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 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 16-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

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

It depends on what God or gods is/are like.    There are lots of people who 
KNOW
what He is like - and he's loving or terrible or vengeful, or able but unwil
ling
to stop people from being tortured forever and ever without hope of parole, 
or
wants to have a good time fighting all day, and deflowering virgins at night
..

Basically, any argument I can have is that I've tried to be a good man.   If
 He
prefers someone that likes to kill, then that's too bad.    I hope He won't 
be
interested in having me look at people being tortured in Hell, but instead w
ill
let me die peacefully.   But it won't be my choice - I won't have the power 
to
change His mind.

If it comes to a vote - there is no majority religion.   Everybody's religio
n is
a minority.   Those religions that believe everybody else will be punished, 
are
hoping that *most* people are punished for being born the wrong place.

In article <3cdjpuF6h9r1dU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>Sometimes I think (purely speculatively and as a hypothetical scenario) tha
t
>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... :-))

Mr Dashwood, if the deity to which you refer is omniscient - in the sense
of 'knowing all that which is, was and will be, see-eth into the heart of
hearts, numbereth the hairth... *hairs* of thy head' and suchlike - then
it seems there'd be little need to say anything.

(Come to think of it... if said diety is omnibeneficent it seems there'd
be little need, as well.)

DD

In article <d48n2h$7mi$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 21-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>
>There'd be little reason for the Universe either (He knows the process, He
>doesn't need to go through the process, He knows every little detail about 
what
>will happen, why not start with the end?).   It is interesting that Jehovah
>tested Abraham, maybe because testing is good for him.

Or perhaps because walking through the garden in the  of the day got
boring... gotta be careful with those early Old Testament
anthropomorphisms... or the problems that might be generated by the use of
the first-person singular in Gen.III:11 and the use of the third-person
plural in Gen.III:22.

It is religion, it is *not* science.

DD

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.

On 22-Apr-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> Ultimate goal of Religion: Oneness with the Creator. And in that Oneness,
> knowledge and understanding of  'life the universe and everything'. No
> mysteries, everything known and understood. All the laws of nature and all
> the exceptions, explained and known. The 'mind of God' revealed.(The
> religious experience involves actually becoming part of this mind.)

I don't see that this is true.   Unless, "ultimate" means - after all the
important goals have been met, that's OK to solve too.   How many religious
people seem to have this as a priority?

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3ctj2dF6pil0sU1@individual.net...

> Ultimate goal of Religion: Oneness with the Creator. And in that Oneness,
> knowledge and understanding of  'life the universe and everything'.

Not necessarily.  I think many adherents to Buddhism would disagree; harmony
with "that which is" ranks rather higher.   "Alcoholics Anonymous" 3rd
edition page 449 reads something like "And acceptance is the key to all our
problems today. ...".  ( Note that some would claim AA is a religion in and
of itself  -- and, insofar as one takes the archaic definition for
"religion" as  "conscientious exactness" as far as conformance to
suggestions of actions goes, then they might well be right.)    Even the
Serenity Prayer attributed to Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr doesn't
s oneness with the *creator*, it points toward harmony with *life*.

-Chuck Stevens

On 25-Apr-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
 
>
> Being a complete cynic, my take on the 'ultimate goal' varies with what
> part of 'religion' you are talking about.  Many 'religious
> organizations' seem to have their ultimate goal as social control of
> whoever they can bring within their range.

"Making the universe right" seems to be a much more common goal than
"understanding the universe".   Sometimes, it is only a subset of "Making th
e
universe right", namely "making people right".    Often "understanding the
universe", is by definition not a goal.

I want to force everybody to be tolerant of people who won't tolerate people
 not
tolerating differences.