Joy to the world

[Al_U_Card]

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

 

Was that prepositional or temporal? If temporal, np but if prepositional, then as long as there is no clergy, any religious grouping is just fine but if it is prepositional then are not clergy interposed between man and God and therefore before Him?

[luke warm]

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

 

Was that prepositional or temporal? If temporal, np but if prepositional, then as long as there is no clergy, any religious grouping is just fine but if it is prepositional then are not clergy interposed between man and God and therefore before Him?

no, unless one thinks of clergy as god

[Al_U_Card]

Or, if they insert themselves between you and your god. Like, by interpreting for you what god wants or what god says or what god means....like every religion with a clergy.....a preacher is just an interpreter with a persuasive manner. You want to believe so he just adds to the fervor. Unless priests and ministers study something else at seminary?

[mikeh]

If you take away religions you will take away a lot of ethics, a lot of hope and a lot of good feelings and good behaviour for millions of people. But you surely would not stop violence.

You will stop the violence in the name of god. But the violent people will just change the name of their gang. They won´t kill you because you don´t believe in their god, but because you are white/ a capitalist/a women/ugly/a foreigner/ old or whatever.

The argument that we 'need' religion because it instills ethics is an old and demonstrably false argument. While Hawkins, in The God Delusion, seems, to me at least, to go a bit over the top in a couple of areas, I was fascinated by his recounting of the ethical thought experiments, which, according to him, seem to demonstrate a universal ethical response, independent of ethnicity, religion, or language.

 

I am not the least bit (consciously) religious, yet I don't think I have any remarkable lack of ethics.... I always tell cashiers or waiters if they have undercharged me, and I don't steal or cheat on my wife... and I don't cheat at bridge, etc ;). I have never assaulted anybody, I have never killed anybody or ordered the death of anybody... unlike many, many religious leaders.

 

A (business) partner of mine once said: 'show me a born-again christian and I'll show you either a pervert or a crook'

 

Now that was an overstatement, but experience as a lawyer has repeatedly shown the basic nugget of truth that underlies the exaggeration:

 

1. We acted (many years ago) for an RV dealer accused under our Trade Practices Act of running a bait and switch scam. He was a born-again Christian, and his group of co-believers held a prayer session for him. Not, I should add, to redeem him or guide him to salvation, but for an acquittal!

 

2. We acted for a member of a religious order ostensibly vowed to poverty... on his death, one of the assets was a Swiss bank account and another was an Italian villa. I am fudging the details slightly to avoid any breach of confidence, but the underlying point is true

 

3. Several local religious figures have been prosecuted, and convicted or successfully sued, for sexual misconduct

 

4. A few years ago, the then-highest price ever paid for residential real estate in our city was for an estate owned by the leader of a charismatic christian group... who raised funds ostensibly to promote God's work, but which somehow found its way into this waterfront home.

 

And this is just born-agains of whom I have some degree of personal knowledge.

 

BTW, my stories are limited to christians only because of the culture in which I live, which is predominantly Christian. I did once act indirectly on behalf of a Sikh, who ordered the murder of a young couple, and the removal of their hearts, to be brought back to him as proof: I gather he was widely viewed as a leader in the local Sikh religious community (not in the City in which I now live).

 

I am NOT saying that all members of all faiths lack morals, but, to me, it is demonstrably incorrect to argue that possession of an irrational belief in a paternalistic, tyrannical 'GOD' is necessary in order to preserve the already regrettable level of ethics in the world today.

[luke warm]

If you take away religions you will take away a lot of ethics, a lot of hope and a lot of good feelings and good behaviour for millions of people. But you surely would not stop violence.

You will stop the violence in the name of god. But the violent people will just change the name of their gang. They won´t kill you because you don´t believe in their god, but because you are white/ a capitalist/a women/ugly/a foreigner/ old or whatever.

The argument that we 'need' religion because it instills ethics is an old and demonstrably false argument. ~~

it's true that religion and ethics aren't necessarily linked... it's sad but true that some (most?) of the atrocities of history have been perpetuated by those proclaiming some sort of religious zeal... on the flip side, i don't personally equate religion with faith

[luke warm]

Or, if they insert themselves between you and your god. Like, by interpreting for you what god wants or what god says or what god means....like every religion with a clergy.....a preacher is just an interpreter with a persuasive manner. You want to believe so he just adds to the fervor. Unless priests and ministers study something else at seminary?

i understand what you're saying but my point is that the commandment you quoted concerns worshipping another god... that said, you're correct that too many people lend too much weight to too many words of too many clergy

[BebopKid]

Since I was asked, I know that:

 

Jesus Christ taught that the only way to Heaven is to believe that Christ is the Son of God.

 

That Christ died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind.

 

That Grace is a free gift, but is must be taken by each person before they can enter Heaven.

 

That upon Baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus did, and belief becomes knowledge.

 

Every church member is a minister and responsible for ministering to those around them.

 

A Pastor (or other names) are responsible for studying the word of God and sharing that with a congregation. Not controlling the congregation.

 

A congregation member is responsible for studying the word of God and through the Holy Spirit discerning their purpose and actions.

 

All of this is done not for the glory of self but for the glory of the Father. If you see glory being brought to self, you can ignore that as that is not the proper intention of the Body of Christ.

 

Remember that no human, except Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect. One must look for God's love and perfection in imperfect people. That may prove difficult for some. And it makes organized religion look hypocritical to them.

 

There are evil powers that do not want us to see God's love and use the hypocrisy to blanket over God's glory.

 

It is up to each person to find the glory for their self.

 

God bless everyone. I hope you can find the peace that I have found.

[mike777]

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God.

 

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

 

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

[Al_U_Card]

Since I was asked, I know that:

 

Jesus Christ taught that the only way to Heaven is to believe that Christ is the Son of God.

 

That Christ died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind.

 

That Grace is a free gift, but is must be taken by each person before they can enter Heaven.

 

That upon Baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus did, and belief becomes knowledge.

 

Every church member is a minister and responsible for ministering to those around them.

 

A Pastor (or other names) are responsible for studying the word of God and sharing that with a congregation. Not controlling the congregation.

 

A congregation member is responsible for studying the word of God and through the Holy Spirit discerning their purpose and actions.

 

All of this is done not for the glory of self but for the glory of the Father. If you see glory being brought to self, you can ignore that as that is not the proper intention of the Body of Christ.

 

Remember that no human, except Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect. One must look for God's love and perfection in imperfect people. That may prove difficult for some. And it makes organized religion look hypocritical to them.

 

There are evil powers that do not want us to see God's love and use the hypocrisy to blanket over God's glory.

 

It is up to each person to find the glory for their self.

 

God bless everyone. I hope you can find the peace that I have found.

As far as belief systems go, and for a stated structure, this one is as good as it is likely to get.

 

My objection is as far as absolutes go, absolute power corrupts absolutely and power and money go together and sadly religion is a faith based power-brokered business that has little to do with belief systems and a lot to do with the exercise of power.

 

This is an interesting link of the "other" version (not opposite, just different) of the gnostic gospel according to Thomas or Philip etc.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ory/pagels.html

 

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

[pbleighton]

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God.

 

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

 

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

 

Or professed to, in order to assuage the prejudices of their countrymen.

 

For example, about half the current U.S. population says that they wouldn't vote for an atheist for President. This is, of course, as vile a predudice as held by those who wouldn't vote for a Christian, Jew, etc.

 

Widespread secularism is historically recent. Our day will come, Mike.

OTOH, we'll probably both be dead by then. :)

 

Peter

[mikeh]

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some  country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God. 

 

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up  with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

 

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

I forget the name of the French king who was offered the crown on the condition that he convert to Catholicism. He is reputed to have said that Paris is worth a mass.

 

One need not be much of a cynic to conclude that there went a leader who did not believe the religion he professed.

 

The fact that leaders use religion as a tool should come as no surprise to anyone.

 

Saddam Hussein was praised (by the US and others) in the 1980s for his secularism, but, on the eve of Gulf War II, he resorted to self-portrayal as a defender of an Islamic country threatened by infidels.

 

Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?

 

BTW, I pose those questions precisely because I think that both are far too intelligent to be true believers. One demographic point which seems proven beyond dispute is that there is a direct positive correlation between intelligence and atheism.

 

George Bush, on the other hand, is, I suspect, a true believer.. because for him, it makes life so much easier... but, then, nobody has ever accused the younger George Bush of having to cope with having a good intellect.

 

That there were, and are, truly religious leaders is NOT a sign that religion is a rational response to current knowledge.

 

1stly, religion and monarchial rule go hand in hand.. they each, historically, enable the other. It is no coincidence that the title of the British Queen includes the phrase 'Defender of the Faith' (ironically awarded, I believe, to Henry VIII by the Pope shortly before good-old Henry assumed the role of head of the church in England).

 

2ndly, if we go back far enough in history, or further to pre-history, belief in one or more Gods made perfect sense in terms of an ignorant species trying to impose some form of intellectual control over an environment that was often hostile or seemingly random.

 

It would have been irrational for a human, 50,000 years ago, to blame sub-microscopic entities for illness, for example. Thunder and lightning is far more readily explicable, to someone with zero scientific knowledge, as the expression of a god's wrath than as the passage of electrons between two zones of different electrical charge, and the associated rapid expansion of heated air.

 

So the belief in gods was a rational response, and the growth of religion a logical outcome of that belief, and no doubt appealed to the innate tendency of social animals to accept a dominance structure.

 

But the persistence of religion, and of a belief in any God, is, today, merely a reflection of the difficulty with which our minds are able to unlearn irrationalities programmed into us... whether by Christian priests, or Islamic mullahs, etc.

 

Since the ability to think critically about these issues, based on a broader understanding of the world and the universe, is relatively new in human history, and since leaders generally support the status quo, and are inherently conservative, it is no surprise that most leaders at least profess religious belief.

 

However, in the industrialized world, I doubt that there is any country other than the US in which public profession of a religious belief is viewed as a prerequisite for electoral success as President. That says a lot more about the US than it does about religion.

 

Oh, Mike... what religion does Putin ascribe to? What religion do the leaders of China subscribe to?

[mike777]

So if nonbelievers lie about their faith or if that is too strong...they make untrue or misleading statements is that ethical?

 

On another subject, I do believe not only actions but nonaction can be unethical.

Take the whole subject of snitching to the police.

IF someone has knowlege of crime that someone in their family did but takes no action informing the police, is that immoral?

 

How many Fathers or Mothers do immoral things or fail to take a moral action in the name of protecting their children at ALL Costs.

 

How many pay taxes for war or bullets or to pay others to fight a war they do not believe in?

How many of us fail to pick up rifle to fight in a war/cause we think is worthwhile?

 

How many of us follow some traffic laws and not others, so ok to follow some laws and not others and we get to choose which are moral or too much trouble to follow? How can that be ethical?

 

If you start including inaction into the discussion it is tough for any of us to be morally correct.

[mike777]

Oh, Mike... what religion does Putin ascribe to? What religion do the leaders of China subscribe to?

http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/hi/Putin-faith.pdf

 

He does have spiritual advisers.

 

Chinese religion.

 

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2002/3/5_2.html

 

 

http://www.lawreligion.org/

[luke warm]

Since I was asked, I know that:

 

Jesus Christ taught that the only way to Heaven is to believe that Christ is the Son of God. 

 

That Christ died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind.

 

That Grace is a free gift, but is must be taken by each person before they can enter Heaven.

 

That upon Baptism, believers receive the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus did, and belief becomes knowledge.

 

Every church member is a minister and responsible for ministering to those around them.

 

A Pastor (or other names) are responsible for studying the word of God and sharing that with a congregation.  Not controlling the congregation.

 

A congregation member is responsible for studying the word of God and through the Holy Spirit discerning their purpose and actions.

 

All of this is done not for the glory of self but for the glory of the Father.  If you see glory being brought to self, you can ignore that as that is not the proper intention of the Body of Christ.

 

Remember that no human, except Jesus Christ, has ever been perfect.  One must look for God's love and perfection in imperfect people.  That may prove difficult for some.  And it makes organized religion look hypocritical to them.

 

There are evil powers that do not want us to see God's love and use the hypocrisy to blanket over God's glory. 

 

It is up to each person to find the glory for their self.

 

God bless everyone.  I hope you can find the peace that I have found.

that pretty much sums it up

~~~ Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?

i don't know what the word "devout" means in this context... the trouble, as always, is that there are so many definitions of the word "christian" that it's hard coming to any conclusion... i know what i believe and i know why i believe it... i know what some others believe, but i'm not sure why they believe it

BTW, I pose those questions precisely because I think that both are far too intelligent to be true believers. One demographic point which seems proven beyond dispute is that there is a direct positive correlation between intelligence and atheism.

bill and hill are "far" too intelligent? what does that mean? is there some IQ cutoff, mike? i'd be offended by that if ... oops, i lost my train of thought

But the persistence of religion, and of a belief in any God, is, today, merely a reflection of the difficulty with which our minds are able to unlearn irrationalities programmed into us... whether by Christian priests, or Islamic mullahs, etc.

i know some christian apologists who would debate you on that "irrationalities" point, many of whom go so far as to actually say (gasp) that it's irrational *not* to believe in God... i can't speak for anyone but myself, but i have studied and come to my conclusions without being programmed - i think... although i do sometimes dream of a queen of hearts

~~~ If you start including inaction into the discussion it is tough for any of us to be morally correct.

true... whether the laws are of man or God, they will be broken by thought, action, or inaction... which is, i think, the point

[mike777]

"Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?"

 

btw for whatever my opinion is worth I do think Bill Clinton has a deep faith and an active personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I do think Hillary truly believes in Jesus as her Savior. I do not think it is an act.

[pbleighton]

btw for whatever my opinion is worth I do think Bill Clinton has a deep faith and an active personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I do think Hillary truly believes in Jesus as her Savior. I do not think it is an act.

 

I agree.

 

I had always thought so, but when I read his reported excuse for Monica, which was that the New Testament said that a blowjob wasn't adultery (I'm not making this up), I knew this guy was SERIOUSLY religious.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

It would be interesting to look at current leaders of some  country who do not profess a belief in a higher power, or a God. 

 

Off the top of my head it is tough to come up  with leader in History who did not but I am sure there must be some. Any one got examples?

 

Persians, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, Kahns, Goths hmmm I think all did believe.

Does dialectical materialism count as a "higher power"?

 

There are any number of examples of communist leaders who didn't believe in "religion" as it is typically defined. One might argue that belief in scientific socialism involves every bit as much faith as belief in god. From my perspective, the "modern" Chinese leadership is practicing a particular nasty version of state run capitalism and is far to practical to pay more than lip service to anything as dated as the dialect. Mikhail Gorbachev is another, similar, example.

 

If seen a number of back and forth arguments regarding whether or not Kemal Ataturk should be considered an atheist. He was certainly an avowed secularist. Vaclav Havel is an avowed agnostic. I suspect that there are a number of other agnostic in leadership positions throughout Europe.

[mike777]

Where's Three Dog Night when you need them?

Three Dog Night is really a great underappreciated band.

It seems in the long run this song hurt their reputation more than helped it.

The have many great songs.

 

From 1969-1974, nobody had more Top 10 hits, moved more records, or sold more concert tickets. During this period Three Dog Night was undoubtedly the most popular band in America: twenty-one consecutive Top 40 hits and twelve straight gold LPs. By late '75, they had sold nearly 50 million records.

 

 

http://www.threedognight.com/

[Winstonm]

The decision that a certain belief system is 100% valid will certainly lead to a sensation of inner peace because it eliminates intermal turmoil. An absolute certainty in the rightnous of a belief eliminates the needs to give weight or assess the meanings of contradictions, criticisms, or conflicting data. A sesation of turmoil does not, though, mean the belief is right; it only means a decision has been reached.

 

However, there is another way to unwind that inner tension. Simply accept oneself as human and thus incapable of full knowledge. It is the atttempt to resolve the inner conflicts that causes the tension; by simply acknowledging that the answer cannot be known resolves the conflict and disapates the tension.

 

And that's simply another way of saying it is O.K. to be no more than human.

[hrothgar]

Chinese religion.

 

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2002/3/5_2.html

The article on Chinese religions pretty much looks to be a restatement of Marx's old adage that "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses". To me, it looks like the Chinese leadership is consciously adopting religion trappings to improve their social control.

[cherdano]

One demographic point which seems proven beyond dispute is that there is a direct positive correlation between intelligence and atheism.

I have never heard of that as beyond dispute. Do you have a source for this claim?

[hrothgar]

Here are a few quotes from Wikipedia

 

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins [5] cites an article by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine, containing a meta-analysis of studies relating to the connection between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[6]

 

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

 

A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal God or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[92] In the same year Frank Sulloway of MIT and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[93] Such an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[94] These findings broadly concur with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis from Professor Michael Argyle of Oxford University. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.[95]

 

However, evidence on the relationship between religious belief and educational achievement is mixed. Some research in the United States has found that religiosity in general is correlated with greater educational attainment and scholastic performance. The effect of religion on education can differ depending on what type of religion a student professes. Fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do.[96][97]

 

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

[cherdano]

Well a wikipedia article citing a book citing an article in Mensa magazine is not a credible source thank you.

 

Anyway, none of the other sources I found mentioned studies done outside of the US, none mentioned studies controlling for other factors, etc. etc. Many cited various studies finding no correlation, others only correlation to GPAs or SAT scores...

[cherdano]

Anyway the part of Mike's post that really irritated me was:

Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is a truly devout Christian? Or Hilary?

 

BTW, I pose those questions precisely because I think that both are far too intelligent to be true believers.

There are so many counter-examples to this conclusion, even if Mike has never met one... :) To take an extreme example, the current pope is in many ways an intellectual and probably more intelligent than any of the posters here...

(No I don't like him and I am atheist myself.)

[the hog]

Well a wikipedia article citing a book citing an article in Mensa magazine is not a credible source thank you.

 

Anyway, none of the other sources I found mentioned studies done outside of the US, none mentioned studies controlling for other factors, etc. etc. Many cited various studies finding no correlation, others only correlation to GPAs or SAT scores...

Ok if that is not a credible source, try looking up the studies quoted in Dawkins' book itself.

 

By the way, on what basis do you argue that the pope is of greater intelligence than any poster here? That seems a rather sweeping statement. In any case if you are going to argue about intelligence, perhaps you might like to look at the atheist camp - Dawkins and also Peter Singer, who are regularly cited as leading intellectuals of our time. Looking back into History you have Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell et al.