BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/21/05 9:26 PM:

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
in article
,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/21/05 12:53 AM:

KMAN wrote:
...snip...

And you chose to ignore the "often, when man talks about God",
Because
you assert that whenever man talks about God it is religion and
religion is all about power and control , and hence bad, so talking
about God is all about power and control, and hence bad. Not at all
sublime and spiritual, and worth your sincere attention. I would
submit
that this is passive agressive on your part!

I have many deeply religious friends, Tinkerntom, including a nun.
There are
definitely different ways of talking about god. First and foremost,
my
friends and I share mutual respect.

One form of disrespect involves godtalk where the religified person
applies
their religion to the non-religified person - for example, a
religified
person insisting on blathering about how their god loves the
non-religified
person.

I am not surprised, and am glad to know that you have other friends
that you talk to about God. You and your deeply religious friends,
including a nun, may share all kinds of mutual respect, but this is the
usenet where conversations happen fast and furious, and sometimes
things get wild and wooley. It is as you and I have continued to share
with each other that we also develope mutual respect. You would have to
admit that for all kinds of reasons, we got off to a harsh start. I
think it says a lot that we are still in the market place swapping
thoughts. This is certainly more like a fish market than a cloistured
library or discussion hall. In some ways I like the format, because you
can discuss issues and hear perspectives that you probably would not
hear in a polite society, especially concerning religion and politics,
which you are not supposed to talk about in public. However the very
forum sometimes make it difficult to talk in a significant
conversation, and follow uninterupted thoughts, with many side comments
and thoughts. I am aware that there are groups dedicated to these
discussions, but I especially appreciate the perspective of people who
are willing to have fun paddling, I think that it has to do with a
basic life philosophy that gets carried into other philosophies.

I would also agree there are many different ways to talk about god, or
should I say God! Even that demonstrates how various nuances are
slipped into our conversation. Not alot of respect by one party! I
wonder when you talk to the nun, whether you would be so disrespectful.
I have also proffered that if you did not want to talk about God or
religion, we could go back to paddle talk, and that is a standing
offer. I have understood that you were interested in this converstion
though, and your participation was totally voluntary.

I have appreciated your input, though not often agreeing, we have been
having a relatively civil conversation, and I have resisted telling you
about God's Love in a personal way. This was largely due to the fact of
your stated discomfort on one hand, and on the other, when SW came to
my defense, stating that I was within my rights to say what I was
saying, I realized that as a Christian, I am bound by even a higher
law, that I try to live by. SW may have been technically correct, but I
don't believe that I needed his approval or credentials to authenticate
what I was saying. You will not find that I based any of my action on
what he said, but instead modified my behavior.

Not that I do not reserve the right to be obnoxious in the future if
necessary, if so instructed by my Higher Power, I do not go here and
there and do what I do, except as I believe, one under orders. But as
one under orders, I believe I was told to ease up on you guys, and give
you a break. Though it does not change the facts of the matter, you
have heard the facts though. And this was done as an act of respect. If
you respect me and my God, I can assure you the respect will be
reciprocated.

I desired to shorten up this discussion thread inorder to highlight the
above statement that I did not respond to directly in my previous post
but did not want you to think that I did not think it significant. In
fact, I thought that it was significant enough to respond to separately
here. Similarly, I found the following statement by you astounding, and
wanted to separate it completely by itself here at the end of this
post, and will respond at the bottom.

....snip...

KMAN wrote:

"No evidence is required for a religious belief system. Since it is
founded
in belief in a supernatural being, there is no evidence. The belief
exists
only in the imagination. If I truly believed Oprah to be a supreme
being,
the evidence for this would be no more or no less than your own belief
in
your own supreme being."

I found your basic statement in the first sentence to be astounding,
and something I have never heard before from anyone else. Most of
academic efforts in theologial academia is toward proving ones position
on any number of subjects or minutia. Literally straining at gnats,
oftentimes swallowing camels. Getting so caught up in the details, they
cannot see the forest for the trees. And surprisingly I agree with you
to a large degree on this point.

There are many religious belief systems that have little or no evidence
to support the various practices of the participants. Man has a
religious streak in him, and if you go to dark Africa, or darker NYC,
you will find religious practices that may have no more evidence to
validate the practice, than tea leaves, or how blood patterns from a
sacrifical monkey fall on the ground. I would say that most religions
have little or no evidence to support their practice, and this includes
many so called Christian denominations and their followers. Here in
USA, and I can not speak of other places, but I would suspect that they
are similar, alot of the practices are based on traditions that most of
the followers would have no real understanding of. They just do
whatever they do because that is the way it has always been done.

Here it is Easter season, and if ask, many Christians could tell you
the Easter story, but could not explain to you why the early Christians
did not celebrate it as a special day, or why certain practices are
included. This did not happen until the early Catholic Church formed
and found it necessary to assimilate the religious practices of the
heretofore heathen or pagan practices of the Spring rites. Now I am not
saying that the Easter pagent cannot be profitable for many to
participate in, and be reminded of what Easter is all about, But what
evidence is there that the religious practice has anything to do with
the core Christian faith?

There are many similar issues in modern Christianity, which actually
act as a major distraction as far as I am concerned with the core
practices, which many supposed practitioners are woefully ignorant of,
and yet practice their faith as happy as clams in a shell, just taking
it in and squirting it out. Then announcing how they are living their
faith by being involved in the right or the left or whatever that
actually has little to do with their faith, but it makes them feel
good, though it might not be significantly better evidenced than the
tea leaves and monkey blood. Religious practice does not necessarily
need the support of evidence to validate those practices.

The fact that religious practice is oftentimes couched in supernatural
occurences, only contributes to the impression that evidence is not
only not needed, but the request for evidence would cause you to be
suspected as being unfaithful. This twist then results in looking at
any evidence as suspect as well. The evidence is suspect, the looking
is suspect, and this continues to build a religious culture where
evidence, and looking for evidence is undesirable at best, and a quick
route to being shunned at worst.

Some of the super churches are the worst in this regards, they put on a
great show, but woe onto the person that would question the leader if
you could even get to them. I recently watched the special on Benny
Hinn, as an example. But be assured this phenomenon can be found in the
smallest basement gathering. The practice of religion, including
Christianity, and maybe especially Christianity, requires the
reinforcement and protection of the religious practice as soon as the
practitioners become vested in any particular practice, and especially
a particular leader that leads their particular religious practice.
Very little evidence is sought once they have their specific kernal of
truth.

This all reminds me of the little train sets that run around in
circles, around and around, as soon as the track are set up. And that
is how many religious people, and especially Christians live their
lives.

I am left to wonder, not that I really wonder, if there is an
alternative? TnT