Barry,
Thank you for your web site. It is very stimulating and I appreciate the challenge of examining my beliefs.
I voted in your inquiry of "Do you believe in "original sin." While I do not believe in the dogma of "original sin." as it is interpreted to mean that all persons are born as depraved, sinful, corrupted individuals and need someone to "save" them, I do believe that at one time or another most of us are selfish, offend/abuse others, and do not seek the common good. Sin has often been understood as "offending God, or doing things contrary to God's will." Repentance, as understood by the first century Jews and Christians was a "turning around so that one's actions were in accordance with God's will, i.e., doing that which is right, just, and loving."
When the first Christians said that Jesus saved us from our sins, they were saying that Jesus showed us the way to be at one with God." That's a lot different from "saving" us from eternal damnation, although if one believes that being "one with God" means eternal life, which is available in the present, then I can see how Jesus saves us from eternal damnation, which would mean living in the absence of God in the present.
For me, Original Sin has the connotation that every individual is depraved, unable to know God. I do not believe that. The writers of the Bible looked around them and discovered that all people seemed to be self-serving, contrary to God's will. Therefore, early Christian theologians (I think it Augustine was the first) coined the conception "Original Sin." I believe that it is descriptive of humanity rather than a theological truth (of which there are very few, if any).
This may seem that I am riding the fence. What I am seeking to do is to understand why people of faith in the past have written about their faith and why now their words have the weight of "LAW and TRUTH." When they were writing, I think they were not writing LAW and TRUTH, but a rational for their personal faith.
Does this make any sense?
Thanks again for your willingness to explore the complexities of our faith.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Richard Holloway - Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church
In the late fourth and early fifth centuries AD, one of the great psychological controversies of all time took place. It had to do with what we today should call the ‘Theory of Original Sin’. Specifically, the question at issue was whether a certain sin of the ancestor of the race, namely Adam, was carried by inheritance to all his offspring through all the ages.
One of the parties to the controversy was a man named, Pelagius. According to his view, Adam’s will to disobedience ended where it began. Because, under a momentary temptation, he had misbehaved, there was no reason, Pelagius argued, why every child born thereafter was fated to inherit this same will to misbehavior.
Each child in the world, he maintained, starts with his own powers and carries in him no weight of sin produced by a single ancestral misdemeanor.
St. Augustine, on the contrary, held that Adam’s act of disobedience started a long train of psychic inheritance. Every child born thereafter was cursed with sin that began with Adam’s act of disobedience. Adam’s original sin, in short, became a universal and inherent tendency to commit sin. From this tendency the individual could be saved only by Divine favor.
When we think now of the conditions under which this debate was carried on, we wonder at the deep seriousness with which it was taken – and continues even yet to be taken. There was no attempt at research or rigorous experiment. In fact St. Augustine’s position was so flagrantly a projection upon the whole human race of his own uncontrollable lusts that a modern psychologist would have thrown out his contentions as untrustworthy and misconceived.
So the greatest question at issue in our human life – whether we start with powers that enable us to work out our destiny; or whether, by a mysterious curse, we are defeated at the outset and must appeal to a higher Power to help us out – was settled without the slightest attempt to search for relevant factual evidence. It was settled by sacred writings, by theological debate, and by theological politics.
We might almost say that the curse which, through all subsequent centuries, has rested upon humankind came, not from Adam, but from St. Augustine. To a peculiar degree, it was St. Augustine who denied to Christians the world over, the healthy blessing of self-respect. Augustine won this argument, not by decision of a competent body of scientific minds, but chiefly by his power to influence the leaders of the Church. He used his theological arguments so effectively that Pelagius was declared a heretic.
Did Augustine have the right of the argument? There was nothing in the procedure by which his view was make the truth and the opposite view was made false. When the rulers of the Church declared the Pelagian view a heresy they did not prove it to be an error. Yet once the declaration was made, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin became so strongly institutionalized that the question of its truth or falsity virtually ceased to arise. Institutional might… made it right.
If the same question were to arise today, it would doubtless be handled differently. In the first place, the ‘ancestor’ would not be a man called Adam but more likely a primordial cell-structure. In the second Place, we would look, first of all, for factual evidence. We would not likely take as our source authority an ancient, unverifiable creation-tale. Starting thus afresh, we might well conclude that each person comes into the world not only with the traces on him – physical and psychological – of what his ancestors have been and done, but also with his own powers. No man starts with a biologically and psychologically clean slate. To this extent Augustine was right.
On the other hand, no person, so far as we can judge from available evidence, starts life so specifically cursed by a will to evil that he has no chance to direct his powers toward decency and wholeness. To this extent Pelagius was right. The ‘will to disobedience’ that Augustine found in all of us appears to be merely the expression of the inevitable conflict between a helpless creature trying to grow into its proper independence and an environment that the child, in his immaturity, can neither understand nor master.
The time is at hand to re-view the whole situation. Christian religion as we know it took over as its own this premature psychological theory: a theory established long before there was any equipment of research or experiment to give it validation. In taking over this premature theory, Christianity condemned man to a psychological hopelessness to which Christ himself bore no witness. It declared humans to be basically impotent to work out our psychological salvation.
Instead of encouraging us to develop all the characteristically human powers within us, and so overcome inner contradictions and outer obstacles, it encouraged us to distrust ourself and malign ourself. It encouraged humankind to cast himself upon a power greater than himself – and to credit, not his own nature, but that mysterious power, with every virtue that seemed to reside in his own thoughts and behaviors. In short, it encouraged the individual to remain a dependent child.
One of the parties to the controversy was a man named, Pelagius. According to his view, Adam’s will to disobedience ended where it began. Because, under a momentary temptation, he had misbehaved, there was no reason, Pelagius argued, why every child born thereafter was fated to inherit this same will to misbehavior.
Each child in the world, he maintained, starts with his own powers and carries in him no weight of sin produced by a single ancestral misdemeanor.
St. Augustine, on the contrary, held that Adam’s act of disobedience started a long train of psychic inheritance. Every child born thereafter was cursed with sin that began with Adam’s act of disobedience. Adam’s original sin, in short, became a universal and inherent tendency to commit sin. From this tendency the individual could be saved only by Divine favor.
When we think now of the conditions under which this debate was carried on, we wonder at the deep seriousness with which it was taken – and continues even yet to be taken. There was no attempt at research or rigorous experiment. In fact St. Augustine’s position was so flagrantly a projection upon the whole human race of his own uncontrollable lusts that a modern psychologist would have thrown out his contentions as untrustworthy and misconceived.
So the greatest question at issue in our human life – whether we start with powers that enable us to work out our destiny; or whether, by a mysterious curse, we are defeated at the outset and must appeal to a higher Power to help us out – was settled without the slightest attempt to search for relevant factual evidence. It was settled by sacred writings, by theological debate, and by theological politics.
We might almost say that the curse which, through all subsequent centuries, has rested upon humankind came, not from Adam, but from St. Augustine. To a peculiar degree, it was St. Augustine who denied to Christians the world over, the healthy blessing of self-respect. Augustine won this argument, not by decision of a competent body of scientific minds, but chiefly by his power to influence the leaders of the Church. He used his theological arguments so effectively that Pelagius was declared a heretic.
Did Augustine have the right of the argument? There was nothing in the procedure by which his view was make the truth and the opposite view was made false. When the rulers of the Church declared the Pelagian view a heresy they did not prove it to be an error. Yet once the declaration was made, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin became so strongly institutionalized that the question of its truth or falsity virtually ceased to arise. Institutional might… made it right.
If the same question were to arise today, it would doubtless be handled differently. In the first place, the ‘ancestor’ would not be a man called Adam but more likely a primordial cell-structure. In the second Place, we would look, first of all, for factual evidence. We would not likely take as our source authority an ancient, unverifiable creation-tale. Starting thus afresh, we might well conclude that each person comes into the world not only with the traces on him – physical and psychological – of what his ancestors have been and done, but also with his own powers. No man starts with a biologically and psychologically clean slate. To this extent Augustine was right.
On the other hand, no person, so far as we can judge from available evidence, starts life so specifically cursed by a will to evil that he has no chance to direct his powers toward decency and wholeness. To this extent Pelagius was right. The ‘will to disobedience’ that Augustine found in all of us appears to be merely the expression of the inevitable conflict between a helpless creature trying to grow into its proper independence and an environment that the child, in his immaturity, can neither understand nor master.
The time is at hand to re-view the whole situation. Christian religion as we know it took over as its own this premature psychological theory: a theory established long before there was any equipment of research or experiment to give it validation. In taking over this premature theory, Christianity condemned man to a psychological hopelessness to which Christ himself bore no witness. It declared humans to be basically impotent to work out our psychological salvation.
Instead of encouraging us to develop all the characteristically human powers within us, and so overcome inner contradictions and outer obstacles, it encouraged us to distrust ourself and malign ourself. It encouraged humankind to cast himself upon a power greater than himself – and to credit, not his own nature, but that mysterious power, with every virtue that seemed to reside in his own thoughts and behaviors. In short, it encouraged the individual to remain a dependent child.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
LLoyd Geering - Secular trend a part of church evolution (excerpts)
The erosion of church institutions does not mean the end of Christianity, for the latter needs to be seen not as something eternally fixed but as an ever-changing and developing process. The modern secular world is all part of that evolving process.
When Christianity emerged out of Judaism, Christians claimed it to be the legitimate continuation and fulfilment of the Jewish path of faith. Similarly, the modern, secular and humanistic world may be regarded as the legitimate continuation of the Judeo-Christian path of faith.
The churches must stop treating the secular world as an enemy to be fought and conquered and welcome it as the new form of the Christian tradition out of which it has come.
The most important task of the churches on entering the 21st century is to help the secular world to understand its Christian origin. The study of the past illuminates the present, but it does not dictate the future.
That is why the Bible remains an invaluable set of documents. We learn much from it but we are not bound by it.
When Christianity emerged out of Judaism, Christians claimed it to be the legitimate continuation and fulfilment of the Jewish path of faith. Similarly, the modern, secular and humanistic world may be regarded as the legitimate continuation of the Judeo-Christian path of faith.
The churches must stop treating the secular world as an enemy to be fought and conquered and welcome it as the new form of the Christian tradition out of which it has come.
The most important task of the churches on entering the 21st century is to help the secular world to understand its Christian origin. The study of the past illuminates the present, but it does not dictate the future.
That is why the Bible remains an invaluable set of documents. We learn much from it but we are not bound by it.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
From the Association of Religion Data Archives
Religion Data Archives www.Thearda.com
Figures as of 2005
Rank.... Religion .....................Adherents
1 .............Christians ........................2,135,782,815
2 .............Muslims ..........................1,313,983,654
3 .............Non-Religious/Atheists ....920,246.454
4 .............Hindus ..............................870,047,346
5 .............Chinese Universists ..........404,922,244
6 .............Buddhists ..........................378,809,103
7 .............Ethno-Religionists ............256,340,652
8 .............Sikhs ...................................25,373,879
9 .............Jews ....................................15,145,702
10 ...........Spiritists ..............................13,030,538
11 ........... Bahai's ..................................7,614,998
12 ...........Confucianists ........................6,470,714
13 ...........Jains .....................................4,588,432
14 ...........Shintoists ..............................2,789,098
15 ...........Taoists.................................. 2,733,859
16 ...........Zoroastrians ..........................2,647,523
Figures as of 2005
Rank.... Religion .....................Adherents
1 .............Christians ........................2,135,782,815
2 .............Muslims ..........................1,313,983,654
3 .............Non-Religious/Atheists ....920,246.454
4 .............Hindus ..............................870,047,346
5 .............Chinese Universists ..........404,922,244
6 .............Buddhists ..........................378,809,103
7 .............Ethno-Religionists ............256,340,652
8 .............Sikhs ...................................25,373,879
9 .............Jews ....................................15,145,702
10 ...........Spiritists ..............................13,030,538
11 ........... Bahai's ..................................7,614,998
12 ...........Confucianists ........................6,470,714
13 ...........Jains .....................................4,588,432
14 ...........Shintoists ..............................2,789,098
15 ...........Taoists.................................. 2,733,859
16 ...........Zoroastrians ..........................2,647,523
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Mithra and Jesus compared…
Mithra or Mitra is even worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also believed that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He traveled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox--Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb....
The Persian priests had their legend of the chief of their religion, and they tell us that prodigies announced his birth. He was exposed to all sorts of danger from his infancy, was obliged to flee into Persia, as Christ was obliged to flee into Egypt; he was pursued as him by a king who wished to destroy him; an angel transported him into the skies, from when they said he brought back the book of the law; as Christ, he was tempted by the devil, who made him magnificent promises, if he would but follow him; he was pursued and calumniated, as Christ, by the Pharisees; he performed miracles, in order to confirm his divine mission and the dogmas contained in his book.
Such was the history of the god Mithra given by the Persians--squaring exactly with the history of Christ given by his worshippers.
Now, Mithra was but a personification of the Sun--and we dare to say, what all intelligent readers will certainly think, that Christ was no more--nay, that the Christian religion is a mere copy of the Persian--a branch of the same allegorical tree.
Because of its evident relationship to Christianity, special attention needs to be paid to the Persian/Roman religion of Mithraism. The worship of the Indo-Persian god Mithras or Mithra dates back centuries or millennia prior to the common era. The god is found as "Mitra" in the Indian Vedic religion, which is over 3,500 years old, by conservative estimates. When the Iranians separated from their Indian brethren, Mitra became known as "Mithra" or "Mihr," as he is called in Persian.
What are we to make of this comparison?
The Persian priests had their legend of the chief of their religion, and they tell us that prodigies announced his birth. He was exposed to all sorts of danger from his infancy, was obliged to flee into Persia, as Christ was obliged to flee into Egypt; he was pursued as him by a king who wished to destroy him; an angel transported him into the skies, from when they said he brought back the book of the law; as Christ, he was tempted by the devil, who made him magnificent promises, if he would but follow him; he was pursued and calumniated, as Christ, by the Pharisees; he performed miracles, in order to confirm his divine mission and the dogmas contained in his book.
Such was the history of the god Mithra given by the Persians--squaring exactly with the history of Christ given by his worshippers.
Now, Mithra was but a personification of the Sun--and we dare to say, what all intelligent readers will certainly think, that Christ was no more--nay, that the Christian religion is a mere copy of the Persian--a branch of the same allegorical tree.
Because of its evident relationship to Christianity, special attention needs to be paid to the Persian/Roman religion of Mithraism. The worship of the Indo-Persian god Mithras or Mithra dates back centuries or millennia prior to the common era. The god is found as "Mitra" in the Indian Vedic religion, which is over 3,500 years old, by conservative estimates. When the Iranians separated from their Indian brethren, Mitra became known as "Mithra" or "Mihr," as he is called in Persian.
What are we to make of this comparison?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Church Music - Old and New !!!!!!!
A man accustomed to a mainline church went to a seekers' service one Sunday. He came home and his wife asked him how it was. "Well," he said, "it was interesting. They did something different. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns."
"Praise choruses?" said his wife. "What are those?"
"Oh, they're okay, I guess. They're sort of like hymns, only different," said the man.
"What's the difference?" asked his wife.
He replied, "Well, it's like this. If I were to say to you,
'Martha, the cows are in the corn,' that would be a hymn. Suppose, on the other hand, I were to say to you:
'Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA,
the cows,
the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows,
the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,
the CORN, CORN, CORN.'…..
Then if I were to repeat the whole thing five or six times, that would be a praise chorus."
________
As luck would have it, the same Sunday a young woman accustomed to seekers' services attended a mainline service. She came home and her husband asked her how it was.
"Well," she said, "it was interesting. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of praise choruses."
"Hymns?" said her husband. "What are those?"
"Oh, they're okay, I guess. They're sort of like regular songs, only different." said the woman.
"What's the difference?" asked her husband.She replied,
"Well, it's like this. If I were to say to you, 'Ernest, the cows are in the corn,' that would be a regular song. Suppose, on the other hand, I were to say to you:
Oh Ernest, dear Ernest, now hear thou my cry;
Incline thine ear to the words of my mouth.
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by to the righteous, inimitable, glorious truth.
For the way of the animals who can explain?
There is in their heads no shadow of sense!
Hearken they not in God's sun or his rain.
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.
Yea, those COWS in glad bovine, rebellious delight broke free from their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night.
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.
So look to that bright shining day by and by, Where all the corruptions of earth are reborn, Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry, And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn.……
Then, if I were to sing only verses one, three, and four, and if I were to do a key change on the last verse, that would be a hymn."
__________________
(....To each his own !!!!!)
"Praise choruses?" said his wife. "What are those?"
"Oh, they're okay, I guess. They're sort of like hymns, only different," said the man.
"What's the difference?" asked his wife.
He replied, "Well, it's like this. If I were to say to you,
'Martha, the cows are in the corn,' that would be a hymn. Suppose, on the other hand, I were to say to you:
'Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA,
the cows,
the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows,
the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,
the CORN, CORN, CORN.'…..
Then if I were to repeat the whole thing five or six times, that would be a praise chorus."
________
As luck would have it, the same Sunday a young woman accustomed to seekers' services attended a mainline service. She came home and her husband asked her how it was.
"Well," she said, "it was interesting. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of praise choruses."
"Hymns?" said her husband. "What are those?"
"Oh, they're okay, I guess. They're sort of like regular songs, only different." said the woman.
"What's the difference?" asked her husband.She replied,
"Well, it's like this. If I were to say to you, 'Ernest, the cows are in the corn,' that would be a regular song. Suppose, on the other hand, I were to say to you:
Oh Ernest, dear Ernest, now hear thou my cry;
Incline thine ear to the words of my mouth.
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by to the righteous, inimitable, glorious truth.
For the way of the animals who can explain?
There is in their heads no shadow of sense!
Hearken they not in God's sun or his rain.
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.
Yea, those COWS in glad bovine, rebellious delight broke free from their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night.
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.
So look to that bright shining day by and by, Where all the corruptions of earth are reborn, Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry, And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn.……
Then, if I were to sing only verses one, three, and four, and if I were to do a key change on the last verse, that would be a hymn."
__________________
(....To each his own !!!!!)
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Why Won't God Help Amputees?
Except from the web site ; http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
"Why won't God heal amputees?" may seem like an odd name for a Web site. The reason for choosing it is simple: this is one of the most important questions that we can ask about God.
The question, "Why won't God heal amputees?" probes into a fundamental aspect of prayer and exposes it for observation. This aspect of prayer has to do with ambiguity and coincidence.
To help you understand why this question is so important, let's look at an example. Let's imagine that you visit your doctor one day, and he tells you that you have cancer. Your doctor is optimistic, and he schedules surgery and chemotherapy to treat your disease. Meanwhile, you are terrified. You don't want to die, so you pray to God day and night for a cure. The surgery is successful, and when your doctor examines you again six months later the cancer is gone. You praise God for answering your prayers. You totally believe with all your heart that God has worked a miracle in your life.
The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy, or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?
Unless you take the time to intelligently analyze this situation, it looks ambiguous. God might have miraculously cured your disease, as many Christians believe. But God might also be imaginary, and the chemotherapy drugs and surgery are the things that cured you. Or your body's immune system might have cured the cancer itself.
When your tumor disappeared, in other words, it might simply have been a complete coincidence that you happened to pray. Your prayer may have had zero effect.
How can we determine whether it is God or coincidence that worked the cure? One way is to eliminate the ambiguity. In a non-ambiguous situation, there is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not.
That is what we are doing when we look at amputees.
Think about it this way. The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers. For example, in Mark 11:24 Jesus says,
"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
And billions of Christians believe these promises. You can find thousands of books, magazine articles and Web sites talking about the power of prayer. According to believers, God is answering millions of their prayers every day.
So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.
Why not? Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer: God must exist and God must answer prayers. What we find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence.
The fact that prayers are never answered when the possibility of coincidence is eliminated meshes with another fact. If we analyze God's responses to ambiguous prayers using statistical tools, what we find is that there is never any statistical evidence for prayer. In other words, when we statistically compare prayer to coincidence for explaining any situation, they are identical. For example,
One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.
It also says:
A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods.
No valid scientific study has ever found any evidence that prayer works.
You can see the same effect in the following prayer. Let's assume that you are a true believer and you do believe that God cures cancer. What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. If God cures cancer, then this is an easy prayer for an omnipotent, all-loving God to answer.
The fact is, what this prayer does is remove ambiguity. As soon as we do that, we see the true nature of "God." There is no way that a coincidence can answer this prayer, and, sure enough, the prayer goes unanswered.
If you look at the data, you can see exactly what is happening here:
When we pray to God about any non-ambiguous situation, God never answers the prayer.
When we analyze any ambiguous prayer using statistical tools, we find zero effect from prayer.
In other words, every "answered prayer" truly is a coincidence, nothing more. "God" doesn't "answer prayers" at all. The belief in prayer is pure superstition. Non-ambiguous prayers (like those of amputees) show us, conclusively, that the whole idea that "God answers prayers" is an illusion created by human imagination.
"Why won't God heal amputees?" may seem like an odd name for a Web site. The reason for choosing it is simple: this is one of the most important questions that we can ask about God.
The question, "Why won't God heal amputees?" probes into a fundamental aspect of prayer and exposes it for observation. This aspect of prayer has to do with ambiguity and coincidence.
To help you understand why this question is so important, let's look at an example. Let's imagine that you visit your doctor one day, and he tells you that you have cancer. Your doctor is optimistic, and he schedules surgery and chemotherapy to treat your disease. Meanwhile, you are terrified. You don't want to die, so you pray to God day and night for a cure. The surgery is successful, and when your doctor examines you again six months later the cancer is gone. You praise God for answering your prayers. You totally believe with all your heart that God has worked a miracle in your life.
The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy, or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?
Unless you take the time to intelligently analyze this situation, it looks ambiguous. God might have miraculously cured your disease, as many Christians believe. But God might also be imaginary, and the chemotherapy drugs and surgery are the things that cured you. Or your body's immune system might have cured the cancer itself.
When your tumor disappeared, in other words, it might simply have been a complete coincidence that you happened to pray. Your prayer may have had zero effect.
How can we determine whether it is God or coincidence that worked the cure? One way is to eliminate the ambiguity. In a non-ambiguous situation, there is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not.
That is what we are doing when we look at amputees.
Think about it this way. The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers. For example, in Mark 11:24 Jesus says,
"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
And billions of Christians believe these promises. You can find thousands of books, magazine articles and Web sites talking about the power of prayer. According to believers, God is answering millions of their prayers every day.
So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.
Why not? Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer: God must exist and God must answer prayers. What we find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence.
The fact that prayers are never answered when the possibility of coincidence is eliminated meshes with another fact. If we analyze God's responses to ambiguous prayers using statistical tools, what we find is that there is never any statistical evidence for prayer. In other words, when we statistically compare prayer to coincidence for explaining any situation, they are identical. For example,
One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.
It also says:
A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods.
No valid scientific study has ever found any evidence that prayer works.
You can see the same effect in the following prayer. Let's assume that you are a true believer and you do believe that God cures cancer. What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. If God cures cancer, then this is an easy prayer for an omnipotent, all-loving God to answer.
The fact is, what this prayer does is remove ambiguity. As soon as we do that, we see the true nature of "God." There is no way that a coincidence can answer this prayer, and, sure enough, the prayer goes unanswered.
If you look at the data, you can see exactly what is happening here:
When we pray to God about any non-ambiguous situation, God never answers the prayer.
When we analyze any ambiguous prayer using statistical tools, we find zero effect from prayer.
In other words, every "answered prayer" truly is a coincidence, nothing more. "God" doesn't "answer prayers" at all. The belief in prayer is pure superstition. Non-ambiguous prayers (like those of amputees) show us, conclusively, that the whole idea that "God answers prayers" is an illusion created by human imagination.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The ‘Savior Motif’
Here is a quick ‘Pop Quiz’ for you… What do the following fourteen historical figures have in common?
Vishnu of India
Osiris of Egypt
Mithras of Persia
Baal of Phoenicia
Alexander (the Great) of Greece
Indra of India
Tammuz of Syria
Attis of Phrygia
Caesar Augustus of Rome
Adonis of Greece
Hercules of Thebes
Thor of the Scandinavians
Fo of China
Jesus of Palestine
Rather than make you guess, let me tell you… They were all said to have been ‘born of a virgin.’ Not only they but hundreds and hundreds of other Kings, leaders, warriors and rulers hold the same distinction. They were all said to have been ‘born of a virgin.’ Moreover, it has been written in documents through out the ancient world that most of them have been labeled with the entire ‘Savior Motif’, as I call it.
The ‘Savior Motif’ consists of eight specific points;…
1. Born of a virgin,
2. Said to be the ‘Son of God’,
3. Said to have performed miracles,
4. Died a cruel death,
5. Said to have died to save humankind from sin,
6. Said to have arisen from the grave,
7. Said to have been seen by many after he arose,
8. Said to have been seen ascending into heaven.
As one can easily see, with the exception of number four, the elements of the motif violate natural laws in ways that make it impossible for a person of average intelligence to fathom. And yet millions do believe it to be literally true with regard to Jesus of Palestine.
My second question – directed to those who believe – would be… If it can be believed to be true for one ‘savior’, then why not the hundreds of others?
Truth is… most believers are probably not aware that there were hundreds of so called ‘Saviors’ in ancient history. They do not realize that the eight elements of the motif were not intended to be taken literally. Historians explain that these things were said about a person (long after they had died) to indicate that they were important, extraordinary, exceptional, special.
Unfortunately, believers , through the centuries, have insisted on literalizing these stories as they relate to Jesus and thus have destroyed the beautiful prose that it was intended to be.
Why is this so?…
Could it be that the average believer is not a student of ancient history?…
Could it be that the average believer is not inclined to question what the church has told him/her?…
Could it be that the church has been negligent in explaining this truth to its adherents?…
I am inclined to say that all three are true.
But then… I could be wrong……………………. barry e
Vishnu of India
Osiris of Egypt
Mithras of Persia
Baal of Phoenicia
Alexander (the Great) of Greece
Indra of India
Tammuz of Syria
Attis of Phrygia
Caesar Augustus of Rome
Adonis of Greece
Hercules of Thebes
Thor of the Scandinavians
Fo of China
Jesus of Palestine
Rather than make you guess, let me tell you… They were all said to have been ‘born of a virgin.’ Not only they but hundreds and hundreds of other Kings, leaders, warriors and rulers hold the same distinction. They were all said to have been ‘born of a virgin.’ Moreover, it has been written in documents through out the ancient world that most of them have been labeled with the entire ‘Savior Motif’, as I call it.
The ‘Savior Motif’ consists of eight specific points;…
1. Born of a virgin,
2. Said to be the ‘Son of God’,
3. Said to have performed miracles,
4. Died a cruel death,
5. Said to have died to save humankind from sin,
6. Said to have arisen from the grave,
7. Said to have been seen by many after he arose,
8. Said to have been seen ascending into heaven.
As one can easily see, with the exception of number four, the elements of the motif violate natural laws in ways that make it impossible for a person of average intelligence to fathom. And yet millions do believe it to be literally true with regard to Jesus of Palestine.
My second question – directed to those who believe – would be… If it can be believed to be true for one ‘savior’, then why not the hundreds of others?
Truth is… most believers are probably not aware that there were hundreds of so called ‘Saviors’ in ancient history. They do not realize that the eight elements of the motif were not intended to be taken literally. Historians explain that these things were said about a person (long after they had died) to indicate that they were important, extraordinary, exceptional, special.
Unfortunately, believers , through the centuries, have insisted on literalizing these stories as they relate to Jesus and thus have destroyed the beautiful prose that it was intended to be.
Why is this so?…
Could it be that the average believer is not a student of ancient history?…
Could it be that the average believer is not inclined to question what the church has told him/her?…
Could it be that the church has been negligent in explaining this truth to its adherents?…
I am inclined to say that all three are true.
But then… I could be wrong……………………. barry e
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Does it matter --- what people believe?
At the end of my blog entry of July 26th, I ask the question….
Does it matter??…. Does it make one ‘hoot’ of difference what the masses believe? Should we who profess a more progressive and intelligent understanding of religion just shut up and go away… or… Does it matter??
I told you I would give you my opinion later. Well, whether you want it or not, here are my thoughts on the matter…..
As you might guess, yes, I think it matters.
It is a well known fact that ‘what a person believes will affect how he acts.’ If one believes there is a supernatural being, ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ who will hear and answer prayer, it lessens one’s feeling of personal responsibility. “I will pray for the hungry, the homeless… and God will care for them.”
If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, and the moral law(s) for all time, then all debate over moral issues is dead.
If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, he or she might be persuaded to strap on a vest full of explosives, walk into a crowd of innocent people and blow one’s self up.
If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, he or she might feel compelled to bomb an abortion clinic, or to suggest ‘taking out’ the leader of a foreign country.
Belief in a God and/or an ancient book, is a belief based on ignorance. Knowledge of the 21st century that explains where those Gods and Goddesses and those ancient book came from, and renders such belief systems impotent. Facts, evidence, reason and just a little bit of logic must prevail if the human race is to mature beyond it’s current state.
Yes, I know all the arguments about leaving room for the spiritual and the transcendent and not wanting to disturb Granny and her comfort zone… but such ‘right brain (emotional) thinking’ is bringing the world closer and closer to the brink of disaster.
Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, in his book ‘Godless Morality’ Canongate Books Ltd., 1999, writes, …”it is better to leave God out of the moral debate and find good human reasons for supporting the system or approach we advocate, without having recourse to divinely clinching arguments. We have to offer sensible approaches that will help us to pick our way through the moral maze that confronts us.”
It is time for all religions to become honest… and first of all, honest with themselves.
But then, I could be worng………………………..barry e
Does it matter??…. Does it make one ‘hoot’ of difference what the masses believe? Should we who profess a more progressive and intelligent understanding of religion just shut up and go away… or… Does it matter??
I told you I would give you my opinion later. Well, whether you want it or not, here are my thoughts on the matter…..
As you might guess, yes, I think it matters.
It is a well known fact that ‘what a person believes will affect how he acts.’ If one believes there is a supernatural being, ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ who will hear and answer prayer, it lessens one’s feeling of personal responsibility. “I will pray for the hungry, the homeless… and God will care for them.”
If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, and the moral law(s) for all time, then all debate over moral issues is dead.
If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, he or she might be persuaded to strap on a vest full of explosives, walk into a crowd of innocent people and blow one’s self up.
If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, he or she might feel compelled to bomb an abortion clinic, or to suggest ‘taking out’ the leader of a foreign country.
Belief in a God and/or an ancient book, is a belief based on ignorance. Knowledge of the 21st century that explains where those Gods and Goddesses and those ancient book came from, and renders such belief systems impotent. Facts, evidence, reason and just a little bit of logic must prevail if the human race is to mature beyond it’s current state.
Yes, I know all the arguments about leaving room for the spiritual and the transcendent and not wanting to disturb Granny and her comfort zone… but such ‘right brain (emotional) thinking’ is bringing the world closer and closer to the brink of disaster.
Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, in his book ‘Godless Morality’ Canongate Books Ltd., 1999, writes, …”it is better to leave God out of the moral debate and find good human reasons for supporting the system or approach we advocate, without having recourse to divinely clinching arguments. We have to offer sensible approaches that will help us to pick our way through the moral maze that confronts us.”
It is time for all religions to become honest… and first of all, honest with themselves.
But then, I could be worng………………………..barry e
Friday, September 7, 2007
John Martin from Adelaide, South Australia writes:
This week, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television program Compass, hosted by Geraldine Doogue, ran a production on Interfaith Ministry. It was based on a book written by Peter Kirkwood and published by ABC Books in Sydney, Australia. Now I am reading the book — The Quiet Revolution — and it is an inspiring story indeed. I had never heard of the Parliament of the World's Religions, so I am moving into a set of stories completely new to me.
Despite the glamorous report presented through the television lens, the movement may have much goodwill building to do. Given that I live in a far-flung part of the world, I feel the need not to invest too much hope in it yet. On the other hand, this is no time in the life of the planet to be timid and doubtful. Perhaps you might comment on the movement and provide some guidance to those of us unfamiliar with, but not averse to, this approach?
Dear John,
The Parliament of the World's Religions is a reputable organization, developed by competent people, one of whom is The Rt. Rev. William Swing, retired Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop of California. Whether it is now or will be an effective organization is still a question. Only time will tell. The direction in which it seeks to move is quite obviously the correct one.
Transcending a cultural faith tradition in the name of a vision of a world religion is not easy. It demands that all religious systems sacrifice their claims to possess exclusive truth or to be the sole pathway to God. It invites people to live in the insecurity of uncertainty and to embrace the fact that we are creatures bound by time and space talking about a God who is not.. True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.
Will the Parliament succeed? All I know is that every new movement begins with a new idea and a single step. This organization seeks to bring about a conversation where none has previously existed. Unless we find a way to transcend tribal limits and the religious systems (including our own) that have their origins in tribal thinking, I do not believe that there will be a realistic hope for the future of humanity. Far too many human beings have already been killed by others in the name of their God.
So I support this initiative and I hope others will also.
- John Shelby Spong
This week, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television program Compass, hosted by Geraldine Doogue, ran a production on Interfaith Ministry. It was based on a book written by Peter Kirkwood and published by ABC Books in Sydney, Australia. Now I am reading the book — The Quiet Revolution — and it is an inspiring story indeed. I had never heard of the Parliament of the World's Religions, so I am moving into a set of stories completely new to me.
Despite the glamorous report presented through the television lens, the movement may have much goodwill building to do. Given that I live in a far-flung part of the world, I feel the need not to invest too much hope in it yet. On the other hand, this is no time in the life of the planet to be timid and doubtful. Perhaps you might comment on the movement and provide some guidance to those of us unfamiliar with, but not averse to, this approach?
Dear John,
The Parliament of the World's Religions is a reputable organization, developed by competent people, one of whom is The Rt. Rev. William Swing, retired Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop of California. Whether it is now or will be an effective organization is still a question. Only time will tell. The direction in which it seeks to move is quite obviously the correct one.
Transcending a cultural faith tradition in the name of a vision of a world religion is not easy. It demands that all religious systems sacrifice their claims to possess exclusive truth or to be the sole pathway to God. It invites people to live in the insecurity of uncertainty and to embrace the fact that we are creatures bound by time and space talking about a God who is not.. True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.
Will the Parliament succeed? All I know is that every new movement begins with a new idea and a single step. This organization seeks to bring about a conversation where none has previously existed. Unless we find a way to transcend tribal limits and the religious systems (including our own) that have their origins in tribal thinking, I do not believe that there will be a realistic hope for the future of humanity. Far too many human beings have already been killed by others in the name of their God.
So I support this initiative and I hope others will also.
- John Shelby Spong
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Bogus Biblicism Of the Religious Right - Rev. Dr. Jack Good
Recent events have given additional evidence of a fact most of us wish we did not have to acknowledge: Religious fundamentalism is one of the most destructive forces on the planet. The dangers increase when fundamentalism is rooted in blind obedience to, and misuse of, a holy book.The religious right demonstrates that the danger is no less real in Christianity than in any other faith. Violence, for these people who claim to be followers of Jesus, lies near the surface, as evidenced by a spokesperson who recently counseled the government to “take out” the elected head of a South American nation. My concern here is for another of fundamentalism’s destructive tendencies. For more than a generation, this reactionary group has pushed an agenda that, if enacted, would limit the rights and freedoms of significant portions of the population. Their announced rationale is that their positions are rooted in the Bible. Their claim does not square with reality. The truth is that the Bible does not support their stands on abortion, homosexuality, or “family values.” Leaders of the religious right have seized the Judeo-Christian scripture—“stolen” is not too strong a word—to immeasurably strengthen the arguments for their radical concerns. This has been a shrewd move. Even in our increasingly secular society the Bible carries considerable weight. Shifting that weight from one side of the social debate to the other gives reactionary arguments an inappropriate, and, as shall be shown, a quite unsupportable, advantage.
The so-called “biblical conservatives” do not attempt to adjust themselves to biblical themes; that would be disastrous for their cause. Instead, they attempt to align the scripture with their ideas. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been particularly ingenious in this task. Robertson and Falwell make their biblical claims by taking snippets of scripture and rearranging them to suit their goals. Or, they simply claim a biblical foundation for their ideas without any biblical citations at all. A good example of this is Falwell’s response to criticism by an organization of homosexuals:"We were targeted solely because we advocate biblical ideals, namely traditional marriage and sexual purity before marriage - moral principles that counter those of the homosexual-rights movement."The Christian Coalition", formerly led by Pat Robertson, has been equally eager to attach itself to the aura of scripture. “God’s Plan for Salvation,” which this group offers on its website, offers numerous short quotes taken from various parts of the Bible, but gives the reader no opportunity to explore the Bible in depth.
This shallow and scattered approach has been the modus operandi throughout the life of his Christian Coalition. Few people seem to have noted how vulnerable the religious right has become through this process. Since their spokespersons have designated the Bible – “God’s Word” as they like to call it – as the primary support for their social positions, recognizing the false nature of that support could cause the collapse of their primary arguments.It is time to challenge the religious right at this point of vulnerability. Toward that end, it is helpful to expose the distance between what the religious right claims and what the Bible actually says about concrete items on their social agenda. Exposing the bogus use that the religious right makes of scripture can also reclaim the Bible for its more traditional, liberating role.AbortionOn the subject of abortion, the religious right takes a strongly pro-life, anti-choice, position. Unfortunately for them, biblical warrant for their stance is non-existent. Absolutely. The morality of abortion is not a biblical topic.
No other subject illustrates so clearly the dishonest way in which the religious right exploits the Bible. Here is a quote from one of Pat Robertson’s writings: “Nature is clear. Abortions kill babies. And the revealed laws of God about such killings in both the Old and New Testaments are easily understood.” The reader may note that “the revealed laws of God about such killings” are not cited. They are not cited because they do not exist.The absence of biblical comment on abortion is a surprise. The sexual ethic of the early biblical writers was designed to create as many babies as possible. Israel was a small nation surrounded by potential enemies. To maximize births, polygamy was allowed. The spilling of semen in any way other than production of babies (via masturbation, male homosexuality, and even intercourse with one’s wife during her period of infertility) was declared an abomination. Incredibly, in view of the need for population growth, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy never made it to this “thou shalt not” list.In only one instance does a biblical writer describe anything like abortion. This case makes clear that the protection of a pure paternal line was of greater value than continuation of a particular pregnancy. The passage in question (the later verses of the fifth chapter of Numbers, a text so hostile to women that I have never heard it read in public) describes one method of aborting an unwanted pregnancy. If, according to this obscure passage, a husband was suspicious that the fetus his wife was carrying may not be related to him, he and the priest could conspire to feed the wife enough impurities to make her violently ill. If she aborted, this was taken as a sign that another man had fathered the fetus.
The woman, having just lost her expected child, would then be banished from the community. If woman and fetus survived, it was assumed the husband’s suspicions were wrong.This obscure passage shows that abortion was practiced in ancient Jewish culture. Abortion is not mentioned again in scripture, nor can any rules be found to regulate the practice.
Several biblical passages relate indirectly to abortion. The twenty-first chapter of Exodus describes punishments to be meted out in cases of personal injury or death. Striking a person a mortal blow was punishable by death. But if, in a brawl, a man bumped against a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage, he was to pay her spouse an amount determined by that husband. This verse directly precedes the famous “eye for an eye” concept: “When harm is done, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” (Exodus 21:22-24). Obviously, the fetus from the previous verse was not considered to be fully human, or the person who had caused its demise would have had to forfeit his own life. In the twenty-seventh chapter of Leviticus monetary value was assigned to men, women, and children—a determination necessary to settle civil suits. Females were valued at sixty percent the worth of males. Children were assigned even lower worth, a value that decreased with younger age. No value was mentioned for anyone less than a month old, and no additional worth was assigned to a pregnant woman.
In most debates over abortion, the command, “You shall not kill,” will be voiced. Actually, a correct translation of this commandment is, “You shall not murder.” The Jewish nation, along with other societies of the time, was busy killing. They killed in war. They killed by enforcing a long list of capital crimes. Abortion did not fall under this prohibition, since no biblical writer labeled a developing fetus a human being. Without that label, the fetus would not be subject to murder. One Biblical writer even gave mothers and fathers permission to kill their own children when those children were disobedient. (Exodus 21:15 and 17) Since children were considered the property of parents, the children could be either cared for or disposed of as the owner determined. The religious right is thus in the position of arguing from scripture that parents had the authority to stone a child to death for insubordination, but were forbidden to interrupt the pregnancy that produced that child. One thing is clear to any reader of scripture. Biblical writers were capable of putting together powerful, declaratory sentences. Clear prohibitions abound. Yet not a single writer felt motivated to state: “You shall not interrupt a pregnancy.” Neither this sentence nor anything remotely like it appears in scripture. The morality of abortion is not an issue in the pages of the Bible.
Rev. Dr. Jack Good
The so-called “biblical conservatives” do not attempt to adjust themselves to biblical themes; that would be disastrous for their cause. Instead, they attempt to align the scripture with their ideas. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been particularly ingenious in this task. Robertson and Falwell make their biblical claims by taking snippets of scripture and rearranging them to suit their goals. Or, they simply claim a biblical foundation for their ideas without any biblical citations at all. A good example of this is Falwell’s response to criticism by an organization of homosexuals:"We were targeted solely because we advocate biblical ideals, namely traditional marriage and sexual purity before marriage - moral principles that counter those of the homosexual-rights movement."The Christian Coalition", formerly led by Pat Robertson, has been equally eager to attach itself to the aura of scripture. “God’s Plan for Salvation,” which this group offers on its website, offers numerous short quotes taken from various parts of the Bible, but gives the reader no opportunity to explore the Bible in depth.
This shallow and scattered approach has been the modus operandi throughout the life of his Christian Coalition. Few people seem to have noted how vulnerable the religious right has become through this process. Since their spokespersons have designated the Bible – “God’s Word” as they like to call it – as the primary support for their social positions, recognizing the false nature of that support could cause the collapse of their primary arguments.It is time to challenge the religious right at this point of vulnerability. Toward that end, it is helpful to expose the distance between what the religious right claims and what the Bible actually says about concrete items on their social agenda. Exposing the bogus use that the religious right makes of scripture can also reclaim the Bible for its more traditional, liberating role.AbortionOn the subject of abortion, the religious right takes a strongly pro-life, anti-choice, position. Unfortunately for them, biblical warrant for their stance is non-existent. Absolutely. The morality of abortion is not a biblical topic.
No other subject illustrates so clearly the dishonest way in which the religious right exploits the Bible. Here is a quote from one of Pat Robertson’s writings: “Nature is clear. Abortions kill babies. And the revealed laws of God about such killings in both the Old and New Testaments are easily understood.” The reader may note that “the revealed laws of God about such killings” are not cited. They are not cited because they do not exist.The absence of biblical comment on abortion is a surprise. The sexual ethic of the early biblical writers was designed to create as many babies as possible. Israel was a small nation surrounded by potential enemies. To maximize births, polygamy was allowed. The spilling of semen in any way other than production of babies (via masturbation, male homosexuality, and even intercourse with one’s wife during her period of infertility) was declared an abomination. Incredibly, in view of the need for population growth, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy never made it to this “thou shalt not” list.In only one instance does a biblical writer describe anything like abortion. This case makes clear that the protection of a pure paternal line was of greater value than continuation of a particular pregnancy. The passage in question (the later verses of the fifth chapter of Numbers, a text so hostile to women that I have never heard it read in public) describes one method of aborting an unwanted pregnancy. If, according to this obscure passage, a husband was suspicious that the fetus his wife was carrying may not be related to him, he and the priest could conspire to feed the wife enough impurities to make her violently ill. If she aborted, this was taken as a sign that another man had fathered the fetus.
The woman, having just lost her expected child, would then be banished from the community. If woman and fetus survived, it was assumed the husband’s suspicions were wrong.This obscure passage shows that abortion was practiced in ancient Jewish culture. Abortion is not mentioned again in scripture, nor can any rules be found to regulate the practice.
Several biblical passages relate indirectly to abortion. The twenty-first chapter of Exodus describes punishments to be meted out in cases of personal injury or death. Striking a person a mortal blow was punishable by death. But if, in a brawl, a man bumped against a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage, he was to pay her spouse an amount determined by that husband. This verse directly precedes the famous “eye for an eye” concept: “When harm is done, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” (Exodus 21:22-24). Obviously, the fetus from the previous verse was not considered to be fully human, or the person who had caused its demise would have had to forfeit his own life. In the twenty-seventh chapter of Leviticus monetary value was assigned to men, women, and children—a determination necessary to settle civil suits. Females were valued at sixty percent the worth of males. Children were assigned even lower worth, a value that decreased with younger age. No value was mentioned for anyone less than a month old, and no additional worth was assigned to a pregnant woman.
In most debates over abortion, the command, “You shall not kill,” will be voiced. Actually, a correct translation of this commandment is, “You shall not murder.” The Jewish nation, along with other societies of the time, was busy killing. They killed in war. They killed by enforcing a long list of capital crimes. Abortion did not fall under this prohibition, since no biblical writer labeled a developing fetus a human being. Without that label, the fetus would not be subject to murder. One Biblical writer even gave mothers and fathers permission to kill their own children when those children were disobedient. (Exodus 21:15 and 17) Since children were considered the property of parents, the children could be either cared for or disposed of as the owner determined. The religious right is thus in the position of arguing from scripture that parents had the authority to stone a child to death for insubordination, but were forbidden to interrupt the pregnancy that produced that child. One thing is clear to any reader of scripture. Biblical writers were capable of putting together powerful, declaratory sentences. Clear prohibitions abound. Yet not a single writer felt motivated to state: “You shall not interrupt a pregnancy.” Neither this sentence nor anything remotely like it appears in scripture. The morality of abortion is not an issue in the pages of the Bible.
Rev. Dr. Jack Good
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Does it matter??
A few years back there was a movie called “A Few Good Men” playing in the theaters. It starred Tom Cruise and Jack Nickleson, as I remember. Tom Cruise played the part of a Naval lawyer. In one scene, a courtroom scene, Nickleson was on the witness stand and Cruise was interrogating him. He pointed his finger at Nickleson and in a loud voice demanded, “I want the truth.”…. Theatergoers watched as Nickleson’s face turned red, the veins in his neck bulged and in an angry voice he replied,… “You can’t handle the truth!”
For the past two hundred plus years, the “Professionals” of Christianity (the clergy, theologians, biblical scholars, professors of religion, the hierarchy of the church) have, in essence, spoken this same line to the people-in –the-pews, regarding the truth of religion. They have covertly said over and over, “You can’t handle the truth”, … about God, about the Trinity, about prayer, about the virgin birth, the resurrection, original sin, atonement, heaven, hell and eternity.
For over two hundred years, the “Professionals” of Christianity (with only a few exceptions) have chosen to remain silent about the true history and authenticity of God, religion and the dogma of the Church. Opting instead to allow the myth of an immature belief system to continue unabated; maintaining an “Our father who art in heaven” theology.
But now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, intelligence is beginning to overtake the silence of the Church. More than just a few of the Church “Professionals” are breaking rank. They are talking and writing about the true understanding of gods and goddesses, religion and ‘faith’.
Some – who would squelch this new truth – object on the grounds that the people-in-the-pews should believe what ever they want to believe. If the old belief (myth) system gives them comfort, leave it alone. After all, many of them “…can’t handle the truth.”
My question to you today is this….. Does it matter??…. Does it make one ‘hoot’ of difference what the masses believe? Should we who profess a more progressive and intelligent understanding of religion just shut up and go away… or… Does it matter??
I solicit your comments… my opinion will come later… barry e
For the past two hundred plus years, the “Professionals” of Christianity (the clergy, theologians, biblical scholars, professors of religion, the hierarchy of the church) have, in essence, spoken this same line to the people-in –the-pews, regarding the truth of religion. They have covertly said over and over, “You can’t handle the truth”, … about God, about the Trinity, about prayer, about the virgin birth, the resurrection, original sin, atonement, heaven, hell and eternity.
For over two hundred years, the “Professionals” of Christianity (with only a few exceptions) have chosen to remain silent about the true history and authenticity of God, religion and the dogma of the Church. Opting instead to allow the myth of an immature belief system to continue unabated; maintaining an “Our father who art in heaven” theology.
But now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, intelligence is beginning to overtake the silence of the Church. More than just a few of the Church “Professionals” are breaking rank. They are talking and writing about the true understanding of gods and goddesses, religion and ‘faith’.
Some – who would squelch this new truth – object on the grounds that the people-in-the-pews should believe what ever they want to believe. If the old belief (myth) system gives them comfort, leave it alone. After all, many of them “…can’t handle the truth.”
My question to you today is this….. Does it matter??…. Does it make one ‘hoot’ of difference what the masses believe? Should we who profess a more progressive and intelligent understanding of religion just shut up and go away… or… Does it matter??
I solicit your comments… my opinion will come later… barry e
Thursday, June 28, 2007
(3) It would seem to me...
Let me till you about my Pastor….
My Pastor graduated with a Master’s of Divinity degree, from a well-known Christian seminary, in the early 1990’s. She was ordained shortly thereafter by a Mainline Christian denomination and began her career as a Pastor by serving as an Associate minister at a church in Southwestern Florida.
In 2002 she became the Senior Pastor of the church (where I regularly attend) where she now serves, and cares for a congregation of about 350-400 parishioners.
My Pastor is faced with the task that most Mainline Pastors are faced with today, albeit; to serve the church in a time of dramatic cultural and spiritual change. She must not only preach the gospel of the ‘Popular Christianity’ (that which is understood primarily by the people-in-the-pews), but also, she must tend to that segment of the ‘flock’ that has moved beyond the ‘Popular Christianity’ to a more mature and intellectual understanding of the church and religion. This is a ‘balancing act’ that will challenge many mainline Christian Pastors for years to come.
It would seem to me… my Pastor is making great progress in accomplishing the dynamics of this ‘balancing act’. Her sermons are biblically based but not dogmatic. She uses scripture to reference a thought, an ideal, a situation, but her reference to the scripture seldom implies a literal interpretation. In Bible study classes she will often explain the scriptures as the experience of those of the ancient world, but not necessarily our experience, today, in the 21st century. She has instigated small (but important) changes in the liturgy of the worship service that are helping to move the congregation toward a more mature understanding of the Christian religion. Her sermons are life affirming messages that comfort and inspire, (as opposed to those that instill fear and intimidation).
It would seem to me… this is the path that Mainline Pastors mush begin to walk if the Church is to have a chance for survival, and the sooner the better.
It would seem to me… there are a great number of people in Church pews who are silently waiting for this movement to begin and untold others who have left the Church because – in many cases – it has not.
But then… I could be wrong………….barry e
My Pastor graduated with a Master’s of Divinity degree, from a well-known Christian seminary, in the early 1990’s. She was ordained shortly thereafter by a Mainline Christian denomination and began her career as a Pastor by serving as an Associate minister at a church in Southwestern Florida.
In 2002 she became the Senior Pastor of the church (where I regularly attend) where she now serves, and cares for a congregation of about 350-400 parishioners.
My Pastor is faced with the task that most Mainline Pastors are faced with today, albeit; to serve the church in a time of dramatic cultural and spiritual change. She must not only preach the gospel of the ‘Popular Christianity’ (that which is understood primarily by the people-in-the-pews), but also, she must tend to that segment of the ‘flock’ that has moved beyond the ‘Popular Christianity’ to a more mature and intellectual understanding of the church and religion. This is a ‘balancing act’ that will challenge many mainline Christian Pastors for years to come.
It would seem to me… my Pastor is making great progress in accomplishing the dynamics of this ‘balancing act’. Her sermons are biblically based but not dogmatic. She uses scripture to reference a thought, an ideal, a situation, but her reference to the scripture seldom implies a literal interpretation. In Bible study classes she will often explain the scriptures as the experience of those of the ancient world, but not necessarily our experience, today, in the 21st century. She has instigated small (but important) changes in the liturgy of the worship service that are helping to move the congregation toward a more mature understanding of the Christian religion. Her sermons are life affirming messages that comfort and inspire, (as opposed to those that instill fear and intimidation).
It would seem to me… this is the path that Mainline Pastors mush begin to walk if the Church is to have a chance for survival, and the sooner the better.
It would seem to me… there are a great number of people in Church pews who are silently waiting for this movement to begin and untold others who have left the Church because – in many cases – it has not.
But then… I could be wrong………….barry e
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Another interesting excerpt....
Excerpt from the book, The Question of Religion
by William Corlett and John Moore
Bradbury Press, 1978
If I leave aside religion’s involvement in temporal matters – political, economic and social – at least for the moment, then the religious image has among its assets the advantages of comparative permanence, stability, continuity and security. Its importance may fluctuate from time to time and from place to place, but in the main, its threads, in their various forms, have woven continuously through the tapestry of human history.
Certainly it is debatable whether man invented religion for his own satisfaction, but there can be no doubt that it has fulfilled its human requirements – indeed, it still does. In general, the forms of religion have always been accepted as an essential ingredient in human society, even though at times the different forms have sought to suppress and eliminate each other. (But are those unseemly activities the fault of the religion or the men who are interpreting it in inappropriate ways?)
Now, in modern times, as a result of the effects of science, technology and industry, certain materialistic ideologies, gathering strength in many parts of the world, have elected to dispense with religion altogether and actively discourage it in their societies. This last development seems very significant.
Does it not indicate a crucial point in human evolution? Does it represent a foolhardy and disastrous movement which will result in men being no more than well-organized colonies like ants, simply surviving and reproducing themselves? Or does it signify progress, in that men are facing the facts of existence and are beginning to regulate themselves intelligently and be responsible for themselves?
Are we alive at a time when, regardless of past evidence, the god-idea is no longer viable or even useful to man?
by William Corlett and John Moore
Bradbury Press, 1978
If I leave aside religion’s involvement in temporal matters – political, economic and social – at least for the moment, then the religious image has among its assets the advantages of comparative permanence, stability, continuity and security. Its importance may fluctuate from time to time and from place to place, but in the main, its threads, in their various forms, have woven continuously through the tapestry of human history.
Certainly it is debatable whether man invented religion for his own satisfaction, but there can be no doubt that it has fulfilled its human requirements – indeed, it still does. In general, the forms of religion have always been accepted as an essential ingredient in human society, even though at times the different forms have sought to suppress and eliminate each other. (But are those unseemly activities the fault of the religion or the men who are interpreting it in inappropriate ways?)
Now, in modern times, as a result of the effects of science, technology and industry, certain materialistic ideologies, gathering strength in many parts of the world, have elected to dispense with religion altogether and actively discourage it in their societies. This last development seems very significant.
Does it not indicate a crucial point in human evolution? Does it represent a foolhardy and disastrous movement which will result in men being no more than well-organized colonies like ants, simply surviving and reproducing themselves? Or does it signify progress, in that men are facing the facts of existence and are beginning to regulate themselves intelligently and be responsible for themselves?
Are we alive at a time when, regardless of past evidence, the god-idea is no longer viable or even useful to man?
Thursday, June 7, 2007
(2) It would seem to me...
Our study group, that meets each Sunday morning, has been discussing a chapter from the book ‘Philosophers and Philosophies’ titled ‘Christianity Without Belief in God’. The book is by Frederick Copleston.
The essence of the chapter is this… “For an increasing number of people, belief in the existence of a God is becoming impossible in a sense analogous to that in which it has become impossible for most people to believe that there are elves in the forest.
It is not a case of one’s being able to demonstrate the non-existence of elves. Rather it is a case of one’s seeing no good reason for accepting the hypothesis that they do exist. The events, which might be said to be the activities of the elves, can be explained in other ways.
Analogously, in view of what seems to be the massive silence and the conspicuous inactivity of the alleged divine being, and in view of the fact that events that were once explained in terms of divine activity are now explained in other ways, belief in such a God has become a superfluous hypothesis.”
It would seem to me… in addition to those who do not believe, there are vast numbers of Christians who would describe God in some way other than the description found in the Bible.
This, of course, is not a new discovery. Humanity has been trending in this direction for (at least) the past two hundred years. Bishop John A. T. Robertson said as much in his book, ‘Honest to God’ written in 1963.
It would seem to me… the trend is beginning to grow exponentially as the intelligence level of the nation and the world increases.
It would seem to me… the Church must embrace a new understanding of God and begin to gently infuse it into the its liturgy and teachings, before the critical mass of non-belief in the traditional description of God causes the Church to fail completely. Copleston suggests the possibility of an understanding that moves “from God to god”. (I’ll explain that concept another time.)
It would seem to me… a new approach to religion and/or spirituality must become an urgent priority of the Church if it intends to survive the 21st century as anything more than a fringe organization among the uninformed and uneducated…
But then… I could be wrong……………barry e
The essence of the chapter is this… “For an increasing number of people, belief in the existence of a God is becoming impossible in a sense analogous to that in which it has become impossible for most people to believe that there are elves in the forest.
It is not a case of one’s being able to demonstrate the non-existence of elves. Rather it is a case of one’s seeing no good reason for accepting the hypothesis that they do exist. The events, which might be said to be the activities of the elves, can be explained in other ways.
Analogously, in view of what seems to be the massive silence and the conspicuous inactivity of the alleged divine being, and in view of the fact that events that were once explained in terms of divine activity are now explained in other ways, belief in such a God has become a superfluous hypothesis.”
It would seem to me… in addition to those who do not believe, there are vast numbers of Christians who would describe God in some way other than the description found in the Bible.
This, of course, is not a new discovery. Humanity has been trending in this direction for (at least) the past two hundred years. Bishop John A. T. Robertson said as much in his book, ‘Honest to God’ written in 1963.
It would seem to me… the trend is beginning to grow exponentially as the intelligence level of the nation and the world increases.
It would seem to me… the Church must embrace a new understanding of God and begin to gently infuse it into the its liturgy and teachings, before the critical mass of non-belief in the traditional description of God causes the Church to fail completely. Copleston suggests the possibility of an understanding that moves “from God to god”. (I’ll explain that concept another time.)
It would seem to me… a new approach to religion and/or spirituality must become an urgent priority of the Church if it intends to survive the 21st century as anything more than a fringe organization among the uninformed and uneducated…
But then… I could be wrong……………barry e
Thursday, May 17, 2007
It would seem to me...
I attended a church mini-seminar a couple weeks ago. It was sponsored by a regional office of a mainline Protestant denomination that has been losing membership on a yearly basis, just like all other mainline Christian churches. The theme of the seminar was ‘Transformation of the Church’. Sounded like something I would be interested in.
Turned out I was wrong.
The speaker, a regional minister from Northern California, blamed much of the steady decline in membership on the fact (or presumed fact) that the Church(s) have lost sight of their ‘mission’. He conjectured that if the existing members of the church would rededicate themselves to the job (mission) of inviting the 60+ percent of the general public that do not currently attend church to ‘come and join us’, the problem of declining membership would soon be solved. Basically, that was the sum total of his 1 ½ hour message. He ended with an enthusiastic …”so get out there and get going!” That was it. That was his idea of ‘Transformation'.
It would seem to me… if it were that easy, it would have been done long ago.
It would seem to me… the 60+ percent of the population that are not coming to church are not coming for a reason… Perhaps one ought to spend some time trying to understand what that reason is before one begins to “get out there and get going!”
It would seem to me… (from what little research I have done on the subject), people today are much smarter than they were a hundred years ago. They understand to much about the universe and humankind and science in general, to believe in the ancient dogma of the church.
It would seem to me… the church ought to grow up and get honest with itself and the-people-in-the-pews, (about things like; virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, God in the sky, etc., etc.) before it decides to “get out there and get going!”
It would seem to me… A more intelligent message would have much more of an appeal to the un-churched and those who have left the church, than the myth and folklore the church is promoting today.
But then… I could be wrong………………….. barry e
Turned out I was wrong.
The speaker, a regional minister from Northern California, blamed much of the steady decline in membership on the fact (or presumed fact) that the Church(s) have lost sight of their ‘mission’. He conjectured that if the existing members of the church would rededicate themselves to the job (mission) of inviting the 60+ percent of the general public that do not currently attend church to ‘come and join us’, the problem of declining membership would soon be solved. Basically, that was the sum total of his 1 ½ hour message. He ended with an enthusiastic …”so get out there and get going!” That was it. That was his idea of ‘Transformation'.
It would seem to me… if it were that easy, it would have been done long ago.
It would seem to me… the 60+ percent of the population that are not coming to church are not coming for a reason… Perhaps one ought to spend some time trying to understand what that reason is before one begins to “get out there and get going!”
It would seem to me… (from what little research I have done on the subject), people today are much smarter than they were a hundred years ago. They understand to much about the universe and humankind and science in general, to believe in the ancient dogma of the church.
It would seem to me… the church ought to grow up and get honest with itself and the-people-in-the-pews, (about things like; virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, God in the sky, etc., etc.) before it decides to “get out there and get going!”
It would seem to me… A more intelligent message would have much more of an appeal to the un-churched and those who have left the church, than the myth and folklore the church is promoting today.
But then… I could be wrong………………….. barry e
Thursday, May 3, 2007
From "Paths of Faith' by Michael Ford
Most people attend church or go to the synagogue or mosque and take the teachings they receive at face value, without ever questioning whats beneath them. Religion has much more to do with belief and faith than with grappling with reality.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Changes needed...
Just as we have made changes to update the music portion of our worship services, we need to look toward our liturgy and our understanding of our Christian heritage.
The past two hundred years have seen great changes in the understanding of the Bible and the Christian doctrine. Christian leaders, theologians, biblical scholars all talk, teach and write about Christianity in a way that is completely foreign to 98% of the people-in-the-pews. And they agree that the church must begin to wake up to the knowledge of the 21st century and begin to preach and teach a more intellectually honest doctrine or it will continue to lose its place in society - and in the not to distant future - become relegated to the fringes of society, among the uneducated and uninformed.
The past two hundred years have seen great changes in the understanding of the Bible and the Christian doctrine. Christian leaders, theologians, biblical scholars all talk, teach and write about Christianity in a way that is completely foreign to 98% of the people-in-the-pews. And they agree that the church must begin to wake up to the knowledge of the 21st century and begin to preach and teach a more intellectually honest doctrine or it will continue to lose its place in society - and in the not to distant future - become relegated to the fringes of society, among the uneducated and uninformed.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Behind the Invisible Velvet Curtain
It amazes me that in this post-modern age, with the knowledge we humans have of the universe, of human nature and our place the world, that the human mind can still carry around the idea that there is a supernatural ‘being’ somewhere ‘up there’ or ‘out there’, watching over us and from time to time intervening in the affairs of our lives. Such a notion is an indication of immaturity and a lack of knowledge (even basic knowledge) of the history and origin of god(s), goddesses and religion.
It is clearly understood by knowledgeable Theologians, biblical scholars, seminarians and many, if not most, church hierarchy, that all god(s) and goddesses are of human construct. That ‘reveled word’ is nothing more than a reflection of man’s highest ideals. The only people who do not understand these vital facts are the-people-in-the-pews. Why? Because of what the Rev. Dr. Jack Good calls, “The Dishonest Church” (Rising Star Press, 6/03), or what Bishop John Shelby Spong writes in “A New Christianity for a New World” (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).
It is as if there were an invisible velvet curtain hanging between the pulpit and the pews. The-people-in-the-pews are being ‘fed’ the pabulum of their youth because the church does not know how to admit to it’s centuries of mis-information and abuse of privilege.
So long as we humans continue to rely on a non-existent supernatural ‘being’ to take care of our needs, we ignore our personal responsibility to ourselves and all of humankind. And as a species we will not grow to our full maturity.
Religions play a valuable role in society. They provide a place for teaching ethics and morals. They offer a much needed atmosphere of community. But if they are to continue to be a valuable resource for all humankind, they must begin to bring their dogma and their beliefs into the 21st century. As humans we need to begin to reconcile what we believe with what we know. If we do not, our churches, synagogues and mosques will soon become nothing more than havens for the uninformed and uneducated.
It is clearly understood by knowledgeable Theologians, biblical scholars, seminarians and many, if not most, church hierarchy, that all god(s) and goddesses are of human construct. That ‘reveled word’ is nothing more than a reflection of man’s highest ideals. The only people who do not understand these vital facts are the-people-in-the-pews. Why? Because of what the Rev. Dr. Jack Good calls, “The Dishonest Church” (Rising Star Press, 6/03), or what Bishop John Shelby Spong writes in “A New Christianity for a New World” (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).
It is as if there were an invisible velvet curtain hanging between the pulpit and the pews. The-people-in-the-pews are being ‘fed’ the pabulum of their youth because the church does not know how to admit to it’s centuries of mis-information and abuse of privilege.
So long as we humans continue to rely on a non-existent supernatural ‘being’ to take care of our needs, we ignore our personal responsibility to ourselves and all of humankind. And as a species we will not grow to our full maturity.
Religions play a valuable role in society. They provide a place for teaching ethics and morals. They offer a much needed atmosphere of community. But if they are to continue to be a valuable resource for all humankind, they must begin to bring their dogma and their beliefs into the 21st century. As humans we need to begin to reconcile what we believe with what we know. If we do not, our churches, synagogues and mosques will soon become nothing more than havens for the uninformed and uneducated.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Christianity - likened to a ladder
Christianity (and religion in general) can be understood at many levels. The various levels can be likened to the rungs on a ladder. The lowest rung can be thought of as an immature level of understanding and the top rung a mature level of understanding.
The most immature level of believer, believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and other Christian (religious) dogma. This level believes in a God that is supernatural in nature, one that resides ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ and from time to time invades the world to invoke His own will. This level of understanding also believes in the literal virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and believes that Jesus literally died to save humankind from sin. At this immature level, the adherent believes that the written authority of the religion (i.e. the Bible, Torah, Quran) was literally written or inspired by a God.
The most mature level of believer, understands that all religious writings and all Gods/Goddesses of all religions are of human construct. The origin of which can be found in a cursory study of the early history of the human species. At a macro level it is understood that (any) religion is a tool, instituted and used to control social behavior. At a micro level religious adherence provides comfort and support to the individual believer.
The rungs between represent the many variations expressed in denominational creeds and beliefs. However, there are potentially as many rungs (i.e. understandings of religion) as there are religious adherents.
An individual believer is able to understand religion at the level (or rung) where he/she stands, and most likely understands the levels below where he/she stands. A person may also understand some of the level immediately above where he/she stands. However, he/she is likely to label as heretic or atheist, anyone expressing an understanding that is two or more rungs above his/her own level of understanding.
The ability of an individual, to move (upward) toward a more mature understanding of religion is limited only by the individual’s appetite and desire to study the historical origins of God(s) and religion(s). Without such a desire to learn, the individual, and society as well, will forever remain below the level of a fully mature understanding of religion.
The most immature level of believer, believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and other Christian (religious) dogma. This level believes in a God that is supernatural in nature, one that resides ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ and from time to time invades the world to invoke His own will. This level of understanding also believes in the literal virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and believes that Jesus literally died to save humankind from sin. At this immature level, the adherent believes that the written authority of the religion (i.e. the Bible, Torah, Quran) was literally written or inspired by a God.
The most mature level of believer, understands that all religious writings and all Gods/Goddesses of all religions are of human construct. The origin of which can be found in a cursory study of the early history of the human species. At a macro level it is understood that (any) religion is a tool, instituted and used to control social behavior. At a micro level religious adherence provides comfort and support to the individual believer.
The rungs between represent the many variations expressed in denominational creeds and beliefs. However, there are potentially as many rungs (i.e. understandings of religion) as there are religious adherents.
An individual believer is able to understand religion at the level (or rung) where he/she stands, and most likely understands the levels below where he/she stands. A person may also understand some of the level immediately above where he/she stands. However, he/she is likely to label as heretic or atheist, anyone expressing an understanding that is two or more rungs above his/her own level of understanding.
The ability of an individual, to move (upward) toward a more mature understanding of religion is limited only by the individual’s appetite and desire to study the historical origins of God(s) and religion(s). Without such a desire to learn, the individual, and society as well, will forever remain below the level of a fully mature understanding of religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)