Religion, Theology, and all that good stuff

[Dr. Drum]

Phil, I've always thought that you would have grown up as a true child of la révolution tranquille. Would I be correct in that perception?

[rockkid]

1) Do you believe in God? Yes.


2) Do you think reason and faith are radically distinct? Yes I’d truthfully have to say so.


3) What religion, if any, do you practice? (Or, perhaps, if you're a nonbeliever, what religion were you raised in? Or what religion does your family practice?) High Anglican.


4) How important are religious questions to you? On the old sliding scale I’d say a 6.


5) Have you ever seriously doubted your own religious beliefs? (that applies to atheists/agnostics too!) Not at all.


6) Do you think the differences between religions are major and important, or do you think that most religions share the same basic principles, and the differences beyond that are unimportant? Yes I think they are major, you want to start me up, get talking cults et al.


7) Do you believe in heaven and hell? Yes, can't be one without the other.


8) Do you attend religious services with any regularity? What kind? Well I used to go every Thursday night to the quickie service I guess you could call it but now work commitments are precluding that. Then again I don’t believe you need to be in a building to truly worship either. He is after all everywhere.


9) Have you ever attended religious services for a religion besides your own? Which one? What did you make of it? Yes. It was Catholic so it was pretty similar.


10) How important to you are shared religious beliefs in relationships? Very I’d say.


11) Does it matter to you if political leaders are religious? No. Mostly because of my strong belief that all politic is corrupt to the bone no matter.


12) True or false: the world would be a better a place if all religions just disappeared overnight Considering how many wars are fought “in the name of god” that might not be a half bad concept.

[phil]

Phil, I've always thought that you would have grown up as a true child of la révolution tranquille. Would I be correct in that perception?

Well... If you believe that we are the product of our environnement...
then Québec in the 60's was indeed a place where many revolutions
took place all at once, like a frozen river roars back to life in the spring...

But then we used to live in a small town (Chicoutimi)
where the four largest buildings were the church, the hospital
and the schools - one for boys, one for girls- all run by the clergy.
All the education system in Québec was controlled by the church at the time so it was not like we had any choice !

After my father died when I was 7 y/o, my mother kinda lost her footing for a few years where I got send to and expelled from(!) various catholic boarding schools until my 4th year of high school. We also used to spend all our summers in a remote cottage surrounded by lakes and forests right in the middle of nowhere.

I did a lot of fishing and read a lot of books during my formative years !!!

Then came Expo 67, Montréal World's Fair and everything around us exploded !

All at the same time, Québecers set themselves free from the clergy's heavy hand on our lives and(to a point) foreign economic domination. We opened up to the world and we discovered our national identity.

My only regret in all this is that I was just a couple years too young to truly embrace the sexual revolution when it first burst on the scene ...

[phil]

I remember the dean at one classical(vocational?) college calling me a "young revolutionary" once because I was the leader of the student movement to have the choice to wear a turtleneck instead of the obligatory shirt and tie !

I wonder if he would call us "young terrorists" in this day and age ...

HÉ ! We did trapped him inside his sleeping quarters once
by gluing his door shut ...

[phil]

Mary ~ Sorry about getting a little sidetracked here...

I'll leave this board to its intended purpose now.

Promise !

[Dr. Drum]

Thanks, Phil.

[JACkory]

Mary, I thought you might be interested to know that I have come to the point where I no longer find postmodernism (in it's less extreme form, at least) to be the monster I once considered it.
At any rate, I thought you might be interested in The Ooze, and hope you'll check it out and tell me what you think...I have found it to be quite enlightening:
www.theooze.com/main.cfm

[Rit]

this is somewhat theological, i guess.

Italo Calvino's novel Invisible Cities presents another kind of alluring fantasy; this is a very very short summary of the book by Harold Bloom:

"Marco Polo has spent the entire book describing his imaginary journeys to invisible cities, while Kublai Khan listens, until at last the aged emperor realizes that all the cities are one city, and it is at last the city of the damned, the inferno. Marco Polo, speaking for Calvino, offers two alternatives to damnation. The first is to become ourselves so infernal that we can no longer see where we are. The second, though risky and demanding, is an injunction to read better and live better..."

--
& the very final final paragraph of the book:

...[The Great Khan] said: "It is all useless, if the last landing place can only be the infernal city, and it is there that, in ever-narrowing circles, the current is drawing us."

And Polo said: "The inferno of the living is already here, the inferno where we live every day, that we form by being together. There are two ways to escape suffering it. The first is easy for many: accept the inferno and become such a part of it that you can no longer see it. The second is risky and demands constant vigilance and apprehension: seek and learn who and what, in the midst of the inferno, are not inferno, then make them endure, give them space."

[melon1]

1) Do you believe in God?

In the words of Mitch Hedgburg,"Yes I do, He is cool."
2) Do you think reason and faith are radically distinct?

I believe that reason is doubt in disguise while faith comes from revelation. I'm not open to reason, but revelation

3) What religion, if any, do you practice? (Or, perhaps, if you're a nonbeliever, what religion were you raised in? Or what religion does your family practice?)

Christianity


4) How important are religious questions to you?

A little


5) Have you ever seriously doubted your own religious beliefs? (that applies to atheists/agnostics too!)

Not seriously, I had passive doubts a very few times but hey, that's everybody. If God's existence were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, faith wouldn't be necessary, but "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness."


6) Do you think the differences between religions are major and important, or do you think that most religions share the same basic principles, and the differences beyond that are unimportant?

I think they are indeed important but my answer would be a waste of time since JAC pretty much answered this one for me.


7) Do you believe in heaven and hell?

You better believe it. The ironic thing is that some people don't believe in hell while at the same time, they're living in hell on earth. How do I know there is a hell? I can honestly say that, in a sense, I've been there and it is VERY real. Never has the reality of heaven been more evident than it is right now in my life. Eternal life begins at the moment we are born again. Heaven begins on earth. God is shaking everything that can be shaken until only that which cannot be shaken will remain. And I along with many others am receiving a Kingdom that CANNOT be shaken despite all the hardships and birth pangs this world is experiencing right now. It is possible to live in Heaven on earth!


8) Do you attend religious services with any regularity? What kind?

Yes, I attend a Methodist church even though I've been in nondenominational churches most of my life. I attend "Celebrate Recovery" which is small group in my church. This is where real growth happens.


9) Have you ever attended religious services for a religion besides your own? Which one? What did you make of it?

Actually I walked into a church that was centered around Jesus and the Zodiac. I'm sorry to say I didn't stick around very long.


10) How important to you are shared religious beliefs in relationships?

Very


11) Does it matter to you if political leaders are religious?

Yes
12) True or false: the world would be a better a place if all religions just disappeared overnight.

Not only false but I believe things would be MUCH WORSE.

[phil]

Here it is ...

Phil's take on religions !!

THE "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ASSHOLE" CRITICISM OF RELIGION

Let me start with the oriental and animist religions before tackling the monotheist religions we’re more familiar with. They may have no pope, no priests and no TV evangelists but there is always a guru, a spiritual master, a sorcerer, an initiator of some kind … And all those guides and masters will expect you - even when they profess to the contrary – to follow their will and ideas. Those religions may be more tolerant and less bloody but the principles remain the same: They will teach you what to do, what to think, which way to follow… the “Path to Wisdom” … the “Spiritual Quest”.

Our own Judeo-Christian religions added the “Original Sin” as the fundamental sin that our “ancestors” committed when they severed, by an act of pride and defiance, their alliance with the Creator. They wanted to be equal to God by accessing Knowledge while losing their innocence. So the ultimate sin was about knowledge which must be reserved to God (and its priests) while the flock should be held in ignorance of the mysteries and be content just to obey.

From the very beginnings, the faithfuls have been directed not to think. They were also asked not to take responsability for themselves and their own actions. The worst offense is not about what you did to others or to yourself but the fact that you rejected God’s love. But nevermind that ! All you have to say is “I repent ! and you can go on with your life as if nothing happened …

It is always more simple to provoque strong emotions – like calling someone an asshole ! – rather than incite reflexion and thinking. Instead of betting on human intelligence and try to explain and convince, religions place themselves under the sign of sentiments, emotions and passions.

I read somewhere that if children were born with a conscience, there would never have been a need for God. As soon as his mind is awakened, every child naturally possesses the faculty and taste for fantasizing . This is why myths, as a way to stimulate our imagination and slip a few essentials truths under the cover of entertainment, have always been so popular. But unlike E.T. and Luke Skywalker, children are told as soon as possible that Jesus is the real, the one and only super-hero… That he is the Son of the almighty God, virginal birth, miracles, incredible resurrection and all. In order to understand the teachings of Christ, we are expected to suspend our faculty to think and learn and just be satisfied with arguments that have no rational basis as if we should simply accept the mysteries without the understanding of their true meanings.

Every religion has a natural and essential tendency to exclusiveness and excommunication. There cannot be two, three or four gods, two, three or four absolute foundations. The right to dissent cannot be part of the faith. Every religion, if it wants to survive and grow – which are the two primal objectives – has to get intégriste and fundamentalist. And one thing is for sure, churches are not fond of criticisms, either of the way they conduct their business or of their social policies.

Learning about the Universe history and a minimal understanding of science are essential. Both science and religion should be taught in school, with rigueur and imagination. The person who learns about both cannot be manipulated by either or put false hope in neither. All religions should be taught from an historical point of view with a large emphasis put on promoting tolerance and understanding between people.

The start of wisdom and serenity is achieved after we lucidly confront and accept the ephemeral character of our own existence, when we have eliminated all desire of survival other than the memories that will subsist within our close ones. Liberated from an illusionary future, we can then employ ourselves to the search of the meaning of life itself, the one we can comprehend and share, humanism, solidarity, friendship, love …

Finaly, many of the moral values that are promoted by religions have been formulated a long time before the Scriptures by people like Socrates and Confucius… More modern values that societies now embraced – equality, dignity – liberty of thought – freedom of speech – right to dissent – were developed not only outside religions but sometimes in spite of them.

The greatest challenge we face today is to invent a new Ethic, one without an external organizer/arranger; ethics founded on the human being dynamism, people who think about their survival as a specie and about their life principles as individuals, an Ethic that wouldn’t be an obligation but a responsibility.

[JACkory]

Your understanding of religion appears to be as superficial as my understanding of physics.

And yet you don't see me on a crusade to undermine science.

Get over it, Phil.
The very least you could do is find an audience that hasn't already heard your spiel a thousand times.
The fact that you preach against religion based almost solely on your (negative) perception of what religion actually is guarantees that you'll find few converts to your way of thinking amongst those of us who don't have such a knee-jerk bad reaction to the concept and who have given it respect enough to dig a bit deeper in trying to understand it than you obviously have.

They wanted to be equal to God by accessing Knowledge while losing their innocence. So the ultimate sin was about knowledge which must be reserved to God (and its priests) while the flock should be held in ignorance of the mysteries and be content just to obey.

For instance, this is the most simplistic, generalized description of "the Fall" that I have ever read.
The ultimate sin was about accepting limitations, obedience and trust in God (as He was deserving of, being their Creator and Sustainer) MUCH more than it was about "knowledge". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "original sin" had very little if ANYTHING to do with that knowledge of good and evil that the tree was supposed to represent.

From the very beginnings, the faithfuls have been directed not to think. They were also asked not to take responsability for themselves and their own actions. The worst offense is not about what you did to others or to yourself but the fact that you rejected God’s love. But nevermind that ! All you have to say is “I repent ! and you can go on with your life as if nothing happened …

Won't you please back that statement up with some examples? You are taking your own subjective opinions about religion (and only your flawed understanding of it, at that) and projecting it forward, making blanket assumptions and saying "That's the way it IS". It's not, though.
Noone is "asked not to take responsibility for themselves and their actions"...the Bible teaches that you reap what you sow. Where do you come by these notions, anyway?
The "worst offense" doesn't even have to do with rejecting God's love...it has more to do with outright rejecting the possibility/probability that there IS a God responsible for everything created, and the prideful humanistic notion that mankind is sovereign over all.
That you think that Christians believe there are no consequences of sin ("going on as if nothing happened") that occur even after repentence is proof positive that you have failed to grasp exactly what repentance and forgiveness are all about, not to mention the concept of DISCIPLINE and how it works itself out through those consequences.

It is always more simple to provoque strong emotions – like calling someone an asshole ! – rather than incite reflexion and thinking. Instead of betting on human intelligence and try to explain and convince, religions place themselves under the sign of sentiments, emotions and passions.

Well, I never called you an asshole, so you've got no beef with me on that plane. And I'm not out to "provoque" any strong reaction, other than perhaps hoping that you will some day realize that your anti-religion bias likely stems much more from some personal issue you have with it than any deficiancy in "human intelligence" amongst those who embrace it.
Christianity is a religion that is rooted in history, logic and in common sense (as opposed to being simply under the "sign of sentiments, emotions and passions"). This may be something you don't notice because you're already sporting a grudge against it, but I'd wager that if you spent half the time investigating Christianity with an open mind as you do attempting to tear it down and belittle it's adherents, you might walk away with a less insulting opinion of it.
Now when are you going to do that?
Because, honestly, I don't appreciate wasting my time reading critiques of ANYTHING when the critic responsible is so obviously ignorant of the subject they're criticizing. It's like listening to someone who never watches television tell me about the evils of the broadcast media.

I would truly like to respond to the rest of your "Criticism" but I've got better things to do, and I've already made my point, anyway.

Note that I have not attempted to evangelize to you.
I have not disrespected your own beliefs.
I have not responded in a "combative" manner, even though you might take it that way...I certainly understand that hearing someone tell you that you don't seem qualified to be circulating a "Criticism of Religion" could be construed as "insulting".
I don't mean it that way, though, and I confess that I don't know you that well, that I don't have a window into your mind to gauge what you do and don't understand about religion...regardless, I come to my position in stating these things based primarilly on what you've posted above (plus your history as an anti-religion zealot).

[Rit]

aye. i think you were being a bit reductive there, Phil.

the one thing i'd say is that you say that children are forced to believe in Jesus from an early age, That he is the Son of the almighty God, virginal birth, miracles, incredible resurrection and all. In order to understand the teachings of Christ, we are expected to suspend our faculty to think and learn and just be satisfied with arguments that have no rational basis as if we should simply accept the mysteries without the understanding of their true meanings.

there's been many devoutly religious people with the finest critical minds you could possibly hope to meet through out history. So generalizing the negative denoucement of Jesus-lurving is overstating matters. I suppose it depends on the person to begin with. i dont think beliefs intrude upon reason as much as you insist.

as for Eastern religions, you said: They will teach you what to do, what to think, which way to follow… the “Path to Wisdom” … the “Spiritual Quest”.

thats outstandingly reductive. You misinterpreted centuries of distilled wisdom literature and traditions into a rigid dogmatic form. Which either means you genuinely see it that way or you are very intolerant of anything that does not locate itself under 'Scientific Processes'. In my opinion, the categories of (genuine) Faith and (genuine) Science are more related than you might think. In that both require healthy imagination to be called as such.

Purely reductive scientific thinking is a fool's gold. It only appears in the short term as a "progressive" mode of thinking, but it really emulates the mill wheel go-round of cut-and-paste thinking. Without clear-eyed imagination, Science can be as stupid a tool as any orthodox Church structure. It will eventually replicate errors and accumulate severe misunderstandings into a framework destined to fall.

Real Science is imagination.
Real Faith is also imagination.

please reply back, i'd love to hear your take on that. and i can elaborate if my post here is too vague or unclear.

[Rit]

i suppose what i object to is the generalized immediate dismissal of honest faith, while thinking that a strict dogmatic adherence to "Science" as a rigid concept will save you (or anyone else) from a lifetime of irrationality.

Things could never be as simple as that in this world

[JACkory]

I'd like to think that religion takes over where science leaves off.
Plus, science is impotent to attempt answers to philosophical questions. It's realm is the material. Religion's realm is the spiritual.

[Rit]

i know what you're saying. it was the party line expressed on the Evolition vs Creationism debate board.

but i don't buy it in the slightest. it's a dualist way of looking at things, which squares things up neatly. the reality is messier.