Fred Phelps is only the tip of the religion iceberg!

[Polycarp]

@Valteron

This is ridiculous. Are Contrapuntal and Lord Astar not capable of understanding a figure of speech? I did not say that I wanted to walk up to the Pope and challenge him to a debate. What I said was this:

“If the Pope visits Latin America (both the present one and John Paul II were consumate showmen) he will hold and kiss little unwanted orphans and everyone will call him a saint. But if you get up and ask if there would be fewer unwanted children were it not for his Church’s campaigns against the availability of contraception in Latin America and Africa(. . . . . . .), you are considered an anti-Catholic bigot. How dare you attack the Holy Man from Rome?”

Note that I said “If you get up and ask” not, “if you get up and try to push your way past the security guards and jump over the security fence and ask that he talk to you about his position on birth control”.

Perhaps it is my fault for using the figure of speech “get up and ask” but as a former journalist, I was probably thinking more about the fact that the media sucks up to the Pope, especially during the grand publicity blitzes that are Papal visits. By “get up and ask” I meant how likely is it that a journalist in Latin America (or even the USA) would write an article asking how many fewer unwanted orphans there would be if his church were not actively involved in political moves to make contraception unavailable in developing countries. How likely would it be that a newspaper would run such an article next to the pictures of the Pope kissing and hugging unwanted orphans?

I meant that the Pope gets a free ride in the media from lazy or gutless journalists who find it easier to write enraptured articles about “the Holy Father” than to seriously question the social effects of his conservative doctrines.

By the way, Lord Ashtar I noted your coment that you have to show respect to get respect. If I were to say that the Pope has a “grave moral disorder” and that his lifestyle is “an intrinsic moral evil”. . . . if I were to send a letter around saying that it is all right to discriminate against Catholics in some forms of employment and housing. . . . if I were to fight for laws making marriage between Catholics illegal or laws that refuse to recognize the validity of Catholic marriage. . . .would you consider me lacking in respect? Because that is EXACTLY the level of respect that the present and former Popes have shown to gay and lesbian people. Exactly

This is very interesting. I’m curious that, as a self-described “former journalist,” you don’t distinguish between news articles, which are supposed to strive for objectivity, and opinion pieces, where personal views are welcomed. Your “lazy or gutless journalists” may be aspiring to a quite different standard than you wish to hold them to – the one that says they report the news, not their personal take on it. Certainly a feature story on the social impact of Catholic social teaching would be appropriate, and might even indict Benedict XVI in the manner you call for (though to give him credit, in his elderly and conservative way he seems to be deeply concerned for human suffering). But it would be inappropriate as a front-page news piece “Pope Visits Sao Paulo” or “Pope Tours Catholic Outreach Centers.”

Second, kindly stop equating Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church with Christianity. “Oi’m 'Ennery the Eighth, Oi Yam” – as an Anglican, I and my church have not been guided by the Popes for several centuries, and disagree with the Catholic stances on birth control and on gay human rights. As you may be aware, there is a serious rift in the Anglican Communion over just the latter issue: whether the American Episcopal Church was justified in consecrating as a bishop a gay man in a committed monogamous relationship, and whether a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada may legitimately celebrate same-sex marriages.

Finally, what people who purport to be speaking for God say is, rather obviously, not necessarily what He intends be said. On hundreds of controverted issues, there is obviously someone right and someone wrong – unless they’re all wrong.

IMO, religion as properly practiced has done far more good than ill over the centuries. However, “good news isn’t news” – that some outreach worker in city A gave a box of food to a needy family, provided a seven-year-old with new sneakers and a cheap game, and got a big smile from mother and child, is nice human interest but eclipsed by Fred’s latest picketing of whoever he considers is “backing fags” lately, Donald Wildmon’s trained puppets denouncing a doll he claims will make little girls Lesbians, or a misrepresentation of the Pope’s guidance on whom to deny communion to for political reasons and on what grounds. They’re hot, they’re controversial, they’re news. Kindness, caritas, mercy are not.

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

For the sins you have listed, I believe only staying away from church entirely and performing (not undergoing) an abortion would bring automatic excommunication from the RCC.

Tomndebb: I realize I have been very argumentative and sometimes sarcastic with you (I am combative by nature) but please believe me that the following message is entirely sincere and is in no way ironic or satirical.

Since you seem to know a great deal about excommunication (I studied apologetics and just about every doctrine of the Church in my 13 years of Catholic education, but I do not remember every detail from some 42 years ago) I am wondering if you could tell me whether I might get myself excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

I have not considered myself a Catholic these past four decades and have not set foot in a Catholic Church, so you may wonder why I would give a damn.

Let’s just say that it would give me great emotional and personal satisfaction to know that THEY also agree that I am no longer a Catholic. It wold be a satisfying form of closure.

Obviously, I cannot perform abortions, since I am not a doctor. What if I paid for one? Or what about the fact that I recently married my same-sex partner of 30 years (same-sex marriage is legal in Canada).

Any advice would be appreciated.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Valteron

Let’s just say that it would give me great emotional and personal satisfaction to know that THEY also agree that I am no longer a Catholic. It wold be a satisfying form of closure.

First, just so you know, excommunication doesn’t mean that a Catholic is no longer a Catholic…as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you’re a Catholic forever. If you’re excommunicated, you’re just not allowed to do certain things that a non-excommunicated Catholic Under Canon 1331ß1

An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1ƒ to have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or in any other ceremonies of public worship;

2ƒ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments ;

3ƒ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions or acts of governance.

The good news is, from your perspective, you’re already excommunicated…Can. 1364ß1

An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

Your other chances to get a latae sententiae excommunication comes if you throw away the consecrated bread and wine, use it for sacreligious purposes, attack the pope, or get consecrated a Bishop by a Bishop illegally

[Valteron]

@Polycarp

IMO, religion as properly practiced has done far more good than ill over the centuries. However, “good news isn’t news” – that some outreach worker in city A gave a box of food to a needy family, provided a seven-year-old with new sneakers and a cheap game, and got a big smile from mother and child, is nice human interest but eclipsed by Fred’s latest picketing of whoever he considers is “backing fags” lately, Donald Wildmon’s trained puppets denouncing a doll he claims will make little girls Lesbians, or a misrepresentation of the Pope’s guidance on whom to deny communion to for political reasons and on what grounds. They’re hot, they’re controversial, they’re news. Kindness, caritas, mercy are not.

Funny thing, Polycarp, but we both seem to agree that religion is not fairly covered. The difference is that I think that by and large, the media tend to kiss the ass of religion, whereas you think they are unfair in the other direction.

So churches giving boxes of food to the needy is not covered? Neither was the physical and (on one occasion) sexual abuse I received from nuns and priests.

Neither was the ongoing sexual abuse of children by Catholic Clergy in places like Ontario, the Boston Archdiocese, etc. They were eventually covered when they came to actual charges, but look how long it took before even the authorities would act for fear of the Church’s power.

I still say that the quote that best summarizes my line of thinking is the one by Nobel Prize Winner Steven Weinberg who said: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

I have lived for the past 40 years as a law-abiding, charitable, conscientious individual. I will not brag about the good I have done for others, but belive me, it is there. I am every bit as moral as any Catholic or Anglican. When I worked in an office, I refused to take home so much as a paper clip. I once bought the office a ball-point pen and quietly put it in the stationey cupboard because I had taken one from the office by mistake, in my coat, and then lost it. My income tax returns are so complete and honest in every detail that I almost wish the Revenue Department would ausit me . I could go on and on, but the point is this. I am a moral person WITHOUT religion.

As to the fact that religions do good, so what? Hitler was a vegetarian and was against cruelty to animals. He was kind enough to marry Evan Braun before they died because he cared about her feelings. His personal secretary said he was the kindest, most cosderat and polite employer she had ever had (she said it AFTER the war). The Nazis had winter relief programs, they virtually eliminated unemployment in Germany, they built wonderful Autobahnen, etc. etc. Does that make Naziism good? Or should we judge them on the total balance sheet?

Finally, I realize that the Anglican Church has not been directed by the Pope for centuries. But do you really want to brag about being part of a religion that was born in Henry VIII’s codpiece?

[Valteron]

@Captain Amazing

The good news is, from your perspective, you’re already excommunicated…Can. 1364ß1

Your other chances to get a latae sententiae excommunication comes if you throw away the consecrated bread and wine, use it for sacreligious purposes, attack the pope, or get consecrated a Bishop by a Bishop illegally

Holy Communion Wafers, Captain Amazing! I didn’t know I was already excommunicated. Wonderful news . Thanks. But for what reason specifically? Is it because I am a heretic or an apostate? And what is the exact difference?

The trouble is, it would be nice to have a letter or something from them that I could frame. Just saying it is so under Canon law is kind of unsatisfying.

Also, the problem with the other three options you mention is that one of them is illegal, since attacking the Pope is asasault (unless verbal atacks count )

I doubt if I could find anyone to illegally censecrate me as a Bishop.

But option no. 1 is actually more possible than you might think. Legally speaking, once they give me the consecrated wafer, it is mine, is it not?

So if I received communion, kept it in my mouth, and then spit it out in a toilet, (and sent them a video of me doing it) would the Church be willing to send me an official document that I am excommunicated? I do not actually want to do this, but I could use it as leverage if they refused to send me the letter mentioned above.

[tomndebb]

@Valteron

would the Church be willing to send me an official document that I am excommunicated?

Probably (almost certainly) not. By your actions, you have already demonstrated that you are an apostate. Sending you a notice that you are going to be prohibited from participating in the sacraments (in which you clearly intend to never participate anyway) would be seen as a complete was of time, paper, ink, and a stamp. Excommunication is the statement to a person who is a misbehaving Catholic that that person will be barred from further participation. It is an invitation to mend one’s ways so that one may return, not a declaration that one has been cast out forever.

If you have an overwhelming desire to have some sort of correspondence with the church, send a note to the parish where you were baptized (including your baptismal date and a paper clip) declaring that you are gone with no intention of ever returning and ask them to clip your note to the registry page on which your baptism is recorded. (There is no reason to be rude about it, the poor lady who has to file it has done nothing to you. Including the date of your baptism simply makes it easier for some poor clerk to find the page.) I doubt that they will honor that request, either (no point in damaging pages with a paper clip if you are gone), but you can give it a try. Since the register is a record of events, they are not going to erase your name. The event of your baptism occurred. The record only notes the event.

Apostate - from the Greek “to stand away from,” “to stand outside”: a person who has removed himself/herself from the community of believers of any religious group.

Heretic - from the Greek “to choose”: a person who holds beliefs different from the orthodox beliefs of a group who continues to consider oneself a member of that group despite the differences of opinion.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

So is the assumption that we’d be better off without religion. You might as well say the world would be better off without mankind because mankind has fucked things up and destroyed the balance of nature. What’s the point of the question?

Do you think the world would be better off without absolutist belief systems? By that I mean a belief system that considers adherents to have access to the final answer. These include fundamentalist belief systems and the Soviet style of Communism.

You also asked Der Trihs for a cite on atheism being the default position. Can you give me any example (not necessarily having to do with god) where belief in something without evidence makes more sense than withholding belief in it? I’m specifically excluding belief that the thing does not exist - this should not be the default position either. Really, if his statement did not concern gods, I think you’d agree with it without a second thought.

[Kalhoun]

@Voyager

Do you think the world would be better off without absolutist belief systems? By that I mean a belief system that considers adherents to have access to the final answer. These include fundamentalist belief systems and the Soviet style of Communism.

You also asked Der Trihs for a cite on atheism being the default position. Can you give me any example (not necessarily having to do with god) where belief in something without evidence makes more sense than withholding belief in it? I’m specifically excluding belief that the thing does not exist - this should not be the default position either. Really, if his statement did not concern gods, I think you’d agree with it without a second thought.

Well done.

[cosmosdan]

@Kalhoun

Again, you’re reading things into my statement that aren’t there. I never said I had a problem with people using religion to find purpose in their lives. I said it was sad.

Actually I didn’t do it either time. You seem to be reading my comments as criticism that isn’t there.

I simply asked if it mattered if it’s a Christian, Atheist or Buddhist who is feeding the hungry or clothing the poor? So the answer is No, it doesn’t matter?

I don’t think it’s sad that different people have different paths or that for some the it’s atheism while others explore other options. I understand you thinking that means they don’t really have faith in themselves and for some that may be true. It certainly isn’t true for all. It doesn’t mean someone lacks faith in themselves to believe in God

Of course you’re entitled to hold that opinion, knowing that some believers feel the same way about atheists. I think there’s a better alternative.

[baronsabato]

@Voyager

Do you think the world would be better off without absolutist belief systems? By that I mean a belief system that considers adherents to have access to the final answer. These include fundamentalist belief systems and the Soviet style of Communism.

You also asked Der Trihs for a cite on atheism being the default position. Can you give me any example (not necessarily having to do with god) where belief in something without evidence makes more sense than withholding belief in it? I’m specifically excluding belief that the thing does not exist - this should not be the default position either. Really, if his statement did not concern gods, I think you’d agree with it without a second thought.

I think the problem is that “unbelievers” (to use a term I don’t usually like) come from a different position from those who do believe in God. Atheists and agnostics are often puzzled as to why anyone would believe in God without any evidence or reason to- and this is perfectly understandable. But I think for many religious folk, myself included, our faith in God isn’t just the result of a choice we made, but simply something we have. Many of us have had experiences of God that makes denying His or Her existence just impossible. These aren’t necessarily heaven-opening, trumpet-blaring, road to Damascus visions, but can be very simple things that for whatever reason, convince us of God’s presence.

Do I acknowledge that these experiences may indeed be unique to only some people, and that many, maybe even most, people will never have similar experiences that convince them of God’s existence? Sure. And is it possible that these experiences were the result of mere coincidence or genetics? Definitely. I don’t claim any hold on absolute truth. I am a Christian, and I believe in the basic tenets of traditional Christianity, but I don’t believe that what is the only right way for me is the only right way for everyone else.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Do you think the world would be better off without absolutist belief systems? By that I mean a belief system that considers adherents to have access to the final answer. These include fundamentalist belief systems and the Soviet style of Communism.

Dam You Voyager!!!

Actually that is an* excellent* question. The kind of thought provoking stuff I enjoy most about SDMB.

My initial reaction is yes. I think the world would be better off without absolutist belief systems as you describe. I might add a qualifier in that for someone to then think their perceived final answer justifies the use of force on others to insure compliance. If a group feels they have the final answer and minds their own business then no harm done.

I think we need some sort of foundational guidelines but it’s healthy IMO to realize that we are still growing and learning so that even though we may strongly believe in something none of us know the final answer. or perhaps it’s more correct to say that none of us know the one and only path to the final answer since there isn’t one path.

You also asked Der Trihs for a cite on atheism being the default position. Can you give me any example (not necessarily having to do with god) where belief in something without evidence makes more sense than withholding belief in it? I’m specifically excluding belief that the thing does not exist - this should not be the default position either. Really, if his statement did not concern gods, I think you’d agree with it without a second thought.

Well, I’ve never been to Europe, China, or Australia, but I’ve talked to people who have experienced that and I’ve read books about it so I accept they actually exist. Would I be smarter to withhold belief until I go there myself?

I’m not trying to be a smart ass. Is this a valid comparison? If it isn’t then why not?

My objection to Der Trihs approach is his blanket assertion that without objective evidence then withholding belief should be the logical default. I don’t agree. Much of the spiritual experience is subjective but I don’t think making a belief choice based on subjective evidence is illogical or foolish. I’ve brought it up several times and he always bypasses it. He insists it is the believers responsibility to provide evidence. I agree with that if a believer is trying to convert a non believer. In my case since I believe the spiritual journey is a very personal subjective experience so I don’t feel I or any believer has any obligation to prove their beliefs. An exploration of belief is a different matter but discussion with Der Trihs doesn’t offer that.

[Othersider]

@Voyager

You also asked Der Trihs for a cite on atheism being the default position. Can you give me any example (not necessarily having to do with god) where belief in something without evidence makes more sense than withholding belief in it? I’m specifically excluding belief that the thing does not exist - this should not be the default position either. Really, if his statement did not concern gods, I think you’d agree with it without a second thought.

Well said. I think theology is unique amongst the things often debated in that there is a truth value, though arguably not a provable one. All of the other debate topics I can think of…politics, social issues, etc…it’s all opinion: “we should yadda yadda yadda…”, “It’s best to blah blah blah…” and so on. Theism isn’t that way - either God exists (or gods exist), or he (or she) doesn’t (or, they don’t). Unfortunately, we can’t really say which one’s right.

Besides, it’s difficult to find a person who really isn’t biased one way or the other with regards to theology.

@cosmosdan

My objection to Der Trihs approach is his blanket assertion that without objective evidence then withholding belief should be the logical default. I don’t agree. Much of the spiritual experience is subjective but I don’t think making a belief choice based on subjective evidence is illogical or foolish. I’ve brought it up several times and he always bypasses it. He insists it is the believers responsibility to provide evidence. I agree with that if a believer is trying to convert a non believer. In my case since I believe the spiritual journey is a very personal subjective experience so I don’t feel I or any believer has any obligation to prove their beliefs. An exploration of belief is a different matter but discussion with Der Trihs doesn’t offer that.

I concur. I try not to waste my time debating with people who refuse to even try to see things from another point of view or who make such blanket assertions.

But that’s just my opinion.

[dre2xl]

@Guinastasia

Fred Phelps isn’t an asshole because of religion-he’d still be an asshole if he were an atheist.

The man is literally batshit.

I read a compelling argument on another message board that Phelps’s schtick is to take his church protesting, and protest in a manner that they think will get people the most riled up. Then, when someone gets angry enough to punch or otherwise assault one of them, they sue the city for failing to provide adequate protection, receive their payout, and move on.

I haven’t done any research on this, so no cites, but it sure sounded like an interesting and plausible theory for why the family acts the way that they do. Phelps is a lawyer, after all.

[Der_Trihs]

@cosmosdan

My objection to Der Trihs approach is his blanket assertion that without objective evidence then withholding belief should be the logical default. I don’t agree.

That’s because you’re applying the religious double standard for evidence again. Most of the time, if there’s no evidence for something ( much less no evidence it’s even possible ), almost everyone treats that something as nonexistent. We need to do so in order to function.

Do you worry about goblins under your bed, or do you not even think about it ? There is a possibility that a bullet is headed at you right now; are you going to dodge ? An asteroid could be headed towards Earth, dooming us all in a year; do you live you’re life assuming everyone will be dead in a year ?

@cosmosdan

In my case since I believe the spiritual journey is a very personal subjective experience so I don’t feel I or any believer has any obligation to prove their beliefs.

Not even to yourself ? Don’t you even care if you’re right ?

[Jotun]

@cosmosdan

Well, I’ve never been to Europe, China, or Australia, but I’ve talked to people who have experienced that and I’ve read books about it so I accept they actually exist. Would I be smarter to withhold belief until I go there myself?

I’m not trying to be a smart ass. Is this a valid comparison? If it isn’t then why not?

No, it’s not at all a valid comparison. I’ve actually encountered this type of question before. What should we believe? I think Sam Harris said it best.

@Sam Harris

We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us to. Reliance upon the authority of experts, and upon the testimony of ordinary people, is the stuff of which worldviews are made…We are ever reliant on the intelligence and accuracy, if not the kindess, of strangers.

This does not suggest, however, that all forms of authority are valid; nor does it suggest that even the best authorities will always prove reliable. There are good arguments, and bad ones, precise observations, and imprecise ones; and each of us has to be the final judge of whether or not it is reasonable to adopt a given belief about the world…[For example], we know that no evidence would be sufficient to authenticate many of the pope’s core beliefs. How could anyone born in the twentieth century come to know that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? What process of ratiocination, mystical or otherwise, will deliver the necessary facts about a Galilean woman’s sexual history (facts that run entirely counter to well-known facts of human biology)? There is no such process.

I am more of a lurker than a poster around here, so you’re probably not familiar with my take on this subject. I am not against spirituality, (provided it doesn’t make claims to “the truth” without evidence to support it) spirituality needn’t have fantastic world views associated with it. Spirituality can even be objective. I believe unreason is destroying our world, and that can certainly come from religion, but it can come from other beliefs that are equally unreasonable.

Normally one would view religious moderation (which, I’ve noticed, the majority of religious dopers seem to support) as a positive thing. It is, in a way, however religious moderates give legitimacy to the fundamentalists. I’m sure this has been discussed on these boards before, so I won’t go any further with it unless asked.

[Voyager]

@baronsabato

I think the problem is that “unbelievers” (to use a term I don’t usually like) come from a different position from those who do believe in God. Atheists and agnostics are often puzzled as to why anyone would believe in God without any evidence or reason to- and this is perfectly understandable. But I think for many religious folk, myself included, our faith in God isn’t just the result of a choice we made, but simply something we have. Many of us have had experiences of God that makes denying His or Her existence just impossible. These aren’t necessarily heaven-opening, trumpet-blaring, road to Damascus visions, but can be very simple things that for whatever reason, convince us of God’s presence.

Do I acknowledge that these experiences may indeed be unique to only some people, and that many, maybe even most, people will never have similar experiences that convince them of God’s existence? Sure. And is it possible that these experiences were the result of mere coincidence or genetics? Definitely. I don’t claim any hold on absolute truth. I am a Christian, and I believe in the basic tenets of traditional Christianity, but I don’t believe that what is the only right way for me is the only right way for everyone else.

Thanks for responding. I take it from your last line that you don’t support absolute belief systems.
Now, does your conviction about the existence of God extend to the various rules, or does it end at the idea that a God is there and there is a purpose? In other words, though you are convinced of God’s existence, does this extend to thinking that Chapter X, Verse Y of Book Z of the Bible reflects his will? If so, how did you get from the conviction that God exists to this? If not, how do you develop a moral system? Is it built on the general idea of god, or on specific rules that seem right to you?

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

Dam You Voyager!!!

Why? Am I flooding?

My initial reaction is yes. I think the world would be better off without absolutist belief systems as you describe. I might add a qualifier in that for someone to then think their perceived final answer justifies the use of force on others to insure compliance. If a group feels they have the final answer and minds their own business then no harm done.

That’s an answer I knew in advance. You’re not an absolutist kind of guy.

Well, I’ve never been to Europe, China, or Australia, but I’ve talked to people who have experienced that and I’ve read books about it so I accept they actually exist. Would I be smarter to withhold belief until I go there myself?

I’m not trying to be a smart ass. Is this a valid comparison? If it isn’t then why not?

You’ve spoken to, or read books by, people with direct experience of those places. A more appropriate analogy might be Atlantis. I’ve read books about it, and read novels set in it, but none are direct records, so I can conclude that it seems unlikely to have ever existed.

My objection to Der Trihs approach is his blanket assertion that without objective evidence then withholding belief should be the logical default. I don’t agree. Much of the spiritual experience is subjective but I don’t think making a belief choice based on subjective evidence is illogical or foolish. I’ve brought it up several times and he always bypasses it. He insists it is the believers responsibility to provide evidence. I agree with that if a believer is trying to convert a non believer. In my case since I believe the spiritual journey is a very personal subjective experience so I don’t feel I or any believer has any obligation to prove their beliefs. An exploration of belief is a different matter but discussion with Der Trihs doesn’t offer that.

You see, having a belief after an experience, even subjective, is no longer the default belief. I can offer all sorts of explanations, but that is analyzing the evidence, and is different from what you should believe with no evidence at all.
I agree that you shouldn’t be asked to prove (in the sense of giving convincing evidence for) your beliefs - unless you wish to have your beliefs directly affect someone else. (Which you don’t). I, for one, would want to prove my beliefs to myself if no one else. That’s how I got into the whole atheism game - I decided to try to find out more about my beliefs, and quickly discovered that they were unjustifiable, and were in fact a default based on my environment. But I’m genetically analytical - math and logic skills run in my family. I don’t consider anyone not wanting to do this lacking in any way.

[Voyager]

@Othersider

Well said. I think theology is unique amongst the things often debated in that there is a truth value, though arguably not a provable one. All of the other debate topics I can think of…politics, social issues, etc…it’s all opinion: “we should yadda yadda yadda…”, “It’s best to blah blah blah…” and so on. Theism isn’t that way - either God exists (or gods exist), or he (or she) doesn’t (or, they don’t). Unfortunately, we can’t really say which one’s right.

Besides, it’s difficult to find a person who really isn’t biased one way or the other with regards to theology.

Actually, I’d say there are several truth values. Does God[1] exist? God[2]? … God* and so forth. Maybe a God exists who cares about some other people, not us. Then of course there is the question of what our reaction to God’s existence should be. Should we toe the line, like the fundamentalists of all stripes want us to do, or should we find comfort in his existence, but no direction, like a deist would say? Lots of the arguments for god’s existence don’t address which god.

[baronsabato]

@Voyager

Thanks for responding. I take it from your last line that you don’t support absolute belief systems.
Now, does your conviction about the existence of God extend to the various rules, or does it end at the idea that a God is there and there is a purpose? In other words, though you are convinced of God’s existence, does this extend to thinking that Chapter X, Verse Y of Book Z of the Bible reflects his will? If so, how did you get from the conviction that God exists to this? If not, how do you develop a moral system? Is it built on the general idea of god, or on specific rules that seem right to you?

Ah, here come the hard questions now. I will readily admit right now- I’m no theologian, nor do I have the best ability to articulate my beliefs. I’ll try my best though.

So I know that God exists. That, for me, is a fact. I also know that God is love. I also accept that God can be understood by different people in vastly different ways. However, the best way for me to understand God is through the Bible, and through the tenets of the Christian faith. For example, there’s the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe wholeheartedly in the Trinity, because it makes God clearer to me than any other way of understanding Him. The mystery of three persons in One God helps me remember that God is indeed bigger than what we mere humans can really imagine, and that we can’t limit Him or put Him in a box. It reminds me also that no-one lays claim to absolute truth, because no-one can fully comprehend how incredible God really is. And yet, the idea that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit reminds me also that God is a personal force, so personal that I can call Him my “Father” and Jesus Christ, the one who bridges the gap between the Holy and the world, my brother.

I also understand the Bible as a document that is inspired by God. However, I certainly am no literalist and I don’t believe the Bible was actually written by God. I accept wholeheartedly that the Bible was written by many, many different men (and possibly women, I suppose) and I am always eager to find out more about what modern scholarship has to say about these authors. When I say it is inspired by God I mean that the Bible was written by people over several millenia trying to articulate their own experiences of Him, often combining these experiences with history, sometimes resulting in some truly atrocious stories (see I Samuel 15:2-3 for an example of this).

So what does this all mean? Well, I find that reading the Bible, as contradictory and as full of terrible tales it is, brings me closer to God in ways that reading the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, and Dianetics do not. That’s why I place my trust in the Bible- because it works for me. Of course, I don’t accept everything as making sense to me. I can’t read Levitical laws against homosexuality (among other things) as being relevant any longer. What I can do is follow the commandments of Jesus to love God and to love my neighbor, because everything else follows from that. This is a biblical position to take, by the way, as Romans 13:8-10 shows us, and although using the Bible to interpret the Bible is tautological, it makes the most sense to me considering my conviction that God is love.

Anyway, I don’t believe that morality is rooted in faith, since there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are just as moral, if not more so, than people of faith and there are plenty of people of faith who, in my opinion, are highly immoral. I do believe that morality is ultimately rooted in God, but that’s just something I believe and I certainly don’t think anyone else needs to agree with me. Still, even if I were an atheist and never read the Bible, I bet my moral beliefs would not be very much different than they are now.

In regards to your earlier question about absolutist belief systems; well, my gut reaction is, “Yes, get rid of absolutist belief systems and the world is a better place” but I also agree with cosmosdan that I would be okay with a group that is happy with its fundamentalism but leaves everyone else alone and is not inflicting harm on their own members.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense, sorta. Again, I’m not much of a theologian, and smarter people than I have discussed these topics in much better ways.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

That’s an answer I knew in advance.

A prophecy?? Gee Wilikers!!

You’ve spoken to, or read books by, people with direct experience of those places. A more appropriate analogy might be Atlantis. I’ve read books about it, and read novels set in it, but none are direct records, so I can conclude that it seems unlikely to have ever existed.

Yes but I’ve read books by people with direct experience with God. Some even reported to be written by God. I’ve talked to people who have described direct experience with God. I think this is a good analogy when you consider how belief develops in this country.

You see, having a belief after an experience, even subjective, is no longer the default belief.I can offer all sorts of explanations, but that is analyzing the evidence, and is different from what you should believe with no evidence at all.

No explanation nessecary. I agree with you. PLease tell Der trihs. My objection is that he tries to prove his point buy only allowing objective evidence. I find that at least disingenuous and possibly just dishonest.

I agree that you shouldn’t be asked to prove (in the sense of giving convincing evidence for) your beliefs - unless you wish to have your beliefs directly affect someone else. (Which you don’t).

I understand what you’re saying but I’d like to add that an important part of my spiritual beliefs is the realization that my beliefs do directly affect the people I encounter. So do yours and everyone elses. I hope this doesn’t sound condescending because I believe you already know this. I just wanted to express it. I’m not interested in imposing my beliefs on anyone. I am interested in shareing them because I think it’s an important part of human development. By claiming my right to choose for myself I feel a moral obligation to let others do the same.

I, for one, would want to prove my beliefs to myself if no one else. That’s how I got into the whole atheism game - I decided to try to find out more about my beliefs, and quickly discovered that they were unjustifiable, and were in fact a default based on my environment. But I’m genetically analytical - math and logic skills run in my family. I don’t consider anyone not wanting to do this lacking in any way.

I think that’s a good and accurate phrase. That’s the analogy I was trying to make about Europe and China. We have a default belief based on our environment. We hear about them from people we trust and everybody seems to acknowledge it as fact so we just accept it. For many people that’s how their spiritual life starts and it can be a lifelong struggle to sort out their own beliefs from the group beliefs.
All part of the human experience. I don’t blame atheists for being angry and disgusted at times. I am myself. I just implore both sides for a little appreciation of the great variety of choices we have and the individuals right to choose without being judged wrong for simply doing what humans are supposed to do.

The beliefs I have now started in a way similar to your description. I began to seriously ask some of the questions that had been knocking around in my head for quite some time. They have just led me to a different place. I don’t find it illogical or foolish to go forward based on what I percieve to be the truth, while keeping in mind that I am still learning. I think that’s the path to knowledge and understanding.