That Boat Don't Float!!

[sandwiches]

Of course. You would have to be insane to accept religious anything without the kind of evidence that you need, in order to believe.

You seem very open-minded and I'm afraid this will be seen by some Christians (read: AV) as not being a True Christian™.

God will not punish anyone for unbelief; why would he? Those who believe do so because God gives them the Grace to believe. Grace is not an act of man, but of God; belief is the product of grace, not the agent of it. Therefore, if God does not give you this Grace, it makes no sense for him to punish you for what he has withheld. It makes as much sense as punishing us for being fallible, when this is how he chose to create us. What is that idea all about?

Moving into slightly deeper theological waters, it is not possible for me (or anyone else) to outdo God in morality. Therefore, if I see this as impossible, then it must be a thousand times more impossible for God. Any moral issue which is seen by even one person in 8 billion, must be a morality that is shared by God. It doesn't matter if ten million rabid Christians tell you that you are destined for hell. If one says you are not, then you are not. And if one says there is no such place as hell, because this is a fundamentally immoral concept, then there is indeed no such place as hell.

There is no such place as hell; no fire and brimstone, no lake of eternal torment. Hell is in this world.

You have nothing to worry about, therefore.

Wow. Very pleasantly surprised at your answer. This sort of reminds me of my grandmother's saying: "God, in his infinite wisdom, has a godless heaven just for good atheists." She was a very devout Roman Catholic.

 

[Catherineanne]

You seem very open-minded and I'm afraid this will be seen by some Christians (read: AV) as not being a True Christian™.

Coming from certain people, that is a true accolade, that I would genuinely treasure.

Wow. Very pleasantly surprised at your answer. This sort of reminds me of my grandmother's saying: "God, in his infinite wisdom, has a godless heaven just for good atheists." She was a very devout Roman Catholic.

Sensible lady. She is absolutely right. If God did not have such a heaven, he would have had to have created it when she said these words. God cannot be outdone in love by your grandmother, however loving she may have been.

And her prayers will ultimately lead you home.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

We just had a well-know evangelist at our church with whom it did happen -- and here's a link that even Gracchus won't touch: Rorschach Ink Blot Test.

"The Rorschach and other personality tests of poor validity have been used far too long. They have been used far too long by psychiatrist and psychologists who claim to be Christian. And, they have been used far to long to evaluate Christians seeking to serve the Lord. Yet, it will be even longer before they are abandoned. As long as horoscopes remain in vogue, the Rorschach and other personality tests will also retain their mystique."

 

[AV1611VET]

... a godless heaven just for good atheists.

Is that what they call Fool's Paradise?

 

[sandwiches]

"The Rorschach and other personality tests of poor validity have been used far too long. They have been used far too long by psychiatrist and psychologists who claim to be Christian. And, they have been used far to long to evaluate Christians seeking to serve the Lord. Yet, it will be even longer before they are abandoned. As long as horoscopes remain in vogue, the Rorschach and other personality tests will also retain their mystique."

As strange as I feel admitting this but I have to say that I am sort of with AV on this. From my inexperienced viewpoint, I feel that psychology is a very murky and gray area. It deals with a lot of subjective topics and seems to rely a lot on the analyst's opinions and own subjective observations. For instance, how do you objectively measure a person's 'insanity?' How do you objectively determine a person's true reasons for acting a particular way? I can only guess that a lot of it is validated by whether treatment works or not.

 

[sandwiches]

Is that what they call Fool's Paradise?

Spoken like a True Christian™.

Edit: That reminds me. I've been meaning to ask you if you're associated with av1611.org/.com, in any way. Are you?

 

[Catherineanne]

Is that what they call Fool's Paradise?

No, AV. That is your destination.

 

[Catherineanne]

As strange as I feel admitting this but I have to say that I am sort of with AV on this. From my inexperienced viewpoint, I feel that psychology is a very murky and gray area. It deals with a lot of subjective topics and seems to rely a lot on the analyst's opinions and own subjective observations. For instance, how do you objectively measure a person's 'insanity?' How do you objectively determine a person's true reasons for acting a particular way? I can only guess that a lot of it is validated by whether treatment works or not.

I think this raises a huge number of questions. It is not quite as subjective a process as it might appear from the outside. And as for determining motivations; this is easy. You ask. Most people tell the truth most of the time, strangely enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Spoken like a True Christian™.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

Did she refer to it as "Fool's Paradise" or didn't she?

It's an interesting quote from here and I believe it to be an honest question.

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

A fool's paradise

 

[sandwiches]

I think this raises a huge number of questions. It is not quite as subjective a process as it might appear from the outside. And as for determining motivations; this is easy. You ask. Most people tell the truth most of the time, strangely enough.

I guess I need more education on the subject before I can form a good opinion on this.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

Did she refer to it as "Fool's Paradise" or didn't she?

It's an interesting quote from here and I believe it to be an honest question, Mr Quick-to-Judge.

Then, I apologize for my quick reaction but it honestly sounds like an insult. She meant that the god she envisioned was one of infinite compassion and love who would not exclude those who simply lack belief in him. That those who lived a life of goodness and compassion would be welcomed into a blissful eternity even if they didn't believe they would.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then, I apologize for my quick reaction but it honestly sounds like an insult.

Apology accepted --

I'm just familiar with the term, not its definition.

 

[Catherineanne]

She meant that the god she envisioned was one of infinite compassion and love who would not exclude those who simply lack belief in him. That those who lived a life of goodness and compassion would be welcomed into a blissful eternity even if they didn't believe they would.

This God is the one I know and love.

Quite frankly, if you are going to have a God, you might as well have a good one.

 

[Tomatoman]

This is a bit of a ramble about what I think religion should be like, inspired by reading Catherineanne's posts in this thread and noticing that she is an Anglican.

Hurrah for Catherineanne and the C of E. I can tell from the posts of some of the atheists here that they are suspicious but pleasantly surprised at how sensible she sounds. I could see them saying to themselves, as indeed I was saying to myself, “Surely she's going to say something loony in a minute? She believes in angels and that's pretty loony. She's clearly batting for the other side and just pretending not to be potty. Let's prod her about angels and see how mad she is.” But, at the risk of embarrassing her, I’d say her response was exceedingly rational, even when admitting that, yes, she does indeed believe in angels, but that’s her business, thank-you very much; and she doesn’t expect anyone else to believe in angels without evidence, because they would be silly.

Crikey. Having become used to the ravings of the fundamentalists on this part of the forum, this approach is refreshing. It strikes me as very Church of England: down to earth, undogmatic (anti-evangelical) and one’s personal business. That is the Christianity I recognise and am comfortable with. Even in my most belligerently atheistic moods I would still class myself as C of E, because, as a religion, it isn’t asking anything of you, but is there if and when you need it. As I'm not always belligerently atheistic, in spite of how contemptuous of religious belief I can sometimes sound in my posts, I find this aspect of it very useful. Like everyone else, I have my moments of wonder and awe at the mystery of it all: of being conscious, of the visceral experience of being me (the curious experience of being you is something that I'm sure every atheist has been puzzled by, even while they are rationalising it), or the usual things like love or beauty or music or having children etc that are slightly baffling but wonderful, but that's when I can happily draw on a bit of the C of E christianity that I’m familiar with, without ever feeling like a hypocrite. Is it like having your cake and eating it? Yes it is. What’s wrong with that?

There is an appealing philosophy behind it, too, which I respect, unlike the fundamentalist philosophy which I abhor. It is a philosophy principally of tolerance, without any of the nasty bilge that clogs up 99% of the creationist posts I read here. The over-riding philosophy of all fundamentalism is intolerance. It demands rather than offers help. It punishes rather than shares. It is like a vicious gang that runs a protection racket, and that’s why I loathe it.

So mine may not be quite the faith that Catherineanne has, but I bet she recognises me as one of a vast number of people who aren’t particularly religious but are nevertheless quite happy to class themselves as C of E. And that is how religion and faith should be in my book: unobtrusive, minding its own business, but there when you need it. Not rammed down your throat and screaming hell fire and eternal damnation at you. That’s not religion, that’s brainwashing through fear and cruelty. The fact that 99% of the time I have grave doubts as to God’s existence shouldn’t bother Him in the slightest. On the contrary He’d probably be amused. My God would be far more interested in how I’ve come to my conclusions than He would be in the conclusions themselves, so If there is a God I don’t see Him having the slightest concerns about me believing in evolution.

It actually reminds me of the attitude the of speaker in the Dover trial youtube video, which Moonlancer pasted in the Last Nail In the Coffin of Intelligent Design thread. The speaker is an author and expert in evolution and biology who spoke against ID at the Dover trial and mentions that he is a catholic. (I think he also answers a question about his Catholicism in the Q and A section at the end of the presentation.) This is not a problem for him at all. Evolution and his own version of Christianity are happily reconciled in his own head. How much more sensible is that than the rigid stupidity of creationists. I digress...

Right, ramble over. I’m not quite sure if I’ve said what I wanted to say, but there it is. Oh yes, and one last big up for the C of E.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh yes, and one last big up for the C of E.

Shall I look for you in the Church of England this Sunday then?

 

[Tomatoman]

Shall I look for you in the Church of England this Sunday then?

You don't get it, do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't get it, do you?

Ya -- I get it -- you're just blowing smoke, in my opinion.

 

[Tomatoman]

Ya -- I get it -- you're just blowing smoke, in my opinion.

There you are. You don't get it.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you are. You don't get it.

We'll see Sunday, won't we?

 

[Tomatoman]

We'll see Sunday, won't we?

Why would I have to go to church on Sunday?