Bill Bill Bill rewriting history again Hitler, Stalin and even pol pot were religious stop saying they weren't. All three believed in the super natural a quick read of their speeches and writing will reveal that.
Secularism has been the key to the west success and agnostic's and reality based ideas like Atheism is the key to our future. Even Christian seen the folly of their ways that’s way they ignore half of their own rules.

Ah Kenny, you beat me to it. My first thought in response to this article was indeed that Hitler was religious, and perpetrated a large number of acts of violence against others predominantly on religious grounds.

But Bill Muehlenberg also misses the point on the evolution (no pun intended) of society. Firstly, while Bill is around, there isn't going to be a massive and overnight shift away from organised religion so that we can all watch the grass grow (whatever TS Eliot may have believed).

Secondly, I don't believe that it is necessary (as Bill so clearly does) for people to engage with organised religion in order to live according to values that some people seem to see as exclusively "Christian" (but which are present in other religions also) and certainly the absence of church-going is not ad hoc ergo propter hoc for turning people into covetous murderers.

Thirdly, I'm all for people speaking out on behalf of RELIGION if that is what they are doing, but Bill takes a very particular slant: that CHRISTIANITY is the religion most worthy of defence. It's assertions like this: which claim to be the broadest possible church (another unintended pun) but which represent one sector of the organised religions in the world which get secularists all hot and bothered. And before some one accuses me of being PRO any particular religion, I'm thinking of Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikh, as well as Judaism, Islam, Wicca and Jedi (oops, not really a religion yet, is it?).

People should feel free to subscribe to a religion if they wish, but the views of secularists should not be dismissed merely because they don't have the trappings of centuries of organised religion behind them.

It seems to me that Bill doth protest too much, just as he has accused Pamela Bone of doing.

John Shelby Spong's weekly newsletter for this week looks at the anger that seems to underpin much of what goes on within different religions.

I see that some atheists, too, can behave very "fundagelically", but that no more condemns all atheists, agnostics or secular humanists than does Bone's condemnation of Christians or Muslims, etc.

As a happy non-believer, I get the feeling that it is "religion" that is more the problem than genuine Christianity - being a follower of Jesus, or Islam - being a follower of Mohammed. Any group which works on a theory of being the only ones with the truth and of consigning everyone else to Hell, is, in effect, telling the rest of us to "Go to Hell!" Not very charitable are they?

Well, Bill

Your comment: "While most religions are based on faith, some, notably Christianity, are based on faith informed by reason", is a trifle elitist.

I left Christianity for the very reason that blind faith leads so many of their flock to be unreasonable, often disgustingly amoral, bigotted and smugly superior. Not all, I hasten to add.

Having lived a life immersed in humanitarian work, I note that the majority of my colleagues are not religious themselves, but are generally tolerant and welcoming of religious workers. Some Christians are tremendously Christian, many are not.

The argument that West owes its success to Christianity may be true, but it also begs the question "Is Christianity, then, also responsible for the many inhumane, exploitative, murderous feats of capitalism that have taken place?"

The argument that moral values have to come from religion, not through secular humanistic belief, is just plain insulting.

There is good and bad in all belief systems. Depending on their standpoint, most people swear by one or the other, and put down the rest, but that's just their tribal nature coming out.

The good thing about these debates, including your essay, Bill, is that people are slowly working through this smug battle of supremacy for moral virtue.

Bill
Where do I start to critique your strange spin...sorry essay.

1) You assert that although religious people have killed others this was viewed as an aberation. Rubbish!
The crusades were viewed at the time as a righteous enterprise. The pope even declared that "this is the only slaughter which is righteous". Some at the time may well have objected but they were in a minority.

2) Up until the enlightenment the fondest wish of the persecuted was to become the persecutors. This is found time & again in religious history. Augustine even argues in "the city of god" that the church not only has a right but a duty to persecute unbelievers.

you quote Durant to support your case. Hardly a great suprise that Durant [who was an evangelical christian] would say the society needs christianity is it? He's also hardly a great source of knowledge. His methodology is biased & his conclusions considered outdated.

You argue that christianity is a faith based on reason. Absolutely. Until reason contradicts the faith. Then reason is abandoned. Christianity's view of reason is best shown by Anselm "Reason must ever be the handmaid of faith; never the reverse"

But while we're quoting authorities try Voltaire. "those who can make us believe absurdities can make us commit atrocities."

You have got to be kidding me....

Religion is the root cause of the majority of conflict. Live in denial all you like, your beliefs and your segregation by way of worship are contributing to these atrocoties.

Last century may have been the bloodiest, but i put it forward it was due to population surges, advances in technology and the world in general being too small a place for expanding, yet conflicting religions.

You must realise your argument is as silly as a drug user saying pot is better than heroin, but you are even worse off if you dont use drugs at all, and non drug users are the reason we break into houses and darken society.

You are as brainwashed as any other god botherer out there, despite your obvious intelligence. What a shame your one eye cant see that.

By taking off her very tinted secularist glasses, she may find a world in disarray and breakdown, not because of religion, but because of religion’s enemies.”

There seems to be a lot of pots and kettles this month in OLO. If Bill took off his tinted religious glasses, he would see that his comment is equally, if not more so, applicable to religion than secularism.

Now for the lesson:
“Secular: not pertaining to or connected with religion”

Does this mean that religion is wrong or of no value? I dare say not. Religion is used by some as a moral guide. Just as others use different benchmarks for their decision making and guidance.

A secular society is not one that devalues or discards religion. It is simply one that places it squarely where it should be. In the heart and mind of the individual.

Once there, its purpose is to guide the individual. Not justify the decisions they make to the world at large.

Is it so hard for some to see that by justifying what you do through a faith others do not hold, you will never convince them of your reasoning?

The use of logic, fair mindedness and tolerance are the only public arena methods for persuading another. I would challenge every religious person to try this.

And one more thing. Schools, medical treatment and democracy are not the sole purview of Christianity. Pre-Christ societies had these as well. Not very truthful now, were you Bill?

The author said: 'It is religion that made the West healthy and wealthy, not the other way around.'

Can the author please define what he means by 'The West'? And assuming there actually is a 'West', there must be an 'East' as well.. wait a minute - the Earth is round! Which side is East and which is West?

This East and West (Orient and Occident) mentality was born in a time when European culture was plundering its way around the globe with unprecedented rapidity, bringing untold riches to the royal and merchant families of Europe. This led to industrialisation, and the rest is history..

We all have the tendency to ascribe consequences as the result of a belief system, even in science. In science faith may be necessary to propel research and belief may continue after experiments fail to demonstrate the required result. At this time for most of the scientific minds new questions are investigated.
In religion the initial proposition is the existence of a god whose existence cannot be proved.
This is similar to many propositions including communism, and democracy however to a degree these are testable propositions. The articles of faith are that such systems will bring the greatest benefit to most with little damage to non believers, though such may be subject to degree of coercion and emotional sweetmeats such as patriotism.

Religion argues that the benefits of secularism will also result from adherence as well as continuance of the human psyche.
In all cases unbelievers and infringers of the tenets of belief will be a threat but more so where the system remains one of faith not demonstration. Offenders of tenets central to the belief system can be and have been inhumnely treated. Believers have behaved as weapons involving suicide, classed as an aberration of the belief and thus excluded from the system. Such activity is far from rare as historical records show.
Why minds can accommodate opposing beliefs is a question which needs answering for currently fear breeds many such.
The Muslim religion kept hold of the better parts of the prevailing thoughts when the Christian was in disarray. Much that was kept were thoughts originating in the Greco Roman world not in Christianity.
Those like Hitler or George Bush are prepared to damage many in pursuit of belief. Inhumanity was and is common to each.

Uniform criticism of this sorry essay so far, and Im happy to join the chorus.

The argument that the major bloodletting this century was because of anti-religion is ridiculous. The first and second world wars were largely the result of the fragile power balance in Europe, presesnt after the centuries of faith based empires. I don't think either world war was religous or anti-religous, just a power struggle.

The large majority of conflicts since then have been ethno-nationalist conflicts in post-colonial countries. Communism has played its part in these, but to argue that secularism was the main cause is evidently wrong.

It is such a flawed piece that it is difficult even to raise the energy to dispute it.

Using the twentieth century as evidence of the increasing brutality of secularism conveniently ignores the shambles of 1914-18, where tens of thousands of souls were regularly sent to their deaths by their leaders, every one of whom went to church every Sunday. Are these people perhaps not to be considered religious? Or was it simply because the war itself was not a "religious" war? Check it out, the war was invariably sold (in England at least) as doing your duty to God and the King, and the battles were fought "with God on our side". Is this considered by the author to be part of secular fuzzy thinking?

But I did enjoy the article's last line.

>>she may find a world in disarray and breakdown, not because of religion, but because of religion’s enemies.<<

Oh, really?

Almost exclusively, religion's enemies turn out to be adherents not of atheism or agnosticism, but of another religion.

Certainly, the Islamic freedom-fighter who straps explosives to his person and self-destructs on a London bus does so in protest against atheists, but his definition of atheist conveniently includes anyone who doesn't follow his particular faith. So is the wrecked bus with bodies strewn across the a religious event, or a secular one?

An annoyingly trivial piece. I apologize for not being sufficiently strong-willed to ignore it completely.

The other, and I think more effective way to argue this is to admit that yes, religion is the root of all evil. By “religion” I do not just mean the historical gathered religions but the secular ones as well. Religion is any system of belief that holds the ultimate truth for the believer. Thus atheists are also religious as are secular humanists, rationalists etc. Religion is harmful because its ideology blinds us to the truth. That is secularisms complaint. So the fascism of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are classic religious stances writ large. Secular religions do seem to produce more misery than any of the historical religions.

I have argued that Christianity is not, strictly speaking, a religion in that it does not consist of blind ideology in its best forms but an unmasking of the truth. Secularists complain about this because it looks like exceptionalism. Everyone else’s religion is a religion except mine! But if you look particularly at the Old Testament you will find a continuing argument with religion. And certainly Jesus did not institute a new religion, he was against religion and religion murdered him. Christianity is the end of religion even though it may look to outsiders like any other religion.

We all put our trust in something. Pamela Bone trusts in the isolated rational self who is free to determine who she is. There is no such thing as a nonreligious person but there are Christians who understand the dynamics of religion and transcend them.

I would like to add another comment.

The author (who, it says at the bottom, is a PhD candidate) has titled his article 'Fuzzy thinking on Religion'.

Here's an article by Professor Bart Kosko, Ph.D., J.D., one of the world's leading mathematical experts on fuzzy logic and author of the 1993 bestseller 'Fuzzy Thinking'. It's entitled 'the Future of God', and represents a real article on 'Fuzzy thinking on Religion':

http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/GodEssays.D05/Future_of_God.pdf

Kenny Kenny Kenny. Stop rewriting history. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were not religious. Any reading of their statements on whether they were religious or not make this quite clear.

Atheism has caused more death in one century than Christianity has in 2000 years. Deal with it.

Kenny,

Yes we Christians have to answer for our lack of discipleship, we too are infected by individualism. We haven't answered the call of our baptism, but we can't remain deaf much longer time is running out. It was the Faith that saved Europe many times from conquest, lead to hospitals, universities, science, human rights, capitalism (the rise of reason) and it’s the only thing that will save it this time.

Niall Ferguson world famous Harvard historian and "incurable atheist" on the desperate need for Western Europe in particular to recover its faith in Christ. Though I lament his own lack of faith he has important things to say.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/31/ixopinion.html

Its smacks of desperation to equate that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao with Christian supernaturalism. That’s like equating Scientology with Christianity and this thoughtlessness is Bill's point in the article – dense generalizations about religion by people who simply do not know what they are talking about. Aussies need to be more thoughtful its extremely important.

Secular humanists make no bones about their attempt to create a new religion.
"While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, . . . to establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present." Secular humanist manifesto http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html

We are the densest age ever in relation to the transcendent.

We have been duped by National Socialism and its weird SS pagan rituals and chiliastic faith. Communism with Marx the archangel, Lenin the prophet, the revolution the Kindgom of God, economic determinism the creed. The perversion of right religion again now with the religion of materialism where God is not self existent the universe is, philosophical materialism ("the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind" a statement which itself cannot be proved scientifically) is the creed, scientists the priests initiating neophytes into the mysteries of the new faith. This all has nothing to do with science and everything to do with mystery religion – the ideological leap from facts to a particular philosophy (one can't derive values from mere scientific facts)

"I do not think there is a *demonstrative* proof (like Euclid) of
Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will & honesty
of my best & oldest friends. I think all three are (except the second) far
more probable than the alternatives. The case for Xtianity is well given by
Chesterton [in *The Everlasting Man*]; and I tried to do something in my
*Broadcast Talks*. As to *why* God doesn't make it demonstratively clear:
are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which wd. be a
compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are *we* interested in it
in personal matters? I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith which
is *certain* without demonstrative proof. It wouldn't be confidence at all
if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody
the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona's innocence when it was proved: but
that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia's love when it was proved: but
that was too late. 'His praise is lost who stays till all commend.' The
magnanimity, the generosity which will trust on a reasonable probability, is
required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why,
then you wd. have paid the universe a compliment it doesn't deserve. Your
error wd. even be so more interesting & important than the reality. And yet
how cd. that be? How cd. an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose
mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?"

CS Lewis

CALLING GECKO

"Blind faith"...... You would know my position re The Faith...I hope anyway :)

Let me give you an example of the very thing that ALL Christians should flee from.

A nearby Church had a pastor who's wife developed Cancer. It was what we normally term a 'Charistmatic' fellowship. (not said to criticize all such fellowships) She said publically and repeatedly "God is going to HEAL me"....and then died.

The impact on the church was devastating, basically it collapsed and people left and went elsewhere.

That.... seems like the 'blind' faith + a liberal dose of "God is my number 1 servant to do my beck and call"-ism.

I've had confidence in things I believe God is going to do, but I prefer to keep my cards close to my chest. I don't want to be guilty of bringing shame to His name due to my presumptiveness. Even when I experienced absolutely stunning and miraculous intant healing, I still could not bring myself to rave about it. (But that is one reason for my ever present zeal and confidence here)

The 'reason' Bill is talking about is a sound confidence in the basic Gospel as expressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15

[Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand....

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

...and last of all he appeared to me also.]

Now THAT...is confidence and sound reasoning.

You say you left Christianity, well I urge and encourage you to discover that which I believe you never left..... and find it for the first time mate. Find Him of whom it is said "For me... to live IS Christ" (Paul, in Galatians.)

Such confidence enables me to stand alone outside RMIT and share Christ with multitudes of students. To engage in street theatre and attend demonstrations and share with the organizers for the same reason. What a rush :)

I’m not familiar with the Pamela Bone article, but I am immediately suspicious of anyone who disagrees with anyone else calling the object of his or her censure, ‘ignorant’. According to Muehlenberg, Bone is ‘ignorant’ of religion and history. Bone also has a ‘hatred of all things religious’, according to this lecturer in ethics, and vice-president of the Australian Family Association.

It is odd, too, that a man with such lofty opinions of himself and his ideas can say that: ‘All the major blood-letting was the direct result, not of religion, but of anti-religion.’

What? What about the Crusades? What about Ireland? What about the Inquisition? What about the current murder and maiming being carried out in the name of Allah and Islam?

Perhaps all of these events result from individuals’ warped interpretations of religion, but it is clear that religion is wide open to any interpretation and is, therefore, guilty by default. Trying to ignore that and denigrate contrary opinions of religion is indicative of a closed mind, which produces epithets like ‘gross ignorance’ in an attempt to hurt, insult or defame a target.

Although I do not understand how anyone can believe in a higher power or any religious dogma, I have no problem with Christianity, if that’s what others want for themselves. But, people like Bill Muehlenberg leave me cold. I would like to believe that he is atypical of believers, and of the Australian Family Association. As for ‘ethics’ – well, they seem to be very much his own.

The issue is not that religion is good and non-religion is bad. It is about knowing and following the truth--the one true God, who created us and who owns us. That God has revealed himself in the Bible, through the prophets of Israel, and through His Son, Jesus Christ. It is Christ who is good, and when a nation follows Him, that nation is transformed.

What a remarkable comment made by Bill "the fact that it is the Judeo-Christian religious tradition in particular that gave birth to both the notion of human rights and modern science".

ROTFLMAO.

Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. What an absurd, inaccurate and outright deceptive lie that comes from the fingertips of this christling.

If this statement were true, one would expect closer similarities in HR and Science in Western (Roman) and Eastern (Byzantine) christian traditions. Where the Western tradition prospered, the East failed. Upon closer examination one finds that xianity did not appear in a vacuum. Cultures existed prior to xianity. The West was dominated with rich Celtic and Tutonic cultures, both already developing scientific and social ethos.

Xianity gave us the Dark Ages, and the burning of scientists as heretics. Even Gallileo was excomunicated for stating and proving the earth was not the centre of the universe. Until the Renaissance and Reformation, Xianity provided nothing but ignorance. Islam brought to Europe mathematics and medicine - not the other way around.

Instead of progressing the course of science, christianity was forced to accept facts and proofs - the Scientific Method evolved so as to stop the church burning the "heretics" as "Gods Works" could be shown to be part of "His Plan".

The Western Xian tradition has a science tradition not because of Xianity but INSPITE of it.

Its a shame people (such as Pam) seem to overlook that religion has also provided some of the greatest benefits to mankind. As one example, just look at the various aid organisations around - a signifiant proportion of these are run (or founded by) various religious organisations. The same can be said for many of the charities locally around Australia. Many religious entities in Australia provide a great service to their community.

Hilter is one of the classic examples of non-religious people who have slaughtered millions. A motivation no doubt from greed, and the quest to create the perfect race, than any such religious motive.

Lets not lump all religions together, but judge each one on its own merits.

Gecko you beat me to the draw. I too left Christianity because,inter alia,I could not reconcile belief in a loving/merciful God with an eternal hell.

If I were to write an apologia its opening paragraph would be:
Sin is personal, no-one can sin for you or on your behalf. Any religion based on your need for salvation because of someone else's sin is based on a non sequitur.
As for science and religion: if God had any respect for science He would not have written such an unscientific account of the creation.(Slightly off topic.)

Bill and Pamela both miss the point here. Technology and religion are ethically neutral. It the people using it who make it "good" or "bad".

The twentieth century saw more slaughter because we were technically capable. A hammer and axe can be used to build a house or to hit someone on the head.

Similarly religion can be used to spread social justice or to repress whole sections of the population. It just depends on how it is applied.

Sadly despite all our technology, our brains do not seem to have evolved since the stone age, as can be attested by 9/11, Abu Graihb, Screbernica and many other recent events.

Now only a dribbling fool would argue against the notion that creation augers well with 'evil-ution'
Maybe, just maybe this Creator has dumped m/kind into a super play pen. In this play pen or mortal, fleshy life we just act like normal selfish incredibly nasty humans. We belt one another with our spades and buckets, push each other over and, of course, steal from each other.
Now maybe, just maybe this is all in the plan of this Creator so we can see and experience the awfulness of and the results of sin or for you atheists read abnormal behaviour.
Now maybe, just maybe, at the end we will all- that's all including you God haters and pagans (just had to get that word in eh!) will be changed to live a spiritual eternal life.Just maybe eh? numbat

Thanks for the article Bill!
Looks like you've struck a 'raw nerve'!

Many have thought these issues through, quite regularly, evidently. However, many of their new rationalised positions - and view of all things - is based on a rejection of a rather 'thin' version of Christianity. For example, the rather lame 'I can't reconcile a God of mercy with a God who judges, and includes hell in the grand scheme of things'. I would say, it is time to explore some of the things that seem to be paradoxical.

Many posters, dislike any reminder of the Christian origins of a good society, such as Australia (For example: 21 of the top 23 charities in Australia, are Christian).

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2006/1716050.htm

Sunday school kids who got weary of mere moralism (like myself), just left it all (for a time).
But, sadly, many have only managed to displace a Christian world-view with a 'blame-it-on-the-past' hollow atheism, lack of thankfulness for present benefits, and a goal-less, secular society, going nowhere in particular. Many are still guilty ex-Sunday schoolers, with no substantial eschatology, or teleology - except that of a clearly misguided Marx.

The responses to your article, Bill, indicates that it is high time that history was studied well, as solid history, rather than in handy grab-bags.

The recent National Forum calling for 'Recognition of Australia's Christian Heritage', is quite timely, I am sure.

Highwave, you could do a search of the web and have a read of extracts of some of Hitlers speaches. There plenty out there as well as plenty of discussion about his religious beliefs. There is evidence to suggest that Hitler considered himself to be doing gods work and some evidence to the contrary. No real case to suggest that his work was an example of the work of someone who does not believe in the christain god.

There might also be a case to suggest that much of the need for those charities is a result of the efforts of the religious, the decimation of the culture and economies of much of the third world by "christian" colonial powers is something that most of those peoples have not recovered from yet. Many of those charities were started at a time when most of western society was "christian" (or else) and many have become secular in practice if not mission statement.

Numbat - I've not heard from you for a while. Welcome back.

R0bert

Perhaps there is yet a "third way". A way of seeing all of this which is closer to the truth.

By and of itself, religion is at worst harmless, at best a spiritual comfort - a language to describe feelings which are at odds with our materialistic existence. What's so wrong with that?

Yet time and again, religion is used by people who would have their way with us. It is the greatest con-trick in history. While the perpetrators get away with it, we obligingly scuffle about on the floor arguing about religious differences.

As a parallel, think about the War on Terror. While it is up to a small brown man (who may or may not have "things") to provide some semblance of a threat, it is up to us toolheads to imagine the terror - which we slavishly do. I could cry for shame. This is Australia 2006 and a fat lot we have to show for our fancy education.

The war in Lebanon was nothing to do with religion - NOTHING.

It was to do with oil, water, arable land and the prospect of immense personal profits. Yet we all donned the religious blindfold at the first peep of the dog-whistle.

Christianity is the religion that I chanced to be born into. It is by far the most serially abused ideology - the realm of profiteers, snake-oil salesmen and sociopathic murderers. Hardly a frame of reference from which to understand the world with an uncluttered mind. Jews and Muslims toil under the same yoke. All it takes is a cartoon here, a sly suggestion there, to overcome a world of common sense.

Just think, with a tool as powerful as Online Opinion, we could climb out of the primordial muck and confront those who would make monkeys of us.

- if we had a mind to.

I guess I don't care very much about religion. Not sure if there's a god or not, don't much care. But it seriously, seriously pisses me off when sanctimonious old farts like Bill try to suggest I'm either naive, defective or just plain stupid for not adopting their faith holus-bolus.

Have your religion Bill. Knock yourself out. But save the evangelising.

Anth

The examples of atheist wars vs religeous wars in this article were half-trues and falsehoods.

Not only was the technology in the 20th century capable of killing people on a much larger scale, but if you take into consideration that the world was (and still is) far more populated than it was in previous centuries, then I think it would be safe to say that religous wars (in proportion) were far worse.

Gecko and fdixit,

I too left Christianity after a strict Christian upbringing.

Firstly, because I could not believe in a God that would condemn someone to eternal torture for simply not believing and;

Secondly, I simply couldn't align myself with the elite, war-mongering, power-hungry and money-grubbing Christian Right.

Chris Shaw, you say:

"Christianity ...is... the most serially abused ideology - the realm of profiteers, snake-oil salesmen and sociopathic murderers. Hardly a frame of reference from which to understand the world with an uncluttered mind."

You are right to observe that you 'turn up' in a world - wherever you happen to be placed.
And snake-oil is prevalent everywhere. That is no valid reason to reject Christianity. Do you reject all people in life, because there are many highly deceitful people?

I can testify, that orthodox Christianity is an excellent frame of reference from which to understand the world. God in Christ, present at: 1. Creation. 2. Fall, and 3. Redemption.

The most complex world-view must surely be having to make sense of the world (from scientific facts alone), and then to debate some way forward, wherein humanity must first find (national or global) agreement, before they can begin to make any real headway!

The author, and most of his respondents, are entirely missing the point, because their arguments contain an unstated assumption that “human beings are fundamentally good, but [BOGEYMAN X] makes them do all these terrible things.”

What is the one thing that all these events have in common: the Crusades, the Mongol horde, the Inquisition, the Ottoman expansion, Spanish/British/Dutch/French/German/Russian/Japanese imperialism, the Pogroms, the Nazis, Facism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot, Balkan butchery, Hutu-Tutsi genocide, Islamo-facism?

Did anyone say “people”?

Seems silly to blame it all on a bunch of books, or the absence of them.

Mr Man: Careful reading of the Bible clearly shows that 'ever-lasting torturing hell fire' just does not exist and has never been. This idea of a fiery hell was used by those who wanted a malleable, compliant group of tithe paying followers. numbat

Martin's Link....Niall_Ferguson

here is a quote from it:

"But how far has our own loss of religious faith turned this country into a soft target - not so much for the superstition Chesterton feared, but for the fanaticism of others?"
Niall Ferguson.

A day or 2 ago, in my gym, I was chatting with a friend who told me his 2 sons are desperate to join the Army and obtain an overseas posting.. like Iraq or Afghanistan.

I asked him this "How do you sons feel about facing a 'pious young man who is relying on the help of Allah' and who doesn't care squat if he is killed because of the 70+Virgins that Ferguson relates from the mouth of suicide bomber Muktar Said-Ibrahim ?"

Apparently they still have 'Church Parade' a compulsory thing in the ADF.. quite surprising. But they study lots of faiths...

Men and Women here... all of you....are we going to be part of the vacuum that 'would be' Muktar Said Ibrahims fill ? or.. are we prepared to resolutely study the Faith, and see just how beautifully sound it is, and to rediscover any faith we once had, or discover Christ for the first time.. and to live for Him, and be able to say with Paul the great Apostle "For me to live is Christ... to die is gain" What greater strength can a man or woman have ? No man or woman living for Christ, would seek to die in any unChristlike manner, so please don't take this as a 'Christian suicide' guide.

Some of us have intellectual barriers.. but are they really ? perhaps they are moral barriers in disguise ? Philosophical barriers ? "Loving God and Just God" incompatible ? Not at all.

May we fulfill our Constitutional pre-amble.. Humbly seeking the guidance of Almighty God...
May we return to the fold... from lostness...
May we reach out.. and accept that tiny mustard seed of faith, and let it grow in our hearts to become one of the mightiest of trees...

Let this Great South Land... be Renewed, Revived Restored.

Further to my previous post, it seems people are looking at a series of unrelated historical events and trying to force them through their preferred mould of “religion is good” or “religion is bad”.

But really, can anyone find any coherent common thread between all the massacres of history, other than people? It only seems possible to do so if you distort the facts beyond recognition through your preferred ideological bent.

It also reflects rather poorly on all the arguments presented that the deaths of millions are being used rhetorically as evidence “for” or “against”.

Surely the more urgent priority is to work out what it is intrinsically in human beings that makes us behave in this way, instead of locating the source of the problem externally?

I'm just thinking that we're more likely to prevent the next massacre if we try to understand the intrinsic nature of people, not the fors and againsts of religion or anti-religion.

BOAZ_David,

With respect to you, thanks for the invitation to re-join Christianity, but sorry the bridges were burned there long ago.

The stories I could tell, given the space! I am not given to anger, but I have seen too much.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake for me to wildly throw rocks at Christianity or organised religion. For one thing, it seems there is a fundamental need in humans to invent a set of mythological beliefs to give certainty to what is otherwise a fairly uncertain world.

All human cultures through time have developed ther own set of such beliefs. Utterly fascinating. Part of the rich tapestry of human heritage. Christianity is neither more of less important, more or less valid, than the Aboriginal dreamtime.

All the same, for me and many others, this human strait is self-limiting and, worse, tends to lead many into a shallow, blinkered view of the world - and from there to the politics of division. This is true of the multinational churches, as well as fundamentalist sects of various denominations.

And...... I really liked the post from REASON. Couldn't have put it better myself, whoever you are.

To Kenny and Seether. You both say Hitler was religious. Could you explain please in what way he was religious. I am not saying he wasn't I just need to have it explained. Where can I find evidence of Hitler's religiosity?

The following response by Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace in a conversation with Napoleon, sums up the attitude of many non believers.

NAPOLEON: Monsieur Laplace! I have read with great interest your Traité de mécanique céleste - all five volumes - but nowhere have I found any mention of the Good Lord.
LAPLACE: Sire, I have had no need of that hypothesis.

There is a theme that runs through all the worlds’ major religions which more then justifies lumping them together and then casting them collectively into a bin labelled “nonsense.”

The major religions claim that there is some being or god out there or in heaven that directs affairs on earth. Depending on a persons belief system the being is said to be; an old man, Allah as revealed through Muhammad, Jehovah, the three headed monster much admired by numerous christen sects, a female goddess, an old woman, young things frolicking about on Mount Olympus and so on.

The point I make is that there is no empirical evidence for any of these beliefs. No objective tests that can verify the belief. Building up an elaborate belief system on basis of phantasies can not be called, “Reason.”

Dr. Muehlenberg states that the Judeo-Christian tradition gave rise to modern science. I say so what! It is like contemplates the scaffolding when looking at a piece of architecture.

John I Flemming, a quick search on google came up with the following quotes (plenty more out there)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65.)

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." Adolph Hitler, in a speech delivered April 12, 1922 Published in "My New Order"

"I am now as before a Catholic..." quotation from Hitler was recorded in the diary of Gerhard Engel, an SS Adjutant, in October 1941.

It is possible that these are fabrications but I've not seen any serious rebuttal of the idea that Hitler made those kind of comments. What seems to be the subject of debate is if Hitler believed them or he was using the guise of christainity to get away with murder. Christains trying to distance themselves seem to like that position.

R0bert

Robert, thanks for that. My reading tells me Hitler believed in God in a pantheistic sense. He hated Christianity as evidsenced by these statements from his "Table Talk": "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure." And: The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance." If Hitler was religious it was idiosyncratic religion.

Clearly, theory of human evolution (lets just ignore the massive missing link in the fossil record) and the big bang theory certainly dont requires leaps of faith. Oh no, they are predicated on very reasonable logic and there are absolutely no leaps across the chasm of absent proof in these two theories.

And then the scientists ridicule the true believers of religion (not me) whilst keeping a straight face, then wounder why many of us cant do the same.

The fundamental adherence of scientists to their way of looking at things, to the exclusion of alternates, is positively... religious. Its ironic, given that the essence of science is inquiry, possibility, evidentiary proof and open mindedness.

Why does science take the view that it must exist to the exclusion of spirituality? Einstein failed spectacularly in his pursuit of a unifying theory of everything. Is it possible that science, logic, objectivity are ideal ways to understand the external/physical worlds and spirituality are adequate ways to understand inner/psychological subjective perception?

They dont have to be mutually exclusive.

trade215,

Einstein understood very well that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive, in fact he is quoted as saying that 'Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.'

True genius.

Thanks RObert for doing the search, I've just done a similar one and found basically the same information you have. I won't regurgitate it here, but anyone who wants to can type "Hitler" and "Christian" or "religion" into a search engine and get similar results.

John I Flemming: the point I was making was that, whatever brand you want to call it, Hitler clearly identified himself at various times very strongly as a religious individual, and that religion appears to have been Christian.

Some of this goes to the "who gets to decide who is a REAL Christian/Sikh/Buddhist" argument that is implicit in many schools of thought. Is self-identification enough? Is peer identification? Should we, as Hitler himself did, issue the literal badges of religion?

Taking this point and harking back to my original post, the question again arises: if someone undertakes their activities in the name of religion OR secularism, then good or bad, does the belief system actually OWN that incident or behaviour? I'm not sure (a big call on OLO I know) I know what the answer to that is. I think this is some of what Pamela Bone was trying to (metaphorically) unpack in her article.

I'm not trying to have a go at any particular religion, I'm just not sure that Muehlenberg's thinking about secularism is any less fuzzy than that with which he wishes to accuse Pamela Bone.

Sells, you are guilty of tap-dancing with words again.

>>Religion is any system of belief that holds the ultimate truth for the believer<<

Yeah but, no but.... sorry, Sells, that does not wash. I have the full OED in front of me, and none of its eight definitions comes anywhere close. Even leaving aside the more specific (e.g. 1a. "a state of life bound by monastic vows") the closest we get to your position is:

6 transf a. "Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment. Obs"

Note the transf. which means "transferred sense", i.e. not a literal definition. And the Obs. Obsolete.

The remaining six definitions are all ones the man on the Clapham omnibus would recognize e.g. 3a "Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for and a desire to please a divine ruling power."

We are not all religious, Sells. Only religious people are religious.

>>So the fascism of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are classic religious stances writ large<<

Utter nonsense. Hitler was Catholic, I think we can agree, so he might qualify. But neither Stalin nor Pol Pot claimed to have any religion at all.

>>Religion is harmful because its ideology blinds us to the truth.<<

Not at all. Religion is harmful when it pretends that it is the truth, instead of being just another lifestyle choice.

>>Christianity is not, strictly speaking, a religion in that it does not consist of blind ideology in its best forms but an unmasking of the truth<<

What is the claim "unmasking of the truth", if it is not the perfect description of a blind ideology?

>>There is no such thing as a nonreligious person<<

Oh yes there is. It is someone who is not religious.

A semantic house of cards Mr Sellick, collapsing at the approach of the slightest zephyr of logic. Not to mention a dictionary.

It is very interesting and somewhat enlightening that many of our contributors are rather concerned about the influence of the American ultra Christian Right on American foreign policy.

According to Dr Denis Kenny an Australian political scientist, formerly teaching in the US at Harvard University, who now contributes to Dissent, which edits mostly a mixture of the works of politicians, professors and Phd’s airing their views possibly more in a philosophical way.

In his conclusion of Part One of a two-part article explaining or debating on the effects that Greek philosophy has had on both our politics and on our Christian religion, presented here is his conclusion to his first article covering seven A4 size pages.

“Our Western world, and much of the rest of the world, contiues to operate politically, economically, culturally and religously on the basis of a set of assumptions which have been scientifically discredited over the years.

A continued adherence to these assumptions, and the dangerous certitudes which they give rise to in places like the US White House, and the Vatican among many other institutions sacred and secular on the planet, is at the best of neo-imperial arrogance, bringing on international and inter-cultural conflict, blind economic expansion, social injustice as well as eco-destruction.

The scientific developments of the 20th century demand that in this new 21st century, we begin to inhabit the new-found cosmology of a creative universe and learn to embrace the assumptions on which it is based.”

Of course, anyone who has studied the philosophy of history, knows that Dr Kenny is only reminding us that one of the strongest lessons of Western history is that religous faith by itself only mostly produces leaders who want to act like a God on earth, whereas the added study of scientific reasoning, which the liberal Christian knows is also part of the Grand Design, might help us to be more understanding even regarding the problems of our so-called enemies.

Ouch - that was tough to write. Feel a bit like a bleeding heart.

Cheers, George C - W

The last century has been the most secular in the history of the world, and it has also been the most bloody.

Excuse me?

The Crusades? The Inquisition? Witch burning in Salem?
I could go on but I think it is a point well made.

What ridiculous twaddle.

To tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event, Martin Ibn Warriq,

So many mistakes so little time to reply. Let's deal with martin's fractured history first.
Quote "It was the Faith that saved Europe many times from conquest, lead to hospitals, universities, science, human rights, capitalism (the rise of reason) and it’s the only thing that will save it this time. " I'll give you an D- for that lot Martin.

1) Christianity did NOT save Europe from conquest. Not at ANY time. Name one time when people were threatened with invasion & fought NOT to protect their homes & families but because their faith demanded it. Just one Martin. :)

2) Christianity did NOT lead to hospitals & universities. Hospitals were in existance in ancient Sri Lanka [6 century BCE].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital

Universities were first developed by the Greeks [Plato's Academy]. Do your homework Martin!

3) Science was used by the Chinese, Egyptians, Greeks & Romans centuries before christianity existed.
http://inst.sfcc.edu/~jbieber/HS/HSanclnk.htm
In fact Christianity was at first extremely anti-science.

4) The rise of capitalism in Europe was fought tooth & nail by the Church. I can provide you with the data if you wish martin.

5) The idea that humans had innate rights [rather than rights given by God which could be taken away by God's representative the pope] is first found in the enlightenment. NOT in christianity before that event.

To both Martin & Tennyson, who've both tried to smuggle in anti-evolution statements into this thread - here, do some homework. If you truely believe that evolution is so obviously wrong you should have no trouble explaining these facts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

gusi I agree with you totally. Religion is neutral. But fundamentalism both secular & religious is not. Fundamentalism of any stripe claims to have all the answers & it's motto is always "believe & obey or else". It is, I would argue, a corrupting influence. It breeds [though is not the sole source of] bigotry, intolerance, & hatred.

And on that note Martin, & Tennyson here is a site both of you will find VERY useful.

http://edwardtbabinski.us/fundamentalists/helpful_links.html

So avowed atheists, Stalin, Hitler, Mao & Pol Pot were all religious. Thats why they persecuted all religions, especially the Christian Churches. Now I understand - it's all so clear & logical!!
The facts of recent history are easily verified. There is no excuse for wilful ignorance.

Pericles, Sells is alas a sophist who can weasel out of anything.

Mercurius, you go to the heart of the matter – it all comes back to people, individuals. Whether or not there is a God, a Creator, each person is responsible for their own volition, their own actions. If religion can help people to understand their responsibility and the consequences of their actions so that they behave in a way which is conducive to harmony within themselves and with others, it’s helpful; if it doesn’t, it’s not. Clearly, the imperfect adherents of religion can act for good or for evil just as do non-adherents.

Strange that Bill would quote Christianity at its strongest as a producer of a great civilization.

Has he forgotten the Inquisition burning people alive after torture because they didn't eat pork and therefore were Jewish or Musilm - hardly seems a good period.

And then the 30 years war in which I understand competing versions of Christianity wiped out a third of the population. And then of course the Crusades, burning witches and the English hang draw and quartering Catholics does not sound like a great civilisation.

And the Inquisition lasted until the 18th century in Spain and witches were burned in 17th century America.

And of course the holding back of scientific resaerch by the Church and the mass killing of cats due to religious doctrine which led to plagues of rats and of course the Black Death.

Someone in the Forum claimed that modern secularism killed more people in the 20th Century than were killed by religion in earlier centuries. Perhaps that is only because populations were far larger in the 20th century.

Hypothesis, you forget of course, that the religous have a history of persecuting those, who believe in a different version of religion!

The squabble between religions, as to who is "really" in touch with the Almighty, whose version of which holy book is "really" the correct one, will go on for eons, as it has in the past.

Ok cool, whatever gets you through the night, as I always say...

Meantime, like it or not, luckily we live in a secular world, where tolerance is becoming a keyword and religion a mere lifestyle choice, a bit like golf or tennis.

In a secular world, rational thought matters. Try going before our
courts and telling the judge that you know its true, as you heard
voices from heaven. More then likely he'll send you off for treatment as a schizophrenic :)

Meantime, the so called Almighty is free to post his rules on the
moon, for all to see, if he is around somewhere. It certainly would solve alot of squabbling going on, between the various brands of
religious nuts, that we see all around us.

So please leave us alone lol. You have your freedom of religion.
We want our freedom from religion! For if we put up the weird stuff
that you believe in a court of law, you would be laughed out of court. Meantime keep arguing amongst yourselves as to the correct version. There have been xxxx brands of religion, many holy books and no doubt all that squabbling at least keeps you occupied and
off the streets :)

Because we spend our lives continually immersed in cause and effect situations we hold fast to a belief in causalty. But when we cannot continue to seek answers, sometimes because there are none that we can prove or we want to remain ignorant, we tend to say that some effects may not have material causes, i.e. indeterminism. For this reason I go with determinism and on the balance of probabilities I’m prepared to assume that we evolved miraculously like everything else. It would be an even more extraordinary notion to the point of pure absurdity that life was somehow created separately from evolution and then allowed to evolve or even quite absurdly never evolve.

The question of questions and perhaps our centre of interest, has always been, whence did we come from, what are the limits, to what goals do we tend, and to what place do we occupy in nature with our relations to the universe of things. AND, look how easy it is for people to disregard the major issue of guardianship of the planet with pathetic little religious wars on everything. Nature is a trillion times more important and interesting than these superstitious teddies (gods) that dumbos are so attracted to. Just seems we have to manage the change over to living with the disasters of the religious past and understand that we live in an infinite material universe.

We need to come to terms with the enormous data bank our little tiny lonely planet has bequeathed us where all processes are irreversible, and all effects have an infinite number of material causes, where all decreases in order in one portion of the universe results in equivalent increases in order in another portion and that evolution is the process occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy.

Your religion is not defined by what god you believe in,but how dedicated and true you are to your fellow man.By my definition those with positive,constructive attitude are the closest to any perceived creator,than the self appointed,judgemental pious power mongerers.

Let's pay homage to the "religion of disbelief" because if I were god,I'd be rewarding independance and original thinking,not some lazy sloth sucking up to me with the anticipation of reward at the ceasation of some boring religious ritual each Sunday.

Neither the raving religious freaks nor the secular hedonestic hippies have the answers.

I don't think it was intended that we should know,since we have to muster a lot of courage each morning to face the next challenge,and incrimmentally,without realising it,we do progress.

Cute quote ““despotism may be able to do without faith, but democracy cannot”.

I see nothing “democratic” in the sexist and paternalistic structure of most Christian priest-led institutions.
I believe Democracy does not rely on the efforts of the religious minded who have endeavoured to undermine democracy when it has challenged their self-righteous view of the way we should be allowed to choose for ourselves. It is the values of democracy which entitle you to blubber on with your drivel and me to counter it, it is not the way of dogmatic Christians to tolerate dissent as we see regularly when the zealots parade outside medical clinics and movie theatres.

Re “If Bone had read more widely she would realise that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, for all their faults, have in many ways been a force for good in the world.”

That might be claimed, however as many people (and possibly more) have been murdered, butchered, burnt and victimised in the name of religious zealotry as have been by the atheists Bill suggests in Stalin and Hitler etc. (although some schools of thought suggest Hitler was a devout Christian too).

Stop demonising those who hold views contrary to your own, Bill and get on with having a real life.

Arjay summarises it as well as I have ever seen it said

“Your religion is not defined by what god you believe in but how dedicated and true you are to your fellow man. By my definition those with positive, constructive attitude are the closest to any perceived creator, than the self appointed, judgemental pious power mongerers.”

In those few words he relays greater wisdom and truth than all your pseudo-ethical-religious ramblings piled up together in a heap.

Bill demonstrates eminently the situation monotheism faces and it's reactions to reality. Those who've read Pamela Bones article, may find it difficult to see where Bill gets his interpretations from.

Support for Bill shows the increasing desperation of Yahweh's followers as their judgement time approaches, and real truth is revealed to the world.

Their desperate attempts to screw truth, making it look like fiction. Creating fiction, making it look like truth, becomes more obvious with each response. It's irrelevant to them what the defined meaning of secularism is, nor the historical evidence as to its origins. What's relevant, is how they'll use blatant lies in supporting their psychopathy.

They conveniently forget the millions of indigenous peoples and cultures destroyed in the name of god, nor the direct association 99% of historical despots have with Yahweh, in their beliefs.

Bill eminently demonstrates the hate, anger and fear he feels towards people sensible enough to follow ethical progress, rather than a violent straw man god. The power of prayer is a fine example of reality, considering the amount of people and times they prey to Yahweh, (beg for mercy from his constant wrath) 99.999% are never answered.

Secularism's also a failed state, it's failed to express the truth. Still bowing down to religious pressure, in an attempt to keep the peace. So we're at a cross roads, all past ideologies have failed and they've given us war deciding whose the most despotic. Aren't we being trapped in stagnation, repeating the same arguments, with the same but even more devastating results.

Its gone beyond who's right, we should be looking at what new approach we can create for our future. Who cares whether despotic secularism is better than despotic yahwehism, if there is no future beyond war and environmental collapse.

We need ideologies that look at reality, with an ethical approach to all the living dimensions of our world. There's no place for god any more, its failed miserably, we need a future, not a continuing past.

"She celebrates trends towards non-belief in the West, arguing that this is a good thing. Many would disagree. The last century has been the most secular in the history of the world, and it has also been the most bloody"

Firstly: name one openly religious government that is more effective than the majority of first world secular governments - I can't help but feel that when religion and politics mix, the result is the worst kind of government imaginable.

Secondly: Bill argues that the last century has been more bloody - well, yeah. There's more people. And more technology. And more weapons. Chalking that entirely up to secularism and making no mention of these facts is just plain biased.

The thing is - secularism is theoretically a view devoid of religion - which basically means secularists view all religions as somewhat unnecessary.

Those who follow an aggressive religion on the other hand, view other religions as downright wrong, and in the worst cases, in dire need of conversion.

People will always find reasons for war, but religion has always been a favourite.

Religions, as commonly defined, depend on dogma, rules, heirarchy and faith; all man made and man imposed in the attempt to justify a mythical god.
Faith has no relevance to fact.
Facts are real, whereas faith is merely the pursuit of wish fulfilment.
Gusi makes an interesting comment about "orthodox Chistianity". That word "orthodox" lies at the heart of much of society's religious bickering.
A smarter way to a happy, serene lifestyle is to throw out "orthodoxy" completely from your ethical and moral decision making, and go back to basic wisdom and commonsense in structuring your relationships with fellow beings.

Mercurius ... from Ashfield? :-)

I think Andrew Denton summed up conflict between religions when he wrote recently of a Martian coming to Earth to speak to a Muslim and a Jew about their ancient conflict. 'So....each of you is saying that it's because my Invisible Friend is better than yours' says the Martian in disbelief.

It sort of encapsulates the whole abusrdity of many of the world's religions. They have each been a force for good and bad. If their adherents could practice their faith peacefully and with tolerance of others, everything would be fine, but that ain't the way. And let's not just blame Muslims. There is plenty of blame to go around for the violence and intolerance.

Sells, you argue that everyone adheres to some kind of faith. I don't believe that. You need an 'Invisible Friend' to be lumped in with religious adherents. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and for billions more years, but not that God will bring judgement day down upon us all, dead and alive. There is a big difference. But you spoil your argument anyway by claiming 'Christianity is the end of religion even though it may look to outsiders like any other religion'. This is just more 'my Invisible Friend' stuff.

Bill, thanks for your interesting thesis, made far more interesting to me as a professed liberal Christian with your apparent agreement that faith and reason must work in unison.

As one who in his long retirement, had been taking groups for over 12 years in philosophical topics as part of a local U3A curriculum, helped much by Murdoch University, a large part was based on the Philosophy of Western History.

So from the point of view of such teachings, there are a couple of points in your thesis that do not match up with university based studies.

First - your statement on A4 page two about how secular ideologies justified mass murder, while most traditional religions did not or do not, is Islamism or Hinduism included here? Further, there is also the argument about the Old Testament Promised Land, where going by the Bible, a whole civilisation was done away with to make way for God’s Chosen? In fact, this so-called factual history, according to philosophers, is what could have given most of the Christian nations the excuse to wipe out millions of indiginous peoples.

Second, your statement that it was the Judeo-Christian religous tradition that gave birth to both the notion of human rights and modern science. Well, while historical philosophers might partly agree about your concept of human rights, they would come out with the statement that we owe so much to ancient Greek reasoning as far as modern science is concerned that the role of early Christianity is miniscule.

Finally, according to Murdoch School of Humanities, we also owe much to St Thomas Aquinas, who became so impressed with Late Middle Age Islamic scholars whose teachers had taught an interesting mixture of Muslim religion and Aristotelian reasoning that Aquinas wrote a whole thesis on it, which is said to have largely lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages

Nice comments PK.

Heres an idea for an experiment that will never happen.

A series of children are raised with no discernible religious bias - no parents telling them what to believe, or dragging them to church, temple or mosque.

They are taught a little about all the world religions at an age when they can reason for themselves - say, 13 or 14.

They are also told the histories of each religion - the violence, the struggles, the oppression. The aggression of the Muslim and Christian faiths.

But to be fair, they also need to be taught the good things that religions have done throughout the globe.

The enlightenments that the muslim faith brought the world during their heyday while Europe was mired in the dark ages, and the wondrous cathedrals constructed by christian masons, and the aid work carried out in the name of the church.

They are then asked which one is 'right'.

Now I can't know the answer, but I can tell you for damn sure they're not all going to embrace Christianity as salvation. I'd wager most of them would dismiss the arguments as the 'my invisible friend' debate PK enunciated.

Faith IS belief without basis. How can you reason with those entrenched in dogma?

Hello Bosk,
I see I am implicated in importing anti-evolutionary comment.
You may have the loaded agenda running here.

You pointed me to the "let's attack the fundo' website". I looked. It is dull.
I am not a fundamentalist. [Talk about a bunch of God-obsessed atheists! Why don't they go outside and do something useful with their (limited... ha! ha!) time.]

I am not interested in introducing the stale old "science has proven", "no it has not", "yes it has", type debate. I am grateful for all that science has shown. Keep at it, I say.
(I am also grateful for all that God has revealed ... even if it seems folly to the brilliant Greek minds in our midst).

Certainly the basic framework that I use of:
1. Creation,
2. Fall,
3. Redemption -

is as helpful a view of the world, as I have ever seen and known. (And I have enjoyed Bill Bryson's: 'A Short History of Nearly Everything)'.

Again - I put it to you, (and fellow secularists) -
1. What is the Universe, and what is its goal?
2. How is it that humanity does inexplicable evil, (with such useful minds for reasoning)?
3. Where does humanity get hold of noble ideas, such as redemption? What is it? (...some huge humanist D.I.Y. salvation, pulling ourselves up by the bootlaces, reducing greenhouse gas, and being nicer to each other).

The Christian firstly meets Christ, who lives. Then, from the influence of His Spirit - finds that the whole plan is full of wonder and amazement. Let me restate it:

1. Creation (in Christ) with purpose.
2. The Fall (of Man into sin, the resulting death, the growth of evil), the matter of present judgement, where nothing can reach its goal apart from God's grace and redemption.
3. Redemption, of all creation, as gift, by the power of the risen Christ, and inclusion into the grand eternal future, for all who like to participate.

Makes excellent sense. Causes my heart to sing. And my life to join in on the fun.

Tennyson, in answer to your three questions:

1. Don't know.
2. Don't know.
3. Don't know.

And neither do you.

Any other reply would be intellectually dishonest.

Dear Mercurius,
I see you have come out with all guns blazing!
"Intellectual dishonesty", you maintain, you assert, you charge.

If your forthright claim is correct, then I have been deceived. Deluded.
In company with all who have believed the message of Christ Jesus.

However, I differ. Your bold assertion, is incorrect. This is not intellectual dishonesty.

Alas, this knowledge is the grand claim, and proclamation of Christians through history.
(The Christian message is primarily a joyous claim - not a gun-at-the-head 'say sorry' or-you-go-to-hell ultimatum).

Knowledge given thought Christ, by his Spirit, is of that which no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor any human brain concocted. Knowledge through actual revelation.

From your stand point, you have already decided that any such insight must be a hoax.
You have no room for it: a priori.

From the stand point of a Christian, genuine revelation has come - more certainly - than any other empirical knowledge. Repeat - this knowledge ... has come.

From your standpoint, all Christian people must be charged with intellectual dishonesty.
Feed them to the lions!

The Apostle Paul - whom so many thought was mad - and John, and Peter, and so on down through history, and indeed all who believe their writings, must really be charged with intellectual dishonesty too. (I do hope you are not drafting the next round of vilification laws).

May the Lord continue to reveal such securing insight to more and more.
Cheers!

Thanks Col for your positive feedback.The funniest religious man who considered himself to be an athiest was Dave Allen,his satire and humour had us all rivioted.May his god go with him.

I was taught by a very intelligent Augustinian Priest one Father Ralph Cameron who was way beyond his era back in the sixties.His sermons and classroom antics had us not only laughing at our own foibles, but laughing at the irony of life.He was religious,believed in Jesus,yet had a way of thumbing his nose at the religious aristocracy.

There are no absolutes in life,however survival,courage and love is the focus for us to evolve into better people.

Tenny, your so called heart singing etc, perhaps explains why religion matters to you. It makes you feel good! As human brains
evolved to become smarter, they also became more anxious. The brain relies on homeostatis to stay on an even keel. Perceived certainty
helps some achieve that, it can change brain chemistry. Anxious
people are not happy people, bingo, religion makes you feel good!

The choice we have really, is between understanding ourselves in
terms of how we evolved as a primate species with a larger brain then
other primates, or the god of the gaps/imaginary friend theories
promoted by the religious.

Regards your three questions:

1. Perhaps the Universe just is, with no purpose.

2. Evil- there is no objective morality, just our subjective
opinions of what we think is evil or not etc. So called morality
can be shown to have evolved in various social species as a way
for them to coexist in tribes, for the wellbeing of
the group as a whole. In other primate species we can note empathy,
food sharing, cooperation for the wellbeing of the group.

What we know about the mind is that the mind is, what the brain does.
Change some wiring in the brain and you change behaviour. Neuroscience is full of examples. So its highly likely that what
we call psychopaths, are people born with in our terms "faulty"
wiring. So called freewill is not half as free as we think.

3. The idea of redemption is a great way for those who claim to
be in touch with the almighty, to gain control over those who
believe their story. How many times was I told that Jesus died
on the cross for ME, trying to make me feel guilty. What bollocks!
People die miserable deaths every day. Unfair deaths, cruel deaths,
fed to the lions deaths, you name it. Innocent babies are born
with the most cruel disfigurements, so called gifts from god.
Billions of people die sad deaths, yet the redemption story focuses
on one single death. Bollocks lol, I had nothing to do with it.

The major Religions have some moral principles which are worth thinking about even if you are not a believer.

Iran is a good example of a country that isn't secular in how it is run, I wonder how many would like to migrate there? During the Dark Ages religion held sway in Europe; do we want to go back to those times?

Here in Australia we have politicians who profess to be Christian, but then they do not appear to make decisions where the ethics or morals of a situation have been taken into account. For example, the way disabled people or refugees are being treated.

My oh my. This is a practical guide how to reach a conclusion before phrasing your argument. Take one weak polemicist, counter with random quotes, and hey presto! Secuarism = bad. Religion = good. Christianity = Very good.

OK, let's have religion "open to rational criticism and careful scrutiny". Scrutiny is the name of the game these days. Religion & rationality, however, do not mix. Faith is like that.

This is gonna be one mighty long debate about how many angels there are on the head of a pin. A pity the article is so one-eyed.

Ant and Bennie

speaking as a 'conservative evangelical' I wish to assure you that I have NO desire to return to any situation where the 'Church' runs the show, as in Government. That very thing turned the Church sour with the decree of Constantine, and it has done so every since where such an approach has been tried.

Firstly its unblibical... so obviously it won't work.

Secondly, our calling in Christ is to be Salt and Light, not dictators. Our role is a prophetic one, (read some of the old testament prophets to get an idea of this) not to 'fore'tell, but to 'forthtell' the wisdom and glory and righteousness of God, that men and women may consider their position before Him in every level of society.

TFOE's point about 'Redemption' of fallen creation, not just the individual is a MOST IMPORTANT POINT......

Redeemed individuals will take a 'responsible stewardship' approach to the environment, to economics, to social law our treatment of animals etc. Redemption and Renewal can and does extend to many levels of life and society. I cannot see how a redeemed individual will spend $75 out of a $101 supermarket bill on Tobacco alone. (as I saw the other day) So there are economic and social advantages to personal redemption.

blessings to all :)

Why is it you always miss the point Bosk, is it willful?

I didn't claim that these things were created ex nihilo by Christendom, my point was their presence in Europe cannot be explained without reference to Christianity. If you'd done your homework you'd understand the context of my statement. Bill Muehlenberg quoted Prof. Rodney Stark. Please read and understand

http://thefruitoflips.blogspot.com/

To repeat myself http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#52449 your reading of history lacks all nuance - in your simple anti Christian black and white thinking a negative achievement in European history is the fault of Christianity a positive one in spite of it.

The onus is on you to explain how universal human rights developed only in Europe, why science and technology flourished only in Europe, why capitalism flourished only in Europe, why Europe produced the greatest thinkers the world has seen, and how this was achieved in a continent that called itself Christendom if its understanding of existence through the lens of the Gospels was in your opinion so frightfully erroneous. It is more miraculous than any of Jesus' miracles.

That this idea is even entertained, that our intellects could be so darkened almost invites a preternatural explanation.

Bosk you are a bigot. The remedy is to avoid all anti Christian and skeptical sites for two weeks and read some decent history, beginning with two atheist historians Prof. Stark and Niall Ferguson.

Christian saviours of Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
" It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off."

" one of the greatest upset victories in military history, and left him with a unique place in history hailed through the centuries as Christendom's savior."

Hospitals – from the link you provided

"The adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the empire drove an expansion of the provision of care, but not just for the sick. … they were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns.

The First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. urged the Church to provide for the poor, sick, widows and strangers. It ordered the construction

of a hospital in every cathedral town."

The Good Samaritan Luke 10:30-37 "Go and do thou likewise"

Capitalism and Science

"Encouraged by the scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice. The rise of capitalism also was a victory for church-inspired reason, since capitalism is, in essence, the systematic and sustained application of reason to commerce — something that first took place within the great monastic estates." Stark

Point 5) The Pope can abrogate God given inherent rights??

You argue that the concepts of human rights just appeared out of nowhere in the 17th Century and hypocritically accuse me of bad history? The Enlightenment has its roots in the Middle Ages:

St.Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century wrote that a just government required the consent of the governed, and the role of government is not just to restrain sin but a natural good and gift from God. he formulated what was perhaps the first justification for civil disobedience, that is, breaking the law to highlight its injustice.

"One of the most decisive contributions to the development of modern liberty occurred in ancient times with the rise of the Church, which relativized the state. With the Church standing alongside, superior in dignity IF NOT IN EARTHLY POWER, the state could not be regarded, as it was in the Periclean Age, as the UNIQUELY suitable sphere for any life that is fully and distinctively human. No longer could it be said that man is merely a "political animal." Human lives were no longer subject to the EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS OF THE STATE. The most bewitching of all idols was reduced to the status of a SERVANT - of all legitimate PRIVATE and public concerns in the modern view. If this relativization had not occurred, stable liberty could not have been achieved."

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9712/tinder.html

Where was I anti evolution?

Lol Pol Pottian fanaticism to extirpate all memory of positive Christian influence from our past Bosk?

So far only Christians have written positive posts.

Where are all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhudists? And which religion is right?

Is it true that Christianity teaches that only those who believe in Christ can go to heaven? And if so why would Christ have preached such a thing? And did non-Christians before Christ have heavenly rights? And was there a period of grace to allow non-believers to enter heaven if they lived in an area in which the Christian message had not yet arrived?

Jewish Law sates clearly that all people can enjoy benefits from the Deity as long as they keep to basic laws of decency and Bhudism teaches the many paths to Nirvana. Do Christianity and Islam have similar views?

Just wondered, it seems relevant in a multicultural society.

I understand why monotheist are so scared of secularism and those secure in their lives without the crutch of a belief system, freedom frightens them. Ever met a monotheist who's relaxed, or at peace with the world or themselves, they constantly force their insecurities onto others in increasingly violent ways.

Those looking at the blank world of Yahweh, are very frightened, as all it shows is nothing but the bloody history of their gods wrath. It makes me laugh how they use text from both testaments supporting their position, yet deny other text and fact supporting the veracity of monotheistic expression. Yahweh kills all who refuse to bow down to him and even those who do.

As with all the deluded, they desperately try to change history dismissing the true facts with their fantasies. Just read a history of the Canaanite and their secular society, a thousand years before the new testament and how they altered Abrahamic laws, by removing the despotic and barbaric injustices of Yahweh's followers.

Martin for his proof, gives us a link to his own blog and quotes a deeply religious professor as the defining verifiable source of his supposition, He fails to include how deceptive Europeans where with indigenous peoples, who welcomed them as friends. But typical followers of Yahweh, they lied, killed the people and took over their lands and wealth. The technology they used, originated from china and other countries first. The Chinese and indigenous were not really interested in converting the world violently, they used most technology to benefit their lives.

It was the monotheists who used technology for evil, continuing today to develop it for better killing. Everyone else, just follows suit, trying to survive Yahweh conversions of people to his side, using his estabilshed method, death.

David,

I appreciate your measured response. However I see no connection between religion of any flavour, and "a 'responsible stewardship' approach to the environment, to economics, to social law our treatment of animals etc"

As a pantheist it pains me to see so much injustice, to both people and the environment, carried out in the name of religion, or by those professing a faith. From my perspective religion provides little more than self-justification, regardless of circumstances.

logic: Only the Bible can be proved correct. NO! Christianity does not teach that only those who believe in Christ go to Heaven, most of the churches might but the Bible doesn't.Those who have never heard the Gospel will make it as well as those who are at present opposed to Christianity.By the way there is no, that's no everlasting burning torturing hell either.
the alchemist:You do come out with some very very wide generalisations about those who according to you must have the "crutch?" of religion. Then you rather stupidly state "Those looking at the blank word of Yahweh are very frightened" - oh yes?
Also "Yahweh kills 'ALL?'who refuse to bow down to Him" - oh yes?
You very clearly show both your total ignorance of the Bible and of Yahweh.
Please don't make the mistake of seeing mainstream churches with their bells and smells, and their leaders in lace frocks as followers of Christ. Though I add that there are followers of Christ mingled with the congregations of such places. Your friend, numbat

"All the major blood-letting was the direct result, not of religion, but of anti-religion. Be it Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, millions of people lost their lives in the name of atheism and secularism." says Bill who should now be sent to the diary room and questioned by little Keiran.

Tyrant dictators like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, were not about democracy nor a secular democracy. Their teddy (god) came from an extreme ideology where in fact they themselves assumed the position of an omnipotent teddy ....... not unlike any such theocratic playpen. None were promoting atheism as such because their prime motivation, and include Hitler here, was political, nationalist and totalitarian. To associate atheism and freethought with such activity is as absurd as it is untrue, Bill.

In the case of both Hitler and Stalin there is strong evidence to say they were heavily influenced by religion and these influences would have shaped their attitudes and behaviour which in turn would have influenced their reaction to these powerful 'father' figures. People drilled in accepting, believing, in faith, and unthinking obedience to an all powerful 'teddy father' figure is all part of the same picture. e.g. "I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich ..... ."

A characteristic of these teddy infected types is an obvious and complete lack of imagination and belief in truth. Well atheism is grounded in truth because atheism is for those who transcend the facile whims of fashion trends and is forever the same concept. There is no extortion of your psyche here. Also, just seems that the more secular democracies all enjoy good social conditions never seen before in human history. In contrast no highly religious nation enjoys high levels of social health. In the US of A, for example, the most religious and strongly xtian states are a basket case with high homicide, juvenile and adult mortality, STD infections, abortion and teen pregnancy, and throw into the mix primitive gun laws and you see serious societal dysfunction.

alchemist

I was once a monotheist, (Jewish) now I just don't know. As an engineer with a sound backgound in science I see no evidence for or against the existance of a God. Belief in the Bible as a product of that God is something quite different.

Certainly the Jewish faith for over two thousand years has not relied on the literal text of the Bible believing in the necessity of interpretation. Thus "eye for an eye" is not taken to mean revenge and "stoning" does not mean chucking rocks at criminals until they are dead. (though it looked good in the "Life of Brian"). Such practices are completely forbidden by Jewish law.

On the vexed question of God's commandments in the Bible to destroy certain peoples, every time the Hebrews were instructed to do this they failed to comply. Perhaps there is a message in that.

As numbat has kindly explained Christianity also has to be correctly understood. All three monotheistic religions have been abused by each other and by evil people trying to justify their nasty ways.

I have always found deeply religious people (and I am not one) to be kind honest and decent. In contrast the extremists are fascists and I think the truth is that religion is a useful medium for tyrants and psycopaths to exploit the gullible. Can religion be truly blamed for that?

Numbat, my theological understanding and qualifications, allows me a verbatim knowledge of more than 5 historical versions of the Greek version of a book, written at least 300 years before the only copy ever found. The changes made to the original copy and the removal of many other chapters of the book, to support a required illusion. Definitely doesn't make it even half truth.

Reading the notations, placed by the different scribes writing the copies giving their reasons why they chose certain words, you understand what it really isn't. Those notations helped those reading the book to others, (99.9% of people were illiterate) to get the right emphasis on the story. Why would they do that, simple the copy was not accurate to the original book.

Add historical evidence for and against the veracity of the book and the former one it was written on, truth becomes very obvious. Chronologically and archaeologically nothing fits in either the old or new testaments, any evidence that may have supported the events in the bibles, occurred hundreds of years previous as recorded elsewhere.

Yahweh, is mentioned in Egyptian scripts, and the Veda, written thousand years before, as a war god, an evil element in life. Trekies are the fastest growing religion in the western world, in 100 years, it may be the biggest.

Numbat, you worship a science fiction story from 2000 years ago, like star trek, it slowly turned into a religion, and some people took advantage of its following. A good story, but not reality. No matter how good your heart is, if you follow an illusion, you become deluded into insecurity, confusion, psychopathy and finally, righteous war against those closet to you.

Those whose minds have evolved and matured, don't want your terror inspiring Yahweh and its destructive wars. We see none of you living the way the one you worship proposed, otherwise monotheism wouldn't be as despotic as it is, in expressive application

Dear Logic

regarding your issue on Buddhism etc.. do other religions have similar ideas.......

Some points please:

1/ Buddhism technically is more of a psychological self management program. The goal...is to set the self free from the suffering of this world. To attain 'total freedom' from all that causes suffering, which is listed in the Noble 8 fold way and the noble 4 fold 'truths'
See here for an outline :
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm
The main problem with Buddhism is this. It assumes a pre known definition of 'moral'. But I contend (as does Biblical Scripture)that without divine revelation, all morality is totally relative.

2/ Hinduism is quite different. "God (Brahma) is in all things but manifest in any form or shape He chooses." See here for info
http://hinduunity.org/basics.html
The Hindu concept of 'sin' is closer to the Old Testament and New testament. "Anything which takes us away from God"

I suggest Hinduism is a faint echo of true knowledge of God, which occurred during the extended dispersion of mankind after the flood and has become corrupted by the tendency of mankind to create images of God in the form of Idols. Evidence for this, is found in the Hindu 'flood' story where a man had 3 sons who then formed the new humanity after the destruction of the flood. Reminiscent of Noah.

The Self revelation of Yahweh, to Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc, was with one goal "Salvation of mankind.. restoration from our fallen condition through covenant relationship with Him"

Abrahams calling, was with the world in mind "and all the nations will be blessed through you" Gen 12:3

Finally the true and rich multi dimensional concept of 'Shalom' .. right relationship with God and man through repentance and forgiveness through faith in the Messianic work of Christ is the central truth and focus of both Old and New Testaments.

Hello Yabby
A reply to a couple of your "perhaps" comments.
Your suggestion that religion - perhaps - "makes you feel good".

I find, lots of authentic things make me feel good:
1. The view from the top of a well-climbed mountain.
2. A swim in the sea on a hot summer day.
3. My AFL team winning.
4. A nice glass of Cabernet Sauvignon with a spicy meal.
5. Intimate evenings with my wife.
6. Powerful acceleration on the airport runway.
7. Meeting old friends, and laughing uproariously.
8. A young child articulating a new word.

I could include, in that lot, your suggestion (though dynamic faith, is not: "religion").
The feel good list only partly concedes, then, your point:

9. Hearing the Word of life, from the Living God.

However, the 'feel good' aspect is not at all the prime reason for embracing Christ.
Rather, it is that, just as a fish is made for the sea, and a lion for the jungle, so a human being is made for eternal relationship with the Father, through the eternal Son.
The Holy Spirit, speaking to, and resonating within my spirit - has convinced me of that.

Further. The 'god of the gaps' is a dud concept, which I would never subscribe too, even if I were an atheist. Postulating a 'God' concept, in order to try to make sense of things, is a far cry from revelation. Though, I recognise that logic presses some in that direction.

As to your other "perhaps".
"Perhaps the Universe just is, with no purpose".
Is that what you believe?

(One little planet. Ideal climate. Ideal spin on the axis. Fascinating varieties of life. All ... with no purpose?)
If so, I might add to your possibilities: Perhaps not, too.

Sorry (but not surprised) to hear Sunday school teachers had nothing to emphasise other than Jesus died for "ME" (you), to make you feel guilty. Part of the reason for his death was to acquit the guilty. (Not to turn the heat up on kids).

The alchemist: Your theological understanding is zero, zilch as I see it. I do not much care if you have verbatim knowledge of 10 volumes written 600 years ago in ancient Swahili.
In the N/T Paul and other leaders gave followers eye witness accounts and Paul was a very scholarly person especially re the O/T. Yet with this first hand knowledge (perhaps your 300? old Greek versions had not been printed by that time :-))members fell away and/or disbelieved and began their own belief systems.
Nothing fits in with the Old or New Testaments or perhaps you do not recognise any that do fit in?
So Yahweh is mentioned in Egyptian scripts - so? Yahweh was around at that time - He is old you know.
I w/ship a science fiction story that turned into a religion in your opinion - fancy that now you are??
Those whose minds have manured err sorry matured and evolved - but evolution is totally unprovable except for certain types of people -Oh I see you are one with a manured, done it again sorry :-), matured mind and I am the unmatured or cretin thanks for that (no sleep for me tonight a manured minded humble scholar thinks I am wrong) regards, numbat

There certainly has been a lot of fuzzy thinking on the issue - before any of you go extolling the virtues of religion, here's some simple ideas to take note of:

1. Why does there have to be any 'meaning of life'. Why can't the meaning of life just be to enjoy it?
(Simple, yes, but it works and you can dance to it).

2. Why does god have to be all knowing? Can't we have a god that makes mistakes? (everybody else seems to.)

3. Why is everyone so fussed about creation - by its very definition, we have no witnesses to say whether it is right or wrong.
So it's like arguing what happened at the kick off of a footy match no one saw. (my point is, most people would be content to know the results, and guess what - we do!)

4. Heaven and hell. We don't need mystical beyond reality versions, you can find both of them if you travel a little.

5. Why do no world religions mention dinosaurs? doesn't this hint that perhaps the authors don't know everything after all?
Even if it was a practical joke and dinosaurs weren't real, there are some damn big chicken bones lying around. You'd think they deserve a mention.

6. If jesus and mahommed met in Jerusalem today, do you think they would:

a) argue over their religions
b) engage in warfare and try to nuke each other
c) post in an online discussion forum
d) Go check out the dome of the rock via the whaling wall

or e) shake their heads in disgust at everyone shedding blood in their names and engage in a wise discussion about how it's not about what you believe, but what you do that counts.

Hope I've given you something to think about.

To me Pamela Bone should be ignored,her opinions are two for a penny,so as such,as far as religion is concerned,it is of no moral value,and theology has no room,for a secular opinion like hers,her closing words says it all

More fuzzy thinking on religion!

Yes, it is true there are no examples in past history of societies maintaining moral life without religion, but that is because there are no examples of societies in the past that did not have a strong religious basis. So we can't compare past societies that had religion and past societies that didn't.

We would need to compare present societies that are more strongly religious (eg Iran, USA) with present societies that are less religious (many Western European countries). Do the people in the more religious countries behave more ethically than the people in the less religious countries??

Present societies are based more on innovation, and less on tradition. This is a profound discontinuity, and it affects everything.Even in more highly religious socieities it becomes difficult to stop people thinking for themselves, even about ethical matters.

Morality rests more than anything else on our fundamental innate sense of fairness, not on the commandments of gods.

Religon has been both a force for good (eg Evangelical campaign against slavery in 19thC England) and bad (Crusades, jihad etc).

The main problem though has not been with religion, per se, but with fundamentalism. The fundamentalists believe there is only one way, and everyone else is wrong. This is what leads to conflict.

Michael

Tenny, glad to hear that so many things make you feel good. Perhaps
thats why you do them, including dynamic faith in your life.

The human being in fact shares something like 99% of dna with
chimps and bonobos, just our brains are a bit larger, so we are
a bit smarter and a bit more anxious too. You might translate
that, that humans are made to worship some god, but that is simply
your translation.

You mention the "holy spirit" speaking to you as the basis of
your convictions. I am nervous about that stuff, as I am
aware that one Argentinian guy jumped into a lion's cage,
as he heard voices where god told him to, another guy in
Sweden shot a politician because he heard gods calling.

Normally these days, when people hear voices, as a % of the
population does, they are treated with anti psychotic drugs.

Regarding the universe, as a skeptic, why do I need to believe
anything? If there is a lack of evidence, perhaps best to
wait for more evidence, before jumping to conclusions.

Given that so many planets are out there, with nothing but
rocks, chances are that the odd one might in fact just
be suitable for organic molecules. Add molecules like
rna and dna, then mutations due to all the radiation and
hey presto, you have a myriad of lifeforms. Your god didn't
exactly rush things, if it took him 3.5 billion years to
get to this point.

If I look around me, I notice that religion is about geography.
If you had been born in Iraq, would you be a devout Muslim today?

Thanks Bill for your article. Food for thought.

Has anybody on this post read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis? I'm reading it at the moment, and I think he addresses quite well a lot of the sorts of questions on this forum, like does this universe have any need for the hypothesis of God? Is there any evidence to reasonably support it? Etc.

Poor Numbat, that one single copy of a book written at least 300 years before, is where every NT bible derives from. There is no other origin, all bibles throughout history derive from this one copy, can you understand that reality. No I doubt it.

The OT, is plagiarised from many works, factually recorded throughout history . Can you believe those historical facts as well, no of course not. Psychopathic delusional denial is a very common trait among violently fearful followers of the mythical Yahweh. At least those choosing to be jedi knights, have lots of video's for their evidence, not even plagiarised. I'd change illusions if I were you, to something less bizarre and not out of date. Very fuzzy religious thinking.

Logic, “Christianity also has to be correctly understood “. True, historical fact is understanding, not fuzzy delusional thinking. The jews follow the OT to the letter, they are repeating the violent invasion of the ME they carried out thousands of years ago when directed by Yahweh through their book. No eye for an eye, just look at what they have done since WW2, to see how many extra eyes they've taken in their holy quest to control and destroy a people.

Yet I suppose fools in denial can only accept the fuzzy lies put up by their illusions, rather than verifiable fact and clear thinking. Your logic is so far fetched, it's beyond fuzzy, particularly when you support someone as demonic as Bill. But you, Numbat the hysterical boaz and Co, are right, mine and others years of theological study and preaching, mean nothing against the fully informed knowledge you have. Where did you say you got if from, a copy of King James, or one of the many thousand interpretations and unsubstantiated versions currently available. Maybe even ordination and doctorate, from your knowledge of theological and religious history, I doubt that.

Yng
Yes I did read the book some 40 years back.
As my memory is likely to be faulty I will make no further comment other than to suggest that you google C S Lewis, as he has copped mountains of criticism from many quarters.
Cheers.

Yabby

Excellent point you made, deserves repeating:

>>>>>If I look around me, I notice that religion is about geography.
If you had been born in Iraq, would you be a devout Muslim today?<<<<

Every religious poster should ask themselves this question: 'If I had been born in another country where the domninant religion is different to the one I believe in, what religion would I believe in now?'

I challenge any christian that if they were brought in Iran that they would be christian.

I make the same claim to any Hindu, Muslim or calathumpian.

No doubt about it - there is indeed a lot of fuzzy thinking about religion, especially from those who think that their religion is the superior one.

I'd like to take that point a little further-

It isn't just about the dominant religion of a country - so much of the religious issue is parents imprinting their beliefs on their children.

I guarantee you that upwards of 99 per cent of children who are christian have christian parents.
I don't have any statistics to back that up, but does anyone here assert otherwise?

In the majority of cases, children end up believeing at their parents do, whether it is politics or religion. Sure, there's the whole phase of adolescent rebellion, but that tends to be a pretty shallow rejection.

If parents would hold off convincing children from a young age and waited until they were able to reason for themselves, they might find their religion is rejected - though somehow I don't think many will take up that option.

Poorer The alchemist: So-according to you all comes from this old book ~ cobblers
The O/T is plagiarised from 'many' works "factually?" recorded throughout history ~ again cobblers!
Because I do not believe the nonsense you write I am psychopathic, delusional,violently fearful (have you been reading my mail?) and Yahweh is mythical ~ all backed up by your brilliant learning and fantastic intellect ~ at the risk of being boring ~ cobblers again!
A little anti-Semitic also are we oh learned one? The Jews follow the O/T to the letter, WHAT! without a Temple (their "mythical?" Temple was destroyed chum). Without Temple furniture, The Ark of the Covenant, without an Aaronic Priesthood etc? oh dear ~ it's the blue pills.
Now I am a fool in denial accepting fuzzy lies as well! Then I am supporting demonic Bill? Yahweh is a myth but demons exist ~ and I have fuzzy thinking and beliefs ` Oh dear!
You claim you had years of theological study well you failed eh? Then you "preached?" preached what may I ask? You left those to whom you preached to ~the whole four of them ~ in a bigger mess than you are at present no doubt!
Thing I like about you Al is that you stick to the facts and you do not denigrate those who have the temerity and lunacy to disagree with your noble wonderful self. Don't look now but you are still acting like an "well-educated" conceited preacher, alas I have known many just like you. Regards, numbat

Scout, TL TR,

if you were born in Iran/Iraq 800 years ago, you would probably have been Christian, but, geography & conquest (up til this very day) is extinguishing the last shreads of Christianity (& Zoroastrian) belief in what was Persia.

The idea of parental influence is significant and modern times is seeing part of your hypothesis tested - many children are brought up in a 'disreligious' environment. However, the 'follow mum & dad' bit doesn't explain how Christianity spread in earliest times.

One could argue that State Sanctioned Christianity and Muslim 'reversion' (ie. armed conquest) 'forced' converts, but, raising children in a faith doesn't gaurantee its adoption.

Yabber,
Thanks for fielding the geography question. If born elsewhere, I would be a different person, for a start. So it is a strange question.

However, rationalising faith to equal geographical factors, only, actually underscores Bill's main point: There is far too much "Fuzzy thinking on religion".

Let's take Iran, since you suggested it:
A very good friend of mine, Daniel Shayesteh, and his wife Mary, now live in Australia.
They are Iranian. Daniel was a fundamentalist Islamic political leader, willing to take Jerusalem for Allah, with machine gun in hand, in the days of Ayatollah Khomeini . He was forced out of Iran, and found himself faced with the question of faith. Against all likelihood, he came to know Christ in a succession of unusual events. Today, he resides in Sydney, exiled from his own country, and would be murdered if he returned. He can tell also of a 90 year old Iranian man, too old to fear any longer, converting to Christ in his ninth decade of Iranian life.

Read Daniel' s story, if you would like to expand your thoughts on this matter:
http://www.cma.org.au/cmamissions/missprofiles.asp?name=Daniel%20Shayesteh

Or listen to a podcast:
http://www.mbn.org/genMoody/default.aspSectionID=D50CFEE30E6946D2B6D3DE04DA4F487F

Consider the changing of nations. Christians are familiar with many situations where this has and is happening: 100 million Chinese know the true God, in Christ Jesus.

Kind regards to you many stubborn skeptics!

True, raising children in a faith doesn't guarantee it's adoption. I'll wear that, though I'd certainly argue that it is indeed a large factor in church membership.

It's easier to convince children of fairy tales than adults.

As for the spread of Christianity in 'earliest times' there's a whole host of reasons - the parental influence can play a part, but these 'earliest times' probably didn't have the same devotion to free speech and thought that modern democracies espouse (in theory).
As such, adherence to a religion was in many cases enshrined in culture - as was the case with the comparatively recent (in historical terms) dark ages, when Christianity was simply the way of life.
There's also the fairly simplistic argument that the knowledge of science was rudimentary - the only available explanations came from the learned men who had realised that the key to power was through the authority inherent in organised religion.
I'd argue that this is a motivating factor in fundamentalist islam in third world countries - if a politician speaks of social justice through economic reform, there will be a large voting base who won't understand him. If he couches his rhetoric in religious dogma, his arguments become simplified and thus attractive to the lowest common denominator. (Also known as the 'abbott' method).

The last half dozen posts have shown one thing only...what you believe depends largely on where & when you are born.

So much for absolute truths, then?

Hi,

I don't think it's all "God exists because mummy told me so". My generation is quite sceptical, particularly of our parents' beliefs. We question everything. I think the Christians of my generation are least likely to be the brainwashed-from-home sort than any previous generation in Australia.

More than half of the many Christians I know in my age group (i.e. at my current youth group or who attended my secular high school) have non-Christian parents.

In fact, I have heard that 75% of today's Christians live outside of 'Christendom', the lands traditionally described as "Christian". As has been mentioned, there are multiple times as many Christians in China (where it is illegal to be Christian) as all types of people in Australia.

Personally I think persecution helps fuel religious growth, particularly Christian growth. Looking back to Constantine, we see he adopted the Christian religion (with his own pagan slant on it) because he saw the persecuted sect of people believing in some Jewish guy raised from the dead was outnumbering the people believing the state-sanctioned pagan religion.

TR TL,

in assessing pre Constantine Christianity your thoughts:

-same devotion to free speech and thought that modern democracies espouse (in theory).

- adherence to a religion was in many cases enshrined in culture - as was the case with the comparatively recent (in historical terms) dark ages, when Christianity was simply the way of life.

- knowledge of science was rudimentary - the only available explanations came from the learned men who had realised that the key to power was through the authority inherent in organised religion.

- lowest common denominator (Also known as the 'abbott' method)

do not answer the question "How did a relatively small number of 'reformed' and uneducated Jews cook up the Jesus story and make a goer of it?"

Discounting any supernatural element, the persecuted Apostles and their unarmed successors must be marketing geniuses unparalled in history - better than Pharoahs, Emperors or Barbarians and their armies?!

Alternatively, I think when Bill M and others speak of the Church in terms of 'reason' you will find that, whilst erroneous at times, the Church seeks and eventually finds the truth and contains the 'fullness of revelation' and has teachings consistent with human development.

Not perfect, but seeking perfection, not sinless but seeking the path or at least, a path, to holiness. Speaking with authority, yet, not imposing outcomes with armed force outside of reason. Only those who give their assent of Faith are guided (cf controlled) by the Church.

For all those who feel that the Church is a dictator and policy setter, I suggest that look at the actions of other NGO observers etc at the UN and their barrow pushing. Their relative success and the gullibility of sovereign States makes 'brainwashed' believers look so much the better...

I interpreted Yabby's point more as a hypothetical, rather than a hard and fast rule.

Of course many young people reject their parent's teachings.
Of course where you where born doesn't necessarily dictate religious belief.

I think the point that Yabby was trying to make was directed at the extremely literal christian posters such as Philo, Coach or Boaz. These people continually present that their religion is the ONLY way. They are completely dogmatic about their beliefs and express pity and /or contempt for those who don't believe exactly as they do.

Now, if I was to picture people like this being indoctrinated in, say, Islam, had they grown up in, say, Syria or Iran, well I find it difficult to picture them as being anything else but totally and fundamentally Muslim. Some people seem to be just programmed "ON" for religion.

There is talk among psychiatrists and neurologists that some people are 'wired' for religion. So that, no matter where in the world they are born and raised they are more likely to be superstitious or religious. This has not been proven beyond any doubt, but I cannot imagine the likes of Boaz posting an opinion without it relating to his vision of christianity and I have no doubt that he would've been just a vehement a muslim as he is a christian.

All hypothetical. All probably pointless. But some people can't be anything else except religious - just like some people can't be anything else except homosexual. Nature, nuture - probably a combination of both.

The doctrine of religious pluralism (that religious claims to truth don't point to any objective reality) is itself just as geographically relative (only a small percentage of bourgeois Westerners have ever believed it) as Christian doctrine. We should focus on the content of the beliefs. Is it true or not? Otherwise I have no need to check religious pluralism's claims – I can just say "only some middle class Westerners of the late 20th and early 21st centuries believed it"

Holding this doctrine often goes hand in hand with vigorous proselytizing (much more than any Christian has from my experience of OLO). These people run our schools and airwaves. They form the minds of many of our children.

The difficult thing for me is that they don't even know they have been converted (and don't know they're proselytizing) .

Which makes this age as I've said before one of the densest in all history. Therefore going along with the most fashionable doctrines of this age is a bit of a worry.

Many of us have been thoroughly converted away from our Christian upbringing, by a creed that contains the faith statements "all religions are the same" "there is no such thing as objective truth" "the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind".

I am betting my life on the fact that history will not be kind to these beliefs, it is a frightening experiment as Bill's article explains.

Ordinarily speaking it is a rare thing to move out of ones tradition (although we in the West are experimenting with that at a hideous cost;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HE23Aa01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html

Some though do change traditions and know it. Eg Mark Gabriel Lecturer (and Imam of a mosque) on Islamic theology at the greatest Islamic university in the world Al-Ahzar in Egypt http://www.arabicbible.com/testimonies/gabriel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_A._Gabriel

Bennie,

Pantheism - (God's parts are in everything including evil things) Aristotle argued convincingly that God is indivisible and all good. Giving independent existence to evil (when in reality it is a parasite on the good) – has severe implications for culture – as we see in the Indian caste system and other odious cultural practices.

Nothing in Christianity teaches profligacy, greed and environmental destruction. Just point these people to the Gospels.

Kieran,
To argue Hitler's behaviour was due to Christian belief is like arguing Hitler was a good guy because he treated his dog well. It’s a reveals a lack of that crucially human faculty – a sense of proportion.

turnrightthenleft

1. Humans need meaning. There is meaning to life the specifics have to be worked out between the individual and God. He made us and to Him we return so it centres around love.

If you mean hedonism is the correct philosophy, its been tried and roundly refuted, but some try it on anyway.

2. God is perfect "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect"

3. 1600 years ago St Augustine suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

4. Need? Like we need truth? Those who say they're not fussed about what happens after death are at the same time fussed about whether so and so snubbed them or what he/she is wearing or what people think of them. We should be fussed about such a monumental thing.

5. The Bible doesn't pretend to be a science textbook, classification of the animal kingdom is interesting but its not knowledge of ultimate things.

Michael T,

Crusades and jihad are very different, I'm sure you don't mean to conflate them.

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword."

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Scout, excellent post. Wired, missed out on the evolution gene, understanding's limited, can't see reality, deluded, nature, call it what you like you've describe it beautifully.

Example, Numbat, can't handle the fact his entire belief comes from a plagiarised work and a copy of a copy more than 300 years after the supposed non verifiable misunderstood event. History and archaeology are irrelevant to those “wired” in religious denial

Many may not agree with my approach, but any other, meets with more evangelism or condemnation. As I always say, it's a merry go round, revolving door syndrome monotheists live. Fact means nothing to them, fearful illusion is all they can understand.

Most religion in earlier times, was enforced by invasion, fear of torture and mandatory tithing to church and aristocracy. People enforced in their children, the need to practise their religion, for fear of death if they didn't. It's only in the last 100 years we've had the opportunity and equality to be able to question the barbaric control and expectations of monotheism.

The problem we are facing is the followers of Yahweh can't comprehend the evolving opening world in front of them, so have need to destroy it and return to the past, of moronic morality and corrupt monotheistic control.

Pretty fuzzy thinking to me.

Alchemist

Sometimes you make sense and at other times I cannot understand a word.

And you are a little bit dogmatic. You are quite wrong about Judaism following the OT to the letter. It doesn't. May I recomend "Judaism for Dummies", no joke it is very good.

Tenny, you say my question on religion and geography is strange
and then note one single exception!

Its actually one of Richard Dawkin's points and is worth thinking
about. Yup some kids don't follow their parents into a religious
life, but if you look around the world, something like 95% of
people simply adopt the religion that they were brainwashed with
as children, as the religion to follow for the rest of their lives.

So much for free will and rational thought lol, geography clearly
has a huge amount to do with it, in most cases.

Martin Ibn Warriq,
I have really appreciated your last 2 posts.

Thank you for the recommendation regarding Mark Gabriel. I had never heard of him.
This is quite an excellent, and moving story. It matches in with what my friend Daniel Shayesteh, has been unfolding to so many.

Time has come - for people to wake out of the sleep of the religious pluralist mantra: 'All religions are the same'. It is just not intellectually plausible, let alone experientially so. However, for many a smug, almost conceited air of superiority ('we have science', 'we are enlightened') imprisons them, so that they are not even free to explore the possibilities.

At present, the fear of suddenly waking up to a violent future, now become the very real present, is causing some to reconsider. Thankfully.

Australia's Christian Heritage, has ensured it has been one of the finest (though quite imperfect) nations to live in. May we rediscover some of the hidden gems of our past!

From the above posts from The Alchemist we must conclude that atheists parents brain-wash their children into their beliefs and views. His father has certainly given him an obsessive mind about those that follow monotheism. Monotheism is essentially the belief that though the Universe is diverse it operates as a single unity [the product of one mind].

The fact is my views and beliefs differ from that of my parents so they failed to wash my mind so that I would follow their beliefs. I am too mush of a radical thinker for them. Scout had some insight into the fact that our personality does play a part in our beliefs and responses, it is not totally geographic.

Good posting Scout,

I guess the greatest change over the centuries is that religions moved from a 'state sanctioned' to become a personal choice.

Yuse guys that are filling up this OLO arguing about religion. Has it really got much to do with Middle East problems, especially as an article in today's West' says that the fight is not really about religion, but all about politics.

It gives reminder of a couple of years ago, about a British journalist asking Mubarak the long reigning leader of Egypt pretty well the same question.

According to the reporter, the answer came quick and smart:

Nothing about religion, young man, but simply intrusion and injustice from the West, mainly caused by an everlasting greedy Western quest for hegemon and contraband.

It is so interesting that Egypt had been afflicted with US dollar dependency for many years before Mubarek's statement. Also Egypt was one country made a colonial colony by the British, even before WW1 when the Ottoman Empire controlled most of the Middle East.

O well then, that article must be right.
Cancel all aforementioned posts. Islam is just about politics; and they are just rightly angry at the West. A little understanding, and we could soon sit easy. Ya, right.

Come on Bushy, we need to have a bit of fun. Baiting a monotheist is great fun, they come up with the most ridiculous excuses. Take Philo, can't answer, so out comes the venomous rubbish. Boaz, well I normally refrain from commenting on peoples pseudonyms, but he does display many of the traits of his name. Mythical David, most likely thieving brigand and boaz his supposed violent ancestor. How apt can you get, but I do respect people for the names they use. I'm sure most reflect how people see themselves and how they wish to express on this forum. I find that commendable and believe it allows for a more open discussion.

I would believe credibility here, is determined by how you support your suppositions. That's easy if you always work on the basis that, you will make a mistake, realise and admit it. Your prepared to listen to others and see their viewpoint from their aspect and not just your own.

Then I believe, fuzziness will only relate to those unable to support their claims other than by threat, lies or historical distortion. What differentiates us from the fuzziness of religion, is our individuality. Something monotheists would not understand. If it wasn't for the individual, we wouldn't have progress, because a belief in god means that's it, anything outside that, is taboo.

Yet outside god, is responsible life, your free to explore responsibly. Monotheists can't understand that, as they require god to keep them in check. But that doesn't work as jails and wars are filled with the followers of god.

Without an ideology, you've nothing left to lose, but everything to gain. We have a universe that's beyond awesome, it operates in a state of chaos, controlled by evolutionary interaction with a myriad of other interacting dimensions. They all work together in fascinating musical evolution.

Now isn't that better than a morbid fuzzy gun totting god.

alchy

Amen.

Fully know what you're gettin' at, Alchemist. Yeah, the OLO is a lotta fun, but capable of forward ideas as well. But now I'm only what's left of an old Country Party voter, or rather these days a right-wing or left-wing agrarian socialist, angry about the way Howard's bi-laterism with the US has let us down.

Cheers, Alechemist, mate, keep up the good work.

Alchy u've been on the turps mate -BOAZ was the most humble and peaceful personality in the Old Testament just about.

DAVID..is my real middle name. *slap slap slap*.. shoddy research there :)

You DO have a point though "When you have no ideology, you have nothing left to lose" but everything to gain? yes indeedy and WITHOUT the constraints of said ideology which placed LIMITS on what you can and can't gain.

There was a song floating around in the 60s which struck me as incredibly true and contributed to my own change of life.
"If that's all to life,... then bring out the booze.. bring out the band...."etc..

You say 'everything to gain'..... really ? in the framework of total meaninglessness and barrenness.. with absolutely no morality holding you back..only the LAW... so you are free to assess every opportunity not in terms of 'right or wrong' but of 'legal and illegal'. Now that should lead to some 'interesting' ethics...hmmmmm

Your version of 'life' without God is just a cute screensaver with lots of boobs and butt ....the reality is somewhat different.

But enough philosophizing.. the ultimate truth which we have to deal with is no less than our Risen Lord, His reality and rising from the dead, as witnessed by many, and confirmed by Paul.

John he Baptist asked "Are you for real" (paraphrase)
Jesus response below:
"Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[b] are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

Dear old Alchy has finally addmitted there is a power that designs and controlls the events of material reality with this statement; "We have a universe that's beyond awesome, it operates in a state of chaos, controlled by evolutionary interaction with a myriad of other interacting dimensions. They all work together in fascinating musical evolution."

His father taught him to hate the idea of a "God" but he admits that the true god is called "evolution", that evolution has power to direct and change. A concept Moses attributed to the beyond awesome Hebrew God - YHWH.

However Alchy has ignored the second law of thermodynamics; that matter neither increases or decreases it merely changes form. For him he attributes change and formation to a facinating musical single god evolution - that we monotheists call Creator. He has finally addmitted there is a power not inrtinsically inherent in matter that gives design and direction. He calls it chaos much like what occurrs in his obsessive directionless brain.

Since the Alchemist attributes all chaos to evolution then he must also attribute all human behaviour to the same evolutionary power. Therefore since the human brain is evolving [his view] he has no cause to blame persons for killing each other which he does adnauseam. Blame indicates a moral standard that has been violated. However if he really believed the Universe is created by chaos, then there is no standard of comparison. Killing is OK if chaos reigns. Horror of horrors Alchemist actually agrees with the YHWH's commission of social order, "Thou shalt not kill!" But he denies there is a unifying moral God; he believes the world of man is better off with polytheistic gods. Then boys it is OK to destroy each other as primitive tribes do to neighbouring tribes its all part of chaos.

Could Alchy a YHWH actually have somthing in common after all! Stay tuned.

"Alchy has ignored the second law of thermodynamics; that matter neither increases or decreases it merely changes form."

Like the US fundies, who happily ignored the second law when trying to get intelligent design off the ground.

"since the human brain is evolving [his view] he has no cause to blame persons for killing each other which he does adnauseam. ... However if he really believed the Universe is created by chaos, then there is no standard of comparison. ... Alchemist actually agrees with the YHWH's commission of social order, "Thou shalt not kill!""

I'm not convinced that you quite understand how natural selection works, Philo.

Our society is composed of people whose genes compel them to work together and not kill each other on the slightest pretext. It's not divine, it's simply an outcome of the genetic lottery that improves our chances of survival.

Seeing human behaviour and the splendour of the living universe as divinely dictated means putting the cart before the horse. As the late Douglas Adams put it, "A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: "This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... It must have been made to have me in it.""

I had a wonderful conversation with a retired Bishop from the Anglican church the other day.

From his perspective, the Christian faith welcomes all – men, women, homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, Atheists.

His take on Christianity is that there are two foundations – Love and Freedom. He stated that without these two precepts, Christianity in its modern guise does not meet the criteria laid down by the Creators messenger – Jesus.

Interestingly, he also states that Christianity was just one of the forms of worship the Creator hoped people would be drawn to. He freely accepted that Christianity was but a version of fellowship that the Creator wished to bring to the world.

I told him I had left the Christian faith and looked into myself for some answers. That I was disillusioned with the intolerance, prejudice and dismissive attitude towards other faiths by many Christians and their hierarchy. His response? I could look in no better place than inside for the answers. As that is where the Creator was waiting.

I then told him I did not find the Creator. I did not believe in a specific supreme being. Perhaps I believed in the oneness of the universe and all the responsibility and connectedness that brought with it. His response? I had already found the Creator, whether I realised (or wanted it) or not.

Seems to me that belief and faith are far more important that dogma.

And as the good retired Bishop said – You can shout your faith and the redemption it grants you to the universe but the noise will be hollow if your actions do nothing to resonate the sound in time to the Creators beat.

Quite the wise man I thought.

Setting aside the basis of the retired Bishop's stance - ie. a Church created by a King who couldn't live the Faith He once defended, and which now seeks to remove the Cross of St George from its National Flag - lest it upset Muslim immigrants - the premises of Love & Freedom are sound.

Sound if they also rebuff selfishness and that the self is bound by responsible behaviour.

Introspection is great, if, as the Bish says, you find God, but finding God is not adopting something like the Force. God is a person too, and you can establish a personal relationship with Him - through the person of Christ and His Church. (cf Mohammed and a distant Allah).

Now, if you do not meet the person of Jesus (through prayer and His Church) then perhaps the Church is at fault, but, if you refuse to develop this relationship in spite of the Church, then...

Someone had to bring in the Middle East problems and the bad old US.

And Sancho I am sorry but the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with conservation of matter.

Reason, I could not agree with you more. I have a number of clergy friends who feel the same and accept me as one who's outgrown god, as many sensible people have.

Philo and B D's response are typical of the fuzziness of gods followers, constantly changing truth to give a meaning satisfying their fantasies. I said the universe was in a state of chaos, not it was chaos, or evolution is the creator. Both evolution and controlled chaos are active states of the universe, not it's defining creation.

The second law of thermodynamics, only relates to our known universe. Not the ones we don't know of, in the form of other dimensions containing forces and matter we are yet to understand.

Morals are a construct of illusionary power over others, they suppress and destroy peoples free will, giving monotheists an excuse to carry out their barbarity. God's followers are unevolved barbaric slaves, requiring a set of rules, to enable them to function beyond their infantile understanding. Those understanding universal ethics, have no need for suppressive restraints. They're evolved enough to see how the beings of our planet conduct their ethical lives and emulating it in our lives.

There's nothing in common between Yahweh and evolution, one is an ongoing progression of cause and effect. The other a barbaric destructive illusion determined to enslave and destroy, in deference to what reality and truth places before us.

A perfect example of the depth of lying and barbarity monotheists will got to, is the finding of thousands of unexploded cluster bombs, dropped by the jews across Lebanon after a cease fire had been determined. It's an excellent example of how deceptively moronic god's followers are.

Philo, "Thou shalt not kill!" now that's a complete lie. It's all gods works have ever done, kill, kill kill. Believing in god, is a lack of the evolution gene, that switches on and off during gestation, giving us the ability to think forward. Sadly some miss out.

Reason

Feeling warm and fuzzy about your post, thank you.

Your retired Anglican Bishop sounds like a wise man. Another retired bishop, John Shelby Spong states:

"My quarrel with fundamentalist and conservative Christians is not their right to believe as literally as they wish to believe. It is rather with their attempt to define Christianity so narrowly that only fundamentalists or conservatives can be included within the definition. It is their need to impose their truth on all Christians as the only truth that I resent. At this point biblical fundamentalism and the official position of the Roman Catholic church with its defined orthodoxy and papal claims to infallibility are remarkably similar, if not in form at least in intention. Both are, in my opinion, remarkably wrong and remarkably destructive to Christian truth and to a Christian future."

Talking about fuzzy thinking, I have started a discussion group about Animal Welfare - it is going very well, however, not a single fundy/conservative christian has thus far posted on the topic - no contribution, no interest. Given the concern over foetal life by said christians, I have to wonder why this concern doesn't extend to ALL living creatures.

"And Sancho I am sorry but the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with conservation of matter."

That was Philo's comment (which I quoted). I know perfectly well what the second law is!

There's a nice summary of creationists vs the laws of physics here:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

The alchemist: So you have outgrown God, but never mind He has not outgrown you - depend on it!
So we believers are fuzzy and have constantly changing truth err truth is truth by definition truth never changes, cannot change.
Just who or what is controlling your chaos - evolution perhaps?
All these other universes they just popped up by themselves did they. These same billions of universes do not follow any laws either I suppose. All doing their own thing so to speak?
Morals destroy people's freewill - what utter arrant nonsense or perhaps meaningless drivel! By the way the Bible tells us that we do not have freewill so chum God is and has been pulling your strings all your life.
God's followers are barbaric slaves - another total nonsense!
A bit of truth from you: There's nothing in common between Yahweh and evolution - heh! build on that truth.
And as well God's followers are moronic-thanks for that deep insight.
Believing in God is a lack of the evolution gene - again absolutely unprovable garbage. G.J.Chesterton said to this effect "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing - they believe anything" Fits you alchemist to a 'T' Regards, numbat

Scout,

Spong and animal welfare in the same post and you wonder why Chrstians are ignoring your pleas? Second order stuff I'm afraid as long as poverty, war, abortion, hESC research etc is on the liberal agenda.

"And Sancho I am sorry but the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with conservation of matter."

Sorry Sancho I was mistaken. Then Philo needs to be informed here.

Judeo-Christianity has just wasted whole civilisations in Iraq and Lebanon and as the author points out... in a matter of days. Bush did this in the name of Christ.... yeah, right.

I agree with Sells - Christ heralded the end of religion - he did not set out to establish one of his own. He professed 'getting on' with people rather than 'controlling' them through fear and thuggery. He understood the 'high' priests and 'noble' men of the time exploited 'doctrines' to maintain and project their own sense of power. Make the people afraid and then they will look to be 'saved'.

Most ordinary peopel, right around the world tend to get on with each other perfectly well until those at the top (down the barrel of a gun) want things to be a bit different, or feel they are losing their grip.

Bush again looks for 'puppet kings' as did the Romans in the time of Herod. Someone ought to sit down with the man and explain Christ's teachings to him.

Alchemist,
You've outgrown the god your father thought the Bible reported; but you've expressed belief in directional order.

With this comment one would believe you're reading the Genesis account.

"I said the universe was in a state of chaos, not it was chaos, or evolution is the creator. Both evolution and controlled chaos are active states of the universe, not it's defining creation."

"Now the Earth was in a state of lifeless chaos, and darkness was over the deep, when the Spirit of the life-giving God brooded over the waters." Gen 1:2.

The difference between us is you believe our Universe is merely formed from random actions [itself-adding-information]. This does'nt answer how matter was formed, or how ionic attraction by chemicals was given character. We believe these were placed there by Creational design. You've changed your definition of how power developed to now make Genes the Creator. It appears you do not believe in a deliberate continuium of development by purposeful direction, ie that order emerges from chaos because there's been design input into the result not inherent in the original. eg if man developed from apes then added genetic information not inherent within the genes of apes is the result. Selection suggests choice, but I've yet to see a living species other than humans choose a partner because they wish to improve the species and add genetic information not already inherent within their genes.

Alchemist's first god was random chaos that formed matter and ionic chemistry.
His second god was natural selection that gave added information to genes.
His third god was directional powers within the gene to carry it foward.

Please identify what is defining outcomes the power that gives design and direction!

Monotheists believe all created direction and design has one ultimate revelation purpose, and that for the mind and spirit of man. Man is held responsible.

Our focus on God is in the areas of our responsibility to live by design - that is character, actions, attitudes, wisdom etc and it is the demonstration of these ideals we worship because our God is revealed in them.

Philo, I phrased that sentence showing you the difference between genesis and reality. One would understand the story writer at the time, would have an understanding of that era, not our era. Place any interpretation you want on any written word, but its veracity is tied to the reality of its expression and the totality of its outcomes. For god its totally, is totally negative, irrespective of the fantasied infantile ploys use by Yahweh supporters.

The difference between us, is you live within the past, I live now and plan for the future, whatever that maybe. Its a simple process called, rational logic.

“Our focus on God is in the areas of our responsibility to live by design - that is character, actions, attitudes, wisdom etc and it is the demonstration of these ideals we worship because our God is revealed in them.”

Philo, rational logic according to historical and present facts are, that's a complete load of BS and not supported by reality. You may wish it to be that way, but you an your ilk wish for many things in prayer, 99.999% of them never answered. Rational logic would interpret that as either, a good laugh, or deluded infantile psychopathy.

“Please identify what is defining outcomes the power that gives design and direction!”

Even though that makes no sense at all, you may've meant, what is the power and direction that's defining outcome and you dropped in the design to entrap. A deity power is not in my agenda, quite the opposite, I see many possibilities for the reason for this universe. Its only fuzzy religion stopping ethical evolution by suppression, fear and war, from opening our eyes to what place we really hold in this presently incomprehensible universe.

God's only within your minds, expressed in violent actions, evidenced by the way your ilk attack, abuse and lecture all who disagree. Your fear of realities, only surpassed by your violent attempts to suppress it.

Non believers may disagree with each other, but enjoy and learn from the disagreement. Monotheists turn disagreement into war, not very enjoyable

Philo, you seem to see mankind as being separate from 'creation' rather than an integral part of 'creation'. We are, all of us 'God' and 'God' is us. There is no external MASTER, pulling the strings. God is a word to describe 'EVERYTHING'. Your outdated, patriarchal view of existence is a very narrow view of EVERYTHING.

Numbat, how can you say that truth never changes. The only 'truth' is that everything is in constant change and flux. For example, it was 'true' you were once a seven year old child... this is no longer 'true'. The more our minds are in the PRESENT reality, rather than past realities, the closer to the 'truth' we are.

Chinese Taoists understand this and recognise, happiness comes from an ability to move in concert with the tao (the way things have been, the way things are NOW and the way things are heading). Which way is the wind blowing? Keep up... or suffer, as all around you changes.

The closest literal translation of 'TAO' is 'The Way'. For Buddhists it is karma (cause and effect). Mankind effects change and is impacted by change. Our ability to keep up with ethical and sustainable change for our common good is a reflection of our civilised status or collective wisdom. Trying to 'fix' truth as you do, leads only to conflict and unhappiness. Truth changes depending on our perspective and our perspective must constantly change - anything other would mean we are only 'pillars of salt'.

More people than ever before are now educated and therefore more people than ever before are making an impact on the world. Our skills for peaceful negotiation and for creating solutions that benefit everyone need to keep pace with our new found individualistic (self-serving)creativity. Complacent leaders, both political and religious who try to fix and hold their self-serving views are increasingly becoming the primary causes of disharmony and conflict.

K£vin,

Brilliant post. Verging into quantum physics there. The idea that everything is energy and can only be re-formed and never lost, all that has been, will be.

The creator of the universe is simply energy - some call it god, others string theory.

There does not have to be conflict,
only those
who wish to impose,
spin endlessy being dogmatic.

Most humble apologies for excruciating poetry - but it just happened as I was typing and I decided to go with the flow.

Peace.

The fact that the rational human mind exists in reality is not foreign to the nature of the universe, nor should it be divorced from reality it is part of reality. The fact logical ordered sequences occurr [a design feature of our universe] in reality that can be understood by reasoning of the human mind - to me indicates the reflection of our own mental imaging is not beyond the capacity to exist outside physical reality and influence the object of our reality where the human mind reasons.

The human mind locked in the metaphysical itself is not the power and direction of the universe [God] but it reflects the all powerfull mind that has given rational features ot our universe. To the mind of man has been given what appears the ultimate unfolding revelation of reality.

I say again 'truth never changes!' That's one reason man can explore space etc as laws are constant, gravity is always gravity - they do not change. Yes I was once seven years old and it is truth that I will always have once been seven years old. Being seven I built on that fact, that truth and am now more than ten times that.Regards, numbat

numbat,

What is truth? Be it Einstein, or Pilate, for most people, truth is a relative matter that 'bends' depending on your point of view, or current need / situation.

Gravity near a black hole may not be the same as between here & the moon!

7 or 70, faith is a matter of belief that can (or may not be) supported by reason, experience etc. Whilst it is comforting for some Universal constants, infinity certainly opens up some possibilities for the unexpected...

I'll avoid reading the commentary - 131 posts sounds a bit overwhelming - and confine myself to the article. Muehlenberg supposedly writes philosophy for a theological college. I'm accustomed to reading philosophy but I've never come across such poor quality writing and thinking in a philosophical article.
As there is too much to criticise I'll confine myself to one paragraph - the fourth. In it, he points out that the last century was the bloodiest of them all, and claims that this bloodletting was caused primarily by anti-religious forces.
As a person who has read a fair amount of history I would argue that the main reason for the increased bloodshed in the twentieth century was the greatly increased efficiency of killing weaponry, not the moral degeneracy of supposedly post-religious humanity. The 21st century 'war on terror' is all about religious extremism, and this looks like continuing indefinitely.
It is tendentious to argue that either Hitler or Stalin killed in the name of atheism or secularism. Stalin killed because he was a ruthless psychopath. Such leaders have turned up regularly in history, but a combination of circumstances allowed Stalin to give full rein to his murderous character. Hitler killed in the name of a bizarre ideology of racial purity. Such ideologies may or may not evoke religion. After all, it was God (or Yahweh) who promised Moses that he would ethnically cleanse the land of Canaan for his 'chosen people' (that's mass murder we're talking about, folks), and who laid down all sorts of laws to the Israelites to keep themselves racially pure.
In short there's no evidence whatsoever that religion makes people better or worse. Further religion has very little to do with morality. There's no coherent morality in either the Old Testament or the gospels.

I notice numbat that you can only 'truely' refer to your seven year self using past tense language. Even your attempt to futerise your seven year old self only makes sense when qualified with:

"have once been seven years old".

Philo if 'God' is everything (omnipotent, omnipresent and indivisible) God is EVERYTHING, including each and everyone of us, period.

The fundamentalists have created god in their own image - with the predictable limiting results- 'my god is better than your god'. Not believing in a big daddy god is not wrong or evil and any who cast judgement on those who disbelieve in a singular god are merely revealing their own inadequacies as mature beings.

If god created the universe and everything, then god is energy; energy is our foundation it is the stuff of which we and all around is created, god/energy is within us; it is us.

As K£vin stated "The only 'truth' is that everything is in constant change and flux."

To remain fixated on past events such as the bible, the accuracy of which we can never be sure of, is to stagnate.

One truth I can state with absolute confidence: "There will be change".

Change is opportunity.

How we deal with it is up to us.

Welcome Luigi,

Strange not to have come across the disevangelism of Marx and Nietzsche in your philosophical readings. In the history of ideas Marx's 'opium of the masses' and Nietzsche's 'death of God' intellectually laid the groundwork for Bolshevism and National Socialism, neither could have existed without those two anti-Christian screeds.

You'll remember the Bolsheviks murdered tens of thousands of priests and destroyed thousands of Orthodox churches – communists in the Spanish civil war murdered over six thousand priests. Theres no denying the anti-Judeo Christian character of these movements.

Religion most certainly makes people much better or, sadly, much worse. If I fight against you and am doing God's will but I die, then I still have hope because God's justice cannot be defeated, at Judgment Day my righteousness will ultimately prevail. You can see how great courage and self sacrifice as well as great evil can come from belief. Jesus on one extreme and suicide bombing muslims on the other. St Francis, St Thomas Aquinas, St Joan of Arc etc on the one hand and C16th Dutch Anabaptists on the other.

God gives us something to die for. This impulse can be perverted as in I slam, or it can find a home in Christ - who does not promise worldly success as Mohammed did, but his presence and love alone – the greatest experience of our life.

Secularism can't offer this, taken to its logical conclusion its highest teaching, I'd argue amounts to filling up one's life with as many distractions (Tocqueville's petit plaisirs) as possible before death. We aren't willing to sacrifice our lives (its simply not worth it) for abortion rights, access to pornography, gay marriage rights, and current popular culture. In London, where Islam is taking over, its clear how secularism just can't stand up to religion.

You have a big job trying to sustain the claim Jesus teaches no coherent morality. What is a coherent morality in your opinion Luigi - Kantianism?

Reading a modern person's self understanding into a 3500 year old story is not the way to understand the Bible Luigi

Both Nietzche and Marx are still highly regarded as important thinkers, and rightly so. If violent and narrowly ideological forces have misappropriated their works for their own purposes that's hardly surprising, it happens all the time - I've even heard serial killers claiming to be inspired by the music of the Beatles. However, I think the influence of intellectual writings on social and ideological movements is largely exaggerated, and certainly very difficult to prove.

As to the Spanish civil war, I believe the pro-Catholic side killed many more people than did the republican side, only some of whom were communists. Not that this matters, the point being that there's no evidence that getting or having religion makes you any more or less violent.

Secularism doesn't have a 'highest teaching', it merely claims that, in understanding this highly complex world we don't need to have recourse to a supernatural being. This is not a moral issue. Belief in a supernatural being won't help you decide what's right and what's wrong - you have to do that for yourself.

It is very easy to show that what morality the so-called Jesus character of the gospels preached is inconsistent, incoherent and piecemeal. All that is required is close textual analysis. Kant's categorical imperative is quite coherent, on the other hand, though I find it unconvincing, and ineffectual in practice.

There is no evidence of any Old Testament writings before about 2800 year ago, and scholars have generally put forward the writing of the old testament by several centuries in recent times. Homo sapiens, in its current state of brain development, has been living and getting along in social groups for about 150,000 years. In other words, Judeo-Christianity, that 'ole time religion' has been around for one fiftieth of the time that humans have been making moral decisions on this earth. What difference has it made? Hard to tell, but nobody could seriously argue that it has been significant.

Scout, Kevin hope this is helpful. Its part of the following essay.

CS Lewis 'Dogma and the Universe'

"How can an unchanging system survive the continual increase in knowledge? A mature scholar reading a great passage in Plato, and taking in at one glance the metaphysics, the literary beauty, and the place of both in the history of Europe, is in a very different position from a boy learning the Greek alphabet. Yet through that unchanging system of the alphabet all this vast mental and emotional activity is operating. It has not been broken by new knowledge. It is not outworn. If it changed, all would be chaos. A great Christian statesman, considering the morality of a measure which will affect millions of lives, and which involves economic, geographical and political considerations of the utmost complexity, is in a different position from a boy first learning that one must not cheat or tell lies, or hurt innocent people. But only insofar as that first knowledge of the great moral platitudes survives unimpaired in the statesman will his deliberation be moral at all. If that goes, then there has been no progress, but only mere change. For change is not progress unless the core remains unchanged. A small oak grows into a big oak; if it became a beech, that would not be growth, but mere change. And thirdly, there is a great difference between counting apples and arriving at the mathematical formulae of modern physics. But the multiplication table is used in both and does not grow out of date.

In other words, wherever there is real progress in knowledge, there is some knowledge that is not superseded. Indeed the very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element. New bottles for new wine, by all means, but not new palates, throats and stomachs, or it would not be, for us, 'wine' at all. We should all agree to find this sort of unchanging element in the simple rules of mathematics. I would add to these the primary principles of morality.

And I would also add the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

. . . . . like mathematics, religion can grow from within, or decay. The Jew knows more than the Pagan, the Christian more than the Jew, the modern vaguely religious man less than any of the three. But, like mathematics, it remains simply itself, capable of being applied to any new theory of the material universe and outmoded by none.

When anyone comes into the presence of God they will find, whether they wish it or not, that all those things which seemed to make them so different from the people of other times, or even from their earlier self, have fallen off them. They are back where they always were, where everyone always is. Eadem sunt omnia semper (Everything is always the same). Do not let us deceive ourselves. No possible complexity which we can give to our picture of the universe can hide us from God: there is no copse, no forest no jungle thick enough to provide cover. We read in Revelation (20:11) of Him that sat on the throne 'from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away'. It may happen to any of us at any moment. In the twinkling of an eye, in a time too small to be measured, and in any place, all that seems to divide us from God can flee away, vanish, leaving us naked before Him, like the first man, like the only man, as if nothing but He and I existed. And since that contact cannot be avoided for long, and since it means either bliss or horror, the business of life is to learn to like it. That is the first and great commandment."

Luigi,
Moses laws were not about racial cleansing as his laws included protection of persons in their land. Jews are diverse in race but exclusive in religion. Joshua was involved in war against persons who posed a threat to their existence even as today with Hamas.

Please identify Moses laws that deal with racial cleansing!

Quote, "After all, it was God (or Yahweh) who promised Moses that he would ethnically cleanse the land of Canaan for his 'chosen people' ..., and who laid down all sorts of laws to the Israelites to keep themselves racially pure. ... Further religion has very little to do with morality. There's no coherent morality in either the Old Testament or the gospels."

Obviously you neither study or understand the Judea/Christian moral position presented in the gospels. You are rather ignorant of Christian morality. Most of our laws are based upon these principles. Christian morality reflected mush of previous balanced morality but dealt with heart attitudes.

Philo
In Deuteronomy 6 10-12 Moses says to his people: 'Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you eat and are satisfied,then watch yourself, that you do not forget the LORD who brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.'

The clear implication is that those who planted the vineyards and trees, built and lived in the houses and produced all the good things are to be expelled, enslaved or exterminated. A clearer case of ethnic cleansing would be hard to find. And in case you're still not convinced, go to Deuteronomy 20: 10 - 18, in which Yahweh stipulates which ethnic groups are to be exterminated - 'you shall not let a soul remain alive', and who and what are to be counted as booty.

Modern law is largely a refinement and expansion of Roman law. It may have been influenced by Christian principles during its development, but I think you're right to say that Christianity reflected previous morality. The gospels, which I've read closely quite recently, don't present a clear, coherent morality, and morality isn't their primary concern. They're far more concerned about establishing Jesus as a religious figure by promoting his supernatural powers and the message of 'salvation' through belief in him. Morality is low on the agenda.

Thanks Martin - useful passage and as always - the closer one approaches 'truth' the greater the paradox - the only constant is change. When we let go of language, the paradox disappears and all that is left is NOW.

How does C. S. Lewis explain Jesus changing water into wine - or raising Lazarus from the dead - perhaps they are not miracles after all? "Growth" and "change" can be synonymous though it is interesting that the oak tree resembles not the acorn.

As Lewis points out the core of one's being is where real change takes place - the modern word to describe this phenomenon is 'realisation' - when we "know" - we understand. A new realisation alters our perspective, everything suddenly looks different - though of course, we are looking out on to the same world (but we cannot say we have not changed). When we realise we are no longer seven, and let go of the seven year old's mind, we “know” we are growing up - we "know" something has changed.

The only barrier to eternity is language - in our attempts to explain or describe phenomena, we imprison the mind. Read Frederich Jameson’s "The Prison-House of Language: a Critical Account of Russian Structuralism and Formalism".

All Christ can give us as a guide - a pointer towards the way is: "I am the alpha and the omega". The rest, we have to fill in for ourselves.

Its a long time since I read any Lewis - but I do remember him describing his experience of "seeing" the real tree once in one of his works - sorry, I can't remember which - “seeing” rather than “thinking” or ”verbally describing internally”.

As I've been saying all along – ‘religion’ and it’s overly pompous, self-righteousness attempts to control the mind rather than liberate the mind. It holds people back from discovering and being their ‘true’ selves. The Pope aint giving up the throne any time soon – the Church – give up its "glory" for a heavenly realm for all – fat chance.

Luigi, the following article may be of interest to you:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_thom_har_060905_thom_hartmann_3b_democ.htm

To TurnRightThenLeft,

I just came across your set of questions. They looked like fun, so why not give them a burl? Because of word limit, let’s start with questions 5 & 3.

Q5. Why do no world religions mention dinosaurs? doesn't this hint that perhaps the authors don't know everything after all?
Even if it was a practical joke and dinosaurs weren't real, there are some damn big chicken bones lying around. You'd think they deserve a mention.

A-There’s one world religion that mentions dinosaurs. Open the book of Job to chapters 40 and 41. In this ancient book, perhaps the oldest in the Bible, there are detailed descriptions of animals called the leviathan and the behemoth. Some translations give different names for the animals, but the descriptions are unmistakably dinosaur like. They couldn’t possibly be an elephant or hippo or crocodile as they do not match their descriptions, but do line up quite nicely with certain types of dinosaurs.

This is enough to suggest that dinosaurs still existed in Job’s day. There are other legends and stories from most cultures in every continent of terrible dragon like creatures. These might be called dinosaurs if discovered today.

Q3. Why is everyone so fussed about creation - by its very definition, we have no witnesses to say whether it is right or wrong.
So it's like arguing what happened at the kick off of a footy match no one saw. (my point is, most people would be content to know the results, and guess what - we do!)

A-If I came to a football match at half time, and found that one team was beating the other by seventy-five goals to zero, I would be asking questions why? This would not be a proper sporting contest, it would be an aberration. Something would be wrong, and until I knew what it was I would feel uncomfortable. Likewise, we can plainly see there is something wrong with our world. If we could know what what went wrong at the start, then we would have a better chance of fixing it up.

MickV,has it occurred to you that dinosaur bones may have cultivated ancient religious thoughts about dinosaurs?There is nothing special about your observations.What I do find interesting is that birds evolved from dinosaurs.Dinosaurs,the ugliest and most ferocious creatures are now considered to be the most beautiful and amongst the smallest of our creatures.

Religion is the comfort dummy that fills the gap caused by our insecurities.