Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Five Scriptures You Won’t Hear at Rick Perry’s Prayer Event
As a native Texan, I’m used to crazy religion and crazy politics. So, the announcement of Gov. Rick Perry’s plans for “The Response,” a prayer event scheduled for Aug. 6 at Houston’s Reliant Stadium, was not a surprise.
But as a Presbyterian minister and community organizer, it’s part of my job to stand up for my neighbors. The use of the governor’s office to promote one religion in a country with such rich religious diversity is obviously unhealthy politics, but -- if one takes the Christian and Jewish scriptures seriously -- it is also unhealthy religion. Here are five rather important verses of scripture you aren’t likely to hear at “The Response”:
Don’t make a show of prayer
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray in public places to be seen by others… But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your heavenly parent, who is unseen.” (Matt. 6:5-6)
While Jesus never addressed the issues most important to some of this event’s co-sponsors, such as homosexuality and abortion, he did speak out against public displays of religion. Whatever Jesus meant by the word “prayer,” it seems to have been about the quiet and personal. The disciples had to ask Jesus how to pray, which is a pretty good indication that he wasn’t praying a lot publicly. What he did say about prayer carried a warning label: “Don’t rub it in other people’s faces.”
God doesn’t withhold rain because we’ve done something wrong
“God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matt. 5:45)
Perry recently called Texans to pray for rain, which implies that God steers clouds toward the worthy. According to Right Wing Watch, one of the events co-sponsors has said the earthquake in Japan happened because the emperor had sex with the Sun Goddess. It may be a part of our lower nature to blame disasters on people we don’t like or understand, but Jesus taught that God sends rain on the just and unjust. Furthermore, he said our love should be equally nonselective.
I have chosen Christianity as my life’s religion, but when nonjudgmental love is taken out of its center, it becomes poisonous and predatory. The word “God” can be a helpful symbol for all the transcendentals of life, but the symbol becomes instantly pathological when used as a scientific explanation or political justification.
God doesn’t have favorites
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism.” (Acts 10:34)
When the Bible says that God is not a “respecter of persons” it means that God doesn’t have a favorite country or religion. The idea that God wants Christians to be in charge of other people violates Jesus’ teaching that we are to take the lowest place. We are to change the world by humble persuasion and good example, not by messianic coercion. The assumption that Christianity and America are God’s two favorite things will be particularly ironic, as the prayer event falls on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.
Worship by those who neglect the poor is offensive to God
“I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me… Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:21-24)
The prophet Amos chastised the religion of his day for praying to God while mistreating people. Texas leads the nation in citizens who are uninsured, who work for minimum wage, and who die from unsafe working conditions on construction sites. Our state has the widest gap between rich and poor of any in the union. If the governor wants to call us to repentance it should begin with our real sins against the poor not the imaginary sins dreamed up by his friends.
The heart of Christian ethics is being a good neighbor
When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) it was to teach humility to a rich young zealot who thought he was approaching moral perfection. The Samaritans were the scapegoats of the day. The rich young ruler would consider Samarians heretics and immoral people. Jesus used a merciful Samaritan as the example of ethical perfection. It is a lesson many Christians have yet to learn.
One sponsor of the event, the American Family Association, is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. The group’s director of analysis for government and policy is quoted by the SPLC as saying that Hitler was “an active homosexual” who sought out gays “because he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough.” He also said Muslims should not be allowed in the military or be allowed to build mosques in the United States.
None of this analysis springs from malice. In fact, I must confess that I have a soft spot for Rick Perry. When the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in Texas was passed, I had the honor of pushing the wheelchair of Byrd’s mother into the governor’s office for the signing. I privately thanked Perry for his courage in standing up to all the groups who had fought against the bill; I knew he might pay a political price for signing the bill. Tears came to his eyes, and he said, “It’s the right thing to do.”
I can’t know what is in Perry’s heart, of course, but I do know the problem isn’t one politician but rather a nation that has embraced an unhealthy political arrogance undergirded by even unhealthier religious hubris. The “prayer” that is most needed at this time is for each of us, believer or not, to go into our own heart and find the humility and empathy that is at the core of righteousness, political and spiritual.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
101 Comments so far
Show AllChrist's excoriation of hypocrites was not a minor point. Once hypocrisy is accepted as a way of life, it throws open the gates to every evil known to humankind because it takes away not only the quality of love but the power of analysis, the two sides of healthy consciousness.
Not coincidentally, both conscious love and the power of analysis are hindrances to consumerism and the project of atomizing of people in the psychosis of capitalism. It's all part of the same complex.
Religion/Spirituality makes us stupid and craven.
I think that's too broad a statement. It is true that religion, especially, has historically been used to instill obedience. It seems to be related to regimentation in complex agricultural societies, and it has continued apace in industrial societies.
But do you think Paiutes or Hopi, for example, who are steeped in a rich spiritual relationship with nature and who live most of their lives in that spiritual milieu are, therefore, stupid and craven? You are disparaging a broad spectrum of folks in your statement. How about Australians in their dream time which serves to associate and place them in nature?
On a very elementary level, take the "berserkers" or other warriors. You may argue that spirituality makes them stupid, but can you seriously say that "internalizing the animal spirit" makes them craven? Doesn't it give them strength?
There is a humorous scene in Melville's book, "Typee", which takes place in the South Seas in the 1840's. If I remember correctly, a carved god (supposedly embodying the god itself) fell on one of the natives, and Melville was astonished to see the islander kicking and berating that "god". Later on in the book, there are scenes where a god image is bound and humiliated to extort necessities for survival of the tribe.
You can laugh and make fun of such scenes, but are you sure they can be described as "craven"?
Arry,
The issue is not whether one thinks that people who are steeped in a rich spiritual relationship with nature and who live most of their lives in that spiritual milieu are, therefore, stupid and craven, the issue is whether the claims that they make on the nature of reality are true.
I believe that it is wrong to say that all people who hold beliefs in spirituality and the supernatural are stupid and craven. Some are stupid and craven. Most of these people are intelligent and otherwise rational. They demand evidence from others who hold belief in alien abduction, alien cattle mutilation, alien visitation, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, dragons that breath invisible fire and other nonsense before they will hold belief in such extraordinary claims. But, when it comes to their spiritual beliefs they accept them in the absence of empirical evidence
Such people are not crazy, stupid or craven. Their beliefs in the supernatural and the spiritual are simply irrational.
I have reiterated on multiple occasions that the burden of proof is upon those who assert a claim to provide proof to support their claim. Also, the mere fact that many spiritualist and religionists have a rich spiritual relationship with nature living most their lives in that spiritual milieu and are motivated by their religious/spiritual beliefs to perform acts of altruism is no evidence for the truth of religious and spiritual claims that they make.
Atheist live equally rich lives and perform acts of altruism without a belief in spirituality or the supernatural.
>>But, when it comes to their spiritual beliefs they accept them in the absence of empirical evidence
One does not NEED empirical evidence to experience the spiritual . The Spiritual is not of a material nature yet you demand physical proofs of it. This is not logical. You can not open a door and observe it, or measure it's wavelength. That is why the material world is defined as separate from the Spiritual.
Consciousness is defined in places as being "self-aware" of ones own experience. Science can not define me my experience. They can not "measure it'.Science can not even measure If I am truly "self aware". When one experiences the spiritual they do not need to rush off to a "Man of Science" to have it proven. It happens.
Some people mock the notion of man ever having landed on the moon. They think it quite impossible. They have not had that experience therefore there can not have been such an experience.
The same is true of the Spiritual. You have never grasped it or felt it so demand everyone else must feel the same way or they are not rational.
I liken such to a world of Color Blind people suffering from achromatopsia who ridicule the notion that any can see the Color Blue because the Color blue can not be seen by them.
So YOU have never experienced the Spiritual. Too bad for you . Those that have can not even bother explaining it to you just as a person can not describe the color blue to a person with achromatopsia.
You will not take another's word on having experienced the Spiritual. That is your choice but you are a arrogant to the extreme to try and claim this means there no such thing.
GwNorth,
I don't know the nature of your experiences. I have had numerous experiences of timeless unity and clarity and astonishing beauty, as if a film was removed from my eyes and I was seeing things in their true aspect.
They are within me and to think of rejecting them is absurd. They don't interfere with rational thinking. In fact, they inject life into all of my faculties.
Just to commiserate a bit with you. :-)
Yes I have had the same (and more) as well. It important this distinction be made when people who have not try and dismiss those experiences.
The connection one feels happens BEFORE the Euphoria. The Euphoria is produced in oneself.
GwNorth,
The claim that one has experienced a spiritual experience is no evidence that the spiritual experience has a supernatural origin. You are an extremely intelligent individual. You will not find in my posts that I have ever asserted that spiritual experiences are not real to those who have experienced them. What I have asserted is that there is no evidence that these spiritual experiences are supernatural in origin. That is what I have demanded evidence of. Provide me with evidence that the spiritual experience is supernatural in origin. It is therefore not illogical to demand evidence from one who asserts the existence of spiritual experiences that they believe have a supernatural origin
Your argument that the Spiritual is not of a material nature is not supported by evidence.
I am certain that you are well aware that many of the experiences that people report as spiritual can be replicated by electrical stimulation of specific regions of the brain.
The near death experience can be replicated by subjecting individuals to g-force-induced loss of consciousness. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force have significant experience with this phenomena based upon results obtain when pilots are subjected to high g-forces in a centrifuge during pilot training.
Stimulation of the right angular gyrus in the temporal lobe is capable of producing out of body experiences.
Neurologist Andrew Newberg, M.D., and neuroscientist Eugene D'Aquili have written extensively on this topic in their book "Why God Won't Go Away".
Many hallucinogenic compounds and dissociative anesthetics, such as Ketamine, are capable of inducing spiritual experiences in those who use these agents. The molecule DMT (dimethyltryptamine) has become known as the "spiritual molecule". DMT causes dissociation of mind from the body. It is the hallucinogenic agent in ayahuasca, a drug taken by South American shamans.
These lines of evidence provide strong support for the argument that mind is a manifestation of biochemical process that occur in the brain and is thus a manifestation of matter. Consciousness and mind are manifestations of biochemical processes that occur in the brain.
Unlike many, I am not a dualist. I don't not believe that there is a material world and a spiritual world or realm that exists independent of matter.
Your argument regarding achromatopsia is illogical. A person who could not see the color blue and contended that the color blue did not exist because they were incapable of seeing it would be irrational. This has no applicability to the argument of the existence of spiritual experiences presumed to have a supernatural origin.
I cannot see thoughts and ideas yet I know that thoughts and ideas exist. Even though an individual was incapable of seeing the color blue, it is possible to provide that person with empirical evidence that is independent of their senses that the color blue does exists. I cannot see gamma rays, xrays, microwaves, ultraviolet rays, infrared rays, or radio-waves yet I know that they exist. Although I can sense some of the electromagnetic spectra, I know that these waves exist based upon a body of scientific observations that are verifiable and reproducible.
I may never have a spiritual experience. Even if I were to have a spiritual experience it would not be my inclination to believe that the origin of the spiritual experience was supernatural.
It arrogance on the part of those who assert that their spiritual experiences cannot have a natural explanation and must have a supernatural explanation when they have no evidence to suggest that the origin of their spiritual experience is supernatural.
I will again reiterate and challenge you and anyone else to provide me with evidence that anywhere in this thread or forum that I have ever contended that there is no such thing as a spiritual experience. I have argued that there is no evidence for the existence of metaphysical entities such as "souls" and "spirits", not that people have not had spiritual experiences.
>>Your argument that the Spiritual is not of a material nature is not supported by evidence.
This a circular argument. You wish PHYSICAL evidence. The Physical material world can not define the Spiritual.
The only evidence is the evidence of experience. Claiming that any that experienced the spiritual must therefore have experienced the material is making an assertion not established by any of the facts you claim are needed.
>>Although I can sense some of the electromagnetic spectra, I know that these waves exist based upon a body of scientific observations that are verifiable and reproducible.
And two thousand years ago when you could not make those measurements did the color blue exist? No one in such a world could have made such measurements because the science was beyond them. That does not mean there could not have been a blue. The fact that it could later be measured did not mean blue suddenly came into existence.
When we speak of the spiritual we speak of that which is not electromagnetic waves or spectra. That is why it is called the Spiritual.
So keep waiting on your "measurements" because they will not happen.
>>Your argument regarding achromatopsia is illogical. A person who could not see the color blue and contended that the color blue did not exist because they were incapable of seeing it would be irrational. This has no applicability to the argument of the existence of spiritual experiences presumed to have a supernatural origin.
It is not illogical at all. A person that can not see blue can not have it defined to them. It is impossible for a person who can see blue to define to one that can not in a manner wherein the one that can not see can "envision" it.
The same holds true with The nature of Spirituality and the experience of the same. You do not see it, you have not experienced it so YOU claim it can not exist.
By your own words you are irrational.
I have experienced the Spiritual . It is part of my experience. It is not something easily put into words. Your denial of MY experience is irrational.
I acknowledge you have never experienced it. I am the rational one here.
Your final statement is a clever twisting of words wherein you now suggest your arguments against the spiritual has to do with "souls" and "spirits" . This shows you still fail to grasp the spiritual. "Souls" and "Spirits" and "Gods" and "Supernatural Entities" are merely words by which those that have experienced the spiritual and are aware of it, try to define it to others in a language that is simply incapable of describing it.
Language is still part of the material world.
Schopenhauer said "as soon as you try and put a thought into words it ceases to be true". The Spiritual is above even the realm of human thought yet you want it explained in words or defined by Science.
Certainly there are those who have taken the words as defined to them of the Spiritual and misinterpreted them. You can not use those misinterpretations as a basis for your rejection of the Spiritual.
It is there. I feel it. I have experienced it. That is enough for me. My belief is not predicated upon YOU having to believe it.
GwNorth,
You wrote:
"The only evidence is the evidence of experience. Claiming that any that experienced the spiritual must therefore have experienced the material is making an assertion not established by any of the facts YOU CLAIM are needed."
In my previous reply I provided you with evidence that you failed to comment on that what you and other spiritualists have defined as spiritual experience can be explained by the material. The evidence of experience that you cite as evidence for spiritual in no way infers that the experience is supernatural in origin or that there exists a spiritual realm. I am not sure why this is not clear to you.
I cited a number of lines of evidence that argue against the duality of body and mind.
I provided you with evidence that the spiritual experiences that you and others have experienced is reproducible by the administration or ingestion of certain bio-active agents, the electric stimulation of specific regions of the brain, and brain hypoxia. This provides clear evidence that certain experiences believed to be spiritual are in fact natural in origin and also provides evidence that argues against the duality of body and mind or body and spirit.
Here is some more evidence to support my argument. The neuroscientists Newberg and D'Aquili who's work I referred to earlier found that brain scans made when Buddhist monks meditated and Franciscan nuns prayed indicated strikingly low activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe, a region of the brain that they have dubbed the orientation association area (OAA). The OAA's job is to orient the body in physical space. People with damage to this area have a difficult time negotiating their way around a house, sometimes even bumping into objects that are within their visual field. Even though they can see the object, their brain does not process it as something separate from their body.
When the OAA is active, there is a sharp distinction between self and non-self. When the OAA's activity is suppressed, such as during deep meditation and prayer, that division breaks down, leading to a blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy, between feeling in body and out of the body. It has been hypothesized that this is what happens to Buddhist monks who experience a sense of oneness with the universe, or with nuns who feel the presence of God, or with alien abductees floating out of their beds up to the mother ship.
In 2010, the Italian neuroscientist Cosmio Urgesi and his colleagues noted that patients who experience damage to the posterior superior parietal lobe due to tumorous lesions can suddenly experience feelings of spiritual transcendence. Brain hypoxia due to decreased blood flow to the brain during cardiac arrest can cause similar experiences of feelings of spiritual transcendence. People who were successfully resuscitated from sudden cardiac arrest have reported these experiences.
Psychoactive compounds such as mandrake and jimsonweed are well documented as being capable of triggering preternatural experiences such as the sense of floating and flying. These agents were used by European witches and American Indian shamans.
As I stated before, these studies and many others that I could cite, provide evidence that the brain and mind are not separate. They are one and the same. The brain and the brain alone is the source of our beliefs. These studies also provide evidence that what is perceived to be spiritual is in fact material. Spiritual experiences require no extra-material explanations. The evidence that spiritual experiences can be experienced is no evidence for the existence of a spiritual realm that exists independent of matter that is of a supernatural origin.
I'm not sure how I can make my argument any clearer to you. I have tried to provide you with evidence that Schopenhauer did not have available to him when he said "as soon as you try and put a thought into words it ceases to be true". The Spiritual is not above the realm of human thought. Science provides evidence that what you call the Spiritual is not above the realm of human thought. It can be explained by biochemical processes that occur in the brain. One does not need to invoke the supernatural to explain spiritual experiences nor posit the existence of a spiritual realm that exists independent of matter.
Ref:
Cosimo Urgesi, et al.: "The Spiritual Brain: Selective Cortical Lesions Modulate Human Self-Transcendence", Neuron 65, no. 3 (2010) 309-19
David E. Comings, "Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain? (Duarte, California: Hope Press, 2008)
I have also nowhere said that your beliefs should be predicated upon me believing them. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
>>It can be explained by biochemical processes that occur in the brain. One does not need to invoke the supernatural to explain spiritual experiences nor posit the existence of a spiritual realm that exists independent of matter.
Then sir. Repeat the experiment. Go get your chemicals and create thought from them. The Chemical makeup of the brain is well known .
Get your chemicals and create awareness.
Further to that is ALL of thought, spirituality, awareness and consciousness are all simply byproducts of matter and the material world that just happened as a consequence of the big bang then your dismissal of concepts like a Gaia or even Astrology are not logical.
It has been demonstrated plants and animals BOTH react to planetary bodies, such as clams that open when the moon overhead even when those clams moved from the ocean and inland . It has been demonstrated in labs in Sweden that certain Chemical solutions suspended in water are affected by the position of planetary bodies. It was known as far back as the 1920's that the position of planetary bodies in the skies affects radio waves.
The planets and stars affect the orbits of each other. The magnetic field of Earth is affected by that of the sun. It has been shown in tests that low frequency radio waves can affect peoples behavior. Chemicals react differently in space then on the planet earth. Experiments on the spacelab showed that biochemical reactions are different in space then on earth.
Given all this and your claim that things like consciousness is MERELY physical then no Scientist can deny that there can not be any "earth" consciousness or the planets can not affect human behavior.
deleted
Photius,
Thanks for the reply. The short post I was replying to stated that religion\spiritualism makes people stupid and craven. So, that *was* the issue I was addressing. Nevertheless, I appreciate your remarks which carry the discussion forward, and I am pleased that you agree that living a life of spirituality doesn't, a priori, make a person stupid and craven.
I'm afraid I may be missing the context as I haven't read all the posts on this thread. I will say I'm sure many atheists are good people and do good things. Isaac Asimov once said that there are probably more true saints among scientists than among other professions. He was probably right.
I think, however, that you are missing the nature and value of spirituality. (I'm sure you know it is not defined as "belief in God".) Spirituality is a utilitarian and encompassing element of the human psyche to enable people to live as fully as possible within nature, to fully identify with it. Its primary tools are symbols. To claim that a symbol is true or not is indicative of not understanding the utilitarian value of symbols. All you are saying, really, is that you don't recognize a major element of life and insist in trying to squeeze it into the part of life you do understand.
Music is irrational, yet it is more pervasive in the brain than language, suggesting it has an important function in survival. Do you argue that music is irrational and therefore not true?
I would argue, if we had the time, that there has never been a more urgent time than now to explore what spirituality means to humans as a species because it is our lifeline to nature, which is the only home we have. In no way have I ever denigrated the realm of science except when it blocks necessary elements of survival and full life. If it refuses to acknowledge the lifeline of spirituality, a priori, it is not even being "scientific".
I think it would be best to refrain from using cartoonish soul candy as examples. It appears that you don't take our discussion seriously and are going for the straw man angle.
Can anyone give me an example of Atheism being twisted for political gains? (And I don't mean religious people demagoguing someone for the atheism)
NC-Tom,
I do not believe that the argument is valid, but many religionists, and even some agnostics, will point out the horrors of Stalin and Mao as being examples of atheism being twisted for political gains. They often throw in Hitler despite the fact that Hitler in his writings professed to be a Catholic Christian.
Capitalism.
Capitalism is not an economic system that has been completely devoid of the influence of religion. Calvinist thought had a significant influence upon the development of capitalism. See Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".
"Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow..."
My dad used to say that southern politicians were always adept at quoting the "old testament" and never the "new."
The myth that US law is based on biblical law only works when one is ignorant about the nature of law. All law -even religious law - is an attempt to define how one cannot act in a given place, situation, or time. Biblical laws are primarily given for a certain historical cultural context.
Pastor Rigby is reading biblical teachings (not necessarily laws) in conjunction with a religious vision for living in the present time. I believe this is a legitimate approach. Governor Perry is attempting to defend a hateful vision of living by appealing to laws from a different culture and time. When one applies this method, one begins to cast about many reinterpretations and very present day control mechanisms to maintaining conditions to apply the laws.
True religion/spirituality for Christians works out of a vision of life and living that promotes the three "theological" virtues of faith, hope, and compassion.
Americans are hypnotized by television and other forms of brainwashing. The teachings of Christian "teachers" and "leaders", which, when analyzed are often truly nothing but might-makes-right, right-wing political nonsense.
As someone pointed out, the only way for millions of church-going people in the USA to hear the truth is for someone to have the guts to say it from the pulpit. Pastor Rigby RULES!
To preach the truth instead of a church-approved hate-filled sermon, you must be willing to lose your pulpit. I have. I have taught truth from the pulpit and been removed.
I still ask: What would it look like if Christians did what Jesus wanted us to do? In other words, if Christians were actually "followers of Christ"
There would be no need for a big gov't to administer health care and food stamps and etc. These would be done by neighbors and friends.
But instead we pray and assure them they will be blessed by our prayer. (but go find your own stinkin' food, you loser. I ain't feeding your lazy ass. If you were as righteous as me, you wouldn't be hungry.)
Joe Noble wrote:
"But instead we pray and assure them they will be blessed by our prayer. (but go find your own stinkin' food, you loser. I ain't feeding your lazy ass. If you were as righteous as me, you wouldn't be hungry.)"
This is Calvinist thought. Such thought played an important role in the development of the economic system of capitalism.
Although I am an atheist, I agree with your earlier comments. Earlier in this thread I pointed out that The Epistle of James states that faith without works is dead. Matthew 25:31-46 provides the clearest evidence in the New Testament for what Jesus, if he existed, would want Christians to do.
As you pointed out, if Christians did the things that Jesus said the the Son of Man had an expectation that "all of the nations" should do, there might not be as great a need for government to address social issues in the U.S. More Christians would feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, give shelter to the homeless stranger, cloth the naked, visit the sick, and visit those who are incarcerated in prison.
Joe Noble wrote:
"But instead we pray and assure them they will be blessed by our prayer. (but go find your own stinkin' food, you loser. I ain't feeding your lazy ass. If you were as righteous as me, you wouldn't be hungry.)"
This is Calvinist thought. Such thought played an important role in the development of the economic system of capitalism.
Although I am an atheist, I agree with your earlier comments. Earlier in this thread I pointed out that The Epistle of James states that faith without works is dead. Matthew 25:31-46 provides the clearest evidence in the New Testament for what Jesus, if he existed, would want Christians to do.
As you pointed out, if Christians did the things that Jesus said the the Son of Man had an expectation that "all of the nations" should do, there might not be as great a need for government to address social issues in the U.S. More Christians would feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, give shelter to the homeless stranger, cloth the naked, visit the sick, and visit those who are incarcerated in prison.
The lady doth protest too much, Photius... if you had any peace whatsoever, your dominator personality would not be pushing so hard. Where you think you are discrediting others, like the Fundamentalist Christian preacher who selects ONLY those Biblical statements that support his thesis, you do likewise. You've quoting sources left and right in support of your position... but you are iNCAPABLE of seeing outside of it. You are arguing FOR limitations while calling those of us who've moved beyond these confining delineations, the ones who can't prove the truth of their experience.
The kind of mind that needs to prove God in a test tube suggests its own peculiar brand of (spiritual) retardation. The answer will NEVER come in the ways you demand it... for all your intellectualism, I think you're TORTURED on the inside.
Death awaits us all. The atheist has no where to go but ashes. Is that really a comforting thought? That you lack the poetry to see the truth of your own being reflected in the endlessly changing cycles, the way the molecules of your body will sustain the next generation of soil and plant life... that it's ALL connected is rather sad. To be an atheist and presume this is the one and only life is a position devoid of love... it utterly lacks a sense of romance for what life is all about.
Siouxrose,
"Weep not for him who departs from life, for there is no suffering beyond death."
- Palladas-
I have no fear of death. It is irrational to fear death. On my death, my atoms will return to the pool of atoms that have existed for some 13.5 Billion years.
You have no evidence that would indicate that upon our deaths that any of us has anywhere that we go. You also have no evidence that our consciousness survives the deaths of our brains. A wealth of common experience indicates that on your death, your corpse will ultimately rot just like mine or it will go to ashes should you decided that you wished to have your corpse cremated.
As an atheist, I believe that this life is the only life that I have. My life is not devoid of love and worth. Socrates stated that: "The un-examined life is not worth living." I live an examined life. You know nothing about me personally to suggest that my life is devoid of love or that it lacks a sense of romance for what life is all about. Your persistent mischaracterization of atheist belief reflects your ignorance of atheist belief.
In my 57 years I have seen things, done things, and been places that most people who pass through this veil of tears of human existence have not had the opportunity to experience. It is therefore the height of arrogance on your part to be so presumptuous as to comment on the quality of my life.
As I stated in an earlier post, you are a hypocrite when it comes to actualizing the virtues of wisdom, compassion, tolerance, and temperance that you pay so much lip service to in your eloquent discourses. You persistently use ad hominem lines of argumentation when your views are challenged and you cannot defend the merit of your arguments. Such discourse is undignified and uncharacteristic of one who purports to be so enlightened.
Photius, see my reply to Siouxrose. To add, I ask you to stop as well and please show some respect and tolerance. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist but for the sake of peace and your own mental well being, please stop the name calling too. The two of you have a lot more in common than either one of you are willing to give each other credit for. I say this as a peace loving liberal minded Christian currently exploring Hinduism and Buddhism to improve my religious tolerance. By the way, I admit that I have a weakness of relying on spiritual guidance only because it has helped me so many times in my life and made me better and indebted to it. Please don't take this personally.
Sioux, please don't take this personally but what you wrote is not indicative of an individual who asks for peace. I respect your spiritual beliefs and Photius's atheist beliefs regardless of where I agree and disagree on each of them. But insulting people on intelligence just because of your personal disagreements and wishing atheists ill will and bad karma is morally reprehensible and can backfire. I think that you can do a better job of maintaining peace, harmony, and understanding when you write. For the sake of progressive change and for your own good and mental health, please stop and let's put aside our differences and unite atheists, religious believers, and spiritual thinkers.
What's wrong with you?
Yes, the Christ of the gospels is a good Buddhist. His followers are not. Too bad. The Buddha says to meditate. Christians would do well to practice this. But it is likely to breed tolerance and foster a mind that thinks for itself, something most Christians cannot stomach.
God the Father = Creative Force.
God the Son = Love.
God the Holy Ghost = the Soul.
They are all the same thing.
Is it just me or is this infighting for real? For years, I have been witnessing atheists, religious, and spiritual people all getting into petty minded fights. Here we have an article exposing Perry's hypocrisy and violation of true Christianity but if Perry had to read all this, he'd be gloating and laughing at all of us by now. When will the Religious Left, atheists, and spiritual thinkers put down their verbal guns and unite so that people like Rick Perry would never make it to office in the first place? Never mind, just keep the infighting going and keep the Left in dying mode. This country is a lost soul anyway.
Things are made to complex. Life should be simple and move on.
Regardless if you are atheist, christian, catholic, buddhist..... Denominations are
humans way of getting what they want or don't want. No dancing or knee slapping
hooting, wine and the host or a toke off the pipe ~ it doesn't matter because we are
SUPPOSE to be happy in our faith. For athiest and agnostics it is fine as long as they practice the "manual" in their everday lives. God or supernatural.
The Bible is the oldest and most read text - for a reason. It defines the differences
in the humanity of men and the beastility of animals. It is a manual or reference guide for us to be all we CAN and SHOULD be. It is like a dictionary - if you FEEL you've been oppressed or treated unfairly, you refer to it and validate those emotions. If you EVER question that others may need you in a humane way - there it is! validation.
For Rick Perry who views only his misquided interpretation?
As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear,.... Which are both terrible; the lion that roars for want of food, or when it is over its prey; and the hear, when it runs from place to place in quest of provision, being "hungry and very desirous" of food, has a keen appetite, as some think the word (l) signifies. The Targum and Jarchi take it to be expressive of the cry and roaring it makes at such a time, as well as the lion; see Isaiah 59:11; so the Tigurine version. "Roaring" is the proper epithet of a lion, and is frequently given it in Scripture, and in other writers (m); and the bear, it is to have its name, in the Oriental language, from the growling and murmuring noise it makes when hungry; hence that of Horace (n);
so is a wicked ruler over the poor people; one that rules over them in a tyrannical manner, sadly oppresses them, takes away the little from them they have, which is very cruel and barbarous; when he ought to protect and defend them, against whom they cannot stand, and whom they dare not resist; and who therefore must be as terrible to them, being as cruel and voracious as the above animals. Tyrants are frequently compared to lions, Jeremiah 4:7; and the man of sin, the wicked ruler and great oppressor of God's poor people, is compared to both; his feet are as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion, Revelation 13:2.
Thanks for the reply and we must work to overcome this divide-and-conquer strategy on denominations.
Where to begin?
“Perry recently called Texans to pray for rain, which implies that God steers clouds toward the worthy."
No, it implies that we depend on God for our needs. Also, Christians of all people know how unworthy all people are.
"According to Right Wing Watch, one of the events co-sponsors has said the earthquake in Japan happened because the emperor had sex with the Sun Goddess."
This may come from an impostor, but not from an actual Christian. Religion has been devised to control people by making them believe they can earn supernatural rewards by natural means. Christianity is a non-religion that focuses on becoming less so others may become more. As my faith in Christ has grown, I've realized more and more how much grace I truly need in order to bridge the gap between the man I should be and the man I actually am, while also realizing that the man I am is better than the man I was, and that the change was the doing of Christ (and not myself). There is no room for superiority in Christianity, on this I completely agree with you.
"I have chosen Christianity as my life’s religion, but when nonjudgmental love is taken out of its center, it becomes poisonous and predatory."
The center of Christianity is Christ (of which nonjudgmental love is a part, but not the whole). If nonjudgmental love is taken out, then Christ (along with grace, justice, humility, etc.) wasn't there to begin with.
"When the Bible says that God is not a “respecter of persons” it means that God doesn’t have a favorite country or religion. The idea that God wants Christians to be in charge of other people violates Jesus’ teaching that we are to take the lowest place."
God did have a favorite country - Israel. Also, He doesn't have a favorite religion, as He made it quite clear that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one approaches the God except through Jesus.
You're correct that God is no respecter of persons, but I believe the meaning is lost on you. The second half of the sentence (which you left out) goes on to say that God "accepts from every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right." It does NOT say that God accepts other religions, but states quite clearly that others are false if they do not recognize Him first and foremost.
I must agree that America is not on God's "favorites" list. It's become ungrateful, envious, greedy, lazy, deceptive, belligerent, hateful, all worst of all it's rejected Him for quite some time now (all those bad qualities are a result of that).
Worship by those who neglect the poor is offensive to God
"Texas leads the nation in citizens who are uninsured, who work for minimum wage, and who die from unsafe working conditions on construction sites."
If more rich people were Christians, and if more poor people were Christians, this world would indeed be a better place. I don't know Rick Perry (or the people who participated with him), but I'd examine how he conducts his finances regarding charity before turning this Scriptural point into a political argument. When we find evidence that Jesus commanded us to steal from the rich to give to the poor (He actually condemned even the thought of thievery as thievery itself), you can use the Bible to endorse socialism.
"Jesus used a merciful Samaritan as the example of ethical perfection. It is a lesson many Christians have yet to learn."
Actually, Jesus used a merciful Samaritan to shame the religious leaders who held themselves up as perfect citizens; He instead described them as beautiful on the outside (external behavior) but dead on the inside (lack of fear of God). Jesus made it quite clear that no human (other than Himself) could be perfect.
"I can’t know what is in Perry’s heart, of course, but I do know the problem isn’t one politician but rather a nation that has embraced an unhealthy political arrogance undergirded by even unhealthier religious hubris."
You're sort-of right. If Christians really were Christians (meaning they followed Christ in His footsteps), they'd work diligently, live simply, and give generously. These people tend to have fewer material possessions than others and are better off for it. Imagine the change that would happen if the rich became generous wealth-creating machines intent on serving others, the poor became content goods-and-services creating machines intent on serving others, and government could be restored to its rightful place - protecting the democracy and the rights inherent in it. Instead, the government has tried to become the church, the church has tried to become the government, and the poor and rich alike are worse off for it.
I guess I'm showing my age when I remember that when a child religious people (even fundamentalists in revival tents) stayed out of politics--not out of the voting booths, but definitely out of politics. When I saw my first televangelist I had a funny feeling that something awful was happening, and sure enough, it was not too much later that I started hearing some of these con men spouting off about politics. They were without fail against anything compassionate or human. In fact, they tried to make humanitarianism a dirty word. Back in the fifties, this comment page would have seemed inconceivable to most people in this country, and remember, that was the McCarthy era. How far down the slippery slope we have come.
Photius...it is a fallacy that so-called liberals are not religiously oriented, or perhaps the better word is "spiritual". I believe this misconception has been promoted by the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Warren, et al, ad nauseum, because at the heart of their "religion" lies a political agenda which is the furthest thing from Christianity. (I use Christianity because these people claim to be Christians...it could just as easily be Judaism, Islam, Tao, or Buddhism). Without a doubt, the "Rev." Falwell was a racist; Robertson is so right-wing and visible politically that the "CIA plant" idea may not be far off. Briefly, tho, again, please don't believe the hype that those on the left are irreligious or anti-spiritual. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Perry is merciless! He executes prisoners and even allows potentially innocent men to be murdered by the state. He is not worthy to lead a prayer in public or otherwise. he degrades Christianity with his hypocrisy!
I find it awefully funny to read/listen to people who argue for a god or science in a way that makes them seem mutually exclusive. I get the impression that people think of god as something quaint and old fashion and incapable of understanding science so the god has to be protected from science by ardent apologizers. I've hear people say, "God couldn't, god wouldn't, god can't" or "god won't," as if god lived in a small box and humans told god what to do or think. Very sad.
Who's to say that god didn't "plan" that carbon under the right circumstances would become amino acids and that four of those amino acids combined in an infinite number of ways would evolve into all life as we know it on earth, that science is simply revealing bits and pieces of a magnificent creative process that we only know little about and make up elaborate stories to explain?
Or who’s to say the universe works in mysterious ways and we are just a tiny spark of that mystery? I like science; it can explain the world around us. But religion doesn’t do a very good job of keeping up with the process. They seem to be 7000 yrs behind the times and falling further behind every day.
I think if a god is supposed to be omniscient that a god should be capable of anything, even understanding science.
All science is theory and all religion is belief. We don't have a leg to stand on anywhere.
I really enjoyed reading all the posts. It was enlightening for me. To have people explain the way they think, how they make decisions and what they believe in, is good. I have learned more from the comments on "Common Dreams" than the actual articles.
Only in America or (up dated) only on the internet.
Claudia, you might enjoy reading Dr Emoto, Lynn McTaggart, or Fred Wolf, or Brian Weiss...or or or...scientists are closer to the reality of what it is most call God than any other group...including ministers. You might try looking in your own heart to find that leg.
The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution. "C" is no longer THE constant. I am not falling in spite of my no leg, nebulous surroundings. I rather like bouncing around in my "NO LEG" world. I get to see everything from all sides. I am but "a fragment of life's heart." Every single heart bound together is life's heart. Things you do effect other people. It's the "Heart String Theory."
In keeping with all the writings of the Olde Testament, Jesus did not have to mention each case of "thou shall not kill" in order to condemn abortion (psalm 139 gives human dignity to the unborn, "I wove you in your mother's womb"); as to sodomy, the same applies and sodomites were called "dogs", people who stick the penis in the hole out of which excrement comes are practicing what we call "high risk behavior", and no wonder the 1st AIDS cases came out of that community in an overwhelming almost 100%. Which Bible do you read pastor? I am not saying I like Perry, but if you are the alternative, poor Texans
Sicko type Christians like to make graphic statements while they expose their ignorance. Really...did you have to say it that way?
This article was interesting in that it exposed the hypocracy of some Christians while delivering the most important aspect of it, forgiveness and tolerance.
My bumper sticker says "Jesus called, and He wants His religion back.", gets laughs, but it is true for the world.
BUT NOT JUST Christians...all people of faith need to find a path to help others. Even atheists have a moral compass, so if we each act on our own heart felt concern for others, maybe there can be a shift in the audacity of power and greed.
All science is theory
All religion is belief.
We don't have a leg to stand on anywhere.
If you try to build something based on 'belief' you will likely fall. If you stand on a scientific theory, you're likely to remain upright. If you build things based on scientific 'theories' you'll build something that will last. If you try that with a building, you'll have a pile of rocks.
Don't compare science and religion. They are different things altogether.
Thank you.
Wow. The best thread ever. A remarkable back and forth. Imagine Soux Rose getting after some one for over posting!