Michael Curry is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States, my particular denomination. He was invited to give the sermon at the royal wedding of Prince Harry of England and Meghan Markle at Windsor Castle yesterday.
It’s … pretty cool.
I’ve read worse!
Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:
Everything I need to know about life I learned… – Sam & Fuzzy & Tumblr
Everything I need to know about life I learned from my dog
If you empty the pot, and it’s not five minutes before quitting time for everyone, make more coffee.
Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:
I need to print this out and hang it up at work.
PHD Comics: The Office Coffee Flowchart
Link to Piled Higher and Deeper
The state established Lutheran Church in Sweden has asserted that church language in the future should not use terminology that identifies God as being a particular gender.
Conservative Christians go nuts over the news.
To which I say, which is the greater blasphemy?
A. Taking the language of Scripture, written down by men, framed within highly patriarchal bronze age societies, crafted in periods when only men could define the law and women were considered mere chattel property in birth families or marriage, as the actual definition of reality by God.
B. Considering God beyond the bounds of earthly gender or societal gender roles.
I submit that those who choose “A” have something to gain by it. Suggesting that God adheres to anything earthly seems, on the face of it, limiting of the Deity, and therefore blasphemous. And suggesting that anything humans can do would “castrate God” similarly seems to limit the powers of the Deity.
‘Castrating God’: Conservative Christians melt down after Church of Sweden says God not male
The reading from today’s service at our church: Matthew 25:31-46:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.
34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
I am always reluctant to contest the label of “Christian” to any person who claims it, because that sort of differentiation is often the tool of those who would divide Christians by various categories, usually for what seem like trivial reasons, and often to a bad end. “You don’t believe in doctrine X!” “You’re wishy-washy in dogma Y!” “You don’t profess the Correct Things to be a True Christian.” “Burn the heretics!” Etc.
But it is difficult for me to grant the title of Christian to those who act against this core passage of the Gospel.
Jesus doesn’t qualify the poor, the hungry, the needy, the imprisoned by worth or deservedness or justification.
He doesn’t say “Well, we should care for the people who work really, really hard but are oppressed by the greedy and therefore deserve our care.”
He doesn’t say, “There are hungry people who aren’t lazy, or who make only good decisions in their lives, or who are otherwise admirable, so those specific people are the people who you should help.”
He doesn’t say, “There are a lot of innocent people in jail, so we should extend mercy just to those prisoners who are unjustly oppressed by impositions on their religious freedom or who are otherwise innocent of their crimes.”
He doesn’t say, “There are a lot of people who have made all the right decisions, and have believed all the right things, but who are still in unfortunate circumstances, and therefore should be treated as good people, and therefore deserve your charity.”
It’s a metaphor, people.
God grants His grace to anyone who needs it, regardless of whether they “deserve” it. That’s what grace is about.
Thus, any Christian — any follower of Christ — is called to extend their charity to anyone who needs it, regardless of whether they “deserve” it. Because we are called not to judge, lest we ourselves are judged. We are called to be good neighbors, to care for people based on their circumstance, not on their virtuous outlook or theological purity or being (in our eyes) “good” people.
People who claim to be Good Christians but who disdain and reject people who they feel don’t deserve charity, love of neighbor, feeding of those who (for whatever reason) are hungry, caring for “the least of these” who (for whatever reason) are the least …
… are, frankly, piss-poor Christians.
I’ve often heard that the point of prayer is not to invoke a change in reality — a magic spell to cause God to make things all better — but to invoke a change in the pray-er: to clarify needs and wants, to gain inspiration of what to do toward the end being sought, to derive strength for action.
And that comes out, in the Bible, time and time again, particularly in the New Testament, where prayer without action to back it up, prayer for the sake of praying (or, worse, for being seen to be praying), is roundly condemned.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:14-18)
The “thoughts and prayers” of politicians in response to disasters and heartbreak — most visibly of late following mass shootings — are nice to see, but are only meaningful if they are followed up by action. Looking to have the grieving comforted? What are you doing to comfort them? Looking to prevent such things from happening again? What are you doing to stop it?
That’s not to advocate a particular legislative agenda — but, for example, the tragedy of gun deaths has been discussed and debated and lots and lots of ideas have been floated to help address it, from gun regulation to better mental health care to more mental health interventions to better study of the issue to simply coming to accept that piles of bodies are the Moloch-like sacrifice we must make to ensure our freedom. Whatever. This is to advocate grabbing onto one of those agendas, or more than one, and fight for it. Act on it, or be open about your inaction as the wisest course.
Prayer is not a “Get Out of Moral Obligation Free” card. In fact, it’s the precise opposite, because it shows an awareness of a need, and so calls on the pray-er to do something to meet it more than offer up pious thoughts.
‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Could Be Exactly What America Needs
Gandhi called prayer “the most potent instrument of action.” But will politicians follow through?
And by "Merry Christmas" I don't mean "You must believe and/or isn't it cool that our in-club believes in the deity of Jesus Christ and the literal truth of the Gospel descriptions (sparse as they are) about His Nativity" — though, if you swing that way, then I certainly hope the spiritual and theological implications of that birth and the tales around it are of worthwhile reflection to you.
No, I mean "I hope you are having a happy time, that any family get-togethers are joyful, that any gifts you receive are thoughtful, and that the gifts you give are well-received in turn. I hope this day, and the days around it, bring you peace and excitement and refreshment and both closure for the year past and invigoration for the year to come." Oh, and stuff about good food, good drink, good swag, and so forth.
And if you celebrate something different this time of year, I hope your celebration, secular or religious, is equally spiffy.
Jeb! thinks that the United States should focus its Middle Eastern refugee aid on Christians.
'Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush says that any U.S. assistance to Middle Eastern refugees should focus primarily on Christians fleeing persecution. "We should focus our efforts as it relates to refugees on the Christians that are being slaughtered," he told CNN's "State of the Union" in an interview on Sunday morning.'
It's not clear if Jeb!'s position is because it's better to help Christians, or less dangerous to help Christians. But if we're talking Christian charity here, Jeb! might want to check out Luke 10:25-37 (https://goo.gl/GBGuGR). He just might have heard that story before.
At that, Jeb! is better than some other GOP hopefuls (including ostensible Loving Christians Huckabee and Carson) who basically say we shouldn't be assisting any refugees, because then some of those Evil Terrorists might slip in.
But I'm sure the Priest and the Levite were also, at least in part, concerned that the mugged man by the side of the road might be faking it. Not sure that excuse would fly with Jesus, either.
Jeb Bush: U.S. assistance for refugees should focus on Christians
The Republican presidential candidate stops short of calling for an outright ban on Middle Eastern refugees — as other presidential candidates have demanded.
The Starbucks Paper Cup Kerfuffle is silly not just because the idea that "white, green, and red without any words or symbols in it clearly doesn't mean Christmas, but if there were snowflakes and sleighs it would be fine, but without them it's a slap in the face to all Christians" is so ludicrously zany …
… but because that idea is actually kind of un-Christian.
At church on Sunday, the Gospel reading was Mark 12:38-44, which reads, in part:
'Teaching in the temple, Jesus said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows' houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation."'
Jesus has a number of messages in the Gospels, but one that keeps cropping up is disdain, if not condemnation, for outward piety, for wearing the trappings of spiritual fervor, especially while not actually caring for those in need.
Would Jesus really get ticked off at a "Christmas cup" that didn't have secular symbols of Christmas on it? Or would He get more ticked off at people who felt smugly religious by walking around with coffee in paper cups that have snow men on them, thereby proving they are good Christians both for doing so and because they've compelled some sort of overt acknowledgement of the celebration birth of Christ?
I mean, really: did Jesus instruct all of His apostles to celebrate His birthday every year as proof of their devotion and cultural hegemony? Did He condemn those people who didn't do so to be no true followers of His Father? Did He claim that businesses who didn't wish their customers a "Happy Jesus' Birthday" were opposed to Him and should be sent off to the Lake of Fire?
In fact, who does get mentioned as being sent off to the Lake of Fire in the Gospels? (HInt: it has nothing to do with coffee cups.)
Anyway, get back to me on those Biblical citations. I'll be here waiting, and having a Pumpkin Spice Latte in a red, green, and white (but clearly not, therefore, "Christmassy") cup.
(No, I actually won't, because Starbucks is ghastly expensive except as an occasional treat. But you get the idea.)
I enjoy the Easter Vigil service much more than Easter Day. The crowds are less. There are fewer distractions by Easter Bonnets and Easter Eggs and pastels (not that there's anything wrong with pastels). I just find the Vigil service to be more contemplative, more symbolic in its passage from darkness into light, a better way to ring in the ecclesiastical New Year.
We all three served down at Good Shepherd last night — +Kay Hill as an acolyte, +Margie Kleerup as a Eucharistic Minister (doling out the wine at communion, as well as carrying the cross in and out). I was more on the performance side — singing parts of the Exsultet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet, though we did the Episcopal version). I also narrated a video based on Ezekiel's vision of the bones (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+37%3A1%E2%80%9314&version=NRSV), which was perfect for a "Voice of God" guy like me.
Regardless of one's theology (or lack thereof), the passage from darkness to light, from mourning to joy, from despair to hope, is a profound experience, and one that is I think extensible beyond the walls and people in a church or a particular faith.
Happy Easter, all.
I find this essay fascinating; the author is far more conflicted about gay relationships than I am, certainly, but the conclusion he reaches is, to my mind, a critical one.
'Perhaps now is the time for Christians to focus more on our responsibilities than our rights. Our responsibility is to love others like Christ. Our responsibility is to lay down our lives for another. Our responsibility is to give grace with same reckless abandon that put Christ on the cross. Our responsibility is to comfort the hurting, mend the brokenhearted, and stand up for the oppressed – even if we disagree with their theology, lifestyle, and choices. In this case, our responsibility is to listen. Which may mean our rights have to take a back seat.'
Which calls to mind (through some odd veering and weaving) 1 Corinthians 8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+8&version=NRSV), which focuses on dietary laws, but has the interesting passage, "Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." Just because one has the right to something doesn't mean that exercising that right is always the correct thing to do.
In Paul's case, he's referring to eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols — something that's okay for a Christian, he asserts, but that might cause a weaker or less enlightened brother to "stumble" into sin. I have to wonder if a Christian, who feels righteously entitled to freely exercise their religion and so decline to serve a gay individual or couple in some way might not similarly provide a cover for someone who similarly discriminates out of fear or hatred or disgust to stumble in acting on their non-religious passions.
Christianity has never been obsessed with standing on its rights. That's largely been because, for the past 1600-odd years, that hasn't been an issue (except to claim them against other persecuting Christians). Perhaps those of us who claim to follow Christ should consider carefully what demanding the religious right to discriminate means for our faith in the future.
Or maybe I should say the Great Debate is Over! Or would that be over the top? (Yeah, I'm on a roll …)
Originally shared by +Asbjørn Grandt:
124 years of debate finally settled!
(or is it?)
Owen Williams on Twitter
“The patent for toilet paper should settle the over vs under debate”
A while back, I put together a post titled “76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties)” which has turned out to be the most popular thing I’ve ever posted. Go figure.
While doing a Bible Study class, I became inspired to do something similar for Exodus.
As with the Levitican Law, modern American Christians tend to cherry-pick which of the bans in Exodus to pay attention to and which to ignore. This is sometimes a reasoned (convincingly or not) approach, other times it’s just “Well, that’s obviously evil but that’s obviously not something we need to worry about any more.” I’ll leave it to the reader to judge whether each these restrictions still apply or not.
For me, as noted there, I tend to fall back on the “Greatest Commandments” as a guideline, rather than a To-Do / To-Don’t List approach: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. It’s a bit more work, but I feel a bit more confident with the results (when I’m able to manage it).
I’m going to ignore injunctions that are ritualistic (e.g., how not to cook the Passover lamb), unless there are penalties included, as well as skipping over injunctions tied to the chapter’s situation (e.g., no saving up manna). There are some positive commands that have penalties for not performing them; I’ve rephrased these as negative commands below.
I’m using the NRSV translation here. Death penalties are in red.
No killing a person with a blow. (21:12) – Execution; if unplanned, the killer can flee for sanctuary.
No speaking the names of other gods. (23:13) – No penalty given.So there you have it. How many laws of Exodus have you violated in the last week?
[Google+ share located here.]
And last(ish) because you're probably sick to death about reading it from me, and I'm sick to death (and at heart) about writing about it. Because today I've not only been posting the stuff I have, I've been on a half-dozen other threads in the comments, arguing with people who see nothing wrong about this — who very baldly say, "I allow my elected officials to do whatever they think they need to in order to keep this country secure. And if that means we are a country that is hated and feared, that's ultimately the only way for us to survive."
And I keep coming back to that Abby Mann quote, "But survival as what?"
So read the below, please. George's preface holds what I believe in my head to be the case for how to deal with that ticking bomb / existential thread danger that the pro-torture folk use. He puts it at least as well as I ever have managed to. Do what you need to do, knowing that you're breaking the law and will be punished. Because if the stakes are that high and you're really a "hero," that's what you do.
And then read the Jim Wright post below it. Because it says everything else I think and feel on the subject, and rather than getting into long arguments on the matter I should simply post a link to that, because if it's not convincing then nothing I can say will be. Read it.
And to all a good night.
Originally shared by +George Wiman:
It always comes down to that ticking bomb, doesn't it. What if your son or daughter were in that city!
That person you have shacked to the chair is someone's son or daughter, too. Lose sight of that, and you become something else entirely. But OK, for the sake of argument…
#Torture is a "You had better be right" situation. You torture someone and you don't find the bomb/terror cell/innocent kidnapped daughter? You should accept your punishment.
Suppose it "worked", though? You got the information, saved the city, saved the innocent child, whatever?
You would certainly be willing to die to save a city, no? Would you go to prison to save a city? Would saving the city be enough, if you weren't also feted as a hero? Perhaps punished for torturing someone?
And in such a case, perhaps the President would grant you clemency. A pardon. But would you refuse to save the city otherwise? Would you let all those people die because something "unfair" might happen to you?
The legal prohibition against torture (the one you are violating in your Jack Bauer fantasy) is there to keep the city, and the country, worth saving. This is why it really doesn't matter if torture "works" or not.
Gratifying to read, here, an experienced military officer who says something similar to what I've always thought.
The Road to Hell
The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. – William Shakespeare It’s even worse than we thought. It is, isn’t it? If you’ve read the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence’s Study of…
So the wife unit, +Margie Kleerup, flew off to California on Tuesday morning. Southwest flight, boarded separate from a friend, and then all sorts of seat shifting around with a third person in the row, and (presumably) chit-chat during the flight with her friend.
Got to Oakland, and couldn't find her Kindle. Searched high. Searched low. Searched all the seat pockets. Searched the floor. Searched the luggage rack. Flight attendants came by to help search. No sign of it.
Thinking back, she remembered putting it down at the TSA check point back in Denver. So she IMed me and asked me to check. Which ended up, after a call to Lost & Found (don't bother within 24 hours of losing something) going to the website DIA has for registering a lost item. (Though that only applies for public area items; areas around the gates may have stuff picked up by the airlines, and if you leave something in a restaurant, they are probably holding onto it.)
Anyway, I had just registered and … the phone rang. It was a guy named Eric who had Margie's Kindle, and had found her name in the registration screen on the Kindle, and, following her rather unique name to a phone number in the Denver area, wanted to call to arrange getting it back to us.
Wow.
Well, it took a few days of coordination, but it turned out he was visiting the Ikea down in our neck of the woods, so I met him there. And, aside from the labyrinthine nature of getting into and then being unable to get out of an Ikea, it was that simple. He handed it off, I thanked him profusely, we shook hands, and headed our separate ways.
And now the Kindle is here, waiting for her return.
So, thanks, Eric. Folk like you help maintain my faith in humanity, in a world that seems to do its darnedest to get eliminate it.
(That's The Parable of the Good Samaritan by Jan Wijnants (1670) below. No, nothing life threatening about losing a Kindle, but a kindness is a kindness. Who is my neighbor? It's the person who does a kindness, or needs one.)
I'm not an Atheist (but I've been accused of being one on the Internet).
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
— Matthew 7:3-5
Y'know, once Christianity has its own house in order, I'll feel a lot better about Christians debating theology and the meaning of life with Atheists.
But when that happens, I hope there are a lot more clever questions brought to the table than these (http://todaychristian.net/10-questions-every-atheist) which have been making the rounds through my Google+ feed today. They are so simplistic as to be questionable (and questioned) even by someone who is not an Atheist. Which means I should probably answer them myself …
Some Questions Atheist Cannot Truly and Honestly REALLY Answer! Which leads to some interesting conclusions…
So lead off the discussion with snark. Not a terribly Christian approach. (And saying, "But they started it!" is hardly a Christian response, either.)
1. How Did You Become an Atheist?
Most atheists I know became one primarily by dint of reason, by looking at the world and determining that theistic answers didn't seem to explain it. But I may know some exceptional folk.
I'd turn the question around — how does anyone come to their worldview, including in the area of religion (or lack thereof)? We start with what we grow up with. At some point, some of us start questioning that (too few, I'd say), and reach sufficient conclusions to move in a conscious direction. And (one hopes) that process continues over the course of one's life.
There are plenty of people (including theists) who believe what they believe out of spiritual / intellectual laziness; that's how they were born, that's they way they'll die. Others run in a direction from emotion — anger, grief, joy; some join churches in doing so, others quit them. Some folk intellectually examine questions (though far fewer question their own assumptions) and try to reach conclusions; some of those folk come to answers all over the map regarding faith and theism.
Like Kierkegaard, I believe in the power of reason, but also in the "Leap of Faith" that reason cannot carry a believer past. That's why, ultimately, playing intellectual games with Atheists seems like a mook's game.
(This leaves aside the question of the influence of God on one's religious decisions. For an atheist, this is a meaningless question. For a theist, it raises the concern of free will vs. divine power, and what it means to have faith.)
2. What happens when we die?
I don't know, and anyone who can tell you they do know is looking to sell you something.
I have what my faith tells me, of course, as part of my belief in what happens. But the other thing I don't know is how much of that is simply something stemming from a desire for emotional comfort against the existential fear of dying.
I am willing to say that the objective evidence is that when we die, that's the ball game. If something happens to the self/soul after that, it is so far removed from our current world that there's little we can argue cogently about it (ghost stories notwithstanding).
3. What if you’re wrong? And there is a Heaven? And there is a HELL!
(Then hopefully they'll punctuate more correctly there.)
Or, to give an equally hoary response to Pascal's Wager, "What if you're wrong and the Hindu pantheon is really running everything?"
My personal take is that if there is an Afterlife (which I believe, though not as orthodox a one as I suspect the original poster has in mind), I'm going to be begging for forgiveness anyway. I figure an Atheist can do so as well as any other person. Standard Christian theology generally has it that it is by grace we are saved, not by any particular actions or worthiness on our part.
In other words, if there is an Afterlife where we will be judged, I find it difficult to believe that it will be based on our doctrinal rectitude.
4. Without God, where do you get your morality from?
From a mail-order morality shop in Poughkeepsie …
(Sorry, an old writing joke.)
The question can be taken two different ways. If the question is, "If you don't believe in God, how can you be moral?" then one can simply look at the atheists of the world, and the theists (of greatly varying stripes), and determine whether there is a substantive difference in moral behavior between them (see also the next question).
It doesn't seem to me that there is.
Arguably, comparing Atheists in the US to (narrowing it down) Christians in the US may not be fair, since the former were raised and live in a culture that is heavily inculcated in Americanized Christian morality. But one can look at Atheists in non-Christian societies around the globe, or in lands where the predominant religion is not theistic as we generally consider it (Buddhism, for example), without seeing that Atheists or their societies are clearly less moral.
One can find moral (or altruistic) behavior in certain primates, too, for what that's worth.
The other way of interpreting this question is per the next question.
5. If there is no God, can we do what we want? Are we free to murder and rape? While good deeds are unrewarded?
We can already do what we want, whether there is a God or not. Human history makes that clear. People who do what the Bible considers bad things do not always suffer divine punishment here on Earth; ditto for those who do virtuous things. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike. (And that doesn't get into the question of faith vs works or the necessity of grace.)
The question is, what if we don't believe there are any consequences in the Hereafter? Would we see widespread killing and sexual assault?
I do personally believe in divine justice (and mercy) (and education) in the Afterlife, but as there is only teaching / preaching about it here in this world, there's no particular way to prove it.
It's worth noting that "murder and rape" have been done in the Name of God. Indeed, looking at the Old Testament, it's sometimes ascribed to His orders.
It's also worth noting that, in a country that has seen a steady rise in Atheism and disbelief, a country where the most publicly devout Christians have been decrying our increasingly secular ways, murder and rape rates have been in a steady decline. I don't think that Atheism makes one more moral; I'm suggesting that it may not make one less moral insofar as living in society goes. Because murder and rape (with very fuzzy boundaries over what actions constitute those categories) seem to be pretty universally condemned across human cultures, by both religious and civil authorities, regardless of the particular belief system in play. While one could conceive of a nihilistic atheism that permits such actions, it seems unlikely that human societies would generally allow the disorder that would ensue if everyone did it.
That's not to say that religious teachings cannot have an effect on behavior (hopefully for the better). But I would add that, as a Christian, I am called to behave morally, not for fear of Hell, nor promise of Heavenly reward, but because it's what God wants me to do.
6. If there is no god, how does your life have any meaning?
Does my life have meaning only because of God? How does that work?
Because I do believe an Afterlife, there is meaning for me in terms of continuity of existence and relationship to God. But I also get meaning out of my relationship to those around me. Jesus' "greatest commandments" focused not just on God but on one's neighbor. Meaning can clearly be derived from relationship with neighbor — family, friends, colleagues, passersby, immediate relationship and future relationship after I'm gone (walked away, moved away, or passed away).
It seems to me that meaning for an Atheist can focus on those latter aspects. I won't try to argue whether that's sufficient, because the search for meaning in life is a highly subjective discussion that, if nothing else, requires beer for lubrication. But I don't feel in a position to tell people that their lives are meaningless if they don't believe in some sort of deity, let along a particular one.
7. Where did the universe come from?
Why does it have to have come from somewhere?
I mean, from a faith standpoint, standing in comparison to an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal God, it seems to make very little difference whether the universe was created in a single Fiat Lux (billions of years ago or thousands) or whether it has always been there, or whether the question of causality and existence are in the least bit related. The idea of a Prime Mover Unmoved is attractive to the human mind, but so is Newtonian Physics in general, and we understand already that the universe is a lot more complicated than that.
To date, there's nothing in the current science of cosmology that seems tor require a deity to push the first domino, aside from our feeling that there has to be a first domino that therefore requires Someone to push it. I don't have a problem ascribing divine presence and meaning to the existence of the universe, but there's nothing I can point to that seems to only work if there is such presence and meaning.
8. What about miracles? What all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus? What about those who claim to have seen saints or angels?
What about those who claim to have found enlightenment through contemplation of the Buddha? Or those who feel they have been touched by Vishnu? Or those who claim to have a connection with Allah? Or those who are convinced that the Tarot predicted which horse they should bet on in the sixth? Or those who feel that their dead spouse is there at night, filling them with a sense of comfort (or dread)? Or those who truly believe they are the reincarnation of someone else?
People believe a lot of things. People are convinced of a lot of feelings. They can't all be right.
I have had personal religious experiences that, for me, are convincing, but not in any objective sense that could (or should) convince anyone else. That's why they're my experiences. Nor do they guarantee that, if I'm right about that experience indicating that God exists that anything else I pontificate on, spiritually, is correct.
If God meant miracles to be conclusive, contemporary proof that would convince everyone of the reality of His existence … one would expect Him to do so in far more prominent and unambiguous a fashion. Fiery letters in the sky, a personalized platinum set of Ten Commandment tablets appearing under the pillow one morning, a star that appears in the heavens every December 25th and then falls to earth and cracks open to reveal the inscription "JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON," three free wishes every time you go to church — whatever. One can only conclude from this not happening that:
a. God isn't all that hot on miracles these days, preferring people to come to faith from teachings, examples of the lives of faithful, and the "small still voice" within each person.
b. God doesn't exist.
c. Some other reason.
So … not much help there.
9. What’s your view of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris?
I can't speak for Atheists here, though I know some who go ga-ga over some of the above, others who find them abrasive and unhelpful to the cause, and others who have (more appropriately) mixed feelings.
Speaking for myself, I think that most of the "super-star" atheists today have some valuable things for people (of faith and without) to hear, but are also (as super-stars often are) more obnoxious in how they do so than I would be. But I tend to be a pretty nice guy, rhetorically, so I'll confess that's just my reaction.
Regardless, the gents in question are not considered gurus or religious leaders by most of the Atheists I know.
10. If there is no God, then why does every society have a religion?
If flags are just made of cloth, why are wars fought with them and people willing to die for them?
Humans are funny critters, and religion is a meme that has a lot of reasons behind it. There are some neurological and psychological foundations for certain religious experiences and needs. Religion provides comfort and (at arm's length) explanation for things, from lightning to grief. Religion can be deeply emotional, making it very difficult to be rid of, and something that seeps into societies around it. Religion serves a role in social grouping and tradition and structure. It can also be a tool of authority and compliance by the state. So … lots of reasons why religion is so universal and so persitent.
One might as well ask, though, "Why, if there is no God but the LORD, do so many societies believe in someone (or ones) else?" Fractionally less than a third of the global population is Christian, though they are a plurality. Does that "prove" anything? Not that I can tell.
So … I don't know if anything is proven, either, by my commentary. Or, for that matter, by any Atheists who choose to respond to the Ten Questions. Far from being questions that cannot be "truly or honestly answered" by Atheists, I suspect anyone who's given much thought to their belief system (whatever it may be) will not be particularly daunted by any of them.
That said, I'm sure it makes the readers of Today Christian feel a happy smugness to have them in their back pocket to spring on unbelievers, in the expectation of confusion and/or instant conversion. I look forward to hearing how that goes for them.
(h/t +George Wiman, among others)
Handwaving aside various exceptions — yeah, pretty much.
(h/t earlier to +Doyce Testerman)
Originally shared by +Boing Boing:
In life, pick two. By Doghouse Diaries. http://boingboing.net/2014/10/15/in-life-pick-two.html
Speaking as a theist, there's a lot that atheism has to teach the faithful: skepticism about accepted teaching, dealing with the conflict between dogma and human knowledge, contention against authority, and understanding where many of the threads of modern faith come from (hint to modern Christians: a lot of it ain't the Bible).
But a deeper lesson that it has to teach us — both theists and atheists — is that humans and human institutions sometimes suck, and aligning with the truth in one area doesn't mean total enlightenment and shedding of human foibles, flaws, and asshattery.
Too many people think that simply claiming Jesus as one's personal savior will sanctify and reform all of one's attitudes and beliefs. Too many other people think that simply shedding superstition and religion will clarify and reform all of one's attitudes and beliefs.
In reality, people … well, I hate to say we tend to be jerks, but we are conservative and complicated as all get-out, and flipping a switch in a single part of one's ideological framework is no guarantee of a sudden cascading change in every part of that framework. It's not a matter of a single profession of faith (or unfaith), but a continuous examination of all of one's behavior and beliefs, some of them far more painful in examination than the question of the existence (or non-existence) of God. It's damned hard work, work that takes a lifetime, and assuming you've dealt with it all is a great signal that you very much haven't.
Or, put another way, if sainthood (religious or secular) were easy, everyone would do it.
We are all pilgrims, claiming to seek truth, but reluctant to leave behind each bit of parochial, selfish, self-aggrandizing, status-quo-loving falsehood. It doesn't matter so much (in my opinion) what path we're taking in that seeking, so much as we are willing to follow that path wherever it may lead us, no matter how painful it may be, and to leave no internal corner of our thinking unturned.
Ultimately, the true challenge is not to best other people in their unenlightened state, but to best ourselves.
The Atheist Disillusionment
I’ve been writing about atheism for about 10 years now. What has driven me is a combination of awe at the amazing insights produced by science, so much deeper and more substantial than any collecti…
RT @IamJesusHChrist: I feel the need to point out that the whole “Love thy neighbor” thing doesn’t only apply to the ones that look, sound …
Universalism remains highly controversial amongst more conservative Christians, though — it ain't Christianity for them if some folk aren't roasting in Hell for eternity — so I expect to see some interesting fire and brimstone in this article.
Instead, it just seems to be general gobsmacked wonderment that some folk — including some otherwise respectable Christian thinkers — seem to be going soft on damnation, as part and parcel of favoring gay marriage. And where, the author asks, does it end? I mean, does this mean that Jews might also be eventually accepted by God? Muslims? Heaven, even Buddhists and Atheists?
Eek!
It's amusing, just because it's presented as so incomprehensible a notion that anyone in their right mind might believe in a God of universal love so great and powerful that even folks as off-kilter as myself and Michael Brown might actually eventually be joined in it. I mean, madness, right? All one need do is simply point it out and wait for the flabbergastment to commence!
Frankly, sounds like a fine idea to me. Maybe Dr. Brown ought to give it some thought.
Universalism is next for the soft love crowd
Just watch and see – as churches and church leaders become more embracing of committed, homosexual couples, they will move further and further away from the preaching of future wrath and divine judgment, ultimately embracing universalism in one form or another.
