The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > I am not a Catholic, a Muslim or a Baptist ... > Comments

I am not a Catholic, a Muslim or a Baptist ... : Comments

By Joel Bevin, published 22/3/2010

By attaching labels to religions, society promotes the unintended consequence once membership has been attained: inertia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I read this forum daily and with great enjoyment. However, your article is the first that has made me want to respond with this much excitement and enthusiasm. Yes, I am a priest and not a priest, a believer and not a believer and some of what you say I might have paused longer over. But the drift of the whole moved me deeply and with you I would want to celebrate our shared humanity without the limiting labels. Thanks for taking the time to share your heart. I hope you write much because i will look forward to engaging your thoughts and your passion more often.
Posted by Bill Lawton, Monday, 22 March 2010 12:13:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amen

However most people need the security of belonging as part of, confirmation of their identity as a person.
Sadly these labels have baggage both implicit and or inferred. one must sell that same 'identity' to others i.e. I'm a christian, Australian or a Collingwood supporter. The more important that label is to the individual the more extreme,intolerant,Chauvinist they tend to be. it then becomes a competition a battle for power arguing conflict a Malthusian justification.

Personally I reject them all.
Posted by examinator, Monday, 22 March 2010 12:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<< Personally I reject them all. >>>

Especially Collingwood.
Posted by Severin, Monday, 22 March 2010 2:38:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joel does sound well intentioned and yet ultimately he can't see the sin of wanting to be god. He writes

'But I am none of these things as well. I simply follow a path that makes sense to me. '

By calling your yourself a Christian you do not lose the ability to ask 'why' as the author indicates. You simply face the reality of your own sin and accept that Someone actually knows a lot better than you do. This is an affront to many intellectuals who despite miserable personal failure still insist that they can take the high moral ground. Labels certainly can and are hidden behind but Joel is really saying that he is a non denominational agnostic. Joel's faith in humanity can and will only lead to despair and hopelessness. One day he will wake up to the fact that our goodness comes only from God. Take God out the equation and you end up with Hitler, Mao, Stalin and abortion (killing babies). Joel is obviously not an observer of human nature.
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 March 2010 2:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner

The only one I see here playing God is you by Joel telling what he means and what he is saying. You cannot speak on another persons behalf and my view is that Joel has done and excellent job speaking for Joel
Posted by Daviy, Monday, 22 March 2010 4:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is just a brilliant article by JOEL BEVIN so beautifully articulated, so obviously the truth it should be compulsory reading in school curriculums across the world.

Of course there are none so blind as he who will not see. Very many people who believe THIS IS THE ONLY TRUTH when it comes to specific religions fit the will not see catergory.

I think they choose not to see.
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 22 March 2010 5:53:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner <take God out of the equation and you end up with Hitler,Mao,Stalin and abortion.>

God was very much in the equation when it comes to the Jews and Hitler. The Jews were very devout followers of the Christian God. Where was he when Hitler gassed them all? After all their devotion and years of sacrifice and worship. Where was he? Shouldn't he at least have worked behind the scenes to bring about some barrier to this happening.

Bring God into the equation and you also have Bloody Mary Queen of England who cut off many heads simply because they refused to believe in the Catholic faith. Religion, offers followers the perfect excuse for genocide. If you are not of God, then you must be of the devil like the Infidels or the Heretics. It is not wrong to kill the devil is it? In fact it is a brave and noble act.

Speaking of the right to live you have the recent George Bush(a devout Christian), refusing permission for some poor woman who had been in a hopeless vegetative state for 20years to have her life support turned off because of his belief in the right to life while at the same time he has the American Army bombing Iraq.

If life is God's to give and take, then how come man interfered with God's will by keeping the above mentioned girl alive for 20years by artifical means, how do they know God did not have some unknown reason for her to die? They are in effect just as guilty of playing God in that case too. What about people who should have died at the scene of a road accident but are kept alive by man playing God. It seems that religious people like to suit themselves about what is Gods will and what isn't.
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 22 March 2010 6:01:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JOEL BEVIN:-BY ATTACHING LABELS TO RELIGIONS SOCIETY PROMOTES THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ONCE MEMBERSHIP HAS BEEN ATTAINED-INERTIA

OR-She'll be right mate because God will take care of it.
Translated this means- we don't have to take any practical steps or think about it too much because we will be protected.

I think that is probably the exact thinking that made the Jews so passive in the face of Hitler's agression.
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 22 March 2010 6:22:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cherful

It was Hitler playing God that led to the slaughter of the Jews. God was where He always has been (on His throne) seeing what happens when men think they are God. God was also on His throne when His Son hung on the cross for your wickedness and mine. He is also the God that has again brought Israel together as a nation despite wicked men trying time and time again to wipe this people out. Yes sin, death and man's arrogance leads to horrible events but its not surprising when one looks at human nature whether it is hiding behind religion or atheism. It would be nice to think you are a part of the problem Cherful but I have bad news for you. You are!

I would say that if you take God out of the equation and you bring in the devil. The Catholic church has had much blood on its hands along with others who have put themselves in the place of God. North Korean and Chinese Governments are good examples of this.

Personally I would agree with you in regards to life support. Considering Jesus healed many who were sick that came to Him I can not see people receiving medical support at the scene of an accident as playing God. I would see it more as serving His purposes.

The fact that Christians more than any other group in history ( except maybe Government funded junkets) provide for the poor, needy and downcast shows that many in fact don't have the 'She'll be right, God will take care of it attitude'. In fact many see it as their responsibility to serve humanity as Christ did because of their faith
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 March 2010 6:56:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joel,

Since you apparently do not believe in God you are first and foremost an atheist.

Welcome aboard!
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 12:44:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I imagine a world where humans believe in whatever makes sense to them. I dream of judgment being based on how we live rather than on what we wear around our necks, the amount of flesh we expose and the type of building we kneel at. May belief prosper but may the labels that we gain without discretion disappear. Let the world consist of only one label, the label of humanity."

I imagine a world where humans believe in things that they have evidence for. I dream of judgment being based on logic and reason rather than in attempting to please Sky Fairies. My belief without justification disappear, and the decisions that affect people's lives be based on the best possible evidence and the clearest logic. Let the world consist of only one guide to decision-making, the principle of rationality.

Confounding several illogical systems does not produce a logical one.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 4:49:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually stevenlmeyer, I am not an anything. I don't claim, like every religion does, including yours, to know the answers for why we are here and where we are going.

There may be a God, a heaven, a hell and even 72 virgins waiting in paradise, but to begin to speak with certainty about this seems to me to be a little naive. I much prefer to let those questions go unanswered (although constantly philosophised) and live according to what I believe is right with no definite end result.
Posted by Joelfsb, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:07:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And runner, surely the fact i don't even know what a 'non denominational agnostic' is must by default exclude me from membership?

Yes, faith in humanity does lead to despair at times, and pride at others. Yet in those times of despair, I do not feel the need to turn to some other being to explain/justify actions. Humans are imperfect creatures and it is only through these imperfections, these contrasts, that life continues to evolve and amaze.
Posted by Joelfsb, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:19:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joel

I think you misunderstand what it is to be an atheist.

First a definition.

In what follows the word "God" refers to a "personal God" – the sort of deity invoked by the "Abrahamic" faiths who answers prayers and intervenes in the workings of the universe.

With that definition in mind, an atheist is someone who:

--Thinks the probability that "God" exists is either vanishingly small or zero

--Lives his or her life as if there is no "God"

--MOST IMPORTANTLY, would change his or her mind if presented with evidence for the existence of "God"

The last point is really what distinguishes atheists from "theists". Give us the evidence and we'll change our minds.

Now in what way does that differ from the way you live your life?

If I have misrepresented the stance of any atheists here feel free to correct me.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 9:55:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A question for all of you.

Since when has religion had anything to do with God (if it exists)? Since when would God require lawyers to explain its will to the people of this Planet? Saying 'I am not a Catholic…….' can only clear the path to any God that may exist by by-passing the blasphemers who claim to be the dispensers of God's Law to the masses.
To quote Jesus
Woe unto you Pharisees
You are the keepers of the way of knowledge.
You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow others to enter.
And the key lies rusty in the lock.

Ps Hitler was a Catholic who was never excommunicated.
Posted by Daviy, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:04:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven,

Not believing in a 'god' and being able to be convinced that a 'god' exists. are two separate issues.

It's like AGW some people will go to extraordinary level to avoid facing the facts. i.e. some of the conspiracy theories pertaining to this are mind boggling. Yet they most often claim to be sceptics.
Dawkins is one such non believer even if god appear to him in the flesh the atheistic author would still not believe.Because to do so would invalidate his life's work and what he sees as essentially him.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:27:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator

How would you know if it was "God" and not a very intelligent alien being?

I suppose if it could recite the Bible word for word... but then I would have to point out that it had done some very nasty vindictive stuff and, therefore, could not be a god.... by which time I would be turned to stone, or smote or something. I really hope that the god of the Abrahamic religions does not exist - not a very good example of behaviour.

I suspect Dawkins would say something similar except in more scientific and erudite terms than yours truly.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 12:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Steven.

Joel, welcome aboard.

Daviy,

<<Since when has religion had anything to do with God (if it exists)?>>

I don’t know.

Since when has anyone here claimed that a God or Gods MUST necessarily have something to do with religion if they/it exist?

Examinator,

<<It's like AGW some people will go to extraordinary level to avoid facing the facts. i.e. some of the conspiracy theories pertaining to this are mind boggling. Yet they most often claim to be sceptics.>>

So what are the “facts” that some (I presume you’re talking about Dawkins et al again) ignore to deny the existence of any Gods?

What are the “conspiracies theories” (or anything similar) that have been pertained to in order to avoid these “facts”?

<<Dawkins is one such non believer even if god appear to him in the flesh the atheistic author would still not believe.Because to do so would invalidate his life's work and what he sees as essentially him.>>

Pretty bold statement for someone who had to cut and run the last time they were held to account for unsubstantiated claims of a similar nature.

Are you able to provide any evidence for your assertion this time?
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 1:06:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicely put Joel, a refreshingly open and honest article. I was left with how well you identified the contradictions of man made religions.

Of the thousands of religions and possibly millions of rules, each has something to offer. Many of the rules are no longer relevant to modern society; many rules are only acceptable or tolerable for those who commit to a particular “brand”, perhaps the price of compromise one pays for the sense of belonging?

Other rules are, as you identified, simply good human values that can be adopted to help us be better humans.

I share your view in relation to the “failure to question and renew” in order for institutional religions to mature. Your observation that any << correction or retraction would be seen to diminish a religion’s permanence, legitimacy and truth. >>, is possibly due to the fact that each religion has “sold a brand image” which needs to be preserved.

One really neat way to get around this problem is of course theology, which is used to explain the inexplicable bits. Theology is the one area of growth for religions. Whilst the fundamentals of have not changed, the shear volume and complexity of the theological explanations is mind blowing. It seems that religions are creating more explanations to counter the emerging reality threats from modern society. This protects the brand image whilst countering the contradictions, conflicts and schizophrenia.

Thanks for your thoughts.

examinator, you misquoted yourself again.

<< It's like AGW some people will go to extraordinary level to avoid facing the facts. >> You mean “your facts” not “the facts”.

<< some of the conspiracy theories pertaining to this are mind boggling >> You mean, anyone not sharing your view is a conspiracy theorist and you don’t like the fact that there are so many other views.

<< Yet they most often claim to be sceptics >>. You mean your case is weak and unconvincing so it’s someone else’s fault, sceptics?

Just replace your word “AGW” and put in the word “religion”. Now tell us where that leaves you? Ooops!
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 9:40:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joel’s stance may well be a most suitable environment in which to reconcile conflict of opinion… to cultivate ‘allioli’…To begin with, substitute the word science for religion in the article and Richard Dawkins may well have a problem.

The very issues Joel raises, apply equally well to orthodox science. There, the hierarchal professors replace the papal hierarchy, and require the aspiring student to conform, with suitable inertia, to the accepted dogma. The heretic’s independent thought is simply labelled pseudo-science and dismissed as error, since they are the authorities, they know and set the agenda. Peer pressure insures the rules are followed in order to attain favourable grants.

Joel was not quite right to consider “the failure to question and renew seems reckless ..” Nor was Cherful correct in stating, “The Jews were very devout followers of the Christian God” (Forum comment7/22 Mar 2010). The Christian God is in fact a Roman creation which began with Tertullian.

Responding somewhat disrespectfully to Jacqui Ninnio’s thoughts on her ideas about
“G-D”, Tony Jones turned to Richard Dawkins and asked, “Richard, do you regard that as just clever sophistry?” To which Dawkins replied, “I was wondering what on earth it meant, I must say”(QandA, ABC TV, 8 Mar 2010). Clearly, Dawkins had forgotten what he had written in “The God Delusion” p 14 – 20. Perhaps, this tome should have been labelled “The God Confusion”, not “relusion”(see p5 n2>p388). Unequivocably, Dawkins aligns himself with some of Albert Einstein’s views which clearly reflect an evolutionary trend within the TaNaK, and Jewish thought.

The Hebrew mindset is radically different to the Roman. Indeed, Jewish exclusivity,
irritating though it is, has undoubtedly been a successful ploy to avoid being subdued by authoritarian arrogance, and so retain the independent human right of freedom to think.

contin

shmuel
Posted by shmuel, Monday, 29 March 2010 11:35:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

While accepting there are many questions not needing an answer, Joel’s wish for constant philosophical thoughts (comment 12/23 Mar 2010) certainly has been alive and well, though clearly suppressed by both the dominant science and religion. Aussie philosopher David Stove wrote “Who is the most important thinker of the present century? Einstein, many would say. I am too ignorant, unfortunately, to judge whether that is true. Change the question a little: which thinker is the most important for the light he has thrown on human and terrestrial affairs?
Freud? Wittgenstein? Konrad Lorenz? These answers I can judge, and I do not agree with any of them. My answer is, Immanuel Velikovsky.
This opinion is considered eccentric to the point of being disgraceful, even by some of my own friends. Certainly, most scientists and historians still regard Velikovsky as they regarded him at first: that is, as a crank or a charlatan.”(Quadrant, October 1983 p75-76).
The rest of the article is well worth reading.

Velikovsky claimed the right to fallibility, and indeed erred on many points. But his lone prediction concerning the temperature of Venus proved uncannily correct. Subsequently, Carl Sagan and his orthodox scientific cohorts responded with the ad hoc greenhouse theory. From this, AGW exponent James Hansen wrote his degree thesis. Much information has been suppressed in the global warming hysteria.

The “pseudo-science” of plasma cosmology is now rapidly advancing to become the new paradigm for the twenty-first century. Alternative science and religion are helping to build a much more satisfactory spiritual identity for the layman…

shmuel
Posted by shmuel, Monday, 29 March 2010 11:36:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and not only the temperature of venus but that it turned in the opposite direction fifty years before they sent a rocket up.
He also suggested bacteria came from space, an idea stolen by another scientist whose name slips my mind.
On the subject of religion , it is well known the gospels were cobbled together by Constantines spin doctor who left a few of them out because they would create civil unrest.
The bible needs updating or how can you take it seriousl
Posted by DOBBER, Monday, 5 April 2010 11:06:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy