just a suggestion

[FmrMarine]

(05-06-2012 01:03 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 12:49 PM)FmrMarine Wrote:  The problem with Christianity isn't just the claim of access to god, it's the claim of eternal life.

Right. That is what I thought also.

Actually, more than that. By the time I left Fundamentalism I no longer believed in any of the five “fundamentals:”
1. The inspiration of scripture as the literal, revealed word of God.
2. The virgin birth as the means by which the divine nature of Christ has been guaranteed.
3. Atonement for the rest of us accomplished by the death of Jesus.
4. The certainty of the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
5. The truth of the second coming of Jesus, the reality of the Day of Judgment, which would be based on the record of one’s life, and the certainty of heaven and hell as eternal places of reward and punishment.

It took me years, (ten or twenty) to figure out that it is actually only a minority among Christians who actually believe all five. Naomi is right. When I left Fundamentalism I also thought I was leaving god. It was very weird when I started trying to argue with people from other denominations, and they simply agreed with me.

(05-04-2012 12:49 PM)FmrMarine Wrote:  The bible and the Koran direct actions for these people. It inspires them to stay in abusive marriages, to abuse children, to blow up buildings for Pete's sake!

Ah, yes, judging religions by their minimum common denominator. Yes, Religion can be opium, just as Marx described.

But religion is also very useful to billions of people as a coping mechanism for everyday life. Religion can also help people overcome many obstacles, and become better human beings.

The problem is when one group or the other claim monopoly of access to God. It is as if this group of amoebas in this specific puddle could claim they are the only ones, that god can only be accessed through their particular version.

Meanwhile, I’ve got to get used to the fact that while I KNOW I’m a believer, all of the IFB and even most of those who have left the IFB would still consider me a non-believer, not because of my belief in God, but because of my unbelief in the (IMHO superfluous) many doctrines out there.

Fair comments, Ricardo. Not that my opinion matters, I think based on what I've read from you, I would put you in the non-believer camp. I have no problem with people who use the comfort of religion to get through the rigors of everyday life. However, I think I would rather have those people find another coping mechanism if it meant the extremists would go away. I think we've reached a tipping point in history where religion is doing more harm than good. I don't think that has always been the case, but I think there is a lot of evidence for it now.

As for some of the other comments on the thread, I like hearing from Ricardo because is perspective is certainly different and he certainly comes across as an intelligent person. I would not put him in the 'alien abductee' camp. Having said that, I don't mind a lively, heated discussion. One has to have some thick skin to participate in these types of discussions. The meek may inherit the earth, but they will get their ass handed to them at SFL.

[Hollandmichigan]

(05-07-2012 08:29 AM)FmrMarine Wrote:  Fair comments, Ricardo. Not that my opinion matters, I think based on what I've read from you, I would put you in the non-believer camp. I have no problem with people who use the comfort of religion to get through the rigors of everyday life. However, I think I would rather have those people find another coping mechanism if it meant the extremists would go away. I think we've reached a tipping point in history where religion is doing more harm than good. I don't think that has always been the case, but I think there is a lot of evidence for it now.

As for some of the other comments on the thread, I like hearing from Ricardo because is perspective is certainly different and he certainly comes across as an intelligent person. I would not put him in the 'alien abductee' camp. Having said that, I don't mind a lively, heated discussion. One has to have some thick skin to participate in these types of discussions. The meek may inherit the earth, but they will get their ass handed to them at SFL.

Ricardo will have to speak for himself, of course, but judging by what he's said I don't think he's a non-believer at all. He seems to be rejecting organized religion, not the existence of god. If he could explain, in plain english, exactly where he stands on the theism/non-theism question, I would be less frustrated with him; and what he has to say would make a lot more sense.

[Shoes]

Hollandmichigan Wrote:Ricardo will have to speak for himself, of course, but judging by what he's said I don't think he's a non-believer at all. He seems to be rejecting organized religion, not the existence of god. If he could explain, in plain english, exactly where he stands on the theism/non-theism question, I would be less frustrated with him; and what he has to say would make a lot more sense.

hahaha. you aren't the first and you woin't be the last to ask Ricardo that question. his belief system is fluid rather than static. it's funny, that usually bothers the dogmatic members. i find it curious that a non-believer is bothered by his lack of 'firm belief.'

I have been part of my of the discussions about what is truth and ricardo is always right there in the thick of it. he never shys away from his declaration that he isn't the holder of The Truth ™ as he like to call it. he makes no claim to it and is skeptical of anyone that claims to know it.

i find myself agreeing with him more and more

[Ricardo]

Coping mechanisms.

Again I have to recommend James Fowler's "Stages of Faith." It is not an easy read. Fowler compares the stages of maturity development for kids mentioned by Piaget, with the stages mentioned by Erik Erikson and Kohlberg and then tries his hand at stages of spiritual development.

The book is pretty dense. I have not seen a decent summary. It may not be possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_...evelopment

As kids, we all considered our parents as GOD. Everything they said was TRUE. Rules were absolute. as we started developing, growing up, we started playing with the rules in our games, bending them this way and that, but depending on the rules, nevertheless. As teenagers, we are supposed to throw out all external rules, while in the process of developing and internalizing our own rules.

This is the stage our churches really screw up. Our churches do not allow teenagers to develop their own thinking.

One day a young woman wakes up, finds herself married, with two kids, living someone else's life. She had been living the life her parents wanted her to live, the life her husband wants her to live, the life her church wants her to live, even, the life she thinks Jesus wants her to live. In many cases, this woman absolutely needs to walk out on that life. Some may think she has lost her mind. Actually, it may be the first sane thing she has done. (It is still a pretty painful and traumatic period for everyone involved.)

The same happened to many of us here regarding spiritual development. One day we woke up and realized we were following rules, rules and more rules, that there was a huge disconnect between what the bible says and what the churches do, and that the bible itself had holes big enough to drive a camel through.

Fowler's point is that some people in church are still in the first stage, where they need an absolute god with absolute laws, with an absolute plan for how they are supposed to live their lives. At the same time, there are people in church who are in the next stage, where it is possible to have some doubt, where the world will not stop turning if we admit that we do not have all the answers.

As a society, I believe we have also been progressing through basically the same stages. We first needed a Chieftain or King who would set down the law, who we would obey unquestioningly. The idea of self rule is actually pretty recent. For all practical purposes, Democracy is still an experiment.

As an aside, the Spanish language still does not have a word for "compromise." The concept doesn't really exist. It is no wonder that Spanish-language cultures and nations have not truly grasped the idea of Democracy. Panamanian Strongman Omar Torrijos used to say, when referring to recovering sovereignty over the Panama Canal: "De pie o muertos. Nunca de rodillas." "Standing up or dead. Never on our knees." It is no wonder that the OAS and the UN are still instruments of a handful of developed countries who force or manipulate the rest into agreeing with whatever...

The concept of God as all knowing, all powerful, all everything is the main casualty as we go through the various stages. Mind you, many people die before making it past the second stage. It is no wonder that people jumping from stage two to stage three call themselves Agnostic or even Atheists. (Compared to their previously held views...)

Until they can settle for a new definition of god.

When I say I no longer believe in the god preached in IFB churches, it doesn't mean I no longer believe in god. But She looks nothing like a general of the massacring armies.

[Ricardo]

"If he could explain, in plain english, exactly where he stands on the theism/non-theism question, I would be less frustrated with him; and what he has to say would make a lot more sense."

So would I. As soon as I figure it out myself, you will be the first to know

I think I like what Tillich has to say about god as "The ground of all being."

The problem is that two paragraphs of Tillich put me to sleep immediately.

[Trapped Pentecostal]

Y'know, I just want to say that I disagree with much that Ricardo says, but he's so agreeable with his disagreements that he is in my top five people here on SFL that I would love to sit down and have a few beers with. If you're ever in northern New Jersey, Ricardo, let me know.

[Qrayze]

(05-07-2012 09:33 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  The concept of God as all knowing, all powerful, all everything is the main casualty as we go through the various stages. Mind you, many people die before making it past the second stage. It is no wonder that people jumping from stage two to stage three call themselves Agnostic or even Atheists. (Compared to their previously held views...)

Until they can settle for a new definition of god.

When I say I no longer believe in the god preached in IFB churches, it doesn't mean I no longer believe in god. But She looks nothing like a general of the massacring armies.

This is pretty much where I am right now.

I keep asking myself if it wasn't man made in god's image, but god made in man's image.... *sigh*

[Ricardo]

(05-07-2012 05:52 PM)Qrayze Wrote:  I keep asking myself if it wasn't man made in god's image, but god made in man's image.... *sigh*

In technical circles, the word "theism" is used NOT to discuss whether one believes or not in a deity, but the act of describing god with anthropomorphic terms.

As happens often, I was disappointed with the movie Contact. (Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey.) The book, written by Carl Sagan, has way more to say about the concept of our Creator. Also about a being(s) appearing to us in human form because it would be too much for us to handle otherwise. The last scene in the book (which did not make it to the movie,) could be construed as Sagan keeping the door open to messages from our creator(s.)

Take a look at the scale of our universe:
http://uploads.ungrounded.net/525000/525...rse_ng.swf

The idea of a god, creator of the universe, concerned with whether we go to church every Sunday is, well, quaint. The idea of setting up a narrative that clearly places Earth and the past seven thousand years as the main reason for a universe that has been around for 14 billion years...

I can either imagine god as OUTSIDE of her creation, or we can imagine her as being part and parcel of the universe itself.

I tell you, Star War's Midiclorians make way more sense than a god of galaxies taking residence in the ark of the covenant so that these nomads can lord it over their enemies and slaughter them. (And taking their women as slaves and concubines.)

Meanwhile, I've experienced things that I cannot explain. (yet.)

Some of these things could very well fit into Arthur C. Clarke's "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But not all.

Last Sunday I walked out of a Pentecostal Service after an hour where the congregation sang four or five choruses over and over that basically said: "Lord, come fill me up!" And I'm thinking: Is god deaf? Does he have Alzheimer's that we have to repeat this over and over?

With my definition of god approaching more and more the "ground of all being" I feel that this congregation was ignoring that god is already in them, keeping their atoms together, allowing them to breath, think, laugh and cry. (The Lord is my Shepherd. I lack nothing.)

So yes, their god is clearly made in their image. "god is there to fill my needs" is what they seem to be saying.

Yesterday was communion. And once again, the emphasis was on "if you don't do it right, god is going to make you sick and kill you."

Puh-leeze!

Hey Qrayze! so how far away from the NorthEast are you? If we can convince Trapped Pentecostal to drive three hours North, and I drive three hours South, we would have to find some good beer joints around Hartford...

[redbeardiam]

(05-07-2012 08:59 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  Hey Qrayze! so how far away from the NorthEast are you? If we can convince Trapped Pentecostal to drive three hours North, and I drive three hours South, we would have to find some good beer joints around Hartford...

Hmm. Ricardo, maybe next time I'm in Portland we can hit Sebago Brewing Co?

[Qrayze]

(05-07-2012 08:59 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  Hey Qrayze! so how far away from the NorthEast are you? If we can convince Trapped Pentecostal to drive three hours North, and I drive three hours South, we would have to find some good beer joints around Hartford...

I'm midwest, close to Chicgao. (very close to FBCH, lol)