NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote a column earlier this month titled: The Neural Buddhists: The cognitive revolution is not going to undermine faith in God — it’s going to challenge faith in the Bible. (He references a 1996 article by Tom Wolfe, titled Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died.)
In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.
Brooks sees these four ‘beliefs’ (bullets are mine) emerging from the scientists who are writing books on this subject:
- First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships.
- Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions.
- Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love.
- Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
Related to all this is the story of brain scientist Jill Bolte Taylor and her stroke. The video of her presentation at TED in February (transcript there, too. YouTube version of her video here) is an internet sensation. Over the weekend, the New York Times ran this article: A Superhighway to Bliss: Jill Bolte Taylor’s message, that people can choose to live a more peaceful, spiritual life by sidestepping their left brain, has resonated widely.
She ends her speech with this (see the complete transcript):
So who are we? We are the life force power of the universe, with manual dexterity and two cognitive minds. And we have the power to choose, moment by moment, who and how we want to be in the world. Right here right now, I can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere where we are — I am — the life force power of the universe, and the life force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form. At one with all that is. Or I can choose to step into the consciousness of my left hemisphere. where I become a single individual, a solid, separate from the flow, separate from you. I am Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, intellectual, neuroanatomist. These are the “we” inside of me.
Which would you choose? Which do you choose? And when? I believe that the more time we spend choosing to run the deep inner peace circuitry of our right hemispheres, the more peace we will project into the world and the more peaceful our planet will be. And I thought that was an idea worth spreading.
I’m not one to embrace her New-Agey conclusion of world peace. And she completely misses one entire element of her stroke experience that I think is more significant as it’s easily available to the average person: self-awareness. Georgianne Giese, one of the commenters on that TED page, wrote:
Dr. Taylor’s “self awareness” module was able to monitor, record, and remember everything that was happening to her throughout her stroke experience. Just where is THAT located? And how was it able to describe and record both the functions and non-functioning of both sides of the brain during this episode? This “self awareness” module goes beyond the analysis and feeling processes Dr. Taylor described, as it was able to observe and reason about both.
Since I don’t go to church, I’m curious about which Northfield churches, which ministers, are talking to their congregations about any of this stuff.
At the most basic level, do any ministers even discuss the problematic aspects of believing in a personal God and the Bible as his word?
220 Comments
It seems we are a bunch of religious chickens with no comments.
I think most people of a Christian persuasion do not question why they believe and think that the basic question of faith is more whether to follow the old testament or the new testament–not whether there is a god or we are it.
I think organized religion is a result of basic human need to bring order and reason to our life, and it is fraught with the failings of human kind. Think Jones town, Branch Davidians and the current fun with Fundamentalist LDSers. (And go back to the Crusades or the Inquisition and past and present corruption in Roman Catholic church popes and cardinals.)
The truths found by Dr. Taylor are beyond comprehension to most religious–they dismiss it as so much voodoo rather than attempt intelligent discourse on the merits of god within. Intersting enough, most organized religions share some of the same lessons that Dr. Taylor discusses–including that we are one and our beliefs affect all the world around us.
Alright, I’ll wade into this one. Griff- in answer to your question about what churches “get into this stuff,” I can only respond to us a NCC. No, we don’t get into this “stuff”, although we do study it enough to understand what the writers are talking about. I think I can best describe our response to it as this: it is futile reasoning of the unregenerate (old) nature. Our approach to God is only through Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection. We don’t consider ourselves as being able to approach God in our own right or on our own terms. We believe that God wants to approach us, not because we deserve it, but because He loves us. This being the case, we define our facet of Christianity as being a relationship with God the Father, not a religion (us being able to “work” our way to God). Since we believe the Bible to be God’s revealed word to man, we judge everything else relative to how it aligns with this word.
We believe that change comes from the divine intervention of God in our lives through the Holy Spirit. None of us has experienced change by rote that has been forced upon us from the outside. The changes we have experienced in our lives have come from the inside out. This is the common denominator that holds us together as a group. We define this as God working in our lives in a personal way. Because we believe the Bible to be true, we look for the pattern of relationship defined in this word to be evident in our own lives also. We do not deliniate the scripture into little boxes with some boxes applicable to the present and some applicable to the past. What we look for is the character and revelation of God all through the scriptures, and we esteem it as all applicable to the present. I wouldn’t define us as “literal interpreters” of the scripture, in that we “do” all the things written in it, but we do look to it for inspiration and wisdom in understanding what God is speaking to us.
Now, I know that that last statement is going to put some of the participants in this blog over the edge, but we do look for and experience the personal interaction of God in each of our lives. We do look for Him to speak to us, both in audible words and impressions in our spirits and hearts. For us, the Bible is the standard that we align these “directions” to to determine if they are correct or not. I suppose a person can use whatever writings he wants to justify his beliefs. We are, after all, individuals with the right to come to independent conclusions. Where I would have a problem is with someone who wants to call his beliefs “Christian” when he does not even esteem the Bible as true and uses other wisdoms of man to support his beliefs and practices. The term “Christian” implies that you at least recognize Jesus as God the Son, and this revelation is spelled out in the Bible, not the Koran or any of the other writings attributed to world “religions.”
Now in regards to knowing something about world religions and the philosophies of man, we do believe it is important. Since we daily rub shoulders with people who imbrace these other things, we need to know how to defend ourselves and our basis of faith in a discussion, and to do it in a respectful and learned manner. When we study these things, we approach them not as something to consider and “adopt” into our belief system, but we try to understand them relative to our understanding of the Word of God.
Jane and George, thanks for boldly weighing in. I may not get around to a detailed reply till Monday as my weekend is full. Hope others chime in, too. I’d like to devote an upcoming podcast to this topic.
Griff: I went to church on Sunday. The readings and the homily (sermon) were primarily directed at the “problematic aspects” of not believing in a personal God and not having faith in God’s word.
What do you see as the problematic aspects of believing in a personal God and the Bible? Are these problems just left-brain problems?
What Dr. Taylor and Jane describe as the “god within” is what Christians generally refer to as the Holy Spirit. Dr. Taylors’s research maybe news to the unchurched, but not the churched.
- David -
P.S. Anyone interested in knowing what ministers are saying are welcome to join me - Griff included.
Thank you John George for saying what needed to be said in the best possible way…God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost richly bless you!!!
Nora- Thank you. I receive that, and He does.
Griff: I listened to Dr. Taylor’s experience of “nirvana”. It is remarkably similar to Pope Benedict’s description of heaven - a state of unity of being so complete and encompassing that time and space lose meaning.
Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions for the last 3000 years have been trying to tell humanity that heaven/nirvana is achievable. Those traditions have been using the Toran, the Bible, and Koran.
For obvious reasons, heeding scripture seems like a better way to achieve heaven than having a stroke.
Ms Taylor says:
“Right here right now, I can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere where we are — I am — the life force power of the universe, and the life force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form. At one with all that is.”
I felt that way a couple of times in 1967.
William- What were you on?
I went to church last Sunday (same church as David L.), and the sermon was about the metaphors of building a house on rock or sand, with rock being the preferred metaphor.
I see where David gets his account of the sermon, though, also accurate in his own way.
This business of rock is in stark contrast to other parts of scripture which describe the Holy Spirit going where it will, moving as the wind. So the rock of Jesus is one with the wind, which is the Holy Spirit (yes, notice the mixed metaphor), and the foundation of rock is also the wind, which has very different qualities. Build your house on the wind, which is the sure thing, as sure as rock.
On the one hand, theologians of many denominational stripes talk about such stuff as you describe above, and pastors may read it, but they don’t preach about it. It’s a bit too much like shop-talk jargon. When they re-do my brakes, I’m glad they don’t use asbestos in the brake pads anymore, and I’m fine with ceramic pads, but I don’t need all of that explained to me. If the mechanic reminds me not to wait so long to change the oil next time, and to check my tire pressure more often, that’s probably what I need to hear. If I’m a too-agressive driver and wear out my brake pads too often, I might benefit from hearing that. But perhaps not the techinical stuff.
On the other hand, I agree with the part about questions regarding how literally to take the bible. It was written in a time when expectation of literal or figurative truth were very different from the expectations we have of the daily newscast or newspaper.
When scripture says Jesus took bread and shared it, saying it was his body, and then after dying, appeared to the disciples in a closed room, does it mean Jesus was already inside of them, and that was the point of the bread/eucharist ritual– that Jesus knew he had changed their lives and was in them, and would continue to be–or does it mean Jesus was like Casper the Friendly Ghost, or Beam Me Down Scotty, and could materialize in closed rooms with locked windows and doors?
If we were to tell the story today, or if the woman with the stroke were to tell it, how would we tell it, and what terminology might we use to describe it?
This is what all ancient and organized religions must deal with: To what extent is the truth ancient and eternal, and to what extent must it be uttered anew by every generation, or pehaps be lost in dead metaphorical language? Sometimes clining too tightly to the original, literal wording means the truths become lost in dead metaphors. Sometimes too much re-invention in contemporary terms risks losing much of the originally intended meaning.
Too often, people think that religion only sounds transcendent and true when it sounds old and cryptic. If we can’t understand it, then it must be a divine mystery; and if it’s in Latin, Greek, or some other foreign language we don’t know, all the better. Must be that holy stuff. But sometimes, in reality, what we might be experiencing is the effect of simply being adrift and alienated by dead metaphors that once actually meant something to somebody.
Where I go to church, we usually don’t talk about how literally to take the scriptures because the Roman Catholic church still projects the image of taking much of it quite literally (contrary to certain papal and other pronouncements). Especially about Jesus being the only begotten son, about the virgin birth, the miracles, the eucharist, the resurrection, etc. If you think any one of the essential elements is metaphor and not literal truth, then some will be quick to brand you a non-believer.
Hans Kung has said that faith is more an orientation of one’s life and a fundamental choice in response to the gift of life, than it is agreement with a list of literal truths. Many Catholics and Christians tend to believe the opposite: that it’s a checklist, a litmus text of literal truths to believe.
For those who remain in the second group, cognitive revolution has not yet come.
Is it necessary?
In some situations, it may help, especially for folks who want to talk about such stuff, or when Christians have to ponder folks of other religions and whether they are evil to the core because of their Koran, or not.
But some of the kindest, most generous people are those who have not yet known, or may never know, the cognitive revolution you describe. Staying close to the safe metaphors and language of the scriptures may be all they ever want or need, and may be the stuff they keep returning to as they strive to make order of chaos and live good lives.
John G.
What!
Are you ‘casting stones’? Don’t I deserve the benefit of the doubt? It could have been transendental meditation, rolfing, chanting…even yoga. Almost anything in those days. Might even have been low blood sugar…although runs to the 7-11for m &ms and chocolate milk usually cured that before anything too momentous happened.
William- Hope I didn’t offend you in my question. I certainly didn’t mean to. I couldn’t tell for sure from your response. That time was in the middle of my college years, and it was the humorous question that arose quite frequently when someone refered to any paranormal experience.
John G.
No problem…just an attempt at a little levity
Well, I basically ignored this issue for the longest time, then read “The Universe in an Atom”, boned up on my quantum physics and put together my own “flying spaghetti-monster cosmology, which I turned into three writings:
Quantum Soul where I argue that in an discrete finite (but big) automatn universe we (as self-aware and therefore recursive beings) are fractal representations of a universal probability wave function (something alert readers would have picked up from “The Golden Compass” series).
Soul of Chaos where I argue that the Bayesian concept of “prior” provides an interesting (mathematically at least) place for a dualist soul to be found.
where I point out the difference and similarity between faith and the scientific method (which is an alternative means of arriving at Truth.
Then, In Automaton I ask if we are all that much better off when we question our existence. The Garden of Eden is not about a loss of innocence about simple things like sex, it is (IMNSHO) about the loss of innocence we experience when we realize we are mortal.
Like all such cosmologies, it should be tested for validity before applying it to your own purposes.
William- Thanks. I thought that was your intent, as was mine in #9. I just like to keep short accounts.
Bruce- In staying with the spirit of levity, I’m not sure your thesis adds up.
john george, you card! (perhaps the 7 of clubs
). It may not add up, but it is integral to a basic topology of belief that forms a ring around the axioms of choice we all have to deal with. And in the calculus of life, it becomes pretty chaotic if you try to solve those equations using Euler integration!
Bruce- Now I remember the reason I transfered out of engineering and into art. Between calculus and those blasted sliderules, I was done in! And now I have found a better realm in which to function.
There is some Biblical connection between the creation and higher math, though. It is said that when Noah left the ark, all the animals began to multiply and replenish the earth except for the adder snakes. Noah sought wisdom from God, then sent his sons into the woods to clear an area and build a table there out of the logs they had cut down. He then had them take the two snakes out and put them on the table. Several months later, they checked the place and it was just crawling with adder snakes. Noah’s sons asked him how this had helped. He told them that even an adder snake can multiply on a log table.
Bruce: Assuming that you are right, and that humans are fractal representations of a universal probability wave function, what’s the conclusion? Does that mean that human life has no meaning?
According to Immanuel Kant, truth is achieved when our thoughts correspond to our senses. A reduction of truth to empirically verifiable thoughts is an impoverished thought system, and an impossible and intolerant social system.
Marxism has shown that just social systems that exclude the divine, are doomed to failure. A materialistic concept of man excludes the very thing that humans will always need, and that science cannot provide - meaningfulness.
David L.! I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to have you call Marxism a just or fair economic model. It is so far from fair or just that it requires totalitarian regimes to even have a chance to exist, just as you need an airplane (or similar) if you want to overcome the law of gravity and the natural tendency of a human body at 30,000 feet to end up in a hole in the ground.
Immanuel Kant was a victim of the parochialism of his time. We now know so much more about the nature of the senses, and their serious shortcomings, and to tie Truth to them is to hitch your wagon to a hobby horse … you will only go where you can drag yourself.
So, in a more serious note, the question “what is the meaning of existence?” is much more subtle than the question “what is the nature of existence?”. Science and test-based reasoning answer the latter but the former seems to be the realm of philosophy and faith-based reasoning. My “claim” that we are mere fractal components of a larger function only applies to the former “what is the nature …” question and only indirectly to the question “what is the meaning …”.
Might be time for another 8AM visit to the coffee group?
Bruce: Isn’t the meaning of existence more important than the nature of existence? Why should churches care about the cognitive revolution if its focus is entirely on the nature of existence?
Bruce & David- Here is a concept for you both to chew on. After I came into a relationship with the Lord, the design principles I use daily finally made sense to me. They are just observations of how the elements are put together. No man created them, they just observed and named them. Same with your mathmatics, Bruce. It is just a numerical way to define or explain the observable creation around you. Just as art did not create the world around us, math did not create it, either. Both these are our human ways of trying to understand what our senses tell us. They are amoral, neither right nor wrong. The real key is what a person defines as the prime source for all this. Did everything just come out of nothing? I say yes. And the source I attribute it to is the creative Word of God.
One of the things in David Brooks column that he brings our attention to is the embracing of the paranormal by the scientific community. It used to be that science was science and religion was religion, and ne’er the twain shall meet. Scientists are now realizing there is something else beyound the physical world. That is why they will even give credence to Dr. Taylor’s experience. Now, we as Christians are being challenged to defend the Bible as the correct standard for these things. If we only base our faith on what we experience, we end up being weak, because any person has the potential to tap into the psirit world. The danger of doing this without a clear embracing of God and His Word is the possibility of deception. There are two kingdoms in the spirit world, one of God and one of Satan. There is a third realm of the spirit, and this is each man’s own spirit. This is what gives us the connection. It is our choice whom we choose to rule over us.
Another thought on Marxism- I don’t think it is an economic model. Communism is an economic system. Marxism is a political theory, a different approach to a dictator. I think it is interesting that the Church in Acts is described as the people having all things in common. Hmmmm. Does this sound like Communism? Is that what you were aluding to, David, in your comment about “just social systems that exclude the divine?” Just wondering.
I do believe the Kingdom of God has a different economic system than either Communism or Capitalism. It runs on the principle of giving and receiving. There is mention in the apostle Paul’s writings about the virtues of working and receiving a wage. I think this gives merit to having a profession or job that produces a good or service that is of value to society.
Griff: We are still anxiously awaiting your detailed reply (#3). Give us something heavy!
John George — just a little note of thanks to say that although I don’t remotely share either your faith in general or your specific religious convictions (nor any others, nor any sense of “god within,” nor any sense of emptiness or loss in doing without any of the above, but rather a sense of the opportunity to live as kindly and generously and fully and mindfully as we can in the here and now), I do appreciate the thoughtful and generous (and sometimes humorous) spirit with which you articulate them. Seriously. Thank you.
John,
Thanks for being the voice of reason. I love the scripture that says ” Unless you become like a child you cannot enter heaven”. A child trust their daddy, and knows that he won’t hurt them, nor deceive them (a normal, healthy father). I am grateful for my child-like faith. Reading all the comments that have been posted, just makes me sad that many try to reason in their intellect the truth about God. My prayer is that everyone will experience God in a real, personal way, and that it won’t take a crisis for that to happen.
Penny- Thanks so much for your kind comments. I don’t agree with many opinions posted on this blog, but I always appreciate anyone who is brave enough and articulate enough to comment here. Part of being able to live in harmony is simply understanding one another. I’ve mentioned this before that understanding someone’s position doesn’t mean you have to agree with them. But understanding and acceptance goes a long way in producing harmony.
Lisa- Thanks for your encouragement. May Father God richly bless you and expand your understanding of and relationship with Him.
Thanks for the nudge, David L. Yes, I’ll unload a heavy treatise here any day now, but I’ve seemed to have started a few other fires that need tending first. So philosophize away in the meantime!
Not sure I should wade in, but my sister passed this along to me.
First, I do believe in the Revealed WORD of God as given in the Bible and thus, in the existence of absolute truth.
I believe all religions try to answer some basic questions such as ‘Why are we here?’ (creation), ‘What has gone wrong?’ (we all seem to agree something has) and ‘What is the solution?’ I, of course, believe in creation thru intelligent design and also believe that science is proving this out. Afterall, our universe is expanding.
Next, I believe the answer to ‘What’s went wrong?’ is sin. This puts the Revealed WORD at odds with all other ‘religions’ as the Bible tells us all have sinned whereas everyone else says we are basically good. To this - I just look at my life experience - and yes, other items like Marxism/Communism mentioned above. Afterall, they told people that what we needed was change - any change that got rid of the current ruling class. Because Marxism believes man is essentially good, it never asked for any ‘checks and balances’ and, well the saying ‘power corrupts absolutely’ always seems to be proved true. Today, America seems to be asking for a change - any change, but never looking into what that change may be… I believe this is quite dangerous. One last thought on this - Marxism doesn’t seem to be dead… it is just wearing new clothes such as Global Warming, Political Correctness, etc. Something to think about or consider at least…
A quick note on science - I don’t believe that the Revealed WORD (using that as opposed to Christianity) has ever been opposed to or in competition with science. I believe they go together. It was Christians that made most of the major scientific discoveries thru the ages, it was Christians that started the Universities, etc. God wants us to look for and find the Truth. I believe that science bears out God’s word just as archeology bears it out.
It is amazing how the Dead Sea scrolls show the WORD that has been passed down for over 2,500 years that is still perfectly translated.
Finally, my answer to ‘How to fix it?’ is Jesus Christ. I do not believe that I am god, I do not believe I have to do some kind of good work, but rather that I accept Jesus as my Savior in simple faith - yet, it is not a blind faith as I mentioned above I believe my life experience, science, archeology, etc. testifies to this truth. In addition, though people always protest again taking worldviews to their ultimate conclusions saying, ‘that will never happen’, I believe one must. Taking other religions to there ultimate conclusions whether it be Buddhism, Islam, Marxism (yes, I call that a religion), mysticm, etc., leaves one in a very uncaring world, usually where those in power get to rule over the weak and make the rules (seeing as they have done away with absolute truth and consider all to be relative).
O.K. I am probably too long winded. If anyone read all of this, thank you for considering it.
Heidi
Heidi- Great exigesis. Thanks for wading in.
Jane, you seem to have broken several of our discussion guidelines multiple times in a single comment, so I’ve removed it.
It’s probably best for you to avoid commenting on the viewpoints of others whose views are radically different than yours. Instead, just engage with those with whom you want to ‘go deeper’ with a spirit of inquiry.
Heidi, and Griff: Since Jane’s comment was pulled, I will try for a more direct one, but in the spirit of “inquiry”.
Heidi: You speak of the existence of “absolute truth”. I would have to say that I can prove the existence of no such thing, unless we fail to “inquire”.
Various ideas that have existed as absolute truths, throughout written history, have proven to be either not “absolute”, or false in their entirety, as civilizations gain factual knowledge. Is this not so?
In our observable history, persons who have claimed to be the recipients of “absolute truth” have often used that claim to be the oppressors of others, and I use “others” in the sense of those who are perceived to be unenlightened, or otherwise lesser in some aspect.
Griff: I do not know how it is possible to have a serious conversation on a subject like this without entering into some sort of intellectual challenge…Did you intend your original post as “fluff”? I think not.
If I may (without Griff biting my head off), I would like to question Heidi’s assertion that Global Warming is somehow “Marxism…wearing new clothes.” I simply don’t understand this assertion. Evangelical Christians are increasingly accepting the fact that global warming is a very real problem, and that Christians are called upon to address the damage that erring humans have done to God’s creation. In my view, environmental damage, including global warming, is a sin—a neglect and a misuse of God’s gift of creation. Take a look at the Evangelical Climate Initiative or at polls that show that 70% of evangelicals view climate change as a significant, human-generated global crisis. The challenge of global warming presents an opportunity for people of all theological and ideological stripes to work together to care for the world that is our common home. “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8). We fail in our humility, kindness, and justice when we trod heavily, with a destructive carbon footprint, on God’s good earth.
Jane and Rob,
Yes, if you would not mind I would like to try to explain my views better. I will try and attempt to direct you to where I have gotten some of my information. But, if you would give me about a day or so, as right now it is very busy at work i.e. much overtime happening. Time is the major reason that I don’t ever wade into these discussions. But, I thank you for letting me try to organize my views and explain them. So please know, I am not trying to ignore any questions asked of me. I will try my best to explain them soon.
Heidi
Kiffi- I’m not going to try to defend Heidi’s remarks here, I think she can do that herself, but I just want to touch on a couple things you stated in your post. I will preface my question with this scripture,”NAS:2 Peter
{3:9} The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (Another version translates “repentance” as “the knowledge of the truth.”)
2002 (C) Bible.” It would appear from this scripture that truth is something we can obtain. You said, “Various ideas that have existed as absolute truths, throughout written history, have proven to be either not “absolute”, or false in their entirety, as civilizations gain factual knowledge. Is this not so?” I am assuming you are refering to a literal interpretation of scriptures, here, as opposed to a historical/critical approach? I have not seen, nor has anyone shown me, any “factual knowledge” to disprove Biblical principles as a whole. In fact, the evidence that I have seen in scientific journals and social studies of human behavior seem to verify Biblical positions rather than discount them. Perhaps I have missed something.
You also said, “In our observable history, persons who have claimed to be the recipients of “absolute truth” have often used that claim to be the oppressors of others, and I use “others” in the sense of those who are perceived to be unenlightened, or otherwise lesser in some aspect.” I am assuming you are making a statement against those who would hold up Biblical principles as being superior to humanistic principles. How is this attutude different than the position of many higher education establishments in their disdain for any “scientist” who would step out and question the holy grail of scientific study- namely evolution? When it comes to embracing something as absolutely true, there must be an element of faith involved, since observable evidence has not been found to disprove God nor prove evolution. I know you and I differ on what we believe, and that is our perogative, and I defend your freedom to express what you believe. When you appear to state those beliefs as facts, though, then I would question them, just as you question mine.
Rob- You seem to have an interesting theology going here. I in no way want to disparage good stewardship of our resources, but I would ask you this question about your definition of sin, as Peter wrote in his 2nd letter: “NAS:2 Peter
A New Heaven and Earth
{3:10} But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
{3:11} Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
{3:12} looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
2002 (C) Bible” It appears from this reference, as I surmise from the scriptures as a whole, that God is most interested in our hearts and not necessarily our environment. If we believers are looking for a new heaven and a new earth, how much effort are we really supposed to exert in preserving the old one?
I do find this admonition a few verses previous, “NAS:2 Peter
{1:5} Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
{1:6} and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
{1:7} and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
{1:8} For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2002 (C) Bible” Now fulfilling these admonitions is a lifelong endeavor, and one I cannot attain to in my own strength, but I don’t see here, or in any other scriptural reference, any revelation about our carbon footprint. I do find this reference in Romans, “NAS:Romans
{1:25} For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
2002 (C) Bible.” Seems pretty clear here where our focus should be.
Climate change is initially and primarily having its worst effect on Africa. Africa produces less than 4% of global greenhouse gases, but the continent suffers disproportionately from desertification and diminishing resources due to global warming. Is it following the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves when we persist in behaviors that create such harm elsewhere? Is it kind, or just, or humble? No, I believe it is a sin.
[from post #34]
John, as I’ve said, I appreciate your willingness to gently share your perspectives, but I must say I find this one rather appalling, and contrary to every sense of decency and human feeling — of obligation to our fellow creatures (human and otherwise) and to our own descendants. It is a good illustration of Sam Harris’s observation in Letter to a Christian Nation that one of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality of human and animal suffering. He says, “Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation or when pressing those concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings,” or other life forms, I would add. A devotion to peering at life through a theological lens that distorts and devalues the real conditions that face us, contravenes common sense, and affects how we care for one another and the moral stance we take towards one another is very troubling to me.
Why should the condition of our hearts present any conflict to caring for the condition of the planet? Are you really willing to be careless about the health of Earth and its environment, which are the sustenance for every form of life we know, just because you believe there is a better place for (only) “saved” human beings in the long run? I respectfully suggest that that point of view seems arrogant and myopic at best and profoundly dangerous at worst. It may arguably be a theologically defensible position, though one that is clearly rejected by an increasing number of theologians and other thoughtful people of faith, but I do not believe it is a morally defensible position.
Holly- In answer to your question, “Why should the condition of our hearts present any conflict to caring for the condition of the planet?”, I would answer with this quote out of Mark. This is directly attributed to Jesus.NAS:Mark
{7:20} And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
{7:21} “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
{7:22} deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
{7:23} “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
2002 (C) Bible. All the problems we encounter on the earth, poverty, socially spread diseases, et. al., are symptoms of a greater problem- the inherent fallen nature of mans’ heart. Jesus knew this, so that is why He was always after the Pharisee’s motives for what they did, not necessarily the things they did. As we allow the Holy Spirit into our hearts and lives to restore us to a right relationship with God, one effect is that we are restored to a right relationship with our environment, His creation. That is why I stated that God is not NECESSARILY interested in our environment. If we get our hearts right, we will become good stewards as we learn the ways of God as revealed by His Holy Spirit.
This is the inherant difference between Christianity and every other world religion. The world religions that recognize man’s sin can only deal with it from the outside in, since they do not embrace the revealed word of God, nor His intiment involvement with each individual through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit. They do this via various lists of do’s and don’ts. We as Christians recognized that we cannot change ourselves, so we rely upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to change us. Does that make sense, now?
Rob- in your post #32, you said, “In my view, environmental damage, including global warming, is a sin—a neglect and a misuse of God’s gift of creation.” It is written in James, NAS:James
{4:17} Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
2002 (C) Bible. I agree with this, that the sin is the neglect and misuse of God’s creation, and I believe many who call themselves Christians have used a false spirituality to sidestep their responsibility as stewards of the creation. I do believe, though, that many of the same people who are up in arms about environmental damage have still embraced the sin of “choice”, and justify the killing of over 50 million unborn babies in the last 30 odd years. Some of them condemn a person for driving an auto instead of riding a bicycle or walking, but encourage adolescents to commit fornication and justify ending the inconvent result with murder. In this case, I question who has the mote and who has the log. This is one of the reasons some Christians, I for one, have a hard time embracing the environmental movement.
You also stated, “…polls that show that 70% of evangelicals view climate change as a significant, human-generated global crisis.” If you check youir results closely, the whole 70% do not attribute the climactic change to human activity. I think we give ourselves too much credit for what is occuring in the world environmentally. Paul writes this in Romans: NAS:Romans
{8:22} For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
2002 (C) Bible. There is a residual effect of the original sin that has affected creation since the fall of man. We are just seeing the greater evidence of that affect as we near the last days and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on this earth. Climates have been cyclical since the fall. There is evidence that the middle agers were warmer than or current time. This leads into a whole discussion on the age of the Earth, evolution, and the validity of certain “scientific” studies, none of which I want to get into in this thread. But, the conclusion I come to is that there is a providential will of God that is going to occur. We have the free will to choose whether we want to be involved and aligned with that will.
Thank you, John George, for reminding me with your last couple of comments why I’m no longer a Christian. Selecting passages from the Bible here and there makes it possible to justify just about anything one wishes to justify.
I see far too many Christians use the Bible as a “Choose-Your-Excuse-Machine” when explaining away their own behavior or ideas, and a “Choose-Your-Blame-Machine” when condemning the behavior or ideas of others.
The irony, of course, is that many Christians also love to rail against the relativism of modern secular thinking by pointing to the “absolutes” of the Bible, but then turn around and use the Bible to prop up any argument they want to make, often making very relativistic and selective and contradictory claims.
So what I think I’m hearing, and I’m trying mightily to stay calm here, is that people who care about preventing poverty and disease and war and environmental degradation out of a sense of caring and decency and obligation towards our fellow beings, or because their religions or philosophies teach them to serve others, share their blessings, and be good stewards — all these people have misguided priorities and are acting out of turn because they should only do these things out of the motivations that arise from a personal relationship with Jesus, and that otherwise (especially if they are not also fighting to make abortion unobtainable) the work they do is of no value and, in fact, tainted?
Seriously?
Don’t you want to live in a world where people who don’t share all your beliefs (which, by the way, is the vast majority of the world’s population) try to do good for others?
Penny (not Holly)
Yes, re: #37, not Holly, but good question
Brendon: here’s a serious question: Are you no longer a “Christian” because the Christian right have taken that designation for themselves only … or because you do not wish to be part of that specific world view(as expressed here)… or because you no longer wish to be part of any religion… ???
I think this is a very serious question which must be answered, and every time I try to discuss it at a serious level, Griff moderates my comment.
I cannot see how it is Right, morally or philosophically right, for one group to strip a set of values from another, because the first group has moved to a different world view.
Please reply, Brendon.
Kiffi,
I am no longer a Christian for many reasons. Partly out of disillusionment with what some have tried to do with Christianity, but probably more because I believe religion itself is a superficial layer between people and spirituality. I see it as a largely-hierarchical power structure concerned more with its own self-preservation or expansion and influence than with the genuine spiritual development of humanity.
I see religion not only as unnecessary in that respect, but also as sometimes obstructing, or in the worst cases, subverting the connection between people and spirituality. Ritual, while comforting, tends to be one of those factors which disconnects people from becoming more spiritual by substituting real exploration with rote responses and tasks. Rituals exist to be passed from generation to generation, but is that about perpetuating spirituality or perpetuating a particular church’s fortunes? Rituals don’t ask; they tell.
By no means does this mean I don’t see the value religion has for many people or, in some ways, for society. I also do not reject many of the tenets of Christianity. Many of those same tenets, of course, are held by most world religions. Many of those same tenets are also held by atheists. I just don’t find religion necessary for me to live an enjoyable, interesting, creative, ethical, moral or, in my own way, spiritual life.
I like to think of it this way: When I was about five and probably just starting to understand what death was, I remember distinctly thinking that killing someone else must certainly be wrong. Turns out, I was right. It is wrong, but I didn’t need to read it in the Bible. I figured it out myself. I’m willing to bet most people do.
That’s a simple and reductive example, but I believe people are innately good, or, at least, act in ways that lessen their chances of being killed or hurt by others. I believe my spirituality can be summed in two ways: prescriptively and proscriptively. Prescription: Be nice. Proscription: Don’t be a jerk.
Do I always live up to those spiritual goals? Nope. I try. I make many, many mistakes, but I usually recognize them. I honestly don’t need to look up in a Bible or any other book whether or not my thoughts and actions are right or wrong, good or bad, sanctioned or forbidden. Nor do I need a church or particular religion to make those judgments for me. I already judge myself often and harshly enough.
I hope that explains my position well enough for you, Kiffi. It’s more complex and nuanced than this, but this makes for a decent, condensed introduction.
Thanks, Brendon, that was a very well fleshed out explanation without becoming tedious.
Here’s mine: I am no longer a “Christian”, although it is a tradition I was initially steeped in, because I see too much hypocrisy. However, if forced to check a box on a survey or face imprisonment, I would check christian because of the cultural reference.
However, I would have to put an notation on that survey, that under no circumstances was I to be identified with those who now take that name for only themselves, and say that it is their’s only , and according to their discrete definition.
I have long thought that religion, once “man” got over needing a safety net, was more of a Political Construct than anything else, i.e. a way to bind a certain number of people together for reasons of power or influence, rather than spirituality. And power and influence in a way that is difficult for those not included to criticize, or even question, since it is supposedly based on an internal belief system.
I don’t believe belief systems which seek to harm others, can be truly spiritual.
Although I am no card carrying Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist, Muslim or Jane, I do understand the great need and the great benefits of religious ceremony. There is a great layer of unifying energy, for lack of a better description, whenever people come together to pray, to honor, to thank, to
love and to enjoy their gods and each others godliness as well as their own.
There is a great power in handing down tradition from hand to hand throughout the centuries. There is no replacement for this energy, this
sharing of power, this transformational and elemental thrust that carries each one of us into the future.
When they do it right, there is nothing better, or more right, when they do it wrong, well, only Son Seals can describe that.
Penny/Holly- Good grief! I can’t believe I got your names mixed up! Please forgive me. Well, actually, maybe I can attribute it to age, but there are a lot of people a lot older than I, and they are a lot sharper than I. Anyway, to your question, this is exactly the premise set forth in the comentary Griff sited- how can we as Christians support our belief in the Bible as a foundation for our convictions, as opposed to, say, Confusionism or Buddhism or Islam? I can only respond out of my own experiences. I am a linear thinker, and therefore must have concrete evidence that something works the way it says it will. In the 36 years I have walked with God, I have yet to see any Biblical principle disproven. I have heard of many people who have not experienced everything written, and I cannot account for them, but my experiences with the word have lined up with what it says. As far as people doing things out of an inate goodness, my wife is the best example I have seen of that. But she recognizes her own need of God and follows Him better than I do. You said earlier that you do not sense any lack of or need of some spiritual experience. That is fine, because that is where you are right now. I believe that any hunger for God must be developed in the person’s heart by the Holy Spirit. You will have that time. It boils down to whether you think you have enough of your own righteousness to satisfy God when you stand before Him to answer for your deeds. I am happy to leave that decision up to you. I esteem you as a person of no guile (false pretenses).
Brendon- Forgive me if I seem to be discecting the word for my own benefit. I do not have that intention. I like to consider the whole council of God in matters, but for sake of brevity on this blog, I will not lay it all out here. People have written whole books to Biblically support support of just one idea. As far as using the Bible to explain away ones’ own behavior, this only separates a person from God. 1st. John says that he who says he has no sin decieves himself, and the truth is not in him. He who confesses and forsakes his sin shall be forgiven and cleansed. This is not a one time experience but, rather, a lifestyle. Truth is recognizing how you align with what God says and then agreeing with Him. You are not telling Him anything He doesn’t already know. He justs wants to know that you recognize yourself.
Kiffi- I think you have some good points there, and I hope the discussion can continue. I think this is where the rubber meets the road. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying in your 3rd. paragraph of post 41, so maybe you can clarify it for me and we can discuss this further.
Griff: While we wait for your treatise, here is mine:
I find it amazing that scientists forge ahead with faith that the world is orderly and intelligible, yet claim that faith has no part in scientific discovery. If the world were not intelligible, and hence, have no intelligent design, all of the scientific theories would be unintelligible.
For example, the intelligent design of evolution was “revealed” to Darwin, and is still being revealed to us today. Intelligent design is the theory; evolution (or some form of it) is the proof.
Reason needs faith to proceed forward, and to direct it to its ultimate purpose - to lend meaning to the act of being. A reason that lends itself to only exploring and explaining the empirically verifiable is an impoverished, and ultimately, useless reason.
However, faith needs reason to lend order to beliefs, and to expose faith’s weakness when it becomes too arrogant, or contradictory. A faith which contradicts reason is a disbelief system.
I am a Christian because science can offer me no satisfactory explanation for why there is evil, why life should have meaning, or, more simply, why my mother loves me unconditionally. The Catholic Church tries to offer an explanation in all of her teachings. But, even her extensive teachings are insufficient to satisfy my right hemisphere’s search for answers.
At those times when reason fails me, I remember my faith and the story of Jesus of Nazareth, who preached that we should love another as we love ourselves, and preached that unconditional love is possible if we remember that God loves us. Then, I gaze upon the cross and see a man who died the life of a criminal because he preached this. I remember that he did not shirk from this death, but embraced it.
I think that this dude was either crazy, or he understood something about life and death that I want to know. I’m putting my money on the latter. Reason tells me that even if the God of which he spoke does not exist, that Jesus’s way is the right way, the truth, and the life. What person, atheists included, would not hold Jesus up as a model for his or her life? What greater example is there than a man who gave up his life so that even his enemies would know the truth of human existence?
Oh, not the Intelligent Design idea, again. Did you go that direction, David L?
Something for the non-evolutionist and the evolutionist to ponder: Read Genesis again. First man is created and then animals, and then a little later in Genesis (the very next page, infact), the Bible says animals were first and then man. So evolution can’t be counted out, and we might worry about reading the Bible literally.
And man isn’t able to make life from ‘no life’. Or…. I’m right about that, aren’t I… what’s the latest?
Intelligent Design is just a fancy way to say “God must have done it?” Yes?
Ack.
Let’s bring in the Gnostic gospels for fun, eh? Who’s read Judas? Or Mary?
Holly: Intelligible design, not intelligent design.
I have faith you all will be touched with his noodly appendage.
oh, Intelligible design. That’s like “mesoblic carpet.”
Tony, laughing once more about the Noodly appendage. But, on a serious note, If ONLY I could get you to believe in what I believed…
Why do you need me to believe what you believe. These are the pastafarians:
The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts”
1. I’d really rather you didn’t act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject.
2. I’d really rather you didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I’d really rather you didn’t judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we’re talking about fashion and I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I’d really rather you didn’t indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is “go f yourself,” unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I’d really rather you didn’t challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.
6. I’d really rather you didn’t build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I’d really rather you didn’t go around telling people I talk to you. You’re not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can’t you take a hint?
8. I’d really rather you didn’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it’s a piece of rubber. If I didn’t want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.
Brendon- You do a very good job of differentiating between a religion and what I experience as a Christian. I define my particular experience in Christianity as a relationship, not a religion. I agree with your assesment that religions are a superficial layer between the real person and reality. I only differ with you on this one statement, “…I believe people are innately good…” Having raised 5 children through their two’s, I can attest to what the Bible states, that man’s only intent is evil. I have heard it put this way, that children are born little savages, and they need to be domesticated. The last half of your statement, “… or, at least, act in ways that lessen their chances of being killed or hurt by others…” reminds me of a passage in Proverbs 19, NAS:Proverbs
{19:25} Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd,
But reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge.
2002 (C) Bible. I don’t believe that just because a person learns self preservation it automatically makes him good or righteous or is any kind of indication that he is.
I was once at the same place you are, convinced that religion was a waste of time and effort. It was not until I was confronted with and recognized my own need and inability to fulfill that need that I found reality in the Holy Spirit. I attribute this to a work of God, not anything I or anyone else conjured up. The only thing I “did” in the process was to agree with God and respond. That is where my free will enters in. Nothing was forced off onto me, nor can I force anything I have off onto another. But the invitation is open for anyone who wants to come along.
Anthony- Your treatise on pastafarians is amusing. It reminds me of a passage in Jeremiah: NAS:Jeremiah
{10:2} Thus says the LORD,
“Do not learn the way of the nations,
And do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens
Although the nations are terrified by them;
{10:3} For the customs of the peoples are delusion;
Because it is wood cut from the forest,
The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.
{10:4} “They decorate it with silver and with gold;
They fasten it with nails and with hammers
So that it will not totter.
{10:5} “Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they,
And they cannot speak;
They must be carried,
Because they cannot walk!
Do not fear them,
For they can do no harm,
Nor can they do any good.”
2002 (C) Bible
I don’t mean to offend your “diety”, but I think the discription above is accurate. Perhaps (s)he has been hitting the wrong sauce. And I suppose the next thing you will tell me is to cheese it.
John, pardon me if I am wrong, but if you do hit the sauce, don’t you get cheese automatically eventually? I’m just a city kid, so I really don’t know if this is true or not.
Bright- So, you’re a night owl, too, huh? I thought it was cirrhosis, not cheese.
John — don’t worry about the name mix-up; I understand how that happens! I’m struck by your comment about evil. Perhaps you were making a joke, but on the face of your comments your definition of evil must differ from mine, which includes deliberately causing harm while possessing a full understanding that others have a right not to be harmed and that they feel pain, fear or sorrow equivalent to one’s own. All children need to learn to think of others — it is probably the most important lesson there is, and through traumatic upbringings or other factors some people never do learn it (the lack of that understanding is the very definition of sociopathy, which I’ll agree can be equated with evil, but not in a very young child, and is by definition a pathology, not a normal condition). But a two-year-old’s volatility, self-centeredness, limit-testing, and lack of self-control surely should not be considered evil. I have on the whole been very impressed by how readily my children learned to show compassion and be reasonable human beings (my son made noises that very clearly indicated something like “thank you” before he could talk and we certainly weren’t teaching it to him at that point other than by the natural example of our own behavior). Sure, they reserve for their siblings some of their worst behavior, and sometimes they really do mean to cause pain, and parents have to be parents and teach acceptable behavior and make sure there are age-appropriate consequences for violating those standards, but to call a normal two-year-old’s behavior evil rather than naughty or willful or uncivilized seems overblown, doesn’t it?
Or maybe I just had exceptionally good kids!
On rereading my comments I’ll take out the the part of my definition of evil that includes an understanding that others have the right not to be harmed. I was thinking of a child’s coming to have that understanding, but forgetting that some cases of evil in someone past childhood can be defined precisely by a refusal to accept that others have such a right.
I recall from my law school days that the English common law considered seven to be the age of reason. Before that age, children were not considered capable of moral responsibility for their actions. That reflects a decent understanding of cognitive development, I’d say. The Wikipedia entry for this term notes:
This whole deal with quoting the bible got me thinking, which evil things can I prove through quoting the bible. A simple google search found this.
slavery:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
sacking towns cause they don’t believe.
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
David L, I agree, Jesus is a darn good model for one’s life. Jesus and Buddha both, actually.
Most mainstream churches and synagogues already ignore much about the God of the Old Testament (especially, as Tony indicated above, God as presented by Deuteronomy and Leviticus) since he’s a psychotic bully much of the time. (Yes, I’ve read Dawkins.)
So I think the cognitive revolution that David Brooks talked about behooves mainstream Christian religions to likewise quit with the low probability stuff of the New Testament (virgin birth, resurrection, heaven, hell, etc) and focus on what’s helpful about Jesus’ message.
I’m fine with the theism that you say helps give your life meaning, but I don’t think it’s necessary to live a happy, constructive life. I try to live by the laws of the universe that Jesus and Buddha have pretty much nailed. The more I do so, the better my life is, and the more content I am that my ‘afterlife’ is the impact I’ve had while I was alive and that will live on after me for a bit.
I understand why the ‘personal God/Jesus loves me’ belief can be helpful to people but it’s just as often harmful as it leads to intercessionary (false) prayers, eg “Please God, don’t let my child die of cancer” which ultimately prove themselves false and drive people away from the possibility of helpful, true prayer.
Plus, the cognitive revolution is telling us that the feeling of being loved by God or Jesus is just a right-brain experience… as Brooks said, “people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love.”
I can quiet the noisy, ego-infested chatter of my left brain with a meditative mantra, praying the Rosary, or going for a mindfulness walk in the Arb.
When I do that and ask for inspiration, it comes. Every time. Reliable as gravity. This higher/deeper level of consciousness is there for the asking.
I think the Buddha was better at preaching the benefits of this “self-awareness” module than Jesus. Or maybe it’s just that the writers of the New Testament missed it or misinterpreted it.
ya griff, I used the old testament on purpose. That’s what Mr. George posted in response to the “I really wish you didn’t”. I am gonna use IRWYD from now on. Too much typing.
I agree with a lot of Griff said. Jennie goes to church on sundays, I go for a run. It pretty much serves the same purpose. It cleanses us spiritually.
Those of you who have difficulty with the “traditional” view of the Bible might enjoy the work of Marcus Borg, a Jesus and Bible scholar who presents a different way of understanding the Bible, i.e., the Old Testament as the Hebrews’ story of their relationship with God and the New Testament as the early Christians’ story of their relationship with Jesus, while not disparaging traditional views if those views work for the people who have them. That’s a very simplistic, one-sentence summary (which I hope is not inaccurate) of a large body of work encompassing decades of scholarly research.
Barb, thanks for the reading suggestion.
I’d like to add a few to the list–
Crossan, Who Killed Jesus (hmm, maybe it wasn’t the crowd)
Pagels and King, Reading Judas (weird?)
This Hebrew Lord, Spong
Oh, and I wish John George would have gone on in his quotation. Jeremiah 29:11–For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
Maybe God’s plan (for at least one of us?) is to make a difference here:
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
also, one of my favorite shows on tv is morgan sperlock’s 30 days. he will take 1 person of one way of thinking and put them into a situation where he or she is surrounded by people will polar opposite opinions.
one that everyone should watch is this one:
http://www.tkfu.com/pdfs/30%20Days–S02E03–Atheist.avi
I reccommend watching it with the VLC player. thats the only player that this worked with.
I’ll have to watch. Thanks
Griff- In your post #58, you said,”Most mainstream churches and synagogues already ignore much about the God of the Old Testament (especially, as Tony indicated above, God as presented by Deuteronomy and Leviticus) since he’s a psychotic bully much of the time. (Yes, I’ve read Dawkins.)” This is why I said I like to take the whole council of God. The characteristics of lovingkindess (176 references) and mercy(42 references) attributed to God in the OT don’t seem to line up with Dawkins’ evaluation of God as a “psychotic bully.” God has never changed. Our perception of Him changes as our revelation of Him does. And Jesus did not come to relace the law of the OT but to fulfill it, which is something IO cannot do in my own strength.
It seems much of the discussion of religions here has centered around what we must “do” and not around what we must “be”. I see a difference. I find 35 references in the scriptures exhorting believers to “be holy”. I find no references to “do holy things.” See the difference? That is why we refer to Christianity as a relationship with God that changes us from the inside out. All other religions rely on our own strength to “do the right thing”, as if we actually had some inate power within us to always do good.
Penny, I know you have a problem with this concept that men are not inately good, but I have observed this reference, NAS:Ecclesiastes
{7:20} Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins, to be true. That being the case, what do we do with our sin? Christianity is the only “religion”, if you will, that provides a provision for sin. According to this refernce, NAS:Revelation
{12:10} Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,
“Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.
{12:11} “And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.
2002 (C) Bible, we have an accuser. I would prefer Jesus to be my defense attorney in this trial. I included v. 11 because there is a cost to following Him. We Christians have had it pretty easy in this country, but in most other countries of the world, especially Islamic countries, a person is taking their life in their own hands to take a public stand as I have here. And, my concern is that we are moving toward that actually happening her in the good old USA, as Christian principles begin to butt heads with certain social shifts, such as gay marriage.
.
My problem is not with the notion that people are not innately good, it is with the notion that they are innately evil, denying that they have any innate tendency toward good. Reason based on everything I’ve learned in almost 50 years tells me that people have the capacity for both, and that the teaching and examples they receive from their parents and the culture around them have a great deal to do with how they turn out. As David L. noted, reason has to be part of the equation, or you lose me at the get-go.