Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: still crazy after all these years

I wish Bill was runing for president.

Why is it that the rational ones never aspire to public office ?

They are all batshit crazy. Mormons are not quite Scientology crazy; they come in a distant second on the dementia meter, but that still puts them out beyond Pluto's orbit.

One thing I find disturbing, not only about the MSM but also about the blogosphere, is that nobody is demanding to know if Romney will lavish tax money on Mormons the way Bush gave it away to evangelicals?

That was good.
"I don't know enough about Mormonism to say..."
"I JUST TOLD YOU."

"But that's only if you believe in DNA testing!"

Please don't think the mo-mos didn't line up in droves to get some of that cash, Awk. They sure did.

I for one never knock another groups religion. I will an individuals though. Mormons are due the respect that you would accord anyone else. Call them crazy, call them all crazy but to do it you have to prove Jesus was first a man and not the Son of God. A man with some really cool abilities, but still a man.

OTOH, you go the other way and he was the Son of God, had the capabilities up to and including the ability to stop time and space in its tracks, well Bill and others might have to get ready for the weenie roast...Whatever that is. Its the difference between science and faith. I have posted up before about what are you/they going to do if and when you bump into HIM? I think that a big "Oh Shit" would be in order, or not.

God without a doubt has to have understood that the faithless would happen. Adam and Eve both decided to lean towards the temptation of all things... It was the Tree of Knowledge. With that came eventually atheism and agnostics and simply because they cant tip on down to the Walgreens and pick up a load of God and get the touchie-feelie with HIM. Okay, I'll buy that argument any day of the week. But what if you knew he was there?

Mormons-Other religions call them a cult..... Not in my book. Scientology though... theres something I could really sink my IRS into.

Randy: It's nice you are tolerant of others' beliefs, no matter how bizarre. But that doesn't mean you can't think they are bizarre or crazy. In this case I think I made it clear, as did Maher, I don't think they are crazier (at least not much crazier) than all the others. Obviusly you disagree. I don't entertain the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead any more (but not less) than I entertain the possibility of wood sprites, witches or leprecauns, all of which have many adherents. As for respecting everyone's beliefs, what's all this about Islamic Extremism? Isn't that a belief system?

I can come to no other conclusion, being a rational being, that Bill Maher and Revere are absolutely correct. The belief systems of all religions are "batshit crazy" (although they call it 'faith' in an attempt to avoid their own cognitive dissonance). I simply cannot find any other explanation that fits the observable facts.

However, M. Randolph Kruger is (partially) correct in that we should avoid attacking the 'personhood' of the religious. Such attacks are almost always counterproductive in that it engenders anger, and then hate in the person being attacked. Very little truly constructive, long term change can be expected within such a demeaning framework of social interaction. The psychological literature is quite clear on this issue. There is little or no room for doubt. In our attacks on religious belief systems we scientists should at least adhere to the 'truth' of our own validated research findings.

Notwithstanding the frequently voiced observation (at least in this blog, thankfully) that even we scientists seem to retain our own irrational beliefs regarding the appropriate object to which our scorn should be directed, I can identify no sources of error in Revere's statement that religious dogma is "batshit crazy".

You tha man, Revere!

The Moonies! You forgot the Moonies!

Definately crazier than the Mormons, but are they crazier than the Scientologists?

You can't rank religions on any objective "weirdness" scale, you can only rank them by level of unfamiliarity. To an American, Asterix the Gaul, is peculiar, but to a Frenchman, he's part of the landscape.

Call them crazy, call them all crazy but to do it you have to prove Jesus was first a man and not the Son of God. A man with some really cool abilities, but still a man.

True, if they can first provide some reasonably strong evidence that the guy existed and had those powers. Until then, the ball is in their court.

NB: Contrary to what some believe, the oldest Roman records mentioning Jesus date from the 2nd century, and are all in the context of what these "Christians" believe.

so,which actual country, which political system and society
do you like best ?

anon: Not a question of what I like best but how to make where I live better. For the record, northern Europe does most things that are important to me better than the US (and I've lived there for periods) but I live in the US and that's what I'm interested in.

MRK says he never knocks another's religion. If a person's religion is harmless I would agree. But religions once they get any power are NOT harmless. Buddhism is supposedly more benign, but take a gander at this by Michael Parenti
http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html
even if only half true it is horrific. In the name of Jehovah uncountable atrocities have occurred. Child's minds have been forever scarred. They produce holy books that sanction genocide (read Joshua if you can stomach it). Even relatively powerless religions have the ability to harm people who grow up under them by preaching their brand of truth. Parents use religion to scare their children (God and Santa are watching you). I think they all deserve to be exposed to whatever manner of rational thought we can use.

Revere says: I don't entertain the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead any more (but not less) than I entertain the possibility of wood sprites, witches or leprecauns, all of which have many adherents.

Randy says: Adam and Eve both decided to lean towards the temptation of all things... It was the Tree of Knowledge. With that came eventually atheism and agnostics.

RP says: True, if they can first provide some reasonably strong evidence that the guy existed and had those powers.

------------------------------------------------------

Have time and space been misplaced still, even Lewis has pointed difference between the belief and faith in The Dynamics of Faith (last freethinker-potato head)?

Truth of faith and truth of science are different languages. Tillich further states (pg. 33): "The dimension of faith is not the dimension of science, history or psychology. The acceptance of a probable hypothesis in these realms is not faith, but preliminary belief, to be tested by scholarly methods and to be changed by every new discovery. Almost all the struggles between faith and knowledge are rooted in the wrong understanding of faith as a type of knowledge which has a low degree of evidence but is supported by religious authority. ...

So, it is the time for this blog to overcome the misunderstanding between faith and belief.

If one day, an anthopological project (scientific method)discovers the evidence of Jesus' corpse, would this discovery affect the faith of ressurection? We discussed this topic 36 years ago in a study group of Paul Tillich's article-You are accepted.

Revere and RP's questions are not relevant to the meaning in the dimension of faith. Just like the question of God's existence is not relevant.

Paul Tillich's theory recommended the use of the symbol as the language of faith. The reason is God is not an object. All the language belongs to the description of object is not proper to describe God.

God as Father is a symbolic expression. A symbol of source, of protector and of ultimate judgement.

Let us move on and forget the meaningless topics such as using the description of object to apply to the description of faith.

Then, our dialogues will be in a deeper level for nurturing a holy ground for us.

Luckily I have found a good example of speaking faith language. Faith is.... in spite of....., I trust and I love.

This is from last week's post by Library Lady.

"
LL says: I feed the birds and deer in my yard. I plant trees wherever my yard can hold them. I treasure the "volunteers" in my flower beds. I care for the African-American cemetery next to my home. I sew for my grandchildren. I am writing a book. I take my Mom out for a "play day" and take my father-in-law to dialysis.

I am a recovering cancer patient. Science and my doctors, family and friends, and my faith have all helped me deal with cancer. I love science. I love life. "

I thought that it was beautiful!

Paiwan, I find the symbol of God as Father, disturbing, not comforting. The ideal human father would not allow some of his children to rape, torture, kill, disfigure, poison, impoverish etc others of his children. Surely a GOOD God would do more for his created children than an ideal human father. Yet if he exists he seems to do far less than the most negligent father. Surely at least the Father could rescue at least innocent babies from being raped by their step fathers, girls and boys as young as 6 being sold into sexual slavery. God the Father is a disturbing image and no amount of theology can change the facts on the ground.

K, Hi, how are you?

Once we agree with the use of symbol as an approach, then we have conquered the shortcoming of literal meaning that we usually describe an object.

Maybe you are right; the symbol of Father is not good enough. Lately some theologians use Our Parents as symbol.

But, K. symbol is symbol, don't take it literally. Put your imagination this time. I have worked this for you by reading Paul Tillich again for the last two months. Believe, you are the primary concern?

For instance, you mentioned several times about the Omnipotence; the interpretation is not literally God can do the things that we expected him to do immediately. The right interpretation is it is symbol- the origin of competency; paradoxically its symbol covers the mercy and justice.

In short, the symbol of God can not separate from the state of normal human psychology. And I like the implications of the symbol for myself; 1. God knows me more than I know myself; 2. God is the greatest companion in any moment with me, especially in crisis, in disaster, in panic, in denial, in disrespected and in persecuted.

I would like to quote Paul's response to Einstein; "The third argument of Einstein challenges the idea of an omnipotent God who creates moral and physical evil although, on the other hand, he is supposed to be good and righteous. This criticism presupposes a concept of omnipotence which identifies omnipotence with omni-activity in terms of physical causality. But it is an old and always emphasized theological doctrine that God acts in all beings according to their special nature, in man according to their rational nature, in animals and plants according to their inorganic nature. The symbol of omnipotence expresses the religious experience that no structure of reality and no event in nature and history has the power of preventing us from community with the infinite and inexhaustible ground of meaning and being. What "omnipotence" means should be found in the words Deutero - Isaiah (Is. 40) speaks to the exiled in Babylon when he describes the nothingness of the world-empires in comparison with the divine power to fulfill its historical aim through an infinitely small group of exiled people. Or what "omnipotence" means must be found in the words Paul (Rom. 8) speaks to the few Christians in the slums of the big cities when he pronounces that neither natural nor political powers, neither earthly nor heavenly forces can separate us from the "Love of God." If the idea of omnipotence is taken out of this context and transformed into the description of a special form of causality, it becomes not only self-contradicting -as Einstein rightly states - but also absurd and irreligious."

I have shared my latest experience of Burma' monks' sacrifice for leading the demonstration. For me, it symbolize a living God. The Holy Spirit is working to show that God's love with the people under persecution. For me, it is a very important symbol of hope.

You see the symbol conquer the literal interpretation of God's salvation has to be thru Israel, thru Christianity. No, God's salvation can be upon any nation now who cry over Him. Israel and Christianity are two symbols, but again do not take them literally.

Do they make sense to you?

If there was a God of love, these people in Burma wouldn't be under persecution.

Why bother with symbols. There is or there is not a God. If there is a god he/she/it is powerful or not. If this god is powerful he/she/it is powerful enough to effect changes in the world. If this God is not powerful enough to effect changes in the world, then this God is irrelevant to humans. If this God is powerful enough to effect changes then this God must be evil for letting such horrors go on.

How does God work in a postive way for a six year old who has been sold into sexual slavery?

Theologians spend years playing with words, texts, etc and I have yet found one who can tell me why God would let a father rape his baby. This does happen, sometimes as young as two. What comfort for that barely verbal child with the pain and betrayal? Have you found a theologian who can give a good answer to this specific question?

K, I put the right theologian and his interpretation on the table. It is your terms to digest what Paul Tillich had said on my last post.

Don't mock theologian especially before you are really calm and resilient to understand the message. IMO.

Theologian is just like a medical doctor, they give advice. It is your decision to implement the prescription step by step.

Disappointed. Your question is not relevant to me at all.

Cthulhu cares not if you are a follower of the feeble Earth gods, for they will be consumed in a tidlewave of blood and nightmares when the stars are right at the end of creation. After His eons of dreaming slumber, Great Cthulhu will rise from His dead city of R'lyeh to scour the living and establish a paradise of eternal howling madness. Ftagn! Ftagn Cthulhu!

Paiwan, Nice dodge. You have studied theology. Tell me the answer to my question. Can you based on your reading of Tillich or any theologian you have read tell me what good your words will do for the child being raped by its father, the 6 year old being sold for a sex toy? No doubt the question is not relevant to you as you have not had these atrocities happen to you. But if the plight of these innocent victims is in fact irrelevant to you then what kind of religion do you adhere to? Surely any moral code of value would find their plight of the utmost relevance.

Many fine Christians I have known say that it is our responsibility to stop such horrors, to come to the aid of the injured. But if Christians or other religious people fail to do so, is it right for God to abandon innocent children? If God can't at least step in where his/her/its followers fail, then what earthly or heavenly good is such a god.

BTW I spent 40 years of my life searching for answers through countless theologians, Tillich included. I also spent 30 years working with the poor and disadvantaged. Funny, once I finally gave up religion, I looked back at some of the stuff I once thought hopeful to figuring it it - and in fact it was hopelessly inadequate and often laughable. But when you are in the God mode you surround yourself with words and ideas that sound almost right and you cannot see that they are just elaborate twisting and turnings that keep you from seeing the plain truth.

K, for argument sake, there are many serious patients in the world, can you blame for the medical doctors? Definitely no, right? Otherwise all the public health's problems, we just blame for Revere. :-)

Medical doctors may know the answers, may still have many questions about his diagnosis, nevertheless his service is justified. Be rational, K. Why you want to delect theologians? We can not live in a doctors- vacant society, backwards.

Why there are so many miseries happen every day in the world? Even, the greatest theologian- Jesus could not answer directly, when people questioned him why this man was born as a blind person, was his ancestors sinned, or else? Jesus' answer was," He was born as a blind person to glorify God."

Paul Tillich's interpretation of omnipotence, "the religious experience that no structure of reality and no event in nature and history have the power of preventing us from community with the infinite and inexhaustible ground of meaning and being."

Instead of asking why God not do this ( We can not dictate God to do for our perception), we affirm to us and to the people in suffering the meaning of God's love,and K it is not empty word. The word with action of love. So, your care and love for HIV's victims to me is to witness that the Holy Spirit is acting, thru you, I see a living God.

You are not happy that I see God thru you, or you are happy? Tell me honestly.

Theologians are hired to excuse God from his failures - they do so using the argument that free will is worth God's allowing this to go on (I bet many victims would wish for less free will on the part of the perpetrators), or allowing that God might not be ALL powerful, or that we learn through suffering etc.

I have never denied the existence of God. I merely state that a poweful God is not consistent with a Good god. You can have your less than poweful God or your less than Good god if you want. This is a construct of your mind and Tillich's mind. You invent ways that this God exists or is good.

For me the suffering of a child is not irrelevant. God is irrelevant. I doesn't make me happy that you see God thru me because there is no God in me or my actions, just me. If you see God there then you miss me. I am far more interesting and apparently much more able to act in the world. There is no God in me. Just a brain and life experiences.