OT - Religion

Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.

When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
almost unheard of combination in this (that) century.  One of my good friend
s
was a Jehovah's Witness.  I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right an
d I
could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith).  (In recent years, 
she
is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
"fundamentalist")

***

If you start with a belief (or knowledge) common in many (most?) western
religions, that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it is POSSIBLE (but n
ot
required - IMHO) that He/She

1) Can (could) create a world "roughly" 5000 years ago - but with "physical
evidence" that it was much older

2) Can (could) create humans "from scratch" but also create physical evidenc
e of
evolution

3) Can (could) create any amount of "scientific" evidence of any "theory" -
regardless of its truth

Now, my current beliefs are that this is NOT how God did (does) work - but t
o
say that She/He could create the world (the universe) but could NOT do these
things does NOT seem consistent to me.  (Of course, I also believe that neit
her
God nor Religion *requires* consistency - on the other hand, I do - personal
ly -
tend to LIKE consistency in my beliefs and faiths.)

.. When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement that
*if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone directo
ry
while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would hav
e.

***

Now (in answer to another posted question)
*IF*    *> note very big IF
you either  "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
then it does become VERY important to you to "convince"  others to read the 
same
"conclusion" (knowledge, belief).

If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith, whatever) is
"TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a
"child", then it becomes important that you act upon that knowledge/belief -
including how it impacts others.  Similarly, if your religion does NOT make 
that
claim but either give no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth, th
en
you accept and/or preach other messages.

However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your religions, e.g.
- polygamy is "right"
- human sacrifice is "required"
- bread and wine physically become body and blood
- marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
- etc, etc

I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me.  However, 
as
long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not knowledge, then I
(personally - regardless of what my religion tells me) TEND to accept that
others have different views of the world, morality, truth, etc.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bse8e.116058$za2.19356@news.easynews.com...
> Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
> When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
> almost unheard of combination in this (that) century.  One of my good
friends
> was a Jehovah's Witness.  I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right
and I
> could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith).  (In recent
years, she
> is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
> "fundamentalist")
>
>     ***
>
> If you start with a belief (or knowledge) common in many (most?) western
> religions, that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it is POSSIBLE (but
not
> required - IMHO) that He/She
>
> 1) Can (could) create a world "roughly" 5000 years ago - but with
"physical
> evidence" that it was much older
>
> 2) Can (could) create humans "from scratch" but also create physical
evidence of
> evolution
>
> 3) Can (could) create any amount of "scientific" evidence of any
"theory" -
> regardless of its truth
>

OK, so God has a sense of humour... :-)

> Now, my current beliefs are that this is NOT how God did (does) work - but
to
> say that She/He could create the world (the universe) but could NOT do
these
> things does NOT seem consistent to me.  (Of course, I also believe that
neither
> God nor Religion *requires* consistency - on the other hand, I do -
personally -
> tend to LIKE consistency in my beliefs and faiths.)

Well test your consistency on this one... If God is omnipotent (as you seem
to be suggesting) could God create an effect that He could not be unaffected
by. Like, could He make a boulder so heavy that even HE could not move
it...?

>
>  ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement
that
> *if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone
directory
> while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would
have.
>
>    ***
>
> Now (in answer to another posted question)
>    *IF*    *> note very big IF
> you either  "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
>     RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
> then it does become VERY important to you to "convince"  others to read
the same
> "conclusion" (knowledge, belief).
>

Disagree here, Bill. That is only true for SOME people and it has more to do
with the personality and development level of the person concerned. I
absolutely believe that there is no God and I live by a system of ethics and
morals based on what I hope is common sense. I believe that people who
believe in God are simply wrong, but I have ABSOLUTELY no desire to persuade
them to my point of view, or indulge in arguments with them that may end up
shaking their faith. (Note, I am quite secure that these arguments would not
shake MY faith... (that is the arrogance of Religion) :-)).

In my experience people 'evangelize' their beliefs for one of the following
reasons:

1. The more people who agree with them, the more secure they can feel that
they are 'right'.
2. They are required to evangelize by the faith to which they adhere.
3. Some of them are kindly souls who feel as Howard mentioned, that they
don't want to see anyone burning in eternal torment. I have a number of
friends who are devout Christians (I have even attended Church with some of
them on special occasions when they wanted their friends with them) and they
are genuinely concerned for me that I shall never reach salvation. I
understand and appreciate their kindness, but we all know it is never going
to happen. So we get on with our lives and enjoy each others company while
we can... I do not indulge in religious discussions with them unless they
initiate it. One in particular drops in on me for coffee after church on
Sunday. (Her church is very near to where I live). We discuss the text and
the sermon from that morning, and exchange views and ideas, not on Theology,
but on the practicality of how what was preached that morning can be
implemented within both Christian and atheist belief systems. I enjoy these
discussions (and so does she).
4. There are some who believe they accumulate Brownie points with God if
they persuade others to the faith.

> If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith, whatever) is
> "TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a
> "child", then it becomes important that you act upon that
knowledge/belief -
> including how it impacts others.

Careful. It varies by individual. I know some Christians who see their
belief (while deeply held) as personal and private. They will reject the
parts of the faith that they 'disagree' with. If they happen to favour the
'right to choose' they will accept abortion with a clear conscience. I
discussed this with one of them some years back and asked how he could
manage to reconcile the teaching of his church with the fact that he would
not obey it. (His daughter had had an abortion and he supported her.) My
question was not as agressive as it sounds when written here, and was asked
in a genuine spirit of enquiry... he knew that he was not under attack or
being judged on any way by me... The response was interesting and I have
carried it since then. He said that when he was called to account he would
simply tell God why he did what he did. He would make his case and let God
decide whether his motives were pure or not.

Sometimes I think (purely speculatively and as a hypothetical scenario) that
if I am wrong, and there IS a God, and I am called to account, how would I
present my case?

No problem. (But I have no intention whatsoever of divulging here what my
arguments would be... :-))


> Similarly, if your religion does NOT make that
> claim but either give no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth,
then
> you accept and/or preach other messages.
>
> However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your religions,
e.g.
>    - polygamy is "right"
>    - human sacrifice is "required"
>    - bread and wine physically become body and blood
>   - marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
>   - etc, etc
>

Well, theoretically it SHOULD if you are devout. In practice, people tend
not to implement the teachings of their church if they don't can't see sense
in it or if they find it difficult. (Faiths that allow regular "forgiveness"
or confession sessions are particularly prone to the pragmatism of Human
Beings.... Catholics who practise birth control, Jews who eat bacon and
lobster, Muslims who frequent strip joints and drink alcohol, Hindus who
don't practise Suttee (fortunately a growing number, and I was interested to
see that  the State has legislated against it... A triumph of common sense
over accepted belief.))

> I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me.
However, as
> long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not knowledge, then I
> (personally - regardless of what my religion tells me) TEND to accept that
> others have different views of the world, morality, truth, etc.
>

That seems like a kind of "double think", Bill. You hold beliefs but you
don't believe them. Nevertheless, I think your position is a 'correct'
one...

Pete.

William M. Klein wrote:
> Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
> When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
> almost unheard of combination in this (that) century.  One of my good frie
nds
> was a Jehovah's Witness.  I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right 
and I
> could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith).  (In recent years
, she
> is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
> "fundamentalist")
>
And from hereon in I got absolutely  as to what Mr. Klein was or
currently is :-)
>
>  ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement th
at
> *if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone direc
tory
> while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would have.[/co
lor]

Seems some people don't think God has a sense of humour. He has to have,
if you look at all the human shapes around us. I can see your suggestion
going down like a lead balloon - still same would have applied if you
had said it at a Catholic seminary. BTW - I'm quite sure He could have -
but he had more pressing matters on His mind at the time.

Seems to me you missed out on your vocation. Robin Williams illustrated
it so well, how humour could be used in hospitals with kids. Just think,
had you persisted, you could have had 'em rolling in the aisles - the
Patch Adams of the pulpit :-)

Jimmy

William M. Klein wrote:
> Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
> When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian
> - an almost unheard of combination in this (that) century.  One of my
> good friends was a Jehovah's Witness.  I really ENVIED her as she
> "knew" she was right and I could only "believe" that I was right
> (i.e. have faith).  (In recent years, she is no longer a Jehovah's
> Witness and I am no longer even slightly "fundamentalist")

Episcopalian "fundamentalist?" Heh! I once had an Epicopalian priest tell
me: "The women in my church don't worry about dying - they worry about Bill
Blass dying."

>   ***
>
> Now (in answer to another posted question)
>   *IF*    *> note very big IF
> you either  "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
>    RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
> then it does become VERY important to you to "convince"  others to
> read the same "conclusion" (knowledge, belief).

Not necessarily. The Jewish tradition teaches that a Baptist, a Catholic, a
Muslim, a Buddist, and (most of) the rest are on a good and holy road to
God. Further, that God does not want "belief" but instead wants righteous,
ethical conduct. It is possible to be a "Good Jew" and simultaneously be an
athiest. In short, it is irrelevant what one believes, only what one does.

>
> If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith,
> whatever) is "TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and
> that a fetus is a "child", then it becomes important that you act
> upon that knowledge/belief - including how it impacts others. Similarly,
> if your religion does NOT make that claim but either give
> no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth, then you accept
> and/or preach other messages.

Certainly.

>
> However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your
> religions, e.g. - polygamy is "right"
>   - human sacrifice is "required"
>   - bread and wine physically become body and blood
>  - marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
>  - etc, etc

Of course.

>
> I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me. However,
> as long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not
> knowledge, then I (personally - regardless of what my religion tells
> me) TEND to accept that others have different views of the world,
> morality, truth, etc.

Exactly. My religion teaches me to say: "I don't CARE what you believe -
what can you PROVE?"

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:20:23 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> enlightened us:

>Just a new thread as a (personal) follow-up on another current thread.
>
>When I was a teenager, I was a "fundamentalist" (mostly) Episcopalian - an
>almost unheard of combination in this (that) century.  One of my good frien
ds
>was a Jehovah's Witness.  I really ENVIED her as she "knew" she was right a
nd I
>could only "believe" that I was right (i.e. have faith).  (In recent years,
 she
>is no longer a Jehovah's Witness and I am no longer even slightly
>"fundamentalist")
>
>    ***
>
>If you start with a belief (or knowledge) common in many (most?) western
>religions, that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it is POSSIBLE (but 
not
>required - IMHO) that He/She
>
>1) Can (could) create a world "roughly" 5000 years ago - but with "physical
>evidence" that it was much older
>

How did you arrive at 5000?  Gensis just says, "...in the
beginning...".  No time frame is ever given as to the start.

>2) Can (could) create humans "from scratch" but also create physical eviden
ce of
>evolution
>

Not from scratch..from the dirt of the earth.

>3) Can (could) create any amount of "scientific" evidence of any "theory" -
>regardless of its truth
>

I don't think God created scientific evidence per se.  That is for us
(humans) to discover.  What was created were the rules of nature, some
set in stone, some variable.  Kind of like some of the data I have to
handle in programs I write.  Regardless, it is human understanding
that defines truth.  It was once held as true that the earth was flat.
It was once held as true that the earth revolved around the sun.  Of
course those truths are no longer held because we (humans) discovered
different truths.


>Now, my current beliefs are that this is NOT how God did (does) work - but 
to
>say that She/He could create the world (the universe) but could NOT do thes
e
>things does NOT seem consistent to me.  (Of course, I also believe that nei
ther
>God nor Religion *requires* consistency - on the other hand, I do - persona
lly -
>tend to LIKE consistency in my beliefs and faiths.)
>
> ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there) statement tha
t
>*if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York Telephone direct
ory
>while He was on the cross - that He could have - whether or not he would ha
ve.
>
>   ***
>

Good one.  I'm pretty sure Jeasus had other things on His mind at the
time and just how  would the Roman Centurians that were
standing guard at the time have been when Jeasus would have said,
"Caesar, James...telefono 212-515-9652"?

>Now (in answer to another posted question)
>   *IF*    *> note very big IF
>you either  "know" or believe that your "religion" (or faith) is
>    RIGHT (and others are wrong - when they differ with yours)
>then it does become VERY important to you to "convince"  others to read the
 same
>"conclusion" (knowledge, belief).
>
>If you know/believe that your religion (denomination, faith, whatever) is
>"TRUTH" and that it tells you that abortion is wrong and that a fetus is a
>"child", then it becomes important that you act upon that knowledge/belief 
-
>including how it impacts others.  Similarly, if your religion does NOT make
 that
>claim but either give no guidance or says that a "child" begins at birth, t
hen
>you accept and/or preach other messages.
>
>However, this SAME rule applies to any other "claim" of your religions, e.g
.
>   - polygamy is "right"
>   - human sacrifice is "required"
>   - bread and wine physically become body and blood
>  - marriage between siblings "preserves" god/gods chosen royal lines
>  - etc, etc
>
>I know what my (current) beliefs are and what they require of me.  However,
 as
>long as I (currently) treat these as BELIEFS and not knowledge, then I
>(personally - regardless of what my religion tells me) TEND to accept that
>others have different views of the world, morality, truth, etc.

Regards,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"When you look at Prince Charles, don't you think that
someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?"
--Robin Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

On 17-Apr-2005, SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
 
>
> How did you arrive at 5000?  Gensis just says, "...in the
> beginning...".  No time frame is ever given as to the start.

Genesis 1 & 2 should not be read together by someone who really wants to be 
a
literalist.   Also, how do you measure time before day and night were create
d?

Anybody who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible "count", because he
"knows" the Truth shouldn't tout the Bible.    This includes all of those wh
o
say homosexuals are going to Hell.

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
 news:dhu4611vsf6oh23479jgmotrdk5ub1bph7@
4ax.com...

> How did you arrive at 5000?  Gensis just says, "...in the
> beginning...".  No time frame is ever given as to the start.

The most famous author Christian author to establish a date for the Creation
was James Ussher, a seventeenth-century (Anglican?) Archibishop of Armagh,
Ireland, who worked backward from an assumed date for the accession of Saul
to the throne of 1095 BC to those who take this position think the creation
occurred sometime in 4004 BC.  Ussher's dates "were inserted in the margins
of the authorized version of the English bible and were soon practically
regarded as equally inspired with the sacred text itself.".

However, his publication was preceded by some ten years by that of one Dr.
John Lightfoot (1602-1675), an Anglican clergyman, rabbinical scholar and
vice-chancellor at Cambridge, who arrived at 9:00 AM on October 23, 4004 BCE
as the time at which the Universe was created.

Both estimates relied heavily on the Old Testament records of how long
people lived and how old their fathers were when they were born.

Other dates arrived at similarly range from 3613 BCE by Rabbi Lipman (1579 -
1654) to 6984 BCE by Alfonso XII of Spain during the 12th century CE.

Interestingly, the Mayan calendar has creation occurring on February 10,
3641 BCE.

The above information is condensed from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm .

-Chuck Stevens

> ... When in Episcopal Seminary, I made the (unpopular there)
statement
> that *if* someone had asked Jesus to recite the 1960's New York
> Telephone directory while He was on the cross - that He could have

That implies that 'free will' doesn't exist, and 'Allah has written
everything that was and will be'.

That is, if the fact that a person existed or did not exist in 1960 via
all his ancestors and through all the 'choices' and accidents or
illnesses that may befall all of them through the centuries so that
they are in the place at the specific place and time for them to be in
that phone book then the world is just a movie that is in playback
mode.

That further means that there is no 'good' or 'bad' and that you
actions or inactions have no meaning, because no matter what it is you
do it has already been determined at the start.

But then that is the thing about 'beliefs', you can just make up
whatever takes your fancy at any time, whatever is a 'good idea', or
even a crap one, as long as it is interesting. You can pick and choose
what you prefer to believe: ressurrection, reincarnation, tooth fairy,
24 virgins if you kill jews, and if you don't find anything you do
like, just start a new religion and make up something else.

It's not like it has anything to do with reality.

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1113851402.527538.154180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... 
> statement 
>
> That implies that 'free will' doesn't exist, and 'Allah has written
> everything that was and will be'.
>
> That is, if the fact that a person existed or did not exist in 1960 via
> all his ancestors and through all the 'choices' and accidents or
> illnesses that may befall all of them through the centuries so that
> they are in the place at the specific place and time for them to be in
> that phone book then the world is just a movie that is in playback
> mode.
>
> That further means that there is no 'good' or 'bad' and that you
> actions or inactions have no meaning, because no matter what it is you
> do it has already been determined at the start.
>
> But then that is the thing about 'beliefs', you can just make up
> whatever takes your fancy at any time, whatever is a 'good idea', or
> even a crap one, as long as it is interesting. You can pick and choose
> what you prefer to believe: ressurrection, reincarnation, tooth fairy,
> 24 virgins if you kill jews, and if you don't find anything you do
> like, just start a new religion and make up something else.
>
> It's not like it has anything to do with reality.
>
:-) I enjoyed that.

Having encountered people who believe fervently in pre-destination
(Fatalists), I realised fairly early on in the piece that their position is
logically unassailable. There is no point in arguing (or even discussing
with them) because it is impossible to show logically any flaw in their
belief system.

That doesn't mean they are correct; just that they are logically valid. They
have to be, because their belief system has a single truth value (The will
of God). There is therefore no possibility for error or 'right' or
'wrong'...everything is the will of God and therefore 'right', exactly as
Richard described quite eloquently above.

This system of belief worked very well for thousands of years in one form or
another, across geographically dispersed cultures. It wasn't until Aristotle
came along and decided a two valued logic system (True/False) might more
realistically approach 'Reality' , that people in the Western world even
started to think about thinking...(In Asia they had been working on multi
valued systems for centuries... everything was relative, with no real
absolutes. Something could be 'truer' than something else, but there was no
absolute Truth.)

The above is a gross oversimplification of the development of philosophy,
but the point is that there are still people to this day (particularly in
Islamic countries) who adhere to Fatalism.

Anyone who has ever driven in Turkey (for instance) will understand
immediately what I'm talking about. :-)

And every example I can cite of free will, is seen by them as simply the
will of God being exercised (irrespective of what choice was made.)

Pete.

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 17-Apr-2005, SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> 
>
> Genesis 1 & 2 should not be read together by someone who really wants
> to be a literalist.   Also, how do you measure time before day and
> night were created?

Use a watch and a calendar. I can tell you've never been on spring break.

>
> Anybody who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible "count",
> because he "knows" the Truth shouldn't tout the Bible.    This
> includes all of those who say homosexuals are going to Hell.

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that homosexuals will go to Hell - there
is no "Hell" in the Old Testament. The Bible does say, however, that
homosexuals shall be strangled to death.