[Aj_]

Originally Posted by SSH

Well, Mithras was worshipped as a god, apparently. Perhaps that one isn't a strawman, but I don't think Beowulf nor Hercules were gods. So I don't anyone would have ever claimed to have a personal relationship with them after they had shuffled off their mortal coils.

Hercules was born of a god, and became a god, people worshipped him as a god, and believed he was also a historical man. I don't understand what's the difference between a fictional character who is a god, and one that is not.

As for attacking gravity, that was purely your own invention and hence easy to ridicule. Why don't you try ridiculing something I actually believe, rather than something you made up just now? And how exactly does the theory of evolution help people produce vaccines? You're getting confused, I think: medical biochemistry is not the same thing as evolution...

I wasn't ridiculing you, and didn't know you were a creationist. Evolution is fundamental to biochemistry. Viruses evolve, or do they?

If you still can't see your strawmen, perhaps you should take an anti-histamine... they're giving you hayfever and have made your eyes swell up!

You're not going to explain them to me out of spite? It must be easy, if they're so clear to you.

[SSH]

Originally Posted by Aj_

I don't understand what's the difference between a fictional character who is a god, and one that is not.

Well, the fiction-ness is in dispute, so I think its fair to put that aside. Do you then not understand the difference between a god and a non-god?

I wasn't ridiculing you, and didn't know you were a creationist.

Did I say you were ridiculing me? Did I say I was a creationist? Seriously, if you can't be bothered to actually respond to what I said rather than what you're assuming I'm going to say, then please don't bother yourself at all.

You're not going to explain them to me out of spite? It must be easy, if they're so clear to you.

My whole last post was dedicated to explaining them. Not only can't you see them, you can't tell when someone is explicitly pointing them out!

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by SSH

Well, the fiction-ness is in dispute, so I think its fair to put that aside. Do you then not understand the difference between a god and a non-god?

So you're telling me you're not an atheist in regard to Mithras and Hercules? Also, Beowulf as an historic character, does it make a difference whether he's a god or not?

Did I say you were ridiculing me? Did I say I was a creationist? Seriously, if you can't be bothered to actually respond to what I said rather than what you're assuming I'm going to say, then please don't bother yourself at all.

You asked me to ridicule something you actually believed. Multiple personality disorder? I can't remember refering to your beliefs at all, but when I mentioned something about creationism, you said I was ridiculing you personally.

My whole last post was dedicated to explaining them. Not only can't you see them, you can't tell when someone is explicitly pointing them out!

Comparing gravity to evolution is a strawman? You didn't explain the difference between Mithras and Jesus, I don't understand the strawman there.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

I'm curious, FGM...how did you arrive at your belief system? Is it something that just started making sense? Something that evolved over time? Is it something that you've attempted to instill in others (kids for instance) or is it just something personal for you?

First of all, thanks RLPW!

At about your age, I became involved in exploring psi experiences I'd been having. I taught myself to remember my dreams (I never was very good at writing them down though). And discovered that place I call the 'interlife' where your 'soul' goes when you die. I learned that I, and everyone else 'chose' the parents we would be born to, and the life we would lead. No, it's far from being pre-destined, but certain things could be known ahead of time. You could choose to meet up with 'friends' from other lives, and know them again in this life. (I'm sure you've met people that you instantly 'know' and like when you've only just met them.)

I regressed from a previous life and have had flashbacks which were very uncomfortable to experience. At only 3 yrs old, I awoke speaking German one morning, and thinking I was about twentyish, and male - my mother, a very psychic lady, somehow recognized that this was some kind of sleep-leftover, slapped me, and I returned to the 3 year old that I was. I had apparently returned to my previous life in my dreams, where I was a homosexual who had been tortured and burnt alive in one of their ovens during WWII.

During my sleep excursions to the interlife I asked about my lover, and when would I meet him in this life. Up until 1971 or 1972, I was told I would meet him again, but not for 20 years or more, and that he'd be much younger than me. I asked if I would recognize him, and was told that I would instantly, but not by sight. How would the internet be explained at that time as what it has become today?

In 1998 I met a guy, the first one I got to know online, and sure enough, This guy Clint, as soon as I had spoken to him on the phone, which we did many times, and I heard his voice, Alabama twang and all, I knew this was him. He had been the strong one in the relationship, and I had respected his strength. He is again that in this life, strong, despite adversity. I spent a few days with him and his wife and two kids, and felt like I'd gone home again.

There was another, but that's a longer story, for another time. I learned that certain things like lovers, major illnesses and injuries, births and deaths were immutable, except in unusual circumstances, were predestined. But most of our decisions, and our day-to-day lives would be of our own choosing. Those 'predestined' events were chosen by us in the interlife before birth or during our dream-state. So we actually made our own choices, even if we don't remember them.

The interlife is hard to describe. I don't really have visual memories, or tactile, either. Communication was not done aloud, so I have to assume it's telepathic. There were schools, in which I taught between lives on Earth. Teaching is highly revered because only those experienced were teaching and advising others. Counselors were also experienced, and act as 'guardian angels' for us here. There were those who chose not to experience a life on Earth. But if you did choose this, you must experience it in at least three forms, of both sexes, and with a range of lifestyles. Many chose several lives to experience, as I did. My understanding is that this is my last incarnation on Earth.

During the interlife, there is a deprogramming time, where people's misconceptions are gradually retaught. There isn't a 'heaven' or a 'hell', though much of our teachings here promote that there is. You are, when you die, received by your 'guardian angels', and guided individually to where you'd been before your incarnation on Earth. This time then becomes a review of your life and accomplishments, and 'bad' stuff. A person like Hitler or Stalin, who was responsible for millions of deaths would never be allowed to be reborn on Earth.

There are 'good' and 'evil' forces. Interestingly enough, in TLJ, the force of chaos, the evil threatening dark cloud, is pretty close to the experience of 'evil' in the interlife. The force of good, or the God being, is hundreds of times as large as the force of evil. Our own good works, if done unselfishly, contribute to this 'good' force, and conversely, our mean, spiteful actions contribute to the 'evil' force.

The purpose of churches, or other places of worship, is to guide us to 'good' works and behavior to increase our force against the 'evil'. No hell, no purgatory, no limbo! Although the interlife might be close to the 'heaven', but no pearly gates, no thrones. And we are in judgement only of ourselves. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Haile Selassie, and many others were here to guide us to peace, but were not, in fact, Gods, but gentle paternal people who wanted to lead us more toward good. No women? Well, of course there was Mother Theresa, and others known as Saints, but women were not respected to the same degree, so most of these teachers were incarnated as men.


I didn't mean this to be a preaching session and I apologize. You got me going on this and out came the soapbox.

If this interests you, try learning to remember your dreams. Find your own peace within yourself, and accept responsibility for your actions. Be open and you'll find the answers, but probably not from books.

Peace and love,

FGM

[Catbert]

See I wouldn't be capable of seeing myself picking my life without heavy drug usage. Heavy.

[SSH]

Originally Posted by Aj_

So you're telling me you're not an atheist in regard to Mithras and Hercules? Also, Beowulf as an historic character, does it make a difference whether he's a god or not?

You asked me to ridicule something you actually believed. Multiple personality disorder? I can't remember refering to your beliefs at all, but when I mentioned something about creationism, you said I was ridiculing you personally.

Comparing gravity to evolution is a strawman? You didn't explain the difference between Mithras and Jesus, I don't understand the strawman there.

Aj, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I have explained these things clearly. I will not respond to your posts again in this thread.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by SSH

Aj, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I have explained these things clearly. I will not respond to your posts again in this thread.

I suspected as much.

edit:Just as a check to make sure I'm not crazy. Did anyone else see the clearly expressed difference between Mithras and Jesus, or any explanation of a strawman?

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

I learned that I, and everyone else 'chose' the parents we would be born to, and the life we would lead.

Mmm. No offense, but I can't see myself choosing the life I've lived up until this point unless I was a die-hard masochist.

Originally Posted by Squinky

We may claim to use reason to arrive at our conclusions, but in reality, it seems more to me like we all have deep-seated emotional convictions swaying us one way or another, and what we are actually using reason for is to justify these emotions. These emotions come from personal experiences - SnorkleCat's and Jeysie's come to mind, and Trep, I wouldn't be surprised if you had some emotional reasons for believing what you do as well.

Mmm. Yes and no.

Yes, emotions were part of the reason behind why I stopped *trying* to have faith.

However, I never really had faith in the first place. I wanted to, definitely. People would always talk about listening to God, and letting him into your heart and such, and it sounded really good. Plus I liked the father and sisters at my church and wanted to please them. But whenever I tried praying, all I ever felt was the same dull old reality around me. Nothing remotely out of the ordinary. I never really understood what the experiences everyone else talked about were supposed to be.

Maybe it has something to do with that even as a young child I had a strong sense of reality (not that I'm saying religious faith is unreal or fantasy, it's just the best way I can think of to put it). I don't remember ever really "playing pretend", for instance... I was always acutely aware it was just playing an act. I even only "believed" in Santa Claus as a logical conclusion (albeit one based on incomplete childish information).

So, I think I'm just hardwired to not believe in anything I can't sense, or don't have some kind of logical proof of. I likely would have given up trying to have faith eventually anyway; my family's troubles simply hastened the matter.

Which brings me to something else that's always troubled me somewhat:

If we operate from the assumptions that God "forms" every being on the planet, and that you need to have faith in order to achieve salvation, what does one make of a born skeptic - someone hard-wired to be incapable of having faith? It feels kind of like being set up to fail, doesn't it? Not very reassuring. :/

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Maquisard]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but the first couple of pages make me wanna chip in.

There was an article in Time a long while ago about how spirituality is hard-wired into humans. I regret not reading it now, because I wonder what science has to say, if anything, about the process by which people have spiritual experiences.

I have many doubts about the Bible, and would probably be the first in line to flush my copy down the toilet, had I not many times experienced the high caused by prayer and praise. That, in my mind, is rational cause to believe in a higher being, though not in everything the Bible says about him.

The question becomes, is there a higher being out there that responds to everyone's acts of faith, no matter what their religion? Are there many spiritual beings out there, that respond only to their particular followers? Is the only God out there the God I pray to, and has he really so limited humanity's access to himself that spiritual highs followers of other religions experience are in actuallity perverse imitations?

Or, from a scientific perspective, does an act of faith, no matter what it's in, cause a chemical reaction in the brain that makes believers feel good? If so, how is this evolutionarily adaptive? Is the only difference between paranoid schizophrenics and believers that experiencing "God" doesn't make them wanna hole up in their apartments? Are the pharmaceutically treatable delusions of some mentally ill people a corruption of the brain's capacity to believe? Seeing as how religion has caused so much damage in the world, should we develop drugs that block a person's ability to believe in/experience God, even if they perceive it as a life-affirming encounter?

I'm afraid I don't have any answers to these questions, which is contrary to my attitude on these kinds of topics when I was fresh out of Bible College: "I know everything about God, ask me, ask me!"

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Maquisard

There was an article in Time a long while ago about how spirituality is hard-wired into humans. I regret not reading it now, because I wonder what science has to say, if anything, about the process by which people have spiritual experiences.

I have many doubts about the Bible, and would probably be the first in line to flush my copy down the toilet, had I not many times experienced the high caused by prayer and praise. That, in my mind, is rational cause to believe in a higher being, though not in everything the Bible says about him.

I find it interesting that this is right after I lamented/noted that I feel like I'm hard-wired to be incapable of having faith, and I've never felt anything out of the ordinary while trying to pray myself. Maybe you could offer me some enlightenment on the subject? It's always eluded me... :/

Peace & Luv, Liz

[undeaf]

Well, you know how it is with all this hard wiring, it's not too reliable. Humans are hard wired to be social, but then again we have psychopaths, schizoids, and so on.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

I come from a time when Theists, Deists, and Agnostics were the same thing, so I don't have a name for my beliefs. You won't find them taught in any church, nor are they part of any sect.

Deism as a word, is very old, but it began meaning something different in the 18th century. Meaning belief in a God, but not a personal God, and by God meaning an intelligent being who created the universe, and possible Earth/Life, but that was mostly before Darwin.

Agnosticism was introduced in the 19th century by Huxley, but now it means many different things, and on its own, is not useful at all. Although I'm an Atheist, I'm agnostic in that I don't claim to have knowledge about anything supernatural.

If I were to name your beliefs in a deity, it would most definitely be Pantheism. "God is All", God is the universe. I associate Pantheism with Eastern religion, but the idea is in the Abrahamic religions aswell.

Belief in reincarnation is very common in the New Age movement, including dreams as communication of spiritual knowledge, and having direct knowledge of past lives.

Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Haile Selassie, and many others were here to guide us to peace, but were not, in fact, Gods, but gentle paternal people who wanted to lead us more toward good. No women? Well, of course there was Mother Theresa, and others known as Saints, but women were not respected to the same degree, so most of these teachers were incarnated as men.

From the accounts I have read of Jesus, Mohammed, and Haile Selassie, they preached peace in their speeches. Although some of the speeches definitely promote peace, and brilliantly, Selassie was involved in a war, Mohammed is known as a "war prophet", and Jesus seemed to like the "sword". Mother Theresa was far more interested in "saving" people than relieving suffering. Why would these people be sent to teach something counter to what you believe?

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I find it interesting that this is right after I lamented/noted that I feel like I'm hard-wired to be incapable of having faith, and I've never felt anything out of the ordinary while trying to pray myself. Maybe you could offer me some enlightenment on the subject? It's always eluded me... :/

Peace & Luv, Liz

There was a Horizon episode called " God on the Brain" that makes a connection between religious experiences and temporal lobe epilepsy. The video is on google video.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Aj_

There was a Horizon episode called " God on the Brain" that makes a connection between religious experiences and temporal lobe epilepsy. The video is on google video.

Hmm. Well, having skimmed through the article itself a bit, this part certainly resonates:

The bloodflow patterns showed that the temporal lobes were certainly involved [in meditation] but also that the brain's parietal lobes appeared almost completely to shut down. The parietal lobes give us our sense of time and place. Without them, we may lose our sense of self. Adherants to many of the world's faiths regard a sense of personal insignificance and oneness with a deity as something to strive for. Newberg's work suggests a neurological basis for what religion tries to generate.

I've always had a very strong sense of self, in that I tend to usually be very grounded in my surroundings. Which I suppose explains why my own attempts at meditation have always fallen rather flat... I can't get far enough away from myself and reality, so to speak. Whether being that strongly grounded in reality/the here and now is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal opinion, I suppose.

I'm somehow reminded of a passage from one of Orson Scott Card's short stories...

"I worry about you, Ida," said Douglas. "You seem to have an unhealthy grip on reality."

"Nay," said Cecil. "Reality hath an unhealthy grip on her."

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Fairygdmther]

Quote from AJ - "From the accounts I have read of Jesus, Mohammed, and Haile Selassie, they preached peace in their speeches. Although some of the speeches definitely promote peace, and brilliantly, Selassie was involved in a war, Mohammed is known as a "war prophet", and Jesus seemed to like the "sword". Mother Theresa was far more interested in "saving" people than relieving suffering. Why would these people be sent to teach something counter to what you believe?"

They preached what would reach the people they spoke to. Mahatma Gandhi, and MLK both kept to the peaceable approach, and both were killed. Jesus is not reliably known. Historically we know he existed, but his life wasn't written about until 400 years later. While I can see him acting angrily, I cannot see him using a sword and causing loss of life.

FGM

[Catbert]

Why do you apologize for what you say about people's beliefs? You see how you are "hard-wired", as you say? I do it too and it makes me ashamed.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

If this interests you, try learning to remember your dreams. Find your own peace within yourself, and accept responsibility for your actions. Be open and you'll find the answers, but probably not from books.

Actually, I did find that interesting. Thank you for sharing. I've always been intrigued by dreams, myself.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I've always had a very strong sense of self, in that I tend to usually be very grounded in my surroundings. Which I suppose explains why my own attempts at meditation have always fallen rather flat... I can't get far enough away from myself and reality, so to speak. Whether being that strongly grounded in reality/the here and now is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of personal opinion, I suppose.

I've discovered that I meditate not by sitting still and breathing like everyone else used to tell me to do, but by going for long walks and getting lost in my thoughts. On some occassions, I've even started to narrate my own thoughts as though I were some disembodied voice describing a character in a novel. Weird, huh?

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

They preached what would reach the people they spoke to. Mahatma Gandhi, and MLK both kept to the peaceable approach, and both were killed. Jesus is not reliably known. Historically we know he existed, but his life wasn't written about until 400 years later. While I can see him acting angrily, I cannot see him using a sword and causing loss of life.

Thank you for your response. Gandhi and King were pacifists, and I admire them for that and their fight against injustice. They are both modern and definitely real, and there are so many examples of good people in recent history. As far as I know Jesus didn't use a sword, but he uses the word "sword" a few times, for example:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

I don't think we can know whether he existed or not, the fact that the account of his life was written 400 years (perhaps earlier) after his supposed death in conflicting accounts is not strong evidence to me. There's a gap there, of atleast 40 years. These don't even claim to be first hand accounts. If he was Roman or Greek, would he be marked as mythology? I can accept an historical Jesus, although it's by no means certain, but the gospels are highly unlikely to be accurate, and thus a fiction.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Every Atheist I have read or talked to is very much in favour of comparitive religion as compulosory education.

Compulsory? Not me. It won't work. Elective however is fine.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I was thinking a bit about this point, and by that kind of logic, we should probably be banning books, movies, and video games containing violence, because some people who take them in their completely literal sense are going to be inspired to actually commit acts of violence. I'm thinking that most of you would agree that this shouldn't be the case; just because certain immature individuals aren't intelligent enough to distinguish reality from fantasy doesn't mean that we should deprive others from experiencing the artistic value of these pieces of work, and finding inspiration in the good messages therein.

Which is precisely why everything must be subjected to intelligent scrutiny, and why nothing should be sanctioned, no matter how dear or comforting it may be. Do you still believe in Santa Claus, the bogey monster, or that stepping on pavement cracks will break your mother's back? That Zeus rules over us all? That's my point, really. Why should a deity - ANY deity - be excempt from close scrutiny?

If the Bible (or the Koran, etc.) is supposed to be the be all end all of absolute wisdom, then shouldn't it be followed to a tee? If so, doesn't that mean that fundamentalists are more true to it and thus better Christians than the moderates who pick and choose which things to believe and practice as is convenient for them?

And if the Bible can actually be modified to suit our times (and historically it has, LOL!), then doesn't that undermine it as the ultimate source of wisdom? Hmmm, I need to think a bit on this.

By the way, those who choose to use media content (i.e. movies, video games, etc.) as an excuse for their stupidity also need to be seriously put under close scrutiny and treated accordingly.

But then, I do think of the Bible as a predominantly allegorical piece of work, as well as one that is very much a reflection of its time.

If only tons more Christians thought the same as you. I think that Melanie and rlpw, both believers in God, probably feel the same way as you. Still, the very fact that they cherry pick from the Bible hints that it may not be so absolute in its doctrines as is believed by evangelists and fundamentalists. Thus it may be, to Melanie and rlpw and others like them, more of a source for philosophical and moral guidance, whether they admit it, and then perhaps their spirituality could come from that source instead of the God in it. The Biblical God would perhaps damn them to hell, but then again they don't worship Him as such in this day and age. And with that kind of worship, it seems that their god is only as powerful as they want him to be.

Let's put it this way. If you are a religious moderate you most likely cherry pick from the Koran/Bible/Whatever. You probably almost never go to your house of worship and say prayers every day and observe holy days. But you still consider yourself religious, right? If that's the case, doesn't it still entail an obligation to respond to others of your faith

Right. Firstly, I have to again quote myself:

Originally Posted by Trep

This prompted me think on how I feel about religious moderates. I think that they're practically even worse than the fundamentalists and the current trend of pushing for interfaith dialogue, I think, can't work in the long run.

Religious moderates refuse to allow their beliefs to be questioned, it's taboo to challenge them. Why is that?

I say if you are moderate Christian you are still obliged to respond to others of your faith. This is because of the common denominator you have with your fellow Christians - your belief in God and the values He teaches. If you claim that you don't worship God the way, say, evangelists worship Him as the Bible demands, then you're certainly are NOT a true Christian, right? You simply plucked the Christian God and re-fashioned Him to suit your own needs, your own lifestyle, your own psychology. In other words you've made a designer god, he is no longer the Christian God as from the Bible.

I seriously don't see the categorical label of 'True Christian' applicable to this kind of cherry picking, not even the category of basic Christian. So does that mean that you're not obliged to criticize Christian fundamentalists who lobby for federal anti-embryonic stem cell research policies? What if you yourself, a moderate in this sense, are still against federal stem cell research? What do you base your decision on, the Bible from which you cherry pick or your own ethical judgments as filtered through your own designer God?

Alas, when it comes to discussions, there just gets to be a point where you have to agree to disagree.

No, to that I passionately disagree. If the discussion involves taking into account the effects that such a belief system is having on the real world, on public policies, and on society and culture, then NO, I seriously disagree. If the beliefs of an influential group of people are seriously having adverse affects on how a country is run, on the very lives and health and well being of our fellow human beings on a global scale, on the state of my world, and on the state of MY own well being as a citizen of a country where I pay taxes and where my life is not supposed to be dictated according to the beliefs of others, then no, I seriously object to that whole schmuck of 'agreeing to disagree'. If I do agree to disagree that would be a stupid breach of MY own set of ethics and values, wouldn't it?

We may claim to use reason to arrive at our conclusions, but in reality, it seems more to me like we all have deep-seated emotional convictions swaying us one way or another, and what we are actually using reason for is to justify these emotions. These emotions come from personal experiences - SnorkleCat's and Jeysie's come to mind, and Trep, I wouldn't be surprised if you had some emotional reasons for believing what you do as well.

It would seem that way. 'Seem' is the operative word here, Squinky. Whatever Snorkle and Jeysie's psychological motives, ulterior or not, have to do with their own position on all this is subject to examination, of course. As is mine. But I can tell you now, I do have reasons for my position. Whatever emotions I exhibit are expressions based on my value judgments and the ethics from which those judgments come. In this case it involves my humanitarian concerns over the state of the world and how it operates.

My beliefs are grounded in reason in this case, a pragmatic reason. I just gave you an example of the several millions of sub-Saharan Africans suffering from HIV and dying from AIDS, thanks to those stupid missionaries telling them that some imaginary deity would rather see them die than have an abortion.

I can learn a lot from listening to other people's thoughts and stories, and seeing how they fit with my own, but in the end, I'm not coming here to tell people what they should and shouldn't believe. I'm here to offer perspectives that make sense to me and listen to those of others. I only hope that everyone else who posts in this thread feels the same way.

Ultimately I share your view on not telling people what to believe. However, in this case, you must admit that when you see your fellow human beings drop dead or suffer for the rest of their lives as a direct result of someone else's beliefs for which those sufferers either don't have a say at all or the intellectual arsenal with which to defend themselves, you have to ask yourself: Do I stand back and let this happen or do I, as a moral human being, intervene?

What do you tell the African woman on her deathbed, who weighs 79 pounds from extreme diarrhea and has skin lesions the size of Pittsburgh all over her body, when she tells you through trembling lips that she overheard them saying that it's only a matter of days before she dies, but at least God is happy that she didn't use a condom?

I'd be interested to know your answer. I know what MY answer is.

So have I, numerous times. And the questions never stop. When they do, that's when you should probably be worried.

For the fundamentalists, you know, the ones who pretty much preach from the White House and the Vatican, thus largely running the world, the questions stopped thousands of years ago. Are you worried now?