thormas

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm fine with Dawkins and take your point but don't need to compare his rhetoric to some Christian bigotry to make (or get) the point. And, let's remember it is some Christians. And we have already been to the Bible and one can debate its 'bigotry.' Tolerance did probably lean toward religion but I no longer see it as incomparable to other beliefs.

I have read Dawkins and Sam Harris and never thought the former intolerant, just having strong opinions but if Jack's quote is correct and Dawkins did say, "Mock them. Ridicule them. In public..." that certainly seems to have gone to the intolerant side (i'm okay with the remainder of the quoted sentence but mock and ridicule 'them' is different than disagreeing with their views). I'm more than fine with someone disagreeing with religious claims or my positions, as long as they too can stand the heat. Jack, you are now losing me a bit. Everyone os bigoted or intolerant in a few ways? Regardless of that, I disagree with your notion of justice, but I admit I'm not sure you are speaking of societal justice or the justice associated with God. But, regarding this site, I am not about 'punishing.' I disagreed with Paul, on a particular topic, thought his comparison was 'a bit much' (and not the best way to present his position) and could have been stated in a different way and was willing to continue for however long it was necessary. Paul made a decision to end it, apologized and it is over. I was not (nor did I care to) punish him, I was simply disagreeing in the strongest possible way that that I thought was acceptable for this site. Any talk of punishment is a bit too dramatic fro me. Furthermore, I disagreed with all the (continuing) intolerance talk: I do not believe Paul is intolerant of others. He and I have agreed in the past and he and I have disagreed in the past and eventually we move to another topic since neither will convince the other (I suspect) on certain issues.

I agree with Paul on the above. Enough of the bigotry talk.

I agree with Joseph that this is a belief. As a child, when I believed this (except for the parthenogenetic part) it wasn't consider irrational or delusional, and I don't remember any angst over (or against) its rationality - it was what we believed. I no longer believe it for the simple reason that given my 'view' of "God," there is no need for a miraculous intervention. In addition, my view is that Jesus was a man, in all ways - including a normal birth. I never remember any discussions on the virginal conception being asexual (parthenogenetic) nor have I ever read a serious biblical scholar or theologian (not even an unserious one) who interpreted this belief as an asexual birth. Has someone put their hands on a Christian document wherein it was revealed to be asexual?

Paul, no need, to delete anything and, for my part, I accept your intention, realization and gladly acknowledge your longtime contributions on the site.

Jack, well said.

What he said!

Amen!

And yet again, so............ continually! Now you have created a separate post , will the music video and the movie (straight to DVD) be out soon?

Yes, continually and you keep doing it. Just amazing. I thought I did know your view but this thread is obviously a sad turn. Rather than pause and realize the problem with your comparison (any comparison of psychopathic delusions to religious belief), you just keep coming back, trying to justify yourself and continue on and on and on. Don't use the term at all - it's actually quite simple to remedy this. I have reviewed what you said. Just stop, admit it is not the best choice of words and move on. And, in answer to your question, "you KNOW how I truly view religious beliefs/positions?" Yes and I quote you: "a delusional psychopath believes they know the truth and that they think they are right in what they understand, and tell me that this is in no way similar to many, most, if not all religious people." No, Paul, a delusional psychopath is someone who is ill, therefore there is no valid comparison to a healthy human being of any religious, spiritual or philosophical belief being compared to a human being who is sadly and tragically ill and has delusions. If you have a problem with religious belief, be smart enough and empathetic enough to find another way to state your position. So is there harm? Of course, you continually compare the beliefs of "many, most, if not all religious people" to a psychopath's delusions. Is there offense, probably for some. For me, no offense, just can't let such statements go unanswered. Your previous statement on what you do or don't believe have never 'upset' me - however this is an entirely different kind of statement. And, not upset but to say nothing about your comparison is to accept that it has validity; it doesn't! Uh, oh you just rolled out another old chestnut: look what harm religious people have done. This is like Trump saying 'look over here" while he sows chaos right in front of people. Actually, I have not set parameters, merely compared yours to typical arguments against religious beliefs. I have pointed out how God is believed to not be a thing and, therefore, there is no evidence or verification possible, for or against. The belief is that God is the very possibility or (once again) the ground of all (things, being, reality) and is indeed Real. Seeing you don't like the use of the word reality if there is no verification, I have used the terms Really Real and Being (both of which have a long history). If you have a better term, feel free to suggest it and I will give it thought and respond. I have already made my suggestions. So, little buddy, I have never left the real discussion, have made suggestions and merely paused to comment on your little comparison. In all cases I have been talking to the person who made the points: some of those points I simply had a different view on and offered explanations and new terms; others, I recognized as offensive and said so (hoping against hope that you would at least change your statement to something that was simply less derogatory). The only issue or problem with any of your statements is the delusion/religion one - on all else I will debate (agreeing or disagreeing) until the proverbial cows come home. And we did: we had a nice give and take, we simply disagreed. There was the only one statement wrong or unworthy of being raised; a statement that some others cannot give free rein to and let it stand. On this one issue if you need convincing from outside yourself, as you said, "Wow!"

No misunderstanding: by the mere fact that you continually compare, in any way, religious belief to the delusions of a psychopath, all know where you stand and how you truly view their religious beliefs/positions. And, you are doing it again. You actually could have found a different way to state your belief about religious belief but, instead, you continually doubled and tripled down on delusional psychopaths. Actually, I don't think my beliefs are beyond question either from others or myself. Nor do I consider all the particulars of my beliefs to be (absolutely) true or real as it is an ongoing quest to understand. There are many aspects of Christianity on which I hold no set, unquestioning, belief because I have not had the time to carefully and thoughfully explore and examine them. I have no problem questioning my beliefs and have for decades: that's why I went to grad school, that's why I continually read and go to lectures and write. My views are radically different than they were years ago. But regardless, you, surprisingly and disappointingly, don't realize the gravity of your words: to say "as long as a belief causes no harm" and then state your belief by equating, in any way, a religious believer to a psychologically impaired person (some of whom need to be hospitalized and separated from society) and not see the harm is simply staggering. I realize that anyone, in the heat of an argument, might say 'someone is (for example) crazy' but, when you have time to consider your words and their impact in an ongoing dialogue and you go there anyway? Really? Almost as amazing, not content to leave it at delusional psychopath, you once again attempt to set your parameters around belief to which it must adhere to be considered worthy. Intention (no harm) is one thing, the result is completely other. Actually, I'm not offended. This is the flip side of debating some people who won't listen, constantly state you are wrong, that your opinions/beliefs are worthless and, to top it off, you will go to hell. Hell is simply replaced here by delusional psychopath: in one case your spiritual health is questioned, in the other, it's your mental health. No harm. So, no offense, just can't let statements like these, on either side, have free rein - otherwise the proponents might actually think they're right. So, the last word - unless it comes up again.

Precisely

Well. I was going to respond in some detail but......... we have been over this: you miss my point (even when the logic is exquisite), and it seems absurd to go line by line and end up in the same place. You lost most people and probably all religious and spiritual people of all beliefs when you doubled down on religious belief being comparable to the delusions of a psychopath. Hey, but at least you're open. Is the psychopathic delusion comment the secular equivalent of the (some) fundamentalist views about non believers (they they must be deluded if they don't accept the Lord)? Well, at least you didn't cause any harm or insult anyone in the entirety of the religious world, thank god:+} I use the term, progressive, broadly and having been on this site and interacting with people on this and other progressive sites, it is apparent that, in addition to atheists and agnostics and those of other faith expressions, many, many, many are Christians or as Spong puts it, 'Alums.' I have found most of the 'progressive Christians,' including the Alums and even many who are skeptics, have moved from the concept of a theistic, external, intervening God - a god who is sort of........... thing-like to a Spong like view of God as 'ground of Being' which I too have used. So, I am on solid progressive Christian (so to speak) ground. However, many of the views that I bring to the site have been around since the 70s, before that to the 2nd Vatican Council and before that as well (and this thinking is indeed 'progressive'). So not all progressives but probably many, many, many of the Christians who are progressive are probably in agreement or lean to Spong, Tillich, Echhart and others, as do I in my statements. Of course on a site such as this, my statements are open to all but, specifically, I speak not simply as a progressive but as a progressive Christian. It is only fair to respond that you are making broad assumptions about progressives Christians, reality, God and, your favorite topic, verification that such may consider inappropriate. .

I guess some religions still 'suggest' that people look to them and not science. I believe you're right about that science can't disprove and that some Christians take too literally the descriptions of God: the 'characteristics.' I get that some come to belief through reason but others seem to have a sense or belief in God (perhaps in large part they are born into it) and then (depending on how they 'picture' God) find that their belief is reasonable or simply that it is not at odds or the opposite of reason.

You still miss the point: although emotions and feelings are different than books, desks and other things - they are still things in that they can be, as you say validated; they are objects that we can look at, examine and categorize. Not so God. God is not like a desk, book, person or the feelings and emotions of a person; God is the very possibility of all those things. God doesn't have being like these things, God does not participate in being like these things - God is the very possibility that these things have (their) being. Even your use of 'the same basket' shows you don't get this. It is not that God sits in the same basket (with anything, including feelings): to use your image, God is the basket without which noting would be in it. I feel no validation as there is no validation for the 'Really Real' or 'Being.'

Paul, You miss or ignore what I have said: that "God" is not 'some thing.' If we're not dealing with a thing, then "the standard, common use of the term 'reality'" and your demand for verification pertaining to things is off point. The (Christian) position is that God is Real, to say then that God is not Real doesn't work. To say that God is Really Real is also met with demands for proof. Therefore to state that God is Real is to reject that God is fiction; it is to reject (as you have said) that religious belief (in God) is comparable to the delusions of a psychopath. Therefore, the religious person states that "God is Real." I have no problem debating but your insistence on the verification of things completely misses what the term "God" means for Progressives. The only thing that has to be said about pink unicorns, is, they would be things or objects in the world, and therefore subject to verification. If not verified, if we cannot find them on a unicorn hunt, if science doesn't posit the existence of these magical creature, yet someone out there insists a pink unicorn is real, then they would (probably) be considered delusional (not really sure because that is not my field). The pink unicorn (a thing) is not at a valid example in reference to God who is not-a-thing. Real and reality, as commonly used, speak of 'things.' If we are looking for a new term, the phrase Really Real (used above and previously) has been used in philosophy/theology. In addition, the term being has been used which harkens back to the story of Moses: God is "I AM." However even this term does not mean that god is thought of a 'a being' or 'having being' - rather it is a statement that God/Being is Ground/Source of all. The position remains that God IS.......... Real - the ground/possibility of all things, all that is, all reality.

I have no problem with acknowledging that atheists, agnostics, fundamentalists, and others disagree with my position on God while affirming that, in the end, what matters is how we act in the world. I have not had your experience building a community of radically different beliefs and can understand where the mythos (what they believe) takes precedence over the ethos (how one behaves). Perhaps if the former were put on the back burner such a community build around a common ethos would be more successful.

The understanding of god as a filler for what can't be explained in yours (and others who rail against a theistic god): not all Christians (or religious people), especially progressives, profess such a god. Actually, for progressive Christians, the notion of a god who merely fills in the blanks is absurd on its face. Concerning the Bible: I concentrated primarily on Eden, prophecies and victories in battle. A literal reading gets us creation about 4 thousand or so years ago, human beings walking around with god, men foretelling future events and god as the chess master in a battle of thrones. Whereas a non-literal reading presents a very different ‘reality.’ So, it is valid to ask whether these stories were meant as 'literal' histories of what actually happened, especially in light of the scholarly consensus that the authors were writing stories with religious truths, not history. Serious biblical scholars do not read these stories as literal, historical fact. Then we turn to stoning: certainly some people then as now believe they know what God wants, especially concerning sinners and of course they themselves are not sinners. It doesn't follow then (or now) that God wills or wants what they do (a’ la Jesus in similar situation). So, on this topic, some believed this what was God was about but then we recognize the evolution of religious thought even by the time of Jesus where God is not understood in this way. That some still go to such violent episodes and say, "See, God wants/wills it" interestingly ignores the steps made in Judaism itself and, for Christians, the step taken by their Christ in further understanding the true God. The battles: some (then and now) believed god wanted and willed their victories. However, the writing are theological interpretations of events in the history of the 'chosen people of God.' They ‘show’ that God favors them and things go well (at least for them) when they are faithful. Compare this to how they interpret the reason for their defeats or enslavement by conquerors. The writers were giving religious interpretations to events in their history. So the question remains: should 'we' read this as literal history and literally what a theistic, intervening god was doing, or should we read these 'stories' and try to see what the authors were saying, for example, about faithfulness to God and what it meant to be in covenant? In the time of Jesus, this God disappears or is reinterpreted and a 'new covenant' is struck. So, to answer your question, in a debate, I would side with Jesus (and win). We are no longer "at that time." Rather than creating God in my image, I am reflecting the insights of critical biblical scholars and theologians and attempting to 'see' what is there and how to understand it. Read Eden, who was there to witness the events as they have been told? Where is the mention that Adam left or passed on his memories of those days? Not literal. When are the stories of the prophets written and when did the prophets actually live. Not literal. Read the Jesus of Mark and the Jesus of John. Not literal: they are good news not histories. Some OT authors might, indeed, have believed differently that we living today – after all, they were theists who had a very different view of the universe and its workings - but their religious meanings are intact and shared by modern believers. If one doesn't read Eden as literal history, what does it reveal about the divine/human relationship? What role does the prophet (including Jesus) play in society (then and now)? They are gadflies, reminding their people of what the covenant means (and actually it's not about stoning). What does winning and losing in battle, in life, say about relationship with God? Faithfulness brings life; unfaithfulness results in death (just don’t understand such death literally. The ‘truth’ remains: it is not wrong and it is not merely a convenient alignment with societal norms. It is not 'in our image' because sincere persons of faith are always looking over their shoulders to make sure they are 'in tune' with the prophets, the authors, and, especially Jesus. It is always anchored in the Testaments but never weighed down by them for the effort is always to (re) present the good news, the Reality that is God. _________ What I see in these discussions is that Christianity no longer speaks to you - which is fine. You look back, see certain writings and actions and see the nasty God that was written about and imitated down through the ages. I, and others, look back and seek to understand and lift from the words and actions of an earlier time, the insights and wisdom (the divine/human relationship; the need for the gadfly to upset our complacency; the power of forgiveness and love; etc.) that can still speak (still be good news) to men and women if only it can be presented to them in a way that respects their current language, their understanding of themselves and their understanding of the universe - all which makes each generation, of the same human family, unique. Moving on: you said, “.......a tyrant may find his way of life far more suitable and enjoyable than one of their subjects who pronounces love is better.” However, it is not just about the tyrant: we must look to those who are touched by the tyrant’s tyranny. Are their lives more suitable and enjoyable? Human history says no. Love enhances the life of the lover (who gives himself away) and the life of the beloved; love gives life, tyranny not so much! The tyrant commits the age-old sin of Adam by continually choosing self over Love at the expense of the many. You also said, “For me, the delusional psychopath's reality is just as valid as the God believers reality, in that neither can be regarded as reality but can be regarded as opinion. I couldn't care less what others believe ….. But they are not free to claim the title reality just because they feel it is real.” You say you don't care what others believe but you then create conditions for their belief. Whereas, I give free rein for your beliefs but remain free to say, "I disagree." Therein, lies the difference! You have simply gone to the old stand by against religious belief: there must be proof, there must be verification, there must be evidence, or it's not real. Yet there is never any proof, any evidence offered against such belief to prove it is not real or doesn't reflect Truth. Your ‘openness’ is revealed, for what it is, in your comparison of religious belief to the delusions of a psychopath. Delusion is radically different from the philosopher or the theologian or the religious person who says “there is a ‘ground’ for all that is and of which all is; there is a way to be; and, there is a reason to be. ‘It Is’ is ‘Mystery’ that is given the name God, through the ages of man: God is the Reality within which all finds reality.” You said, “That long dead relative doesn't affect you because of their 'presence' but rather they affect you because of how you remember or think of their actions, their words, their body language, their demeanor, etc.” Actually they do but not in the way you suggest and it is not simply memory. If one had a great relationship with somebody, for example Mother, Father, Grandparent, Uncle or friend - it is not merely a memory of how they walked or talked (actually my Father's and my Grandmother's voices no longer exist in my memory nor does a particular word that my Mother spoke or my Uncle's body language); it is the 'person' (not the mere memory of a look, a word or demeanor) that has 'presence' in one's life - and is a greater presence than things which are proximate or near in space and time to that person. The dead Father or friend is (present tense) a greater influence on who I am, how I live - than much of what is physically close, i.e. present to me. Such 'presence' is not mere interpretation (as if one sits over a cup of coffee and interprets what their Mother means to them - how artificial is that?). Such 'presence,' actually, truly, and really influences who one is. It is a 'reality' that is non verifiable (especially for others who never knew your Father, Mother, Friend or Uncle) - but this reality, this truth is evident; it's reality is lived. 'Reality,' what is real (and true) is not merely what is evident to others or objectively verifiable.

Agreed: there is non verifiable reality; there is the reality of things we don't know or can't (yet) verify. However, I have not been talking about things, some of which are not verifiable, but the very possibility of all things, that which many call "God." Simply because one 'believes' there is something 'more' to reality or there is the 'ground' of reality, it does not follow that if is not, could not be Real or True. It simply is beyond verification either way. I am not talking about things like the poo of pink unicorns, which one cannot verify as existing in the world and which others would rightly call delusional. The alleged pink unicorn is a thing or at least imagined to be a thing and things can bet verified (seemingly sooner or later). The ground of reality is not a thing. You are repackaging the old canard that if you can't prove, demonstrate, verify or provide evidence for God, then God does not exist. I get that you don't believe, which is fine but in spite of your protestations that you accept all (as long as no harm is done), you still attempt to set the parameters within which such belief much take place and the rules of evidence to which belief must submit. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of belief and what the word "God" means for many, most especially progressive Christians. I have never spent much, or actually any time, contemplating pink unicorns (or should that be singular) so I have never thought I was missing out on the experience but if you ever verify a pink unicorn, let me know cause I want a selfie but I'll leave the rainbow poo selfie for you :+}

Jack said: It's almost impossible nowadays to convince anyone of anything based on fact-based arguments because everyone thinks they're the best expert on any topic and there is a false sense of equality when it comes to expertise. For two popular examples, an average Joe can't understand all the nuances of climate science or safety of average vaccination, yet lots of average Joe's have decided that they know better than climate scientists and doctors do. This overblown subjectivism is basically undoing the era of enlightenment in the West. One of those average Joes is an average Donald!

Paul, I wrote a response but found it too long and have decided to rework it - so ..........

I think Jack is on to something with his idea of non verifiable reality. After all, we already have touched on realities (big bang, black hole, evolution, etc,) that are real but were (are) not verified for much of the life of humanity. Thus, these and other non verified things exist; they are indeed real - whether verified or not. So too, one can say God Is: God is non verifiable yet it doesn't follow that God is not or that God is not Real. Facts may have to be verifiable (well, then again there is the matter of black holes) but it doesn't follow that all that is real is subject to verification (again, black holes). It is evident that not all Truth is verifiable, not all reality is verifiable. To reduce reality or existence to that which is verifiable is to miss most (since, seemingly we are only a very small part of everything) of what actually exists in the universe(s).

Well, on a commonsense level, we cn say certain things are not real (i.e. reality), after all some people are locked up if they are too delusional. However, philosophy/theology has spoke of the Really Real for ages: that there is a depth dimension to reality. This is not considered delusional and many consider it an understanding of the truth of reality. Agreed, to believe in something that does not exist is to believe in something that is not real, and given the understanding of St. Paul and the philosophy, it does seem to follow then that what is not real cannot participate in what is. Again, I have not read and have no real interest in remote viewing. Belief is not verifiable but I am saying that (I believe) that God is Reality (writ large). Therefore it is absurd for me to then say God is not real (i.e. reality). Thus I conclude that not all that is real is verifiable. Now this is hedging: be it black holes, the big bang, the expansion of the universe, etc. - there is much that was not, is not (yet) verifiable, yet it is still real and (always) exist; even though it could not be demonstrated, it was real. Now, I still don't put God in that category as if it will be discovered and verified in the distant future that God has existed from the beginning for the simple reason that God or Being is not an object in reality but the very possibility of reality (thus it is the really Real). You don't but others do and thus we have the nasty God. Actually, the biblical authors' view is not pretty clear as even the greatest biblical scholars debate whether, for example, the biblical writer literally believed in Adan & Eve or simply use it to say something about man, woman, mortality, evil and God. Many of the stories of both Testaments were written decades, if not hundreds of years later so they are obviously not history or biography as we moderns define it, they are faith stories. As an example, it is easy to put a prophecy into the mouth of a long dead prophet when you are living and writing after the 'prophesy' has been fulfilled. So, actually, if anything is clear, it leans to the reality that the stories were just that: stories whose truth is not found in a literal reading or else you get where too many people still are today. Even the the battles are religious interpretations: God was 'their' God, they were his people and thus he was with them, behind them, the reason for their victories. Still, I acknowledge that a literal reading has resulted in many problems and they continue to this day. I don't think anyone is running from anything (as I have acknowledged this folly previously and again, now) as I am simply saying that many Christians down through the ages have committed the same (reading) mistake and ended up creating god in their image, to justify their actions. Simply they blew it! It should be obvious that the gospels are 4 theological interpretations of the Jesus: not history, not biography but faith stories. I have read a lot of modern biographies and histories and sometimes there is a different emphasis or even disagreements but nothing compares to the Jesus of Mark vs, the Jesus of John: it doesn't even seen like the same guy! History? Biography? Hardly but good news, indeed! Just like with the big bang and the black holes, the reality is there just takes a while to get there and even then we have some who say the earth is 6k years old. The validity of love vs power would not simply be found in the life of the one who loves or holds power but in those who are impacted by these individuals. And you have already acknowledge this reality by adding the caveat, 'in their minds.' But the true test is if their lives have 'given life' to others. And history has given its resounding answer: power does not give or sustain the life of the world: wealthy. powerful slave owners, Kings & Queens, the industrial age giants and on and on. Take Steve Jobs, then look at his daughter. Then take a Gates who has made a contribution and then turned to 'charitable giving' and the difference he and his wife are making. Power is not an emotion and neither is love simply an emotion. Is emotion involved? Hopefully but love, compassionate concern for the other is a decision and has a power of its own - it is simply not the will to power for self but, rather, a will to empower others. But you know this. There is nothing magical but the spiritual or religious person acknowledges something 'more.' It might turn on one's understanding of reality (and I am still open to considering another word). Seemingly, for you, reality is only that which can be seen, as in verified. Others, myself included, think there is more to Reality than meets the eye or that can be verified. For me an analogy works: most people understand presence (present) as that which is proximate, the more proximate something is (like the clothes you wear or the chair you sit on) the greater the presence. But presence is more than mere proximity; it is about influence or impact on one. So the paradox is that a father, mother, friend or child - long dead and not 'here' (i.e. proximate or present) has greater presence in my life than the clothes I wear, the chair I sit on, the car I drive, etc. He who is not present (in the ordinary sense of the word) is more present (more impactful) in my life that that which is nearby. Actually, such an explanation goes to the proper understanding of 'real presence' in the Catholic understanding of Eucharist. So there is the definition of a term and then there is a depth understanding of that term.