"This applies to you atheists too, by the way. I've met quite a few lately who have a startling propensity for the "faith" they express"
____
I read recently (was it here?) something about religious activism which ended with a clause to the effect that "I'm sure atheists do the same on their side." No, not really.
An atheist is not an agnostic, true. But an atheist or agnostic or christian or jew or muslim may speak up for a person under pressure to select his beliefs from only one bin. That's not proselytizing, that's trying to clear the decks to allow a seeker free choice. In fact, I sometimes muse at the violent reaction of the promoters of religion to the concept of people having free choice to form their own beliefs, almost as if they are afraid that on a level playing field, the game may go against them.
There are, for those who wonder, three (count them, three) atheists in the United States (mother, daughter, and son-in-law, the last a tent preacher from age 8 to enlightenment) whose mission actually is to extend atheism to those who may be seeking it. (The last family who held that job was murdered, all of them--perhaps as an act of Christian charity?). Contrast the number of people whose full time job it is to extend their own view of christianity as far as possible.
One can hardly deny in good faith that there is merit in making alternate belief systems available, especially to young people coming up,. They are, after all, in the business of making life decisions with which they will live (god willing--no, not the own devices god, the other one) for a long time. Who has the right to remove options from someone else's menu of choices? And who has the right to lash to the religious grindstone a person seeking resolution and some kind of peace, and tell him that he may look only in this one quadrant?
And then there's the little matter of the Constitution. Of course, it is not the job of agnostics or atheists to protect it, more than any other American, and presumably people of all faiths will eventually rally to its defense--maybe even before the road back to democracy becomes impassable. The United States' top advocate for First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state--Barry Lynn--is a pastor.
Rev. Lynn is certainly no atheist or agnostic, but also no fan of cramming one's own narrow, politically oriented spin down the throats of seekers of a personal wisdom and truth. And DEFINITELY not an advocate of funding it, like Chuck Colson, with the taxpayers' money.
Where were we? Oh, right, we were discussing how "sharing one's personal god" and demanding the right to market him in public squares and public schools is the equivalent of suggesting a person who is seeking and has not found what he needs to trust himself in his decision, rather than try to force himself back down the path where he has, at the moment, not found answers. Yeah, that's the same.
I also want to say that there are some very brilliant people here. I am enjoying reading the intelligent and insightful back-and-forth conversation. Thank you and kudos to each of you!!
I don't know that I agree that there is no room for change in unquestionable faith. I think that's an interpretation adhered to by many steadfast zealots (not you, my friend, Savas). Notice the recent "middle of the road" religious who susbscribe to a belief in God, whatever name he/she goes by. It's the kinder-gentler religion that really looks at good deeds rather than bible thumping and obnoxious behavior.
At the core, are we not really looking at the intollerant extreme religious groups? I know a few people who are unquestionably religious, yet are willing to examine the possibility that they are wrong. There are many scientists, who sift through concrete data every day that would suggest that there is no god (or at least put some holes in the whole idea), yet they go to church, pray, tithe, and believe in God.
For many of us, it's our insurance policy. If we believe in God, do good things, help others, keep our moral compasses straight and true (all for the most part), and there is a god, then we should be secure in our afterlife. If we believe in God, do good things, help others, keep our moral compasses straight and true, and there is no god, then all we've done is lived a good life; one that has helped us get through many of the tough times. To me, again IMHO, this can't be such a bad thing.
The bible should be a guide, nothing more. If we take everything as is written, then we are in a lot of trouble . . . an eye for an eye, while we turn the other cheek . . .
Unless, Savas, you adopt a Zen notion of faith- river-like- the same yet everchanging...The "faith" of eastern philosophy occurs only to the empty mind- an intuitive leap.
mrwjd-
The blind men observe the elephant from many angles- it is to big to be understood in it's entirety- their observations are all right and yet all wrong. Never trust anyone who claims to have a lock on the truth...but never doubt that truth exists...
" We dance around the circle and suppose,
but the secret sits in the middle and knows" R. Frost.
I have a theory re the"fall"/ Garden of Eden story.The world was peaceful and good before the advent of "rationality": ie "eating from the tree of the knowlege of good and evil"- in an attempt to be (like) God. I wonder if our ability to know, think,choose- versus a natural existance- ie the "lilies of the field"- is not what is referred to in that Ecclisiastes quotation: "I find that God made man simple;man's complex problems are of his own devising." "Simple" (naturally in sync with the good) before the fall into rationality- resulting in " complex problems of his own devising" ( able to egotistically choose the bad). Perhaps getting back to the good (or God) requires choosing intuitive simplicity...
This applies to you atheists too, by the way. I've met quite a few lately who have a startling propensity for the "faith" they express
daddy's Dodge needs new tires so come on kids send em in.......... God bless ya snicker snicker