difference can't be proven. I hope that doesn't sound glib- I'm afraid it does. It's not meant to, though. It's a thought I had, is all.

But when I say that God does things I don't understand, I just mean I'm not perfect and I don't know everything. I don't know why bad things happen to good people. I wish I did, but I just don't have the faintest idea, frankly.

Making fun of them is rude. But eventually it's all you can do. Like conspiracy theorists, hardcore religious believers are immune to logical discussion about that aspect of the world. They can be make complete sense about everything else, but as soon as the topic turns that way, they seem to use a completely different set of logical rules.

True again. Drives me nuts, too. I try to have a little logic in my beliefs... not that they all stand up to scientific proof. That's why they're beliefs. But I try not to turn my brain off in the process. For example, I contribute science to God. I figure, who's to say God didn't write all our scientific discoveries into creation? I think it'd be harder to be against religion if fundies of any type weren't so darn dogmatic. Like you say, different set of logical rules. But I think that any reasonable religion can be seen as reconciled with logic. If it totally goes against what science says, then there's a real problem. (Creation in 7 literal days, all mankind descended from literally 2 people etc.)

I don't even know what it means to "respect someone's belief". It seems to only ever be used to deflect criticism away from religion. I've never heard it used about political beliefs, for instance. Or to take another example, if you frequent any mathematics forums, you will eventually come across someone who tries to claim that 0.999... is not equal to 1.000... Now you can give them any number of proofs of why they are the same, and point out all the errors in their purported proofs as to why they are different, and it has no effect on their beliefs. Why am I supposed to respect that belief? What does it even mean?

But if I didn't genuinely believe that a certain belief was silly, I wouldn't be saying that.

I think it goes back to what you can prove. And that some people will never see sense. I'm in this weird position of agreeing with people who aren't religious as often as I agree with people who claim to be the same religion I am. That's how I get into discussions like this. :P

I guess when I say 'respect someone's belief' I just mean talking like we're doing now, instead of stuff like, "Yeah, but these people are dumb enough to believe that there is a God/psychologists are out to get us/aliens are real/whatever." Respect, to me, would be more of a 'It's not what I think, but why do you believe it?" or just a "yeah, they believe it. Not for me, but okay."

Atheists, at least atheists who care about other's feelings, are at a great disadvantage in discussions about religion. It is clear that religion plays an important role in many people's lives, satisfying some "spiritual" need. But it is also clear from studying the wide variety of religions in existence both now and historically, that any religious belief can suffice equally well in that regard. What follows from this observation is that the actual truth of the religion is irrelevant for it to fulfil its function. On the other hand, it can only fulfil its function in someone's life if the person believes it to be true. Now this puts the kind-hearted atheist in the same boat as the doctor who knows that the medicine which is helping his patient is just a placebo. He simply can't have a geniune discussion with his patient about the true nature of the medicine without risking damaging the patient in some way.

Yes. I also see different world religions as different ways of thinking about and talking to the same entity. So I don't always see my religion as at odds with other religions. Maybe that's partially a result of all the differences and divisions between groups that call themselves Christian, so I'm kind of used to people getting at the same goal by going different directions. And all sure that they're right, which I'm thinking is just about a universal reaction.

I expect you don't consider what I have said to be respectful. But I'm not sure how to make the points I want to make in a respectful way. It is important to say that even if I think your beliefs are silly, I don't think you are silly.

Actually I think this was a really nice response. If I can't examine my beliefs, I'm a) not acting logically and b) probably not very secure in what I believe.

And that was very sweet of you to say. It made me smile. :)

And you are, indeed, an analogy ninja. Wow. Longest post ever.

[ProdeFemme]

The truth of the matter Eric is there is no big difference between the two. Not in as much of a way as one could illustrate it in a sentence. I could no sooner explain my faith then I could why I love one man but not another. Sure, I could give you a bunch of examples or theories, but I couldn't just give a flat out answer.

But the thing is, to the faithful, the answer of how to illustrate the two are different isn't important. Now, one must bear in mind faith and religion are two very, very different things. Religion is what bore this thread, religion divides and judges, when you hear of damnation and sin and redemption, that's all religion, there's no dogma in faith. Faith isn't in a book or a building, no one can teach you faith or show it too you and you certainly can't just find some faith simply because you seek it; it only occurs where one finds it. And not everyone does.

Now, when I was a child my life was shit, I despise pity, but in truth it was. Born into an Irish-Catholic family I naturally had religion shoved down my throat from infancy, but I'd have to say my belief in Santa was stronger, because he gave me stuff :lol: But seriously, like many "religious" homes, I was sent to Catholic school who in turn threatened us with a week of detention/lines if we couldn't discuss Sunday mass on Monday morning, and I'm sure I could recite the 10 commandments before I knew the words to Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star. But also, like many "religious" homes, lip service was paid to the whole idea, faith was almost non-existent and I watched with much confusion as all the important rules I was being taught were repeatedly broken by the very people who taught me. Of Course to top it all off, I was constantly getting the shit beat out of me; first by my mother, then I gained a step-father who joined in on the fun. And that's what brings me to my tale. By the time I was 9/10 years old I would also get thrown out of the house overnight, sometimes for a few days straight. I lived in a ghetto/welfare part of Toronto sleeping in alleyways and underground garages at that age, with prostitutes "servicing" johns and drug deals occurring around me. Between that and being beaten and locked up when I was in the house (please don't ask me why I went back, I was 10, it was all I knew) I was a pretty broken person when I was still just a child. It was on one of those occasions, locked in a closet with a swollen face and what turned out to be a broken wrist, battered and scared and alone that I remembered. I remembered that this 'God' person was always listening, that all I had to do was ask Him and He would give me strength. And He did.

What did I find in the dark, hurt and alone that night in my childhood? Jehovah? Allah? The Great Mother? Maybe I tapped into the universal conscious? Or maybe it was just a child, who was so desperate to believe somebody, anybody cared whether she lived or died she created love where there was none. The whole point is it doesn't matter. It never has. The inner strength and peace I found that night I gave the name "God" too; whether my God occurs in the heavens or simply in my own mind is of no consequence to me.

So many atheists get hung up on the 'how can you believe with no proof' but for those who find their faith in the depths of darkness, we don't need it. Maybe it's just the human spirit or instinct or whatever, but the drive, the reason to... rise up, we call that 'God'. And you can challenge it, mock it, dispute it, it doesn't matter; the experience is real, whatever the cause. Some faithful cling so tightly to their God that it's too much to bear that maybe it is just a self-delusion; I can admit, albeit reluctantly, maybe it is. But I speak for us all when I say we don't really care; faith is purely good, no harm ever came from thinking you are loved, thinking you are of worth to someone. That is God.

As for Santa, he was told to me to explain the presents underneath the tree, eventually the presents stopped which led to to my belief in Santa being dispelled. God has never stopped doing what He has done for me since I found my faith, so I have no reason to belief anything has changed or that He's no longer there.

...and for the record, saying one's beliefs are silly is just as much a cop-out as saying everyone should respect others beliefs. Both rebuts are only reserved for when someone lacks a better retort ;)

sorry for the big babble, I seem to have gotten a nasty head-cold through the night so now I'm all dopey, well...chemically dopey as opposed to my normal fleeting dopey moments :lol:

[Shockwave]

The only reason you can't prove there is a God is that you have defined him as something that is unprovable. If, on the other hand, you worshipped something concrete and discernible you could point to him and say, "There he is."

[ProdeFemme]

Ahh Shockwave, never one to mince words. :lol:

[Shockwave]

My word-mincer is broken.

We Stoics are pantheists, we believe that God is Nature (not nature as in what happens in the woods with the birds and squirrels but nature as in the movements of the entire universe). So, I can literally point to God and say, "There he is."

Of course we still can't prove whether God is conscious or not. There are those who believe he is and those who believe he is not (and those, like myself, who believe it doesn't matter).

[Næt.]

'God' is the god of the Bible, isn't it?

//minor pedantic quibble

[EricK]

ProdFemme, thank you for sharing your harrowing tale.

I am glad you have what you call your God. But it is clear, isn't it, that this God is not the God of any particular religion. If you had been brought up in another culture with another religious paradigm, and had reached out in your hour of need to that concept of God, you would have found him too. Furthermore, if you had been constantly told that within each person there is an inner strength which will allow them to cope with anything the world throws at them, you could have reached out (or perhaps "reached in" is a better term!) to that and found the strength to cope. In that case you would be an atheist who still had your "God"!

As I say, I am glad you have your God, and to try to take that away from you without replacing it with something else (eg the inner strength which you patently have in abundance) would be cruel. But if you were to claim that your God is the only God, and that people who are using other Gods to cope, or coping without any are wrong, then I would take issue with that. After all, the only true test of a coping mechanism is if it allows you to cope!

The other people of whom I can say I am glad they have their God are those who falsely claim that without God people can't be moral. I am fairly sure that without their belief in God they would be particularly immoral, so I'm glad they've got someone - even if it is a fictional someone - keeping them in check.

[Shockwave]

'God' is the god of the Bible, isn't it?

//minor pedantic quibble

No. He was called Zeus by the ancient Stoics but some of us today call him God because we're used to using that name. We don't use the ancient Greek mythology either. In fact our creation mythology (that we've been using for around 2,300 years) is very much like the Big Bang Theory.

[Næt.]

I see. I always thought Stoicism was a school of philosophy, not a religion.

[Shadow girl]

The only reason you can't prove there is a God is that you have defined him as something that is unprovable. If, on the other hand, you worshiped something concrete and discernible you could point to him and say, "There he is."

I don't have to see God for God to talk to me.

[Guest Tabula Rasa]

Shadow girl,

What about some of the indigenous tribes in remote areas of the world? They do not have Bibles, and more often than not, outsiders are not welcome to proselytize, let alone visit.

[Næt.]

Shadow girl,

What about some of the indigenous tribes in remote areas of the world? They do not have Bibles, and more often than not, outsiders are not welcome to proselytize, let alone visit.

Eskimo and the missionary.

[Shadow girl]

Shadow girl,

What about some of the indigenous tribes in remote areas of the world? They do not have Bibles, and more often than not, outsiders are not welcome to proselytize, let alone visit.

Thats that job of missionary to help by bringing them The Bible in the native laugage.

One of these days I want to be a missionary and spread the good news to them. Help them with other things and learn of the kind of life they live.

[Shockwave]

I see. I always thought Stoicism was a school of philosophy, not a religion.

Well, it's not a religion in the typical sense since we have no scripture, prophets, revelations, mysticism or dogma. However, it does have a cosmology and fills the same role of a religion. When people use the word philosophy today they're usually referring to deep thoughts and esoteric discussions. In the ancient world though, it was a way of life and that's how Stoicism is viewed by its practitioners now.

Still, when someone asks me my religion I say "Stoic."

[Lady Matilda]

What I don't understand is, if a person doesn't believe in hell, how can he feel threatened by someone invoking bloody hell on him?

...

I can see where preaching would be inappropriate, like preaching to small children, people with mental handicaps, or people with extreme mental illness. But I'm under the impression that we're all big girls and big boys here with enough rationality to operate computers, let alone understand the difference between a fact and a horror story.

If someone doesn't believe there is a hell, of course they won't feel threatened; I don't. But I'm concerned about people who come on AVEN who are worrying and wondering about what will happen to them, and here's someone who says "Believe THIS way or you'll burn in hell." AVEN is the world; we are all ages and all degrees of sophistication, and all degrees of mental stability. Some of us might be threatened and worried, and I don't think it's fair for them to have to read this blatant religious threatening.

Follow that to its logical conclusion. If fundamentalist Christians cannot speak their minds in a forum meant for controversial statements, then who CAN speak his/her mind? Since anything can be construed as a threat to a person in the wrong place at the wrong time...if we're to be fair, nobody should speak if fundamentalists can't speak.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say we ARE feeling threatened and worried. Whose issue is that? Is it a person like SG's issue, or is it OUR issue? If we're feeling so threatened and worried that we can't handle what other people have to say, and we can't handle the world around us, we should seek professional help, not a philosophy/politics/controversy forum. And if we don't seek help, if we don't wear our hardhats in the construction zone, we're responsible for any falling bricks giving us concussions. It's actually much more empowering to think of life that way: that we're responsible for our feelings, that others cannot control our feelings.

We cannot control our audience. We cannot control how offended our audience will be. Better to just say our message like we mean it, with common sense, not hyper-sensitivity.