"What if all God wants is the relationship?" Bill Stark
"What if all God wants is the relationship?" Bill StarkThis is a subject upon which no one will agree and causes more arguments and murders than any other subject. So rather than give testament to my religious beliefs, I shall try to lay out some historical items without trying to convert anyone..
I notice that all of the dogmatic religions are having trouble keeping their members. The youth of today is rejecting the dogma as a matter of course. I think that this is a good thing. I think the lack of faith in God is a bad thing. The difference: people these days have enough trouble with any relationship. Kids have pets with which they cannot have a relationship (snakes, spiders, etc.) How then does one generate a relationship with a God who requires faith by not divulging His existence? Agnosticism is the rational way of least resistance. I cannot ignore the sights I see every day and ignore the miracles that God has done for me and ignore Him.
If you place a legacy of behavioral rules on me, I am going to put some distance from you. My relationship with God is personal. I cannot easily share it for fear that I shall not be believed. People have accused me of terrible things because they do not understand. These are devout Christians. For this reason I shall never again belong to a church. The churches I have seen seem to attract these people. I shall not join the people who need to harm others to verify their beliefs are better than mine.
I do not believe in numerology or in God-inspired coincidences. I accept my college professor's claim that the explanation requiring the least amount of faith is most likely to be what really happened.
I believe that God answers every sincere prayer with “yes”. I have argued this with clerics and they claim it is a matter of semantics but here is how I see it.
As a kid and learning about God, it seemed to me that if He knew every thought and action, then kneeling down and reciting rote prayers was an insult to him. I thought God would rather have me acknowledge Him in every thought. Therefore, rather than thinking to myself, I have these same conversations with God. This takes a matter of training and often my mind wonders without thinking of Him. When I realize this has happened, I immediately thank Him for reminding me to come back. How long I was away is considered and promises made to try harder.
Now when it comes to something I want, I have already discussed it with God. I shall then never ask for something God would not give me. You do not beg from friends. There are times when you must ask for help. God and I know when these are and He will tell me if I should ask. If it is an emergency and I cry for help, the help has always come. And the help comes now. This second. I see it and I know that God did it. It could be described as a miracle. It seems more to me something a good friend capable of these things has thrown aid to a drowning man.
There are other places in this web page where these miracles are described. If you do not have this relationship with your creator, get it. The reason that He put you here was to learn how to have this relationship and to appreciate His greatness. If you learn these, you have a chance at a permanent relationship with Him. If you cannot be His friend now, why would He want you after He has you every chance? He has created a beautiful, wonderful world for us to develop this relationship. But then it might not be so beautiful if you do not live in California. Sorry, I had to say that: I have found beauty in most places that I have seen. If God has created me for the relationship and He gave his only son for my personal salvation, then he has created the beautiful sky and the beautiful mountains and the beautiful ocean just for me to appreciate. This is not vanity and it is not ego. It is only the promise of better things to come.
I once was seeing a Father Dan Murphy on a regular basis to improve my faith. I became better educated and learned about faith but it distanced me from the Catholic Church. He once told me a joke:
“One day a man arrived at the pearly gates where he was met by Saint Peter. Peter gave him the tour of heaven and asked if there were any questions. He had seen people everywhere enjoying themselves and being happy and having a pleasurable time. What bothered him slightly was the wall that ran along the one side of Heaven wherever he went. He asked about the wall. Peter showed him some ladders that they climbed and saw the other side of the wall. It was the same. People enjoying themselves. Happy and having a good time. He asked Peter why the separation. Peter told him that these are the Catholics and they think that they are the only ones here.”
I remember this and tend to think that this applies to any religious group. I do no think that any one group has a monopoly on heaven, or for that matter even on the nature of a possible life after death.
When Jesus left, the apostles took over. The first person claiming to be pope was Constantine -- and it is not clear that Constantine was a real Christian or wore the robe for expediency. Peter made no such claim. But in any case, the apostles split up to spread the faith throughout the lands. They each had their following in different places. They each became head of their own ministries. They and their successors were called the Patriarchs of the area in which they settled. Peter was Patriarch of Rome.
This was true up until the death of Pope Pius XII. The Patriarch of Rome is the leader of the Patriarchs. The other patriarchs were in other cities. There was a split with the Patriarch of Constantinople and these became the Episcopalians (even Rome accepts their equal right of beliefs). Over the centuries most of the other patriarchs folded leaving only one: he was in Greece.
For a while I attended the Eastern Rite Catholic church services at 12th street and Wells in Milwaukee. They served communion in bread and wine unlike the Roman-rite Catholic church. Bread-only was a Roman liturgy reaction to Martin Luther. I gave up on the Wells church, as I did not understand a word of the service: my deficiency, not theirs. In any case, each patriarch had his own organization and council. When Pius XII died, the Greek Patriarch demanded to walk at the front of the procession where he belonged. The organization of Patriarchs superseded the organization of any one Patriarch.
The Rome cardinals claimed he should walk behind. The new pope
decided it: he eliminated the Eastern rite and absorbed it
into the Roman rite. The Patriarch
would walk in the middle of the Cardinals. That has remained as
the rule since – noted by the newscasters
although few understood the significance of this. Watch the
procession the next time a
pope dies. There will be one
black-robed man. And there are no more rites in the Catholic
church. I do not believe in parochial reorganizations.
Through a misinterpretation of a single sentence (often the case with cults) the Catholic Church deemed Peter the greatest of the apostles and the leader of their church, posthumously. This set the stage for the concept that there is a single interlocutor between man and God. Sort of a nice concept if you want someone else to run your relationship with your creator. For me: Not in this lifetime.
I visited my parents in New Jersey. I attended the mass with my family. At his point my father even attended occasionally. It was Easter. On the greatest Catholic celebration of life and hope (purple vestments), this pastor gave a hell and brimstone sermon. I walked out. End of story.
When I broke up with MaryAnne the second time, I was devastated. I also had trouble with my faith in God. MaryAnne recommended that I see her Mother Superior. I did so. I had been seeing my local parish priest, Father Dan Murphy. It was going nowhere. The Roman Catholic Church is more dogma than faith. Too many rules, too much stuff, not enough reason. I took the bus to 76th street and saw the Mother Superior. I do not know if I ever knew her name. I think I did. In any case, I laid out the problem: if I did what I thought God wanted me, it was against the church teachings; if I did what the church said, I went against my relationship with God. I was guilty either way. She made two recommendations. The first was to forget MaryAnne: she was a tease and did not deserve (nor want from me) such devotion. The second was to leave the church. If the Church itself was causing me that much duress, I must leave. It would be there when I got back. The Church is for people who do not have a good relationship with God. I left feeling better than I had ever felt in my life. I worked really hard for many years to understand what God wants of me and what our relationship should be. You can not learn that in the Catholic Church. I think that you can learn it best in a Buddhist environment. I am/was a Christian. All churches have the power to hurt people and I have learned to avoid churches. If people could live to the requirements of Buddha, they might reach Nirvana. If Christians could live to the teachings of Jesus, we could all reach Nirvana. Shaw said that "if I ever met a Christian, I would become one". I am not that cynical but the Mother Superior released me to develop my true potential with God next to me.
There is a story that this brings to mind. For a couple years after I left the Church, I would still attend Mass when I visited my mother. That is, until one Sunday in Grand Rapids. This is in the 60's. The Mass had just changed to be in English and with the Priest facing the congregation. This caused some serious altar architecture problems. In this church, the altar floor was the typical marble with the Alpha-Omega inscribed in it. A marble table had been constructed at the leading step to the congregation: sort of Pi-shaped if you replace the tilde on top with a flat bar. Green. A good move really. You could see through it to the back and see what the priest was doing. This was the intent. Now here is where I hope I get the words correct. If not, you can tell me.
You know the Catholic Mass: Introduction, Epistle, Gospel, Offertory, Consecration, Communion, Finale. Few people had English-only Missals. My mother devoutly said the Rosary (I considered this irreverent). We got to the Consecration. I was a twenty-year-old boy. Next to me was an attractive girl my age. We noticed, but properly ignored, each other. We watched the priest. The priest consecrated the host and was consecrating the wine when he dropped the host. Now, the priest's host is that hard white bread-wafer stuff that sort of looks like premium goldfish food with a stamp on it and perfectly circular at about 3" diameter. He dropped it on the marble floor. Nobody remembers the old cartoons. The new ones are so much better. But there were old ones where the dog chases a rabbit in a circle until the dog stops and waits for the rabbit to come around. This is exactly what the priest did. The host rolled in a large circle. The priest on his knees tried to catch up to it. He tripped on his vestment and landed on his nose at least twice before he gave up and waited for the host to return.
Now this is a serious problem for which the church has a serious response. The body of Christ has been desecrated. There is a special sacristy mounted on the side of the altar. It is always there. Any Church. There is a candle above it. The Parish pastor comes out with this sacristy and altar boys and locks up the desecrated host -- the sacristy is returned to its original position. Later when this Mass is over and the church is vacant, they hold a special mass for the desecrated host. Many churches go through their entire existence never having to indulge this procedure. It is very serious and done with extreme reverence and privacy.
RIght now, the girl and I are having trouble keeping silent. The image of the priest on his nose is too funny. It is made more funny because nobody except for us has seen it. Well, maybe some others, but no one near us. Everyone is bowing their heads and saying Blood of Christ. My mother is saying her rosary and scowling at me. The girl's parents are scowling at her. She and I are almost hugging just to keep silent.
Now comes the funniest part. The Mass process must start over at the Offertory. This makes sense. I presume the priest took his beating like a man later that day. Now he was starting over at the Offertory and nobody could figure out where they should read. Going backwards seemed beyond them. I could love that girl. People paging randomly, aggressively. The priest trying to keep solemn and does not stop to explain the non-sequitur. My angry mother.
When the mass ended and we left, I said goodbye to the girl. No, I didn't. I could not get a word in between her parent's admonitions. My mother barely spoke but when she did she was wrong. There was no way to explain what had happened. She thought I was making a pass at the girl. I never attended Mass with my mother again. I never saw the girl again. I truly wish I had had the sense to talk to her.
I lived in Plano, Texas for a while. This is a northern suburb of Dallas. When I lived there, Coit was a two-lane road from Campbell to 15th with open fields all of the way. This was an interesting but unhappy part of my life. Heaven for Hypocrites is the best way to describe the Dallas lifestyle. If you built a house it had to have a bar or you could not sell it.
Texas as a state is legally dry (no alcohol). Each voting district can determine how much alcohol it wants. The easiest way around this patchwork quilt of alcohol islands was to have your own bar. If, like me, you had a little bar built into the wall looking like a china cabinet, it was called a Baptist bar. This is symptomatic of the problem.
While I was there the people of the city of Plano voted to have beer and wine sold in stores. The city council refused to implement the new law until forced. The city initially placed distance requirements from schools and other buildings such that no place was available. All in the name of God?
The city of Farmers Branch where I worked held a referendum in the spring to permit beer and wine sales. This city had a large student population. During the summer when the students had gone back home, the churches sponsored another referendum and voted it dry. When the students returned, they voted it wet again. The churches went to court to overturn the third election. The judge agreed with the churches and overturned the third election. The judge also overturned the second election on the same grounds leaving the city able to sell beer and wine.
The state also had a law keeping stores closed on Sundays.
Most states got rid of those laws decades ago. I understand that
Texas has abandoned the no sales on Sunday law since I left.
My daughter, Megan, is still alive because of this hypocrisy. One day Megan came down with croup. She had so many respiratory problems that when we called the pediatrician, she did not see Megan but just called in the prescription for bronchitis. She called back later and had us rush Megan to the emergency room at the nearest major hospital. Megan was 11 months old and her throat closed completely. She barely survived the malpractice at the hospital: they would not place a tube in her throat before it closed; creating the emergency. This was one of my prayer miracles but that is another thing. The issue here is why did the doctor call back? The headline of the paper that day was a quote of the President of Southern Methodist University. You see, the day before a little boy had died of the same croup after visiting 3 doctors and 2 hospitals – all had refused to treat him because he had no insurance. The quote was: “If we knew he was going to die, we would not have turned him away”. This man should have been the model Christian. This is a Christian university hospital. In Dallas, at least, it seems you put your fish on the bumper, go to church on Sunday, make sure everyone watches you do this, and go your selfish way again on Monday. Hypocrisy in spades.
So what? The idea here is that religion is personal. Attempts to make me follow your rules by making them law only creates a lot of resentment against your church. Cheating me in the stores when you have a fish on your storefront does not encourage me to be a Christian. I have never found such a collection of dishonest people as when I lived in Plano. I have found better Christians anywhere than I found in the Bible Belt. Live the faith to encourage others to understand Jesus. Forcing your legacy on those who do not believe will only guarantee that they never will.
This is an interesting group of which I know little. Come to think of it, I know little about anything. In the last 4 years I have found the Adventists passing out printed books and typed pamphlets and giving speeches on how the Roman Catholic Church is the beast described in the Apocalypse. They base this upon that church moving the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday and the letters on the Popes vestments when added together linearly add to 666. You must presume that U and V are interchangeable among other things.
I think it is sort of sad when a religion spends all of its time hating another religion rather than proclaiming its own beliefs..
Five hundred years ago a disgruntled young man in upstate New York went up into the hills and came down with a book. He claimed the book was given to him by God and made understandable through an angel. This book was intended to augment the Bible since the Bible had been corrupted. He had a bunch of friends testify to the truth of the book and they started their own religion.
Joseph Smith and crew were summarily chased out of the area. He formed a militia with his followers since not everyone else really believed in the racist views espoused by these polygamists supporting their beliefs by acts of salamanders and other animals whose beauty is not appreciated.
I have problems with any religion claiming race and sex get you different paths to God.
Fifteen hundred years ago a disgruntled young man in upstate Saudi Arabia went up into the hills and came down with a book. He claimed the book was given to him by God and made understandable through an angel. This book was intended to augment the Bible since the Bible had been corrupted. He had a bunch of friends testify to the truth of the book and they started their own religion.
Mohammed and crew set up their own militia and cruised around the peninsula converting the wandering tribes to his view of God. He bad-mouthed his enemies claiming that they slew his people and therefore giving his people the right to kill their enemies with promises of a better place in Nirvana/Heaven for doing so.
Recently a man said that the difference between Moslem and Christian is that in one the leader expects you to die for him and in the other the leader died for his followers.
There have been claims that Joseph Smith used the Moslem book as the basis for his book. This would not surprise me but I do not think Joseph Smith had any idea how close his church history would become the same as the Moslems.
I think someone in Washington laid it out well when he said the major difference in teaching comes from one leader gave his life for his followers and the other leader expects his followers to give their lived for him.
I resent the concept of passing laws to make other people follow the dictums of your beliefs. If you do not want to shop on Sunday, stay home. Do not pass stupid laws to make me follow your beliefs. This applies also to abortion. I am against abortion. I have reason to be against abortion. I think that Roe Versus Wade is the law of the land and has saved many mothers’ lives. They are saved from the back room, coat-hanger abortions that happened until the 1970’s. If you are truly against abortion, then pay for those who want one: pay the mother to have the baby and also pay for their good health. Educate those wanting abortions how terrible the abortion is. Passing laws because you cannot do your job just proves that you have not done your job.
"Finally a god, a natural higher force, resolved this conflict, separating earth from heaven, parting the dry land from the waters, and dividing the clear air from the clouds, thus organizing all things into a balanced union. In the highest sphere he made a heavenly vault of weightless and untainted ether. The next lower region he filled with air, light but not without substance. Then came the heavy earth, which sank down under its own weight and was encircled by the sea. " Roman Mythology.
I found an interesting link on this subject: www.Mythinglinks.org.
You know (I start a lot of my thoughts with "you know"), I really get tired of this business of Creationism wanting equal time with Evolution in our schools. The Creationists are correct: they need equal time with Science. We spend a lot of time teaching Science, Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic in our schools. Because of various restraints, we do not spend enough time on literature, arts, crafts and social activities. We do not spend enough time on cultural history and value systems. We do not spend enough time on historic literature.
Because we do not spend time on values and cultures, our children grow up believing that mythology is fact. I mean, there really is a Hamlet's Castle in Denmark. You can visit it. Does this mean there really was a Hamlet? No. Shakespeare envisioned his play while staying in this castle. Creationism is good mythology: as good as any other story teaching us values about how to live. Every culture has a Creation Myth. Most have a lot in common with the others.
Confusing moral stories with Science leaves our children
confused between fact and fiction. Worse is a great deal of
adults really
end up believing in myths. This seriously inhibits technical
progress and
does little to improve moral substance. The sooner we start
teaching
social and cultural values and stop confusing these with science, the
sooner we
can start getting the our value system on track. and we need to
get our
value system on track.
I just finished reading the book for the second time. Reading
a detective story the first time always leaves me feeling like I am
missing something. So I read it again. Oftentimes months
later. No, I did not miss anything but I did confuse some of the
story line with other of Dan Brown's books. Some authors I enjoy
but find a hard read. Crichton is one of them. Grisholm,
Crichton, Clancy all have agendas. Most of these agendas are
pretty blatant. Grisholm has attacked cigarette companies and or
anti-social issues. Clancy makes Nixon, GWB, and Al Capp
all look like bleeding liberals. Clancy is prostituting his
name. He has been for a decade or more. He wrote some
seriously good stuff. He also let his name be used on the covers
of books that he did not write. Unless you read the lower half of
the cover you will think he is the author and not just a pimp.
Sad.
Brown has pretty much just told stories. That is, until the DaVinci code.
Luckily I read Holy Blood, Holy
Grail before I read this book. I mean Holy Blood is a book that will take
your faith to the wall and back. The DaVinci Code is just a
story. I remember a similar combination of books from high
school. Carlisle wrote "The History of the French
Revolution". This was an extensive history with extensive details
and references. It could put all but the most devoted historians
to sleep -- but if you wanted to know what happened, it was in his
books. A well known author of the time wrote a novel taken almost
directly from Carlisle. The author added names, filed in
suspected
events and made a story out of it. THe story has become more
famous than the original. Maybe because Dickens is known for more
things than just one book. I make this analogy because I suspect
nobody sued Dickens for writing a story. The authors of Holy
Blood sued Brown for his story. A very expensive way to increase
the sales of both books. It also seems to have validated both
books.
The interesting thing to me is that the book sold millions of copies
in hard cover. I waited and waited for soft cover. The week
after I bought the hard cover, I saw piles of the paperback at
Costco. I guess I should subscribe to Publishers' Weekly.
Now I have two copies. THe book was enjoyable although I found
the plot jumping in strange directions. But then if you want to
cover all of the best parts of Holy Blood, then you have to do a lot of
jumping or write a longer story. The story is long enough.
The really curious thing though is the movie. WIth all of the
millions of copies of the book. With all of the controversial
ideas in the book. With all of the time it spent having only
expensive hard cover printings, no one seemed to care about the subject
matter. That is, nobody cared until the movie was about to be
released. Then the Catholic Church was angered. The entire
Christian community is angered. Preachers are decrying the book
from their pulpits. Church spokesmen and claiming the book is
full
of fallacies. Opus Dei is really better than that. People
--
it is just a story. It is fiction. True it is fiction like
Tale of Two Cities was fiction. There is a lot of factual,
statistical, historical, information intertwined in the story.
The facts and the story are carefully intertwined to imply more truth
than the Church admits to. This is what fiction writers do.
THey give you an environment with which you can identify. They
make the story as close to home as they can. They they add
characters and events that are fiction but could happen so that you can
feel the pain or joy of the hero. sometimes I get so wrapped up
in a book that I have to check outdoors to see if the weather changed
on me. Unlikely here in the desert.
But it is a story. It is fiction. If you want to get
upset, read Holy Blood. That is upsetting. After a couple
of hundred pages you understand the fallacy of the Roman Catholic
Church. It lays out the Nicene conference and the actions of
Constantine (the first pope). I applauded this chapter because I
had it in black and white what I always knew in my heart but could not
nail down the specifics. Now they were nailed down. THe
shocker came when the book went on to paint the entire Jesus story as a
conspiracy. This had me reading through the night.
Why? Many years ago I took a philosophy of religion class at
the University of Wisconsin. This was one of my more enjoyable
classes. It laid out the ground rules for a religion. What
it could say. What it could not say. THe fallacies in the
historic proofs of God. Yes. Before its time the concept of
Creationism was debunked. ALong with its little brother,
Intelligent Design. We had another name for it but if you can
learn how false it is in an entry level philosophy course you wonder
why
so many people are taking it seriously.
One of the things that we learned in this class were word
definitions: knowledge, faith, belief that, belief in, etc.
Once we had this foundation, we could discuss religion. Most
"discussions" of religion end up as battles because the basic
definitions of words are not agreed upon. I had a friend once
that stated: "It is true if the bible says it is true". Since the
Bible does not go into arithmetic, 2 plus 2 equals 4 may be in question
but that Jesus was born of a virgin mother is not in question.
I consider this absolutely preposterous but I am willing to accept a
middle ground. I am willing to accept that things that we do not
understand may be miracles and that we take their consequences on
faith. I am willing to accept faith. I need faith.
But there is a limit. As we learned in class, if there is a
possible logical explanation for something that does not include a
miracle, then there is no need for faith. If you desire to accept
the miracle version, then you need more than faith. I do not have
a word for what you need here.
It is obvious that Paul, the converted apostle, was married.
He could not have been the executive officer of the Sanhedran
otherwise. It is also obvious that Jesus was either married or he
was a social outcast. Jewish law and customs at the time required
all men to be married. So when I read that the most obvious
spouse is Mary Magdalen, this makes sense. That the church has
cast her as a prostitute also makes sense. How better to make
Jesus celibate than to make the only woman named in the bible to
associate with him a prostitute. Come on now. DO you really
believe that she was a whore? The bible does not say so.
Just the sermons do. I have found most Catholic (and some other)
sermons to be based upon lies. Personal experience. So why
not accept that Jesus was married? What does this
invalidate? The Bible tells us that all deacons or better in the
church must be "men of one wife". Jesus was heading up a church
for which he was the sole exception to this rule. I know, the
rule came later. No. THe rule was there. The letter
came later.
We have the marriage at Cana which could have been Jesus
wedding. We have the DaVinci Last Supper painting where the ONLY
non-bearded person at the table is reasonably a woman. Did
someone
ask DaVinci who it was? Did the little scribed names under the
painting come with the painting? I do not think so. You can
go through the logic in Holy BLood and find some misstatements.
You can find some filling ins. You can find a whole lot of things
that are not fact but are conjecture. THe point is, that Holy
Blood give a reasonable explanation for a great deal of Jesus life and
actions. Sans miracles.
George Bernard Shaw wrote two things that I remember clearly: "If I
ever met a Christian, I would become one." and "People would flock to
Jesus except for the miracles" (paraphrased but as close as I can
remember). What is it about rational explanation that invalidates
Jesus? Why do we need the miracles? Jesus said what many
said before him. Love thy neighbor. The kingdom of heaven
is within you. His byline is known to not be original. Do
we need original miracles to buy his line? Even the miracles are
not unique to Jesus.
So. When it is all finished, I believe in God. I pray to
God. I hope to find all of the answers to all of my questions
when I die. But Jesus? I believe in Jesus too. I do
not believe the collection of stories we call the New Testament.
I do believe that I shall see Jesus when I get there and he will lay it
all out for me. Miracles? I do not think so. If we
did not need the miracles, the Church would not be so upset about the
DaVinci Code book.
As I have said before, trying to be a Christian when they have supported fairy tales in school instead of science, is very difficult. Lying to a child is the worst of sins (Matthew 18:6 or is it Matthew 6:18). Trying to have a rational life when I have to deal with irrational people is impossible. If we are to get along, then your belief in miracles should only be shared with other people with similar beliefs. Foisting them off on the general public as truths and laws is an abomination of our society. Enough.
"When we present Jesus as a
pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual,
anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an
American flag, I think we are making a travesty of the portrait of
Jesus we find in the gospels," Brian D. McLaren.
This is more of what I think Jesus had in mind: http://www.emergentvillage.com
As you can figure out from
above the Catholic Church is not my favorite organization. I
think the current pope has some serious problems facing him. You
know most of them. One of them is the acceptance by Catholic
countries of abortion rights.. He made a trip to South and
Central America to try to push his agenda. I think he lost ground
this year but he tried.
By the way my position on abortion is that it is wrong, seriously
wrong but that as a man, in general, my vote does not count.
But a serious issue was addressed in the most positive statement
that I have heard to date by a religious leader: arguing creationism
against evolution is a ridiculous waste of time. He seems to
stand on the science side explaining that scientific facts cannot
contradict religious beliefs. If you take the stand that they
can, then you have absolved yourself of any responsibility toward
protecting the earth from the currently, scientifically known, behavior
that is changing the world in a negative manner, e.g. global warming.
I was very surprised to hear this from any religious leader.
The pope has set a good example of global personal
responsibility. As he said: the earth itself cannot be
wrong. But then he said it better than I can. I am just
supporting his statement and am surprised to be able to do so.
It has taken a long time but I have finally seen the light. I
had to read "Holy Blood Holy Grail" again to make sure of myself.
I had joined Facebook. I asked for comments on the book. I
got an instant response asserting the Jesus Christ is God and is a
member of the Holy Trinity. My university Philosophy of Religion
course made one thing clear: if there is a rational explanation, then
it is not a miracle. There is a rational explanation for
everything in the New testament regarding Jesus, I may or ma not
agree with all of the explanations but since they exist then I either
choose to accept the "miracles" on faith or I choose to not
believe. In this case, I choose to not believe. There is
just too much evidence indicating that the Bible Jesus is an elaborate
hoax to believe it has any relevance to the historic Jesus. G. B.
SHaw said 2 relevant things here. The first was that people would
flock to Jesus except for the miracles. I could accept a Jesus
without the miracles. The Holy Grail book portrays Jesus without
miracles. The second thing that Shaw said was "If I ever met a
Christian, I would become one". The fact that Christians do not
follow Jesus teachings is the best answer to refusing to believe that
Jesus is God. If you are a Christina, then for-profit insurance
companies are against your beliefs. If you are a Christian, you
want health care for everyone, even those not yet born. If you
are a Christian, you work as hard for your community as you do for
yourself. If you are a Christian, race, religion, sex, and sexual
preference do not influence how you respect other people. If you
are a Christian, you take personal responsibility for the health of
anything or anyone that your God has created. So far I have not
seen any of these Christians. I have seen a whole lot of the
other kind.
This is a longer page than I would have expected. My evolution
from being a devoted Catholic to my current life has had many twists
and turns. I no longer believe in any of the Jesus myth. I
can no longer believe in any promised life after death. I do hope
that there is one but whether there is or not, it cannot change how I
live today. This is simple.
If I think that I shall be rewarded for what I am doing now, that is
OK. But if my behavior is different because of anticipated reward
then I am a hypocrite. The same goes for punishment in this life
or afterwards.
If I think that someone who has harmed me will be punished later,
then I am projecting myself into his relationship with his God.
This hypocritical and self-defeating. The same is true for
projecting a reward onto someone who has helped me. Maybe they
helped me just because they are good people.
Mostly I have come to feel sad for the people who believe in
churches. They are wasting so much of their good thoughts and
efforts on fairy tales. If there were a way to get the church
community to act benevolently without the fairy tales then we would
have a good, healthy, happy, community.
And if it were a Mosque, the issue is still the same. Either
this country has freedom of religion for all or it is a bigoted,
hypocritcal, collage of lies. We already know that the USA is
really the home of hyprocisy every time we see the Stars And Bars
flown. If the Southern states cannot get past slavery, how can
the rest of us get past dogmatic jig-saw puzzles? Some of the
speakers are correct: it is a local issue. But the
President is
also correct: we are either home for the free or the home of
hypocrisy. The people wanting to buld the community center had
nothing to do with the zealots that bombed the towers. Neither
did their religion. Get off it people: just build the community
center and be happy. And learn a second language, it helps
understand the world's cultures. But then Jesus Christ had
zealots as followers.. Remember the guy with the sword who cut off the
soldier's ear? To carry a sword in Jesus time almost by itself
made you a zealot.
I believe there is a God. My personal opinion. I also
believe in Pascal's wager. Whether or not there is life after
death, we each have our own opinion. I have heard most of the religious
concepts of Heaven. There is only one heaven for me. After
I die and I wake up on the other side, Dido, my dog, will be waiting
for me with his yellow ball and that grin on his face. No
Dido. No Heaven. Sometimes I think God entered my life as
my dog. I have heard no definition of heaven that does not include my dog.