ForumGarden

With the continuing "What's good/bad about Christianity" threads going on, I am curious as to how many of us are not Christian? Whether we are of a different faith or of no faith at all.

I am a pagan spiritualist when I am pressed for a term. Otherwise I just go on my merry way doing my own thing without labels.

Anyone?

I do not consider myself a Christian. I am a Secular Humanist.

RG:-6

I don't know whether or not I fit in here as a Christian pluralist. LOL

Good topic/

Shalom

Ted:-6

I'd say I'm a Christian but not a very good one. Truthfully I'm not a church goer nor do I do Christian activities. I became a Christian, I thought, because I felt this really huge understanding all of a sudden, of course after accepting Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior (I don't know if I had this notion that my sudden revelation in the love of God was culturally determined and I assigned meaning to this submission I had released myself to) but after this I knew what the Bible meant by a lot of passages that never made any sense to me and most importantly the Holy Spirit became illuminated for me, which I can't explain, so nobody ask me, alright? I think the Holy Spirit knows no religious affiliation/ path to God. So I'm not a Christian who can make sense of the passage in the Bible about the only way to salvation is through God's son Jesus. I can't reconcile that. I believe there are many ways to spiritual enlightenment. Let's just say I doubt many many Christians would use the term, Christian, to label me.

Thanks,

Erin

I'm an Hermeticist

For anyone interested the book "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong examines the origins of all of the world great faiths. She goes back to 4500 BCE and shows how all of the great faiths arose out of the desire for justice (distributive) and compassion.

She shows and is supported by several Christian theologians that all of the great faiths lead to God the one ultimate reality.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Karen Armstrong is amazing!

I've got A History Of God and The Battle For God. Great books!

This is always a hard subject for me as I was raised Catholic, and that's a "christian" faith. And yet I have disdain for the christians who are the hypocritical kind. So I'm just not going there.

Thanks you guys for replying. I was brought up Methodist but it didn't take and no one forced it on me either. I was always drawn to spiritual and occult ways even as a kid. That seemed completely normal to me whereas the other stuff fit me like someone else's shoes.

How did you come to your chosen paths? If it's not too personal, that is.

RedGlitter;691811 wrote: Thanks you guys for replying. I was brought up Methodist but it didn't take and no one forced it on me either. I was always drawn to spiritual and occult ways even as a kid. That seemed completely normal to me whereas the other stuff fit me like someone else's shoes.

How did you come to your chosen paths? If it's not too personal, that is.


As Spock would have said "Logic". All religions and the absurd stories that go with them, simply defy logic.

cinamin;691801 wrote: This is always a hard subject for me as I was raised Catholic, and that's a "christian" faith. And yet I have disdain for the christians who are the hypocritical kind. So I'm just not going there.


This is my story as well.

When pressed I say I'm a Yew-Yew (UU, Unitarian Universalist). This basically means that I cherry-pick whatever spiritualist tenets/ideologies "fit". I even rent a pew at the local downtown church when the spirit moves, although I'm not a paying member per se.

I'm not averse to Christianity, nor Judaism or Islam. I'm averse to how many people practice their faith. As history proves, spirituality combined with entitlement and exclusivity makes for a perilous brew.

Depends what you mean by Christian.

from the oxford english dictionary

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.


Christianity

• noun the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ.




Christian

• adjective relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.

• noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.

— DERIVATIVES Christianize (also Christianise) verb.

— ORIGIN Latin Christianus, from Christus ‘Christ’.


Do I find his teachings appealing?: Yes.

Do I believe he is the son of god or indeed one and the same : No Which makes me a non Christian to many.

Do I believe in god : No. I'm an agnostic when it comes to that.

The thing I can never understand with Christians- as in those who profess to follow the teachings of Christ is why so many can ignore the bits about love one's neighbours etc. and latch on to the hate and spite in the old testament smug in their own little sanctimonious world.

I categorise myself as a heathen.

Which basically means I don't give a sh*t for any organised religion - including Atheism.

Chookie;692087 wrote: I categorise myself as a heathen.

Which basically means I don't give a sh*t for any organised religion - including Atheism.


Atheism is not and can never be a religion. That's why I posted the definition because I get fed up with religious people that try and convince themselves atheism is just a strange kind of religion. You can't not worship somebody you think does not exist. It is also just as irrational as religious belief.

Red has more questions! :wah: First I should mention that I consider religion to be a deeply private thing so for that reason I've hesitated asking anyone anything but A) then we can't have a discussion and B) it doesn't mean you have to answer if you don't want to, right?

So...

Koan, is there a certain branch of Hermeticism you follow?

Chookie, I always thought heathen meant a godless individual. Is that how you mean it or are you just not in favor of manmade/organized religion?

I don't know about the logic aspect. I've always felt that (my concept of) God defies logic by nature. Expecting God to make sense doesn't come across as feasible for me. I figure there must be some sort of mystical force behind all things, even science. But that's just me.

I've never understood how something so personal as one's beliefs and/or faith in (their) God could be cookie cuttered and mass produced into a whole congregation of near-identical believers. That makes no sense to me at all.

There's this bumper sticker that reads "How Dare You Presume I'm a Christian" and that's the way I feel. I guess it wouldn't matter what people presumed I was, Buddhist or Moonie or even faithless, I'd be annoyed at the presumption.

Just to introduce a little irreverence. Let me know if you need a translation. Don't listen if you are easily offended.

RedGlitter;691680 wrote: With the continuing "What's good/bad about Christianity" threads going on, I am curious as to how many of us are not Christian? Whether we are of a different faith or of no faith at all.

I am a pagan spiritualist when I am pressed for a term. Otherwise I just go on my merry way doing my own thing without labels. Anyone?


that is the way I am, too. :-6

I really have no interest or time for religion. I am more interested in what values a person has, and not which god (if any) they worship. :-6

I do get very upset (with any religion) when people hide behind religion as an excuse for their behaviour, or try to rule anothers life in the name of religion.

And I wish they wouldn't try to sell it at my door!

ThePheasant;701568 wrote: I really have no interest or time for religion. I am more interested in what values a person has, and not which god (if any) they worship. :-6

I do get very upset (with any religion) when people hide behind religion as an excuse for their behaviour, or try to rule anothers life in the name of religion.

And I wish they wouldn't try to sell it at my door!


Amen!



I mean...uh...

ThePheasant:-6

As a Christian pluralist I can go along with those comments. A person's religious faith is a very personal thing.

I went to an interesting lecture and discussion on Thurs. evening where the guest speaker was a Muslim. He supported the contention of Karen Armstrong, in her book "The Great Transformation", that all the great faiths including Islam began with the pursuit of justice and compassion.

It was a phenomenal presentation and discussion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;702567 wrote: ThePheasant:-6

As a Christian pluralist I can go along with those comments. A person's religious faith is a very personal thing.

I went to an interesting lecture and discussion on Thurs. evening where the guest speaker was a Muslim. He supported the contention of Karen Armstrong, in her book "The Great Transformation", that all the great faiths including Islam began with the pursuit of justice and compassion.

It was a phenomenal presentation and discussion.

Shalom

Ted:-6


No they didn't they began as an attempt to find the meaning of life. Justice and compassion are part of human nature necessary for survival and don't stem from religion. By their very nature monotheistic religions are inimical to developing ideas of individual freedom and democracy because the freedom to question religious belief and therefore eventually the authority of the church is something that a monotheist religion can't tolerate. That very human desire to stand up and say that's a load of cobblers and I don't believe or trust you- as soon as that happens the justice and compassion goes out the window so far as religion is concerned. In more extreme cases violence and terror become the methods of choice rather the love and understanding.

Course you could argue that true Christians or Muslims would not do such a thing and I would be inclined to agree with you but too often religious followers pray to a god of compassion and love for victory in battle against the infidel.

gmc:-6

According to Karen Armstrong, and she has done the research to 4500 BCE they all began in the desire for justice and compassion. This is not to deny the desire for a meaning for life. This is supported by D. Crossan and Matthew Fox among others.

As for the rest, I have never denied that there have not been problems in the past. Your equating the bad behaviour with all religious faiths which is simply not a rational approach whatsoever.

I could do exactly the same with atheist states as well. Let's consider Stalin or Pol Pot or good old Mao or Hitler. In this case Hitler tried to use the term religion to justify his evil approach.

BTW glad to see some folks back here again.

Shalom

Ted:-6

pinky:-6

Good to see you here.

I see no problem with that approach.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I tried having a go on a "Christian" forum. It simply was not worth the aggravation. Still the only folks to call names and use put downs. Nothing has changed in 40+ years. It confirmed my stand on the right wing.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Pinky:-6

Absolutely that is exactly how it should be.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;707612 wrote: gmc:-6

According to Karen Armstrong, and she has done the research to 4500 BCE they all began in the desire for justice and compassion. This is not to deny the desire for a meaning for life. This is supported by D. Crossan and Matthew Fox among others.

As for the rest, I have never denied that there have not been problems in the past. Your equating the bad behaviour with all religious faiths which is simply not a rational approach whatsoever.

I could do exactly the same with atheist states as well. Let's consider Stalin or Pol Pot or good old Mao or Hitler. In this case Hitler tried to use the term religion to justify his evil approach.

BTW glad to see some folks back here again.

Shalom

Ted:-6


So she's not one of those religious nutters that believes the earth was created in 4004 BC in six days then. Quoting someone I've never heard of and expecting me to respect them as an authority is not going to work. I'm not terribly interested in religious people that want to use history to prove their own particular belief system is the right one by completely ignoring anything that doesn't fit their opinion. I'm quite capable of carrying out my own research thank you very much.

That's the trouble with a lot of religious followers (and I'm not being personal here so don't't take it that way) having bought in to the idea of a religion and a way or authority that must be followed they learn not to question anything they are told is an authority no matter how ridiculous the assertion because that would show a lack of faith. In extreme cases they get so caught up in their faith reason goes out the window and they can be talked in to almost anything be it flying planes in to buildings or committing suicide so they can go up to a comet.

Reason is the enemy of religion although i can't remember where that quote came from.

Your equating the bad behaviour with all religious faiths which is simply not a rational approach whatsoever.


You're deliberately missing my main point.

posted by ted

I went to an interesting lecture and discussion on Thurs. evening where the guest speaker was a Muslim. He supported the contention of Karen Armstrong, in her book "The Great Transformation", that all the great faiths including Islam began with the pursuit of justice and compassion.


I disagree with that. Basically I think it a load of cobblers.

posted by me

No they didn't they began as an attempt to find the meaning of life. Justice and compassion are part of human nature necessary for survival and don't stem from religion.


and further

By their very nature monotheistic religions are inimical to developing ideas of individual freedom and democracy because the freedom to question religious belief and therefore eventually the authority of the church is something that a monotheist religion can't tolerate. That very human desire to stand up and say that's a load of cobblers and I don't believe or trust you- as soon as that happens the justice and compassion goes out the window so far as religion is concerned. In more extreme cases violence and terror become the methods of choice rather the love and understanding.


Bad behaviour is not confined to religious faith but that wasn't the main point. on the other hand.

posted by me

too often religious followers pray to a god of compassion and love for victory in battle against the infidel.


Or forget the compassion bit and go in for attacking those whose lifestyles are not "right". They do do it rather often don't they? Although whether being oppressed by someone that believes he's doing it for your own good is better than someone doing just because they can is rather a moot point.

Religious faiths don't have a monopoly on justice and compassion nor can they claim all the credit. Justice and compassion have been part of humanity society since the very beginning. Religion started when someone started wondering what is the meaning of it all and a would be priest said I have an answer it's in the chicken entrails we just had for lunch and one of his followers clubbed anyone who laughed.

posted by ted

I tried having a go on a "Christian" forum. It simply was not worth the aggravation. Still the only folks to call names and use put downs. Nothing has changed in 40+ years. It confirmed my stand on the right wing.

Shalom

Ted


Good to know you can still have passionate discussions about faith without the hatred creeping in. You might have to keep away form religious forums to get it though.

I may not agree with you but at least I won't call you names and put you down-at least not intentionally although sometimes I find on this forum some take a disagreement as being an attempt to put them down.

The one that really gets me is the argument put by some that religion should not be criticised in any way or the beliefs challenged just because it shows a lack of respect. the age old argument of those that want to be in authority and don't want that authority questioned.

RedGlitter;691680 wrote: With the continuing "What's good/bad about Christianity" threads going on, I am curious as to how many of us are not Christian? Whether we are of a different faith or of no faith at all.

I am a pagan spiritualist when I am pressed for a term. Otherwise I just go on my merry way doing my own thing without labels.

Anyone?


My religion is Woman.

Why?

Because it is not enough just to love Woman. She must also be adored.

gmc:-6

You are wrong about Karen Armstrong. I also listed others that say the same thing.

I might add that I think the religion you oppose is exactly the same one I oppose; the God you do not believe in neither do I.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;708492 wrote: gmc:-6

You are wrong about Karen Armstrong. I also listed others that say the same thing.

I might add that I think the religion you oppose is exactly the same one I oppose; the God you do not believe in neither do I.

Shalom

Ted:-6


I would agree with GMC that appeal to a higher authority only works when you can establish the validity of that authority.

As neither of us have the in depth background to the subject, could you provide references?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Kar ... gle+Search

Karen Armstrong - Google Search

Can't do any better than that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I don't usually list any author or expert unless I read something about them as well as something by them. In this case the book was recommended by Dr. L. St. Clair and as a follow up I've read two of her books.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;708504 wrote: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Kar ... gle+Search

Karen Armstrong - Google Search

Can't do any better than that.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Well, a leadin such as :-

"Historian and former nun Karen Armstrong says the afterlife is a "red herring," hating religion is a pathology and that many Westerners cling to infantile ideas of God."



is somewhat worrying and :-

"While she despaired over never managing to feel the presence of God, Armstrong also bristled at the restrictive life imposed by the convent, which she described in her first book, "Through the Narrow Gate." When she left in 1969, she had never heard of the Beatles or the Vietnam War, and she'd lost her faith in God."



doesn't inspire confidence, I've only one real question. From the quote "Her work displays a wide-ranging knowledge of religious traditions -- from the monotheistic religions to Buddhism.", why is the opposite end of the spectrum not Hinduism?

More seriously, reviews of her books, from publishing houses and others, is all well and good but it would be better to see peer reviews in "learned journals" such as the Journal of Ecumenical Studies or the Journal of Comparative Religion.

In hard science that is the type of reference I would expect to see.

It seems to me the list offered is quite broad.

Reading little bits out of context hardly amounts to an attempt to understand any author.

As I've said before there are all kinds of peer reviews. I've named some of them. I'm sure with some effort you could find many others including on the jacket of the book.

As for science; ah the worship of science. This has been spoken of by molecular biophysiologist and chemist; Francis Collins head of the genome project and leading scientist as well as professor and scientist Ursula Franklin and scientist Paul Davies in their writings. As scientists they recognize the limitations of science. Most historians also recognize the limitations of the historical method.

At this point with the list I provided I think the request for a peer review is rather premature.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/ ... index.html

Going beyond God | Salon Books

This interview is certainly worth reading and thinking about. In fact you may find her book an excellent read as it is very well researched and thought out. Your comment on her loss of faith is another example of things taken out of context. That was not and is not her final stand. So that is another comment which is premature.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;708509 wrote: It seems to me the list offered is quite broad.

Reading little bits out of context hardly amounts to an attempt to understand any author.

As I've said before there are all kinds of peer reviews. I've named some of them. I'm sure with some effort you could find many others including on the jacket of the book.

As for science; ah the worship of science. This has been spoken of by molecular biophysiologist and chemist; Francis Collins head of the genome project and leading scientist as well as professor and scientist Ursula Franklin and scientist Paul Davies in their writings. As scientists they recognize the limitations of science. Most historians also recognize the limitations of the historical method.

At this point with the list I provided I think the request for a peer review is rather premature.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/ ... index.html

Going beyond God | Salon Books

This interview is certainly worth reading and thinking about. In fact you may find her book an excellent read as it is very well researched and thought out.

Shalom

Ted:-6


The quotes I provided from the Google were trite and meant to be humourous.

The point about provenance was serious, however. If you are to appeal to a higher authority you need to provide references suitable to the level of authority you are claiming. Any author has Google hits extolling the virtues of their book - you need a good peer review to judge validity.

The question about Buddhism / Hinduism was also serious. I'd be interested why they see Buddhism as the opposite to monotheism rather than Hinduism. As I say, I'm no expert in the subject but I am interested.

Bryn:-6

I think you are stretching it a bit. You have not had time to look through many of those sites.

Your point is well taken about anyone can write something without knowing anything about it. Richard Dawkins fell into this trap in the "God Delusion". He writes pure nonsense about things that he has no clue. It is too bad he hadn't done his research. He is as dogmatic as the Christian fundamentalist.

It seems to me that with some 20 books to her name and good reviews from many sources that ought to suffice. One does not write a peer review in history as one does in science. Other historians can comment on it but it cannot be done in the same way a scientific peer review is accomplished. There is no experimental design problem. There is no problem of a control. The statistics cannot be fudged since they are available to all even before the writing.

When I reviewed several of the sites under her name she has the support of many professional academic scholars. The request for a peer review is a red herring. Would you read such a peer review?

Shalom

Ted:-6

In dealing with religio/historical details the scientific method is simply beyond its purpose and depth. It is simply not up to the task. This comment is based on the work of F. Collins head of the genome project and others.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;708511 wrote: Bryn:-6

I think you are stretching it a bit. You have not had time to look through many of those sites.

Your point is well taken about anyone can write something without knowing anything about it. Richard Dawkins fell into this trap in the "God Delusion". He writes pure nonsense about things that he has no clue. It is too bad he hadn't done his research. He is as dogmatic as the Christian fundamentalist.

It seems to me that with some 20 books to her name and good reviews from many sources that ought to suffice./b] One does not write a peer review in history as one does in science. Other historians can comment on it but it cannot be done in the same way a scientific peer review is accomplished. There is no experimental design problem. There is no problem of a control. The statistics cannot be fudged since they are available to all even before the writing.

When I reviewed several of the sites under her name she has the support of many professional academic scholars. The request for a peer review is a red herring.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Carl Sagan? With nineteen books to his credit and numerous glowing credits it ought to suffice but I wouldn't give his ideas room on my bookshelf.

Whilst I accept the difference between scientific articles and theological discourses I would still expect good peer reviews in respected Journals. Experts will always want to pick holes in their co-workers efforts. Can you provide examples of professional academic scholars giving support to her views is a recognised publication?

Bryn:-6

I've provided them. Look through the sites. Many are there.

Also, its nice to see some folks back here. It was getting a little lonely. LOL.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;708515 wrote: Bryn:-6

I've provided them. Look through the sites. Many are there.

Also, its nice to see some folks back here. It was getting a little lonely. LOL.

Shalom

Ted:-6


:wah: I'll believe you - too lazy to go through 2,310,000 references :-6

It's always a pleasure to read your posts - always thought provoking.

Bryn:-6

Thanks. Actually you've been making me look up a bit more. Actually to the end of pg. 4 is all you need.

Here is an impressive list of supporters of her work.

http://www.unaoc.org/aoc.php?page=4&member=49

Alliance of Civilizations :: High-level Group

Shalom

Ted:-6

gmc;692080 wrote:

Do I believe he [Jesus] is the son of god or indeed one and the same : No Which makes me a non Christian to many.

Do I believe in god : No. I'm an agnostic when it comes to that.

The thing I can never understand with Christians- as in those who profess to follow the teachings of Christ is why so many can ignore the bits about love one's neighbours etc. and latch on to the hate and spite in the old testament smug in their own little sanctimonious world.


There are many educated people today, gmc, who reject Christianity simply on aesthetical grounds. After all, a God who resorts to using the debacle of the Crucifixion in order to get His message of salvation across to humanity strikes one as being a God who is an unimaginative boor, a God who is utterly vulgar and lacking in good taste. I mean, surely a God worthy of the title could have come up with something better than that.

posted by bryn mawr

I would agree with GMC that appeal to a higher authority only works when you can establish the validity of that authority.

As neither of us have the in depth background to the subject, could you provide references?


Crikey don't encourage him or he'll get god as a higher authority and we can't argue with that. Well we can but it gets a bit pointless cos he won't give in.

posted by ted

Your point is well taken about anyone can write something without knowing anything about it. Richard Dawkins fell into this trap in the "God Delusion". He writes pure nonsense about things that he has no clue. It is too bad he hadn't done his research. He is as dogmatic as the Christian fundamentalist.

It seems to me that with some 20 books to her name and good reviews from many sources that ought to suffice. One does not write a peer review in history as one does in science. Other historians can comment on it but it cannot be done in the same way a scientific peer review is accomplished. There is no experimental design problem. There is no problem of a control. The statistics cannot be fudged since they are available to all even before the writing.

When I reviewed several of the sites under her name she has the support of many professional academic scholars. The request for a peer review is a red herring. Would you read such a peer review?


I'm sure with a little bit of digging i can find lots of good sources and many eminent professional academic scholars to back up Richard Dawkins. Does that make his argument any more valid?

Who cares? I don't need an "authority" to tell me what to think I can make up my own mind about Richard Dawkins just as I can about Karen Armstrong. She makes some good points-as does Richard Dawkins come to that- but I disagree that justice and compassion needs religion to be present in Human society and that the idea they began as the result of a desire for justice and compassion. Religion came about because of a desire to explain the world around them. Some may believe god has a purpose and want to argue about how to worship him and beat the crap,out of those who believe the same but worship in a different way (she's right there the first target is always the heretics of their own faith). she does make some good points but also some I disagree with. She needs religion and seeks to prove it essential to human decency I think it irrelevant and in many ways destructive to human tolerance and understanding. That islam, christianity et al sprang in to being because of a sudden enlightened need for justice and compassion is ludicrous.

Desert life is harsh so the god of the old testament is a fickle uncaring bastard because life was hard and nature could do you in for no apparent reason. The greek gods were there and you could pray to them but you had no certainty they would listen to you and sometimes it must have felt that the gods were playing with you-you build a city then an earthquake knocks it down-a fickle god having a joke or one who's wrath you have earned by not worshipping properly. If there is more than one god you can always switch allegiance but if you convince yourself there is only one then you cling to him through thick and thin because you have left no alternative for your self no matter what happens. Faith is something you need to help make sense of the world about you and help you make it through the tough times, some find it in religion others in politics-you get political fundamentalists as well as religious ones, try talking to a die hard revolutionary socialist. All the signs are there the excited gleam in the eyes and the ability to quote obscure bits of text from their favourite book and conveniently ignore any facts that get in the way of what they believe.

Religious believers convince themselves that atheism is another religion because they have to and they can't conceive of anyone not believing in something. Pointing out it can't be a religion traps them in a logic loop they can't get out of as they convince themselves non believers just need guidance and if that doesn't work then they become non people that can be destroyed or just ignored as irrelevant just so long as they can pass a law to make it an offence for anyone to shout rubbish when asked to express an pinion about religion.

Religious fundamentalism is nothing new, (what would you call torquemada or the good Christians that set fire to heretics to save their souls) sometimes political and economic events combine to bring it to the fore and it gains prominence and support and while it rules life is sheer misery for everybody else. religious belief has been used cynically by rulers since time immemorial. Not much changed then.

gmc:-6

First of all I've never condemned anyone because they have a faith or lack thereof.

It is rather interesting that you like Dawkins are so adamant about atheism. It really is an example of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism. Oh yes it is a faith and nothing more and nothing less. Collins, McGrath, Crossan, Borg, Fox.

As far as a spiritual faith goes even Neitzsche called for God near the end of his life. I wonder why that was?

As far as your comments on religion oir spirituality go you are most definitely entitled to your opinion.

Your comments on God as presented in the OT are in many ways quite accurate because that is how the ancients interpreted their experience of the Divine. Unfortunately like Dawkins who simply didn't know what he was talking about when it comes to a religio/spiritual faith it would seem that you are in the same boat. That is ok with me. Everyone is free to express their faith or belief. I will agree here that some Christians take the same approach. That is our understanding of fundamentalism. However, not all Christians are fundamentalists.

As far as Dawkins goes he is a good scientist when he sticks to his field. However, in "The God Delusion" he simply is wrong in many areas and much of what he says are creedal statements rather than science. It is nothing more than the rant of an angry man. That is, of course, his problem.

Actually religious fundamentalism is new. It was developed in the western world in the 19th Cent. Before that those who followed the Bible accepted its metaphorical/midrashic style.

It is very easy to lump all religious/spiritual folks together as some kind of pariah just as it is easy for the fundamentalist to lump all scientists together. Both approaches are simply erroneous.

BTW I don't see anywhere in this post where I've called upon a higher authority such as God. There is and was simply no need to do such.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Dawkins's failure to distinguish between "belief in God" and "religion" makes it difficult for him to understand one of the most important themes of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels--the critique of religion. One of the great themes of the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew scriptures (not touched upon, by the way in Dawkins's excoriation of the Bible) is that Israel's religion has become corrupted and detached from faithful obedience to a God who loves justice, mercy and personal integrity. The natue of God constitutes a standpoint outside religion from which religious practice may be judged. Pg 88 "The Dawkins Delusion?", McGrath and McGrath.

Shalom

Ted:-6