getting them to pray and read thier bible, It wont always work. sometimes people will never learn. and sometimes they will. just watch out for the extremists.

Mother Theresa is NOT to be revered.
http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.htmlred

People who believe that Mother Teresa was a supposed Saintly person (I mean, what is a Saint?) have never really looked into the matter. Here is what Judith Hayes of the Happy Heretic had to say about it. Cheers all. Jim Lee
Defending Mother Teresa
The Happy Heretic
Judith Hayes
MARCH 1998

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. But when it comes to writing anything controversial, your success can probably be judged by the caliber of your critics. So I'm flattered.

On January 17, 1998, Clark Morphew, syndicated columnist for Knight-Ridder, took aim at the winter issue of Free Inquiry because of two articles it contained that were highly critical of the late Mother Teresa. One was written by Susan Shields, a former Missionaries of Charity sister who worked with Teresa. Shields revealed that part of her job was to help keep track of the millions of dollars donated to Teresa's "charity" work. Unfortunately, most of that money sat unused in various bank accounts while the sisters had to beg for food from local merchants. If the locals couldn't help out, the soup kitchens did without. This is "charity?"

The other article was written by me. I compared the late Carl Sagan's genuine, almost immeasurable contributions to humanity with Teresa's contributions. Hers consisted of little more than telling people that suffering was good for them, and prattling on inanely about how God will provide, as starving children dropped like flies all around her. I also pointed to the brazen hypocrisy of Teresa's denying her "patients" the most rudimentary care, including simple comforts and pain killers, while she herself checked into posh hospitals to have a pacemaker implanted and blood vessels cleared. Her own health and comfort were apparently quite important to her.

Morphew was obviously upset with the articles, but his defense of Teresa was surprisingly halfhearted and ambivalent. In his opening paragraph Morphew predicts that criticism of Teresa will continue until "some serious reform comes about." But if Teresa's generously financed clinics were running smoothly, honestly and compassionately, why would any reform be needed at all? Likewise, after describing Shields' knowledgeable charges about the idle millions of dollars that helped no one, Morphew suggested that since Sister Nirmala has taken the reigns, "grand changes could happen." Again, why should they, unless something was wrong to begin with?

Seeming to want it both ways, Morphew presents Teresa as "one of the most obvious candidates for sainthood," but then concedes that among Tersa's beliefs were the ideas that suffering is good and that despite staggering overpopulation, birth control is always wrong. He also noted that wiping out poverty and illiteracy was not Teresa's focus. If all of that is true, it places Teresa somewhere between sadistic and stupid. (Which, interestingly, is where "saint" appears in the dictionary.) I have never heard of a compassionate person who thought that human suffering was ever a good thing, and I think compassion would be the bare minimum to expect in anyone being considered for "sainthood."

Morphew also pointed out that Teresa "never pretended to be a doctor who could wipe out or even soften the pain of death." This I challenge fervently. So too would the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia (1995) in which they say about Teresa: "In 1948 she left the convent and founded the Missionaries of Charity, which now operates schools, hospitals, orphanages, and food centers in more than 25 countries." How would Morphew define "hospital?" There is no ambiguity whatsoever about the activities Teresa presented to the world as hers. The problem is that what she said she was doing was not what she was doing.

If Teresa was offering spiritual comfort only, and not trying to "soften the pain of death," (and why on earth not?!) there should have been no drugs dispensed and no drug paraphernalia of any kind on hand at her "clinics." But there were. Her employees and volunteers used and reused un-sterilized syringes to administer ineffective drugs and mild antibiotics to terminally ill people, who suffered the resulting agonies. This is called practicing medicine, and why such malpractice was allowed to go on so long, with no legal challenges, highlights the power, and abuse of power, that is vouchsafed to organized religions. Especially the big ones with a lot of money.

But if, as Morphew asserts, Mother Teresa never intended to offer medical care to the ill, feed the poor, or educate the illiterate, but rather planned only to offer spiritual solace to dying people, then at the very least she was a fraud. Those millions of dollars were donated by caring people to offer medical care to the ill, feed the poor, and educate the illiterate-not to sit in bank accounts earning interest for the Roman Catholic Church, which has been a multi-billion dollar enterprise for decades now. And there are laws about raising charitable contributions for one thing and then using the money for another-as Teresa did. Apparently her goal was to hoard the money, like Midas and his gold. To what end, though, is anybody's guess.

There is a disquieting possibility, however, that presents itself in hindsight. She collected her millions "in the name of God." (And then promptly hid them away like a squirrel readying for winter.) She also converted souls "in the name of God," many just before they expired. I wonder, did she keep a rough tally of those souls? What I'm getting at is I wonder if in her simplistic view of things, anything she did for God would earn her big-time Brownie Points in the afterlife. For her, perhaps, this world had no meaning whatsoever, and was just some sort of challenging religious maze, designed by God to determine who gets the best bits of Paradise. If so, it might explain, since nothing else can, how she could be so callous as to sit on her millions while children, in her own part of India, were dying of starvation. This defies rational explanation, and I challenge anyone, from Morphew to the Pope himself, to explain it.

I am also very surprised that no one came forward sooner to talk about Teresa's questionable practices-but then that's what everyone said about priests raping little boys, isn't it? The Roman Catholic Church's power is unbelievably intimidating.

Whatever the motives of the woman from Calcutta, I have seen enough human suffering in loved ones to recoil in horror at the thought of terminal, tormented people being told that their suffering is a good thing. Suffering is never a good thing-except to sadists. Especially today, when we have the capability to alleviate so much pain, the mental image of those unfortunates who ended up in a Teresa "clinic" makes me cringe with nausea.

I know I am whistling in the wind to ask this, but--- When, oh when, will we stop inflicting pain on each other in the name of some God?!

© 1998 Judith Hayes

Lorena,

What a great insight. I thoroughly enjoyed your post and will continue to give it thought.

My brother always asks christians if they've read Obadiah. This is the inspired word, a love letter if you will from your god. So, you can't be bothered to pore over every bit of it?

As to your main point, I wonder if ultimately people don't want to be responsible for their own "salvation." They can get to the pearly gates and say, hey, pastor said this or told me to do that, *I didn't know!* An over-reliance on experts, if you will, like patients who put all their faith in doctors and take no responsibility for their health. Lazy religious people who cannot be bothered to get a second opinion, and cover their ears saying LALALALA when another opinion is offered.

Anyway, thanks for the food for thought, Lorena.

-Barb

Welcome back Lorena!

Worshipping man made Idols, that's so easy and it's cheap!

It would be so easy to mimick another great Icon, take Jesus for instance, now God being a just and mercyful God, all anyone would have to do is ask God to let them be the New Messiah of this Millenia, in 2006, if anyone would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the Blood Atonement Offering to repent of men's sins, God would be more than happy to oblige.

This is to say that, surely we've not yet run out of Saints or Messiahs or Saviours or Super-
heroes, are we scrapping the bottom of the invisible Icon barrell?

Why has God let us run out of invisible Icons and heroes and miracles, after 2000 years, is God asleep?

Has God been in cyber-hybernation for over 2000 years?

We need a new saviour, one that understands our needs in 2006, we don't want new wine, we don't need miracles, we don't need spiritual healings, we don't need prayer, we don't need any more superstitions, we need truth, real truth that existed before the bible infected America in 1492.

This website is our new saviour, because it tells the truth and exposes the religous lies and exposes false doctrines and fake preachers and biblical myths.

This website saves people from their forced brainwashed religious insanity.

The world needs to be saved from religious insanity and false doctrines and man made mythologies, superstitions and beliefs.

Lorena, the fact that you were able to leave Christianity at all is proof that it isn't a cult, as you referred to it. If you belonged to a cult, you wouldn't have had the freedom to do anything but what you were told.

As for Mother Theresa, I wonder how many of her critics would be willing to leave their jobs, homes, air conditioning, purified water, restaurants, and automobiles, and live in Calcutta for 50 years with the poor. I wonder would they even visit the poor in their own cities. That might be too much to ask of them.

I'm sure that some of the criticism of Mother Theresa is true, but if she fed only one homeless man in her life, that's more than most of her critics have done. And therein lies the threat that she presents - she's a symbol of what a lot of people haven't done for the poor and the homeless. Rather than point out her shortcomings and do nothing, why not try to outdo her? Nah, that would require too much sacrifice on your part.

John, the fact that people every day leaving Christianity doesn't disprove it as a cult. If you belonged to a cult, you more than likely would have the freedom to do anything to include leave the religion, if the nation supported civil liberties.

Cult: "Adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I like all kinds of languages, from mathematics to english, etc. Lets see, cult, kind of like the root and smaller form of "culture", thus, cult could be perceived as the smaller of a culture, and is thus over time portrayed that way, i.e., the minority of a society, etc. Lets see, there's also the "occult", a term I think isn't used enough, when speaking of religion, because people like parsing religions from eachother as if they are somehow "better" or have more "truth" than another religious group.

However, as an outsider from religion, I think the term "occult" is pretty definitive of most "all" religions.

Occult:
-"Supernatural: supernatural forces and events and beings collectively;"

-"Supernatural practices and techniques; "he is a student of the occult"

-"Mysterious: having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; beyond ordinary nderstanding;"

**Yeah, beyond "ordinary" intelligent understanding, seems to fit quite nicely.

-"Mysterious symbols; "the mystical style of Blake"; "occult lore"; "the secret learning of the ancients"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Yeah, I can pretty much see all supernatural religions, and their ritualistic followers, whether ignorant or aware, as exceeding the bounds of ordinary thought, and thus - "occultist". Many religious people would suggest that this is an insult, but... only because they are too ignorant of the english language to understand the meaning of the word, as many of them have applied "occultist" to have a "negative" connotation for the other supernatural belief clubs.

Anywho, when I hear fundy, I hear... a believer in the absolute occultism, and then I hear liberal believer, I picture, an occultist who has crossed the threshold for ordinary thought, but isn't devoted enough to partake of the rituals to a highly devoted degree - possibly, because they don't believe in the literal word of the bible. In either case, Occultism, and Spirituality do have different meanings.

Spiritual: "Lacking material body or form or substance;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If something were to lack material body or form or substance, then, obviously I can't possibly know of or experience that non-substance, etc., while I live in this natural reality. To me, for someone to make a statement in the reverse of reality, to hypothesize an alternate reality, requires unordinary thought.

However, if one claimed spirituality, based on their acceptance of an unknown natural phenomenon, of which they became a part of in experience, then I could see the rationale. I may come to different conclusions on the genesis of the sensation/experience, but I wouldn't disagree with the initial premise, this, would be someone who has ordinary thoughts. We all have thoughts about experiences we can't explain, its natural.

Now, the great thing about being literate, is, that I can discern where spirituality and those of occultism separate.

In either case of spirituality one need not conduct or be part of "rituals" of ancient lore. No need to read catechisms daily, and engage in behavioral reinforcement to support unordinary thoughts, it takes a lot of energy to keep those thoughts up. And, with spirituality, and no ancient rituals, well... one can just drop religion altogether, and the buildings that are used to peddle religious thoughts - churches.

I have been dubbed by my family as spiritual, because it makes the neighbors more comfortable to know I am not a heathen. However, their comfort only comes from their sheer ignorance of the term "spirituality", and how one supports such a concept. The unknown natural phenomenon I have experienced doesn't draw me out of this universe, it draws me closer so that I may get a better understanding, in that manner, I suppose I am naturally spiritual proxy natural ignorance.

Perhaps, those who accept natural phenomenon would also accept natural spirituality, like agnostics or atheists. Those who are more supernaturally inclined would be more the buddhist type, etc., and in the end, when we move all the way out of the horizon of reason we get - occultists, the ones who are so ardent and bent on proving their belief, that is founded on unordinary thoughts, while they attempt to speak to ordinary down to earth thinking people.

Well, wasn't that fun. I haven't had a whole ten minutes to myself in a while, and then, I get to make a post - liberating.

John: "I'm sure that some of the criticism of Mother Theresa is true, but if she fed only one homeless man in her life, that's more than most of her critics have done."

So, if a person outdoes MT, then they get to rag on her. Wow, that's a lot of potential candidates throughout history. Perhaps, we are just carrying on the "good news" from their valid messages, that one act of kindness doesn't negate a lifetime of pious deceit.

Where would we be without second hand revelation and the words of those who have a leg to stand on, when judging MT, oh, that's right, without second hand revelation, christianity doesn't exist. Anonymous books in the bible, Paul never really meeting Jesus, I mean, the gospels written well after the crucifixion, etc., etc.

Well, its been great playing the, don't throw stones at a glass house, while living in one, but, at least some of our houses are much more "transparent" than ol' MT's. Perhaps, its doing a good deed to portray the lack of transparency as a deceitful and inappropriate act when a person benefits from such activities.

Obviously, a mother need not be a cheater, in order to show her child the ills of cheating in life. And, a mother need not be any more perfect than the child, in order to point out the obvious pitfalls of such actions. A mother need not even take a "test" without cheating, to build a case against "cheating". Just pointing out the obvious wrongdoing may make the difference in that childs' life. So, John, all actions don't require "physical" action, actions in a more abstract manner, can be easily seen as providing accurate information that feeds those who have a need for "truth". Not all "needs" are in the "macro-physical" world, wouldn't you agree?

Hey barb - most of my posts are gentle and intellectual.

This isn't one of them.

Read Obadiah? Yeah. "Love letter?"
What kind of crap is that?

In Obadiah the Israelites are told to make war on Edom and that "God" told them to slaughter everyone on the mount of Esau, and that he will burn the heathen to death.

Some fucking "Love Letter"!

By the way, if you happen to believe that the Buy-bull is the "inerrant word of Gaw-duh" then know that Obadiah condradicts Deuteronomy 23:7.

Peddle your twaddle somewhere else!

John wrote:
"I'm sure that some of the criticism of Mother Theresa is true, but if she fed only one homeless man in her life, that's more than most of her critics have done. And therein lies the threat that she presents -- she's a symbol of what a lot of people haven't done for the poor and the homeless. Rather than point out her shortcomings and do nothing, why not try to outdo her? Nah, that would require too much sacrifice on your part"

Dan asks John:
John! Why does God get so much credit for loving his wonderful human creations?

He is all powerful, he knows everything, he is everywhere at all times, but there is no verifiable evidence that he is doing or has ever done anything to alleviate any of the suffering of his children.

With the blink of an eye he could remove the starving experience from the human experience.

With another blink he could undo all of the mistakes that he made when he created the universe and us.

He could quit blaming us for what Adam and Eve did. He could eliminate the concept of burning in hell forever if we do not accept the Pagan "sacrifice of his son" story.

He could just make Satan vanish, period.

He could re think the survival of the fittest and strongest, and most prolific, thing, and well, he could just admit it was just plain wrong to create Adam and eve and put them in the garden of Eden, and then create this scenario where temptation is put before them, and then throwing them out for doing what he knew they would do in the first place, because "He was the one who made them and programmed their little naked minds"

What I am getting at John is: WHY SHOULD WE BE EXPECTED TO BE MORE MORAL THAN GOD?

Dan(??????????????...........?)

You don't have to live among the poor to make a huge difference in someone's life.

At any rate, none of us are claiming to represent a universal authority (aka The One True God), and as such Teresa is supposed to build up treasure in heaven and not on earth, give all her wealth to the poor, etc etc. It's not so much the fact that Mother Teresa was as greedy as anybody else, but that she was a giant, flaming hypocrite. You don't sit on the board of vegetarians and preach about the evils of meat and then go stuff your face with Big Macs.

Don,

Read Barb's post again. She wasn't peddling anything. Regarding Obadiah, re-read what she wrote:

"My brother always asks christians if they've read Obadiah. This is the inspired word, a love letter if you will from your god. So, you can't be bothered to pore over every bit of it?"

Does this sound like a Christian peddling something? Sounds to me as if she's pointing out that her brother challenges Christians with Obadiah, rather than saying it actually is a love letter.

John,

You said that the fact that I was able to leave christianity proves that it isn't cult.

What proves it a cult is how difficult it was for me to leave it. How I can't still tell my relatives I am not a christian anymore. How terrified I was during the first few months of my exit.

Furthermore, the fact that they are still calling demanding to speak to me as if they had any rights over me. That proves christianity a cult.

As for Mother Theresa, I do not see her the way you see her, John. I agree with my fellow non-christians that she was a less-than-perfect individual.

My point in the article is that, perhaps, people may want to imitate those good things they perceive good about her, even though upon closer examination she may prove as human as the rest of us.

Thanks for coming to my defense, Ubergeek. I was making the point that the entire bible is a love letter-- and if you got one from your lover it may contain ugliness or boring bits yet you would read and re-read it. But christians cannot be bothered to read the boring or ugly parts-- they just read the gospels and perhaps select parts of Deuteronomy and Revelations (for example).

Sometimes it's difficult to determine when an idea is meant to be sarcastic-- or parody-- because we're all so accustomed to "christianspeak" we can mimic it perfectly. So, for the record, if I say anything that can be construed as evangelical, please know it's meant as challenge to, or an attempt at humor about, christianity.
Thanks again 'geek.

Mother Theresa was a self-serving attention whore. She did what she did in the first place to please her stinkin biblegawd and not out of any real compassion.

She did hoard the money that she could have used to ease much suffering and even treated her own nuns shabbily. That alone shows her lack of genuine compassion for her fellow human beings. She chose not to put the millions to good use so she could put on a show for the world on how much of a martyr she was.

She actually said something to the effect: "Poverty is beautiful." WTF? Poverty SUCKS! Therefore I also then she was mentally ill.

Sorry this thread took off on MT, Lorena, but welcome!!! I saw many churches in Europe, too, and found the lavishness of them sickening. They were built on the blood, sweat, taxes and lives of the peasants of their time.

Regards, carol

Sorry - her post wasn't clear.

Carol,

In Italy, the churches and artwork etc were build with money made from trade. Norwich's "History of Venice" contains descriptions of who built what, so the source of their money can be traced.

No peasants were harmed in the construction of those cathedrals.

And in any event, did Italy even have feudalism and serfs and such? I thought that sort of thing was in Germany, France, etc.

Cult is what the big exclusive culstist religion calls the smaller cult religions, two occultists pointing fingers using unordinary thoughts to support their arguments.

MQ59: "In Italy, the churches and artwork etc were build with money made from trade."

MQ, you astound me with your comments... First, you can't possibly know "all" churches and artwork etc, were built with money made from trade, that's absurd, unless you are a non-political and genetically independent god with omniscient powers, and then, I suppose you could know such absolutely true information.

So, while you are playing god, and making absolute observations... Care to explain who the frock Michael Angelo was, and how he was paid for his services to create "artwork". You suggest he was paid by money made from trade?

I'll ignore the obvious stupidity that "all" money is a form of "trade", so everything is being traded in one fashion or another, we have dollar bills that are materialistically "worthless", except for the "value" we give that money in society, its a "trust" trade at this point in civilization.

So, obviously without the stupidity, when you say money made from "trade" you must mean, money used from the "trade" industry as in consumables, etc., to pay artists for their work.

"Michelangelo was summoned back to the great city of Rome in 1503 by the newly appointed Pope Julius II and was commissioned to build the Pope's tomb. However, under the patronage of Julius II, Michelangelo had to constantly stop work on the tomb in order to accomplish numerous other tasks; due to such interruptions, Michelangelo worked on the tomb for 40 years without ever finishing it. One such interruption was the commission to paint twelve prophets and sybils and scenes from Genesis on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, which took four years to complete (1508 – 1512)."

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

Okay, MQ, quiz question one. Who controlled the economy and trade of Italy for a large portion of recorded history? So when you say artists were paid from "trade" monies, you forget who "owned" and "controlled" everyones' lives at that time... the religious orders and namely the RCC and its own national status as the vatican.

Some of the "most famous" artwork known to this day, came directly from the coffers of the Pope himself, and the religiosly controlled markets. So, obviously after the church took the money from the people, it was no longer their money, it was the RCC's, and "they" paid for the work to be done in many cases. Some artists probably did work using the barter system, a trade between the artists work and food, shelter, etc., but "not all", and surely not Michael Angelo.

It should be a country's government's responsibility to care for the underprivilaged in a society. However religious people (namely Christianity) fullfil this task with the importance being on Christianising those whom they assist. Religious aid workers should be abolished and Governments should accept their responsibility. Cheers Jim Lee

All religions are cults. Period. Cheers all. Jim Lee

"All religions are cults"...End of debate!Thanks Jim for plowing thru the B.S.!
I was envolved in feeding and clothing the homeless for 15 years or so.I did this for ME not them.I feared that I would stand before gaud and he would say.."depart from me",...There was nothing holy about it.Now when I help someone I do it because I want too not because the babble says I burn in hell if I don't!

Just for the record. I DID NOT go to Italy. Not this time anyway.

Jerome, Saint (j?r?m`, j?r`?m), c.347–420?, Christian scholar, Father of the Church, Doctor of the Church. He was born in Stridon on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia of Christian parents (although he was not baptized until 366); his Roman name was Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus. He studied in Rome (c.359–363) under Aelius Donatus. After further study at Trier and Aquileia, he journeyed to the East. At Antioch, in 375, he experienced a vision in which Christ reproved him for his pagan studies. Renouncing his classical scholarship, he fled to the desert to live as an ascetic and to devote himself to scriptural studies, for which he learned Hebrew. In 378 he returned to Antioch, was ordained there the following year, and then went to Constantinople to study under St. Gregory Nazianzen. In 382, Jerome returned to Rome with Gregory, when Pope Damasus I Damasus I, Saint (d?m`?s?s), c.305–384, pope (366–84), a Spaniard; successor of Liberius. His election was opposed by the Arian Ursinus (antipope 366–67).
..... Click the link for more information. asked them to help settle some Eastern problems; Jerome remained as papal secretary. He was acclaimed for his exposition of Scripture

Wrong Saint! sorry:( Eyes going out!!!

Lorena: "The weekend-religious, however, are stuck at the beginning of the journey, and must rely on other people's opinions and holiness to have any kind of personal identity. They are too lazy to spend time developing their own philosophy of life. They believe anything that a smart-looking guy on a suit preaches at them in church. So it isn't a matter of intelligence. It is about having the resoluteness to investigate our beliefs and to disregard those that are found faulty."

I totally, agree, its not until a christian is challenged however, that they are persuaded to look deeper into their belief systems.

Lorena: "I think I stayed in church for as long as I did because I was too lazy to do the hard work. People who looked smart and sure of themselves told me that, if I just prayed enough and read the bible a lot, all my problems would go away. For many years, I believed what I was told, and I repeated it as well."

For much of everyones' early years in life, they are "told" what to believe and really have no other choice other than accept the information they are provided as truth, there is no filter for people who are young, you have to build truths in your own mind before the information can be filtered, and that doesn't happen until much later in life.

Lorena: "When people had problems I parroted, "You must pray about it," but I seldom did it myself. I didn't know whether the magic formulas I was given worked, because I inconsistently tried them."

If someone attempts to try the same process over and over, like you said, then it becomes apparent that over time the inconsistent results, etc., will have an awakening effect for those who aren't totally delusioned out of personal need.

I agree with you, inviting a person to test their religious process may invoke awakening among some. However, religions have created the ultimate answer for every inconsistency a person may find... "god only knows the truth", "what god does, only he knows, but everything is of gods' will".

If a person buys this, along with Jesus being a god for eternal salvation from original sin, then "all" answers lead to "god", whether right, wrong, or indifferent, and no one can question a gods' reasoning. That's the formula, that many christians are caught up in, and they are programmed at an early age many times.

If a person started their investigation of religion, dropping all of their previous assumptions, Jesus, original sin, gods' "will" be done, on earth as it is in heaven, etc., etc., then a person can find their way out of their circular reasoning.

Logic, I believe god, because I have a bible, I believe the bible, because its from god, I believe god because of the bible, I believe the bible, because of god, etc., etc.

You wrote well, in your article. I for one agree with much of what you said, but, no matter who posts a comment, there will be those who challenge the articles' elements, its normal from what I have seen. If someone posted the "perfect" rationale in a post, it would still get critiqued. Consider your post worthy of inspection :-)Take care.

Lorena, it sounds like you're conveying the message that real truth and inner peace lie's within one's own self, what perhaps jesus discovered himself was how to be himself and not what the religious scholar's of that time wanted to perceive him or jeronimo or whom ever, as being santimonious, since back then, just like now, so many people can only seem to replicate the man in the pretty suit or the one with the biggest church, instead of believing and trusting what their own inner voice of truth tells them.

This is what makes christianity the lazy person's free ride on the skirt-tails of religious doctrines.

Instead of using their own born/with intelligence, they would much prefer to jump on the bandwagon of brainless thinking and ride the currents of old worn out, and outdated religious philosophy and supertitions.

So to be a christian and just presume that all religious doctrines are true based on what the diciples wanted the outcome to be in their favor, to make it all look like a legitimate event, based on what they had hoped and prayed for, for so many years, it would seem to a christian that it would be so much safer to believe just what the old ancient scribes wanted people to believe and now the pretty preachers, and to not question the teachings, rather than investigate the absurdity of the teachings, just go ahead and bow down and submit to what ever the diciples and the pretty preachers and the pretty churches want people to believe.

It's all based on mind control and it is definitely a cult.

You explained it very well, everybody got off on a MT tangent, it's a very difficult thing to explain, when we've all been trained to think with the majority, which is exactly what you were saying, instead of looking at the persons teachings, people misconstrued the teachings and made them a Demi-God, so that they could worship them, because that is what people want, a god to worship and to save them, I hope I'm on track with ya, if not I apologize deeply.

Now I for one would be very disappionted if you quit writing, and I'm sure so many others would also, so to keep the number of suicides to a minimun, I suggest you keep writting, OK? :-)

You have a good point that the artwork commissioned by the Popes and other churchmen was paid for by money taxed from/donated by the lower classes.

I was thinking largely of the Medici and the various banking/trade families.

And considering the amount of sweeping generalizations that go on around this web-site, you don't need to be rude.

John wrote: "Lorena, the fact that you were able to leave Christianity at all is proof that it isn't a cult, as you referred to it. If you belonged to a cult, you wouldn't have had the freedom to do anything but what you were told."

John,
There are many "cults" or "cultures" that allow you the physical freedom to leave - but are emotionally damned if you do. The fact that christianity damns people to hell for not believing or accepting it is the largest control factor they have.


John wrote: "As for Mother Theresa, I wonder how many of her critics would be willing to leave their jobs, homes..."

John,
You must not have been around the same christians I have. Many of us have given up all for "The Call" - only to wake up and find that we have neglected our families and continued the abuse of power. We were proud and arrogant to think that we were righteous.

-Trudy

Borrowed Holiness that is a good name and it may have been wishful holiness too. Very good writing and and very insightful.

It's so easy to stand-off from a distance and to say to one's self, I wish I was that person, or I wish I was as Saintly or as happy or wise as him or they, like I wish I was as charismatic and loving as they portray, tho without really knowing the person that they really are inside, from an outside perspective that person may appear to be pure as snow, and deep down inside may have thoughts of killing someone.

Like some of the recent killings, people said that they were so nice and were great neighbors or co-workers, etc.

I suppose Aldolf Hitler had some admirers, I'm sure he looked like a great leader, and many probably wished they had been him at one time. Possibly if Hitler not been discovered as a mass murderer and had succeeded in distroying all the Jews, then his image may have graced the churches as him being a great christian god, and he too may would have been considered worthy of worship.

It may only take someone with an abstract philosophy to become worthy of worship, in the eyes of the ignorant and mentally distraught.

Considering how sweepingly asinine your comments are, MQ, it's quite surprising that anyone is polite to you anymore.

mq59 said: "And considering the amount of sweeping generalizations that go on around this web-site, you don't need to be rude."

Stawman, add nauseum.

No objective evidence---no belief. All religious people fail to comprehend that. How's that for a "generalization"? The Atheist/Agnostic position, once again, is a position of *neutrality. Actually, it's really an uncomplicated concept to understand, at least, for those who don't have subjective religious convictions. Nevertheless, if people come across as "rude", I suppose the best way to combat that, is to either, A) cough up some objective evidence for your religious belief, B) look into becoming a freethinker, or C) scram.


C

MQ, we talk alot about history, and it gets annoying to see the same pattern of logic being used to support ones' belief.

For instance, its dizzying discussing "god" with you, or any aspect of religion in general, don't take that as an insult, its just dizzying.

If one were to go through all your posts, since you have been here on this site, they would find a pattern.

When "your" concept of a "god and Jesus" are challenged, you don't turn to the bible for answers, like most illiterate fundies, no, no. You are out to "tie" all the gaps together with modern day duck tape logic.

Lets see, you've used the amazing hybrid-Jesus, he's only running on god fuel half the time, but, obviously when he needs a little, he flips the switch and he's running on human gene fuel. Yeah, that's a real modern day explanation there MQ, it appears those who were closest to the scene however, seemed to have missed that as a possibility. I wonder why, they didn't come up with such a logical solution. Oh, that's right, the Jews didn't believe in the hybrid-Jesus vehicle, I mean it would have given the Romans more mileage, but, a hybrid-Jesus doesn't trump a full blown "Jewish Gods'" promises and power to the Jews.

Thus, the "god" Jesus, to trump the Jews' god was created. Now, even though that makes sense politically from Constantine-I, we get a modern movie that throws out, the not so politically correct hypothesis of a mortal Jesus. Now, although, its fun to guess at all these possibilities, you nor I was there MQ, trying to guess at a deities sperm count, motility, and magical power just seems ridiculous.

It was why there was a vote, remember. Obviously, the modern day directors, not being hindered by a Roman Emperor by murder, had the flexibility to bring forth a very "plausible" option on the nature of Jesus, as they obviously didn't give a rip about having to prove the Jews' religion no longer valid, and establish a new religion with a New Covenant.

Saying something like, well, it doesn't matter about the theology one way or another, is ludicrous. Entire religions are based on a divine or non-divine theology, only a blatantly arrogant self-absorbed, non-introspective churl, who sees their way as the Absolute Truth, so iron-clad would make such a rustic statement.

Theology: "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions."

The study of theological questions, without coming to conclusion in itself is benign. However, when a person calls themselves a christian, they assert they are no longer "asking" questions MQ, they assert they have their theological answers. So, if their Jesus is a "god", and "same substance", and "not mortal", then a natural Jesus does seem to be a conflict.

Maybe you haven't come to terms with your theological beliefs, but, then... you shouldn't call yourself "anything" until you do come to terms. I mean, one little issue like the nature of Jesus, is the difference between you being Jewish or Roman Catholic, kind of big difference don't you think.

The bible is silent on many of these matters, and is contradictory when read literaly for objective truth. Its why MQ, many keep saying, that reading that book doesn't make someone a christian, a christian is a christian because they label themselves in that manner, but even their own labeling doesn't bring them any closer in theology to the next christian who may believe something totally different theologically. If you want to be a christian, its a personal choice, there isn't anything you can use to support your belief, you don't need evidence or objectivity, you just need "faith", in the person who told you about Jesus to begin with.

If you are questioning the "faith" that you placed in another individual, and are trying to weave yourself to something that you can anchor your theology to, well, I am not sure what that would be. I gave up, like many others trying to find that "thing", that "absolute" evidence to anchor christianity as the "true" religion. You make assumptions as to the substance of a deity and his double tank hybrid vehicle that gets twice the vehicle mileage with Jesus juice.

There is no evidence of Jesus, there is as much evidence that Santa Clause knocks up Mrs. Clause every night, than Jesus being non-mortal or mortal. If they couldn't figure it out in the day the legend of Jesus originated, then, MQ, you are late. If you want to start figuring out how to get some real evidence, why don't you try doing some research into some of the leading edge technologies, to prove/disprove your point.

I suppose its fitting to tell you that you will have to reach an objective singularity though, and all that religion stands for, control and in theory for those religions who claim to have a humanistic element, there appears to be a paradox of reaching objective truth.

"In futures studies, a technological singularity represents an "event horizon" in the predictability of human technological development past which present models of the future cease to give reliable or accurate answers, following the creation of strong artificial intelligence or the amplification of human intelligence. Futurists predict that after the Singularity, humans as they exist presently will cease to be the dominating force in scientific and technological progress, replaced with posthumans, strong AI, or both, and therefore all models of change based on past trends in human behavior will be obsolete."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

So, the more objective one becomes, obviously the less human. Well, that gets rid of all the heal the poor, feed the sick, yadda, yadda, yadda, and of course, there is only "one" truth, no multiple human subjective truths, kinda' contrictory to quantum superposition, but, that's a different thread, and really a matter of "perspective". Anyhow, obviously, in order to seek Obective truth, it appears you must dump your subjective view in the process, so, you get truth but lose yourself, gee, seems like you have some choices to make. If religion wants their holier than thou Borrowed Holiness, to be Absolute Truth, then, they can just start cloning themselves like drones, oh, that's right, they are already one step ahead, in the programming process of children.

MQ, ya' think Santa Clause and Jesus are related? Its possible, right? I mean, anything is possible, right? Not if you are a christian with Absolute Beliefs, all possibility no longer exists. I believe in the possibilities of life, I can't accept religions that are Absolutely Sure of their doctrine, the people who make such comments just seem "less humanistic", than those who accept their humanity and limits.

Dave,

Thanks for your well thought out post.

I completely agree with what you said about the arguing being dizzying - instead of answers to valid points, you get cliched arguments or redirected arguments avoiding the issue. I hope you see that that works both ways, though.

I'm not sure if I agree with what you said about "when a person calls themselves a christian, they assert they are no longer "asking" questions. I think most Christians would argue that just because they have accepted the belief, doesn't mean they fully understand it and have stopped asking questions. Physicists believe in the existence of atoms, but they don't fully understand it so they continue asking questions.

(Here I know some will say "Aha! But atoms are proven, God is not!" Well, no metaphor is perfect, there's obviously a difference, but my point remains. To accept a belief does not always mean to fully understand it.)

You're right, critical theological questions like the deity of Jesus do make a big difference, and watering down the issue so as to win an argument serves no one, IMHO.

As for Absolute Truth, if a religion says that "ours is the only way, all other ways are completley wrong, we know the truth 100% and everyone else is going to hell", then ok, that's arrogant. But what exactly is arrogant about it, and are all religions saying that?

I don't think its arrogant to state something you think is true as fact. It reminds me of 4th grade when you start writing papers, and you write "I think..." before every sentence. What does the teacher say? You don't have to say "I think", it's your paper, so what you're saying is obviously your opinion. And so I don't think it's surprising or even arrogant for a religion to say what they think. That's their opinion.

So what's arrogant about many religions is what you were saying: that they don't even acknowledge subjectivity. Their's is the only possibility, period.

But I don't think that's what all religions are saying. Take the Catholic catechism, for instance. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (841)

Not perfect subjectivity, perhaps, but you get the idea. Even if you think it's still arrogant, its certainliy less arrogant. It's accepting the possibility of "well maybe our differences of opinion on the little things don't matter so much."

Of course, this doesn't handle the underlying issue of moral relativism, but that wasn't my aim. My point is that stating something as fact doesn't necessarily make you arrogant.

Anyways, thanks again for your intelligent reply, I enjoyed reading it.

-Michael

Hi Lorena, like you said, maybe jesus did not want to be worshipped, nor did jeronimo, nor st.peter or mary, or whomever, but got a statue and was worshipped anyway, because of them being perceived as being different from the others at that time, then they must surely have been sent down from the Heavens above and in plain ignorance, therefore need to be worshopped.

It's plain ignorance to worship something or another person, outside one's own self!

Christian guest offered: "I think most Christians would argue that just because they have accepted the belief, doesn't mean they fully understand it and have stopped asking questions."

That may very well be true, but the problem is that if Christians don't have an answer to a particular question, then they do one of two things. They either, A) use THEIR particular "Deity" as a "default" answer, or B) refer to THEIR particual Holy Book, which essentially says to continue to believe even in the absence of evidence, or "lack of answers". This tactic is far removed from being objective. Furthermore, as far as Christians accepting "the belief", the one question they wouldn't dare ask, is "Have I accepted the wrong belief?" They, too, are "Atheists" when it comes to other people's gods.

Hi boomslang,

"...which essentially says to continue to believe even in the absence of evidence, or "lack of answers". This tactic is far removed from being objective."

You're right, it's not objective. But I think it's been established elsewhere on this site that Christianity, by its very nature, is something that cannot be proved, and must be believed even in the absence of certain proof. That's something that both sides will generally admit.


"the one question they wouldn't dare ask, is "Have I accepted the wrong belief?" "

This might be true for a lot of people, but it's a bit of a generalization. Growing up, I was almost always encouraged to question my faith, research other religions, and not to have a blind faith. And so I considered the other major world religions, and questioned often the idea that maybe God doesn't exist at all.

Obviously I reached a different conclusion than many of you. And you might say my questioning was biased, but that's really not the point here. I'm just trying to show that Christians do often ask that question.

Michael,

You have asked the question before (have I accepted the wrong belief?), but it may not be the last time.

Life is a journey and, say, 10 years down the road, you will not be same person you are today. Perhaps then you will ask the question again and your answer will be a resounding "yes."

Mr Thompson,

Fair enough. Okay, so the essence of your position is, "I believe my brand of Christianity is true". "True", just like the Mormons, the Five Point Calvinists, the JWs, etc...believe their brand is "true". Of course, this is what happens when people are "biased"(which you admit to being) in your line of questioning. So, if your "point" was that some Christians ask questions, it's not a very good one.

Hi,

Thanks for the civil and well-thought responses.

Lorena said, "You have asked the question before (have I accepted the wrong belief?), but it may not be the last time...10 years down the road...Perhaps...you will ask the question again and your answer will be a resounding "yes." "

I was simply refuting the claim that Christians "wouldn't dare" ask that question. But as a side note, you're right. I don't know what my answer will be in 10 years. Based on a lifetime of experiences of asking myself that question, though, I do feel reasonably confident of what my answer will be.

boomslang said, "So, if your "point" was that some Christians ask questions, it's not a very good one. "

Perhaps you're right, it's not very signifcant. But again, I wasn't trying to make some significant claim, just to refute dave's point that "when a person calls themselves a christian, they assert they are no longer "asking" questions".

There are both kind of side issues anyways. My main point in replying to dave was the whole facts and arrogance issue. But I appreciate your replies, and the fact that you have both been so civil.

-Michael

Michael Thompson: "I completely agree with what you said about the arguing being dizzying - instead of answers to valid points, you get cliched arguments or redirected arguments avoiding the issue. I hope you see that that works both ways, though."

Michael, if there is but one strategy that comes from me, its to seek the absolute truth, into absurdity. That's it. For over two thousand years, there have been very few Universal Truths established, and they are only established at this time based on current levels of knowledge. Change would be the only one, I am aware of, that incorporates "death, birth, aging, quantum superposition swapping of values, the stock market, the cellular structure of every person, etc., etc.".

Because of "Change", there are no "Universal Absolutes". Change "undoes" all absolutes, its really that simple. So, where you see redirects and cliches, I only see the obvious patterns of non-absolutes. Each topic discussed, should end with a light bulb flashing, "no absolute there".

If that were the case however, "god or Jesus", wouldn't be an Absolute, and thus, the very "Origins" of religion would be undone, due to the acceptance of a "Non-Absolute" vote, and a "Non-Absolute" human account from Paul, who never met a Jesus, and the other letters pulled together in a canon. Sometimes, I just stare at the PC screen, and just wonder how people can actually buy into an "Absolute" thought, I mean, lets see, the fountain of youth, the holy grail, etc, etc., have been said to stop change, stopping "Change" has been the treasure hunt since the beginning of the "time standard", literally.

Now, it seems only an uneducated person, would make the statement that there are "absolutes" beyond "Change", and they know these absolutes... while they "sit" and "think"... yes, "sit" and "think", as their own "mind", is "changing", physiologically. Michael, I don't want to enter into information theory, but in general, information is transmitted, stored, processed, etc., that's how we fixate on our reality.

That information that is stored in your gray matter, literally changes with each new pulse of information, as we age, our information storage depletes, its just a matter of time - we're human, our databases get corrupt over time, and memory recall isn't as sharp as it once was. Then, of course, while this is happening, our ability to process information drops in coherence as well. So, even when a person yells out they have an "absolute" truth, its out of sheer ignorance of their own limited humanity, in a physiological manner, we are products of cause and effect due to "Change".

There is "zero" evidence for anything to exist beyond the bounds of "Change", its why physicists are studying in a reductionist sense, quantum theory. And, no "absolutes" on change being a non-factor. The closest they have gotten is to assert that quantum entanglement shows promise as an escape mechanism beyond cause and effect determinism.

Well, almost. If you have two mirrors facing eachother, and you look in one, that is a "cause", the effect, is two images each the reverse of eachother. Now, I could stand here all night and play the let me create a model of the universe game to explain all the experimental physics out there, and it would be somewhat fun to use my imagination in such a fashion, but, before I would begin that line of endeavor, I would "assert" initially that "Change" and cause-effect relationships are "valid", until proven otherwise, hence, even if I don't like "deterministic" thought in the most strict sense, I really don't see the need to state that there is "Absolutely" the chance that cause-effect can be overcome.

There have been vacuums rendered to be totally free of all mass, to escape "cause-effect", and yet, given a little time, a photon shows up inside that totally isolated black vacuum box, and winks. Yeah, that's Nature saying, uh, you will continue to "Change". Sure, its fun to read through all physics behind such experiments, and even the mathematical reasoning, but in the end, its all about application, and levels of uncertainty.

Michael: "I'm not sure if I agree with what you said about "when a person calls themselves a christian, they assert they are no longer "asking" questions."

Not being sure about anything, is a great place to start learning. I have heard many state, philosophy is fake and useless. Typically, that comes from those who haven't grasped the concept of academia and philosophy. The notion of philosophy is to attempt to learn truths about life, using dialogue. However, taking a "huge" shortcut, and accepting that "Change" is a valid Absolute at this time, it becomes quite obvious, that for "every" argument, there is an equally valid polar argument, using the historical timeline as the argumentative dimension. For instance, what is moral today, may not have been moral yesterday, and so forth.

The erudition from philosophy, is to "know" that there is "Change", and that there are no "Absolutes". The most concrete of languages, Mathematics, with its tight internal consistency has changed over the years, and "continues" to "Change" on the whole (set theory, and a few other areas seem to hold more stability, however, that's because logic sets are general in nature). If a person must go through philosophical dialogue for years, to finally come to terms with this concept, or if they want to continue searching for the fountain of youth to "beat Change", etc., because they have an adventurous esprit, then they do so as educated people. Most all humans go through this process of dialogue, using their own daily experiences, they live out their dialogue, as opposed to verbally running through scenarios.

Once a person, collects enough dialogue through living experiences, or through conversations such as these, they begin to question the validity of "Absolutes", as they experience first hand "Changes", and "non-absolutes". A preacher gets fined for molesting a child, well... it appears that religious clergy are to be "Absolutely" accepted as Holy.

Educators today, do not teach dialogue via the Socratic Method. The "truth" is "Change" at this time, but educators teach "Absolutes", like how to take tests and memorize vocabulary words, etc., route memory is only good for a very short shelf life, information theory shows the dissipation rate to be elevated even among college students who only retain on average 5% of their informational input. Its the process that is valuable, because once a process is understood, "all" information can be examined at any time to find validity, with known acceptable limits of uncertainty.

Looking at uncertainty, look at some of these posts on this site Mike, and you see, that even in the face of religious leader travesty, people want to believe in their "Absolute" Holy Preacher, etc. Absolutes provide Certainty, but there isn't a single academician who would stand up and suggest that their area of expertise doesn't incorporate a standard for error rates. That's "all" academicians, Michael, if they don't accept their field of study with some uncertainty, then they have a great dissertation to write, as it will break the back of a two thousand plus year validated "premise", the "only" one standing at this time.

If a person calls themselves a christian, they do so, by accepting the "Absolute" truth, of a divine messianic "Christ". If a person called themselves "christian" without that one premise, then... they would not be a "christian".

The early Roman Church seized philosophical concepts to carry out their "Absolute" dilemna. They rationalized, through presupposition an "alternate" and "transcendent" reality, where "Change" doesn't exist. So, "god", exists outside change, and is thus capable of being "Perfect", as in a Platonic Form. Christians believe this Platonic realm exists, they all it Heaven, Celestial Kingdom, etc., a place where they can rationalize the existence for their Absolutely perfect & true messianic Jesus, etc.

So, in that context, a self admitted christian, should in theory no longer be asking questions about these basic principles. If they do, ask questions, then they need to curtail the use of the "occultist" view as a christian, and take on a more "spiritual" tone, even if they accept supernatural spirituality.

Michael: "I think most Christians would argue that just because they have accepted the belief, doesn't mean they fully understand it and have stopped asking questions."

Then, what we have here appears to be an uneducated consumer. If one is still asking questions, then why do they take on a title? Why do they get involved with tithing, baptism, etc? Many on this site, have done so, because its been what was taught, or taken the approach, better safe than sorry, while they continued to ask questions. The longer a person asks questions, though, speaking back to philosophy, the less likely they are to remain Absolute christians, information has a way of making that happen.

Michael: "Physicists believe in the existence of atoms, but they don't fully understand it so they continue asking questions."

Physicists, work from observational "knowns" in the present, using cause-effect relationships, that are consistent over time. Some theorists, I suppose, would suggest there are also logical ways to derive internally consistent hypothesis from "accepted" axioms, food for thought. Does the "electron" exist? The "word" describes a naturally occuring characteristic, "lightening", etc. Check out a lightening strike, we have taken what we could naturally see, diagramed out the framework characteristics of lightening/electricity, and then harnessed that energy to perform work, the conservation of energy and matter.

We could have named the electron anything, sure, even the scientist who posted the name, and studied its characteristics could have modeled the atom, with floating electrons a little differently as well, but its a modeling build on the known characteristics of the time.

If a 100 piece puzzle has 99 pieces put together, and the pieces fit together coherently with good internal and external consistency, then, sure we don't know "all" there is to know about the "whole" picture, but, it appears we know enough to use electricity. No one disclaims the use of the "electron" in our everyday lives. Does the 1% represent uncertainty, in a reductionist sense? Sure. Perhaps, that's why I believe academia of the modern era, has some serious issues, I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, beyond reductionism to create the perfect picture, I prefer to look at function and process. Does the process of harnessing mass to create energy work? Yes. How do we know, because its been tested, and validated as a process. Well, what about the few times, that the process fails to produce perfect products. Well, its not necessarily the process, its the variables the process hasn't taken into account that externally effect the internal consistency of the process.

So, in my personal opinion, its not the electrical process that has questions being asked about it, nor the laws underpinning the concepts for the process. The questions being asked, involve the external/environmental effects on the "known" process. Its true, Mike, you could throw out the entire name "atom", or for that matter, "electron", heck, do they really matter, further, are they really matter? To some philosophers, nouns are considered platonic truths, I am not one of those. We have energy, because we developed a process for harnessing energy, through the scientific method, and consistently validated natural laws.

One can attack the reductionist sense of the atom, however, its hard to attack validated processes, especially when "Change" is accepted as being an environmental contributor to energy output fluctuations. The uncertainty exists, not in the internal processes, but from the environment itself, as "all" is not known of the environment.

Now, lets see. Processes... validation, in "any" form from religious theology. I am not aware of any. The process of life after death, well, its impossible to know of such outputs. Lets look at internal consistency of christianity on the whole. Well, not a lot of coherence there, the belief system itself is extremely fractured, and many religious denominations refuse to accept "Change" as a valid factor when discussing their god.

Thus, there is no solid internal coherence (between religious sects), nor external validation (the bible is the sole literary source for its own validation), and the process whereby one would want to use to derive "truth" from the many different religious sects, is "inconsistent" at best, there is no "framework" or process a person can use to "find" the right religion. When the internal portion of a closed system (exclusively written holy words) is inconsistent, and the external validation are missing, then, there can be no consistent information, to start building a process to create a solid religion.

Right now, the only piece that seems somewhat consistent, is the name "Jesus", but, that's a highly "inconsistent" word, that some attribute to a Platonic Form of perfection, and others treat as a mortal being, family and all. If science has its problems, its in the lack of intuitive ways of describing the process of science. We bet our lives on science every hospital visit we make. Ironically, christians never bet their lives on religion... they bet their deaths.

Michael: "(Here I know some will say "Aha! But atoms are proven, God is not!" Well, no metaphor is perfect, there's obviously a difference, but my point remains. To accept a belief does not always mean to fully understand it.)"

I fully understand the process of taking matter, and transferring its properties to an energy form, that's not a belief, that's knowledge. I "know" how to validate that process. There is no religious, I "know" how to validate the process for showing a supernatural god exists, hence, the "I know" become "I believe". There is very little uncertainty in "I know", based on validated processes... There is "huge" uncertainty based on non-validateable religious processes.

Do I need to fully understand my belief, in order to believe? Yes, how does one have a belief unless they understand the principles. Perhaps, it would be more prudent to suggest that a person doesn't need to know "how" a process works, in order to believe in the process.

Well, its not a matter of fully understanding something, to build a belief upon. Its "levels" of certainty. I build my "expectations" based on actions which have very low levels of "uncertainty". There are others who build their "expectations", with extreme levels of "uncertainty".

True, one need not understand "all" there is omnisciently about their belief to hold the majority of the belief as valid, but there has to be a sane level of "certainty" one would think. That certainty doesn't exist for those who believe in the supernatural. Further, the object of the belief is also important.

A persons' belief based on their own personal experience, is much stronger, than basing ones' belief on a second hand party/revelation. Of course, christianity, begins on a "thousand hand" revelation, and works outwards towards an incomprehensive transcendent reality.

Michael: "You're right, critical theological questions like the deity of Jesus do make a big difference, and watering down the issue so as to win an argument serves no one, IMHO."

The watering down, of surrounding issues outside of the divinity of Jesus, seems to be all that the christian religions have. As you say, many Christians readily admit, they don't have evidence for the "major" theological pillars on which the Christian religion sits. However, I tend to not jump into the "many" side trails, until "Absolute" comments are made, like, artists working for trade marketers. Do the main points get lost in all this? Well, from my perspective, when one can't establish a root to stand on, it appears many attempt to find "something" to anchor themselves onto that's absolute. Perhaps, the comments are generally cordial and not meant to establish anything religiouslly Absolute.

Michael: "As for Absolute Truth, if a religion says that "ours is the only way, all other ways are completley wrong, we know the truth 100% and everyone else is going to hell", then ok, that's arrogant. But what exactly is arrogant about it, and are all religions saying that?"

Its in their doctrine, specifically the bible that everyone else is going to hell. What's arrogant about that?

Arrogance: "Overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If a person took a position of superiority, lets say a preacher or religious clergy, and taught that all children were going to hell that didn't follow the one true religion, is seems to not be a productive way for children to learn tolerance. The name Columbine seems to come to mind, and a huge list of other events that are directly attributed to "us and you" behaviors, enforced and justified by some religious persons' sanctimonious and arrogant beliefs.

Asking where arrogance fits into the picture, is like asking where hatred has a place in society. Obviously, the religion, the parent, the clergy, the communion setting, all have a factor in creating such an environment, and not one religion is vaccinated from the breakout, that can kick off at the gesture of anyone in religion, because their "doctrine" supports such views.

It may sound absurd to you, because you are more tolerant. However, there are those who don't cater to any religion, who aren't afflicted with such doctrine. That doesn't mean, non-religious people don't have the capability to be non-tolerant, it just means its a personal choice, and they obviously must accept personal responsibility for their actions, as there appears to be no "god" running around to justify their actions. When people take responsibility for their lives (when finally moving from repressive environments), they tend to start becoming more educated and have much more opportunity to grow. An arrogantly superior person, need not grow, they are obviously where they need to be "Absolutely".

Michael: "I don't think its arrogant to state something you think is true as fact. It reminds me of 4th grade when you start writing papers, and you write "I think..." before every sentence. What does the teacher say? You don't have to say "I think", it's your paper, so what you're saying is obviously your opinion. And so I don't think it's surprising or even arrogant for a religion to say what they think. That's their opinion."

Lets say little Johnny writes himself a paper to present to the class. On the title, it says, the teachers' mother is a whore, and continues to read. The teacher stops Little Johnny and asks him, why he thinks such things. Little Johnny replies, well, its my opinion and I can say whatever I want in an arrogant manner. The teacher sends Little Johnny to the principles' office. Why? Words are the initial process of "actions". Words become the person, or more accurately, the true person become the words. Isn't it quite easy to see where Hitlers' dialogue was going? What was the result, of his words?

Can someone write something merely to make a statement, and separate their true beliefs or thoughts from the "words"... No. Tis' why, little children are asked to draw pictures by psychologists in school, they draw what they "feel" and "think". Hate speech may be opinion, and even satire... I tend to think there are enough christians running around thinking their hate speech is justified because the bible is Absolutely True.

Michael: "So what's arrogant about many religions is what you were saying: that they don't even acknowledge subjectivity. Their's is the only possibility, period."

Well, along with all factors that follow someone living in an arrogantly superior objective world, yes. If a person believes their "objectivity" is the Absolute Truth, then obviously, by default all others are wrong. Funny though, that even those in the same church, each seeming to having their own "Absolute" truth, separate themselves from their own congregational members on many topics.

Michael: "But I don't think that's what all religions are saying. Take the Catholic catechism, for instance. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (841)"

Rome wanted to unite all religions under "one" god, as opposed to the pantheon of gods found in other religions or belief systems. This is the first phase of bringing people together under one rule.

Michael: "Not perfect subjectivity, perhaps, but you get the idea. Even if you think it's still arrogant, its certainliy less arrogant. It's accepting the possibility of "well maybe our differences of opinion on the little things don't matter so much."

Isn't it obbious that someone must have an aire of superiority to sell such belief, as there only being one true god, of Abraham. What I see is, if we stick together under the same main story, then we are all protected from the "outsiders". Yeah, except the insiders, particularly the ones who wrote such catechism, ended up murdering other believers of the god of Abraham, on questions like the Divinity of Jesus.

Michael: "Of course, this doesn't handle the underlying issue of moral relativism, but that wasn't my aim. My point is that stating something as fact doesn't necessarily make you arrogant."

True, not necessarily. However, if one wants to communicate with another person, they must use something that both can understand and validate. Saying "aether" exists, may be conceptualized, but when stated as a fact, it appears a little more thought is required to prove ones' point.

If one makes a statement of "fact", without the capability to explain their fact, then obviously many take that statement and downgrade it to mere "opinion", and we see where opinions got Little Johnny.

Michael: "Anyways, thanks again for your intelligent reply, I enjoyed reading it."

Likewise. I don't believe there is room in society for hatred, injustice, persecution, etc., and unfortunately for those of religion, I see the doctrine of the bible as an enabler. Many religious preachers don't use the bible as an instigator or enabler for adversity. But then, many do, its good for business.

Cocaine is medicinal when used properly, but when abused can lead a person to act in detrimental ways. The bible is such a product, the question becomes, are the religious leaders of today, ready to show how the bible can be used in an abusive manner? And the resounding answer for many in the USA, is 'no'. By touting the "Objective" and Absolute truth of the bible, they give their stamp of approval, and enable persecutory behaviors. Seems like people who claim superiority, tend to remove "equality" from the picture, in some form.

Having a belief is one thing, using that belief to affect others to create inequality, is wrong. I don't see a huge gap between belief and actions. A person has beliefs, because of their "experiences", and "experiences" create the platform for future actions.

A drug dealer speaking to a crowd of children says that drugs aren't so bad. One of a thousand children hear the message, and takes drugs and dies. The other 999 children, based on their past experiences choose to not take drugs. Do you blame the messenger for the childs' death, do your blame the "messenger", or do you blame them "both"? Remember, we are talking about a "child" who doesn't have enough knowledge becase of; non-exposure to such life experiences, they haven't read anything different or critical of the message, or the childs plainly "trusts" and has "faith" in the messenger.

The messenger was only giving a message, a mere opinion per se, to the Little Johnnies of tomorrow. Would it be more responsible for the messenger to educate their audience on the "improper" use of drugs, and the potential fatal results. Well, not if the messenger believes that their speech is perfect as is, and there can be no changes to that Absolutely True message. One persons' arrogance, can become another persons' nightmare. When is the last time you went to church and heard the preacher declare that the Old Testament should not be adhered to, and that the New Testament should not be understood literally as the Absolute Truth. For me, never. Cheers

Wow, Dave. Thanks for the thorough response. I can't say I expected my comments to be expounded upon to that extent, but it made for very interesting reading. Give me some time to digest it a bit, and I'll get back to you.

Thanks again,
Michael

Michael said:

" I don't know what my answer will be in 10 years. Based on a lifetime of experiences of asking myself that question, though, I do feel reasonably confident of what my answer will be."

Lorena responds:

If anybody had asked me two years ago, I would have said exactly the same thing. So I am not going to judge for that. However, let me give you a bible verse that just came to mind (James 4:13-14a):

"Now listen, you who say,Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow."