Thanks boagie, and I do hope that I leave room for debate.If what I believe is the truth, then it should not only be able to survive the light of careful examination, but be enriched by it. If it proves otherwise, then it probably wasn't worth protecting in the first place.
As far as the wonder vs concrete diety idea goes, I think I can see what you are saying, and agree that at times this has happened. But I also see that atheism, evolutionism, and modern science have robbed many people of the wonder of universe. Seeing the wonder in the universe seems more like a personal choice than an issue of creeds. For the believers in Diety, they can look at the universe and see the wonder of their Diety and of His incredible creation. Or they can choose to ignore it. The atheist has a similar choice, though I personally don't understand what would be understood through the wonder. Maybe you can help me understand that a little better...
Also, I was wondering what spirituality means to you?
"For the believers in diety they can look at the universe and see the wonder of the diety and of his incredible creation." This is my point, when you have attributed a cause, a source, an answer to the wonder before you, you in essence close the door of wonder, and at least for me wonder is an essential quality of spirituality. "For the believers in diety they can look at the universe and see the wonder of the diety and of his incredible creation." This is my point, when you have attributed a cause, a source, an answer to the wonder before you, you in essence close the door of wonder, and at least for me wonder is an essential quality of spirituality.
Understanding would itself eliminate wonder, but this is what the religious do, they say they understand, if so, there is then no wonder is there. I understand also from the Christians I know, that wonder is not part of there spirituality.
I remember a line from Meister Eckhart, the Christian mystic,"The goal is to move pass the image of god, to reach god." here the door remains open I think.
I get what you're saying, but I would say that if you attribute an incomprehensably wonderful creation to an incomprehensably wonderful Creator, you have not closed the door of wonder, but essentially thrown it wide open.
If at least acknowledging wonder is not part of their spirituality, then they have not opened their eyes to much of the Bible, as well as the world around them.
That is a neat quote. Seems like it could be a good reason that God (in the Bible) tells His people not to make images (even of Himslef) to worship, even though we see that worshiping man-made things seems to be part of every culture, including modern western culture. If we have physical objects to worship, our need to "reach God" has been undermined (as well as the idea of wonder).
I believe our thinking is not as far apart as I first believed. Indeed the worship of an image is something akin to the worship of the golden calf is it not. I think spirituality needs to avoid closed concepts, indeed in life that which is considered in isolation, is not, that which is closed ceases to exist. This is a realization science of late has made inescapable, odd it should be science which opens to spirituality. Actually going back to your post, if you attribute the wonder to a known deity, that does undermine the wonder, the mystery----only with pretense however. The fact remains the universe, the creation is pure wonder, and the source must remain forever X. Of course they could create an image of X and worship the image a.k.a golden calf. Thought is to much to ask of most congregations, it is not asked of them for a reason.
Boagie
"your kids will be sent home from school crying for being different and/or devil worshippers"
That sucks.
As far as I can tell science can not prove that There is a Living God. And science can not prove that there is not a Living God. Therefore it is a belief that there is a Living God, and it is a belief that there is not a Living God. Both justified by what? Could it be faith?
If one trusts in the Mercy of the Living God, through Jesus, he is justified, before God, (not self righteousness) by faith in the Mercy of God through the promise of Jesus.
But the reward of a faith that there is no God, "atheism", I have no idea what the expectation should be.
If those who say they are christians and exercise brutality or cruelty or are accusatory or are full of there own anger and wrath (Or worse). Then ether they are hypocrites or they do not understand the mercy of God as fully as they should (been guilty there). But one can go to scripture and show the error of there doing in the context of what they say they believe or agree as true.
But, I could be wrong here, it seems to me that when it comes to "atheism" there is no correction to go to. No matter what kind of person an atheist is, as long as he says there is no God he is qualified to be apart. This is not to say that atheist are evil in any way. But what's a good atheist and a bad atheist?
Actually if science had evidence of a god they would present it, as they did before the publication of the Origin Of Species and for a short after its publication. Nature at that time was constantly used to point out the inescapable design of the complexity of nature. The atheist simply states without evidence for the existence of something why would I believe in its existence? I know many of the religious would like the atheist considered on the same plane/level as the believer, this is again wishful thinking--ain't that a surprize!! The faithful are looking for rewards, that is their problem. Your comments about true Christians, in fact dpmartin, there are very few christians who walk the walk. It is Christianity as an institution and political animal that I disrespect. Christianity is now under attack but it is under attack because it has attacked in its political form. The scientific community, the intellectual community have said enough, tolerance has become a withered weed, and needs to be pulled. There are all kinds of people who wish to kill others because they have not got their theology right. Christianity is far from an acception.
I think this needs qualification does not? What if science invaded the church and insisted upon evolutionary biology being preached to the congregation. I think people have shown great tolerance for the believer but that just seems to have made them more arrogant. No for me and many others, believers have outstripped the capacity for tolerance. They have decided upon a political life, let them take there lumps like everyone else for doing so.
Neitherextreme,
To me, wonder itself is not something that has meaning in and of itself any more than knowledge. I think that it is only in context that it gains meaning and importance. Yes, I guess I was mistaken we are worlds apart in this. I find that the mystics, the eastern religions and science open more to spirituality then the Christian faith. The focus of Christianity has always been on the duality of reality, rather than the oneness of things. Christian mystics and mystics of other traditions have also be inclined in this belief and now science has substanitated the reality of this. Do you not find this spiritually opening for you? How does the Christian faith deal with the reality that life lives on life, big fish eats little fish, this was a problem even for primative man, he felt quilty for killing his fellow creatures and so introduced rituals to deal with the guilt. Compared with other traditions as well I do not find Christianity terriable informative about the human condition, relative to say the ancient Hindu spiritual texts. There are some morally grounding princples to be found in Christianity, but none that are not found elsewhere and generally there is much more wisdom then can be found in the bible. You do indeed have enthusiasm, but for what I fail to see. The nature of reality is relational but I do not think I have ever heard or read anything in the bible which indicates this, not that I have had any expectation that it would.
Neitherextreme,
"meta-narrative" (story) of the Christian Faith you say you believe, you believe a literal interpretation? If so, you must ignore not only a great deal of common sense, but a great deal of the modern sciences as well. You are however well dug-in. I have friends that are likewise unmoveable, but unlike you, they are not open to disscussion. "The Truth Is One,The Sages Speak Of It By Many Names."Upanishads. I remember a line I thought was very powerful, when an old Zen Buddhist was asked, "What is your theology?" He replied, I think we don't have a theology, we dance.
A few thoughts I had after my last post...
Just a question, not an argument: In your scenerio, why did people begin to use animal-killing-rituals to get rid of his own guilt? (As I understood it, you were saying that he made the rituals to deal with the guilt of killing the animal, so why would more killing get rid of guilt in other areas of life.) And second question I just had, why do you think man felt guilt in the first place? I personally think the animal sacrifice thing is a built-in instinct in humans that know that we don't act as we should (or usually even as we think we should), and that something will take the discipline for it (and we don't want it to be us). Once again, this could quickly take us to topic of "How could a good God....", but that's just a beast in and of itself which I will leave alone for now.
And to explain a little about what I believe about animal sacrifice in the Old Testament: As far as I can understand, the actual sacrifice was never what covered the sin, but was a petition to God. And for what it's worth the Isrealites were a shepherding culture that lived off of livestock, so I think a sacrifice of an animal would have been seen more as a giving up of a material possesion than as an act of cruelty since it was so much a part of their culture.
Actually the nature of the ritual was of course a myth inacted, they told themselves that they were releasing the spirit of the animal to return to the spirit world. They saw this preforming of the ritual as essential to a cycle of birth and death. They believed that if the animal was not treat properly, example, given a ritual, then it would not return to offer itself up to them in the future to become their life. The main animal or food animal of a primative/elementary culture was a sacred animal, example, for the plains indian it was the buffalo, to the indians of the west coast it was the salmon. Through this ritual they saw themselves as fulfilling the law of nature-------life lives on life. They did not as modern man does, see the animal as lower form of life, indeed sometimes they might have thought it superior in that it could do what man himself could not--------example fly! If you think by only eating vegetables you get out of this situation you do not, it is still life living on the life of another. I hope that answers to your question.
You are however well dug-in.
"meta-narrative" (story) of the Christian Faith you say you believe, you believe a literal interpretation? If so, you must ignore not only a great deal of common sense, but a great deal of the modern sciences as well. You are however well dug-in. I have friends that are likewise unmoveable, but unlike you, they are not open to disscussion. "The Truth Is One,The Sages Speak Of It By Many Names."Upanishads. I remember a line I thought was very powerful, when an old Zen Buddhist was asked, "What is your theology?" He replied, I think we don't have a theology, we dance.
Sorry for the delay in response. Actually I do not think most religious people feel accountable of their views, least of all to rationality. You say your cosomology starts with god and order ect.., while science starts with nothing, and how can the universe be made from nothing. The obvious question is who made god. Actually I have some friends who became born again, one thing is strange to me, when looking at the faith of Islam they do not have any difficulty understanding that these people should not interpret their scripture literally--as in the necessity to kill the infidel. They however take the instructions of the bible to committ genocide for the greater glory of god to be taken literally. I guess it is really true, mythology is the other man's religion. Christianity is not only the majority sentiment, it is the great oppression. There is no way everyone believes it, but it is political suicide for a politian to state he does not believe, as a matter of fact it is illegal for an atheist to hold office in most states.The president of the United States has stated that atheists are not really Americans. For the average person stateing their lack of belief could mean a lot of domestic social rejection and hostility. America is the funny moronic giant, and the world should be afraid of a moronic giant. There may be differences in the stories of Islamic and Christian faiths but the mode of belief is one and the same, the will to believe is all powerful. The will to believe is there before any instruction in the faith occurs------------ Scary!:eek: I suppose the innate nature of a will to understand explains the will to believe being in place before the said material to be believed. With this understanding religion has nothing to fear, it should not be afraid of change as it never the less is. The nature of all reality is that it is relational, at one time, the said relation between the story of Christianity and the individual was just that, it related to the life of the individual in the individuals context of two thousand years ago. That story being two thousand years old, is unchanged by any knowledge aquired in the last two thousand years, we are asked to accept the science of two thousand years ago. The atheist, the agnostic, just wishes his fellow citizen to break his trance long enough to realize people have a right to their own beliefs and disbeliefs. Christianity is, like Islam, a self proclaimed world religion, indicating the totalitarian nature of the mind set, this alone should indicate the nature of its affront to individual, independent thought.
Boagie
this may have a mass of typeo sorry.
Well lets take a look at atheist governing. Nazis were a atheist philosophy they brought the world in to war for not letting them rule. Oh yes there's the USSR who murdered, by starvation, 10 mill. Of there own people with no remorse what so ever. I know from a friend who went to visit family after the iron curtain fell and when they spoke of government they would whisper, even in there own homes.
If the Christian majority is so awful why can you speak against it and not go to jail, or worse like atheist governments do. China is still of an atheist philosophy and only getting softer for economic gain from and country that is, dare I say Christian majority.
Last I checked no one is running from oppression in this country, could that be because of a Christian majority. No one has to be hungry or without a roof especially if with children. Yes some fall through the cracks but most of them are offered care through dare I say Christian organizations or ones that were. Is not welfare the result of a Christian majority. I don't see that in atheist based gov's. There are an estimated 10 mill illegal aliens in the USA, could that be because their countries suck? Don't we look the other way for their sake so they may also work and eat? And the majority of this country is what? Most hospitals were started in this country by dare I say churches, and in those days no one denied you care because of money. But now all of that is dominated by corporations.
If a notable Christian commits a hideous crime he is publically brutalized by the media, but if a atheist dose the same, no one notices, is it because it's not expected of him feel obligated to and higher power then his own free will, why is that?
Is there any other country that went to war with itself motivated by freedom for those that served them. The reasons it started may have been different but the public was motivated by the injustice of slavery and the majority of the public was what?
Martin Luther King was a what? And that freedom was preached where? I am sorry, I don't see the history of atheist doing such things.
The constitution itself is based on what? Why? Could it be the Christian majority? Because this gov. must answer to the majority. And it still takes care to not hinder the rights of the minority tho not perfect. You could have been born in Iran screaming die for ali. Because if you didn't, they have the legal right in their country to kill you.
If you don't think it's fair to have your beliefs contested in the world, then why don't it bother you to contest mine.
Have a nice day
You surprized me dpmartin, I would have thought you would have taken a higher road---Oh well! Not only was Germany a Christian country before and during both world wars,the Nazi party was not indeed an atheist organization, in fact Hitler stressed the need of steadfast believers in God. The Catholic church and the Nazi party had an understanding, you don't bother us and we won't bother you---they were all good Christians! As far as Stalin goes he did not do his evil deeds in the name of atheism. The religious on the other hand often justify their atrocities as the work of god. Tell me dpmartin, how many sides in a war can god be on at the same time? By the way, China is not a philosophy its a country. So dpmartin, Christians are so good that they should have the right to suppress whoever they like? You are a typical hell and brimstone kind'a guy aren't you dpmartin. Didn't the statements of the presidential canadidates make your stomach turn, believers everyone one Tiny Tim. {admin delete two sentences}. I am not asking the majority to come over to atheism or agnosticism, just get your foot of the neck of others. You wish political power, well stand ready to take the lumps those who are power hungry have always indured. You have an example of what that political power in hand would look like, in the Islamic world. As far has being able to speak freely without being killed by the Christian majority, be sure to pass my gratitude on won't you, tommorow it might be a different story if Christianity gains the power it would like to.
I have been enjoying it very much.Neitherextreme,
First, what I very strongly DO NOT want to do, is call what is evil good, or even to sweep it under the rug and return with attacks. What is wrong is wrong, and I don't want to find myself making excuses for anyone (including myself). And throughout Christian history there are indeed many ugly acts of injustice and oppression, some of which continue today. The crusades, Germany's cooperation with Hitler, slavery in the USA, and others haunt (IMO) the history of Christendom. (To make my life easier I'm going to use the word "Christendom" to mean either the Church as a whole, or specifically those in power within it.) This, I believe, is a Human problem, not just a Christian problem. All the major belief systems I can think of have been used this way: Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Animism, etc. And Athieism is not exempt, the Soviet Union and China show that on a large scale. I think its a Human problem, from nations to families, people use their beliefs to justify evil committed against another person. I don't think that this general rule directly proves a flaw in anyones beliefs, but instead shows a flaw with humanity; it is self-centered (selfish), which is the opposite of compassion IMO. I hope that you can find some Christians that will be good examples of Christ.
