Why is 'religion' such a dirty word ?
Why is 'faith' an offensive term ?
Say you believe in 'GOD',
And folks act like you have this 'GERM':
Some bacterial disease or deadly virus
That might contaminate them all :
And makes our company so Undesirous !!!!
They don't want to be around some "FOOL"
Who believes divine creation
Could still be a viable concept
In THIS day, and age, and nation !
"Why, no 'rational' human being could believe
That God exists !!"
(Except, the god of 'rational science'
On whom THEIR faith is fixed.)
Why is it that 'belief in God'
Seems proof that a person's a FOOL,
Bred at the shallow end
Of the human genome pool ????
Say you 'believe in GOD',
And folks act like you're a 'threat' :
One that should be eliminated without regard/regret.
Is 'THE ELIMINATION OF FAITH IN GOD'
Some New Form of ETHNIC CLEANSING ??????
"Get rid of those sick believers ,
And see through clearer lensing !!!! "
"KILL em all !! or at least erect
Some kind of social fencing !!!! "
Or, somehow, can the faithful and the faithless
Reach this place of grace :
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE EYE-TO-EYE
TO LIVE LIFE FACE-TO-FACE .
Just agree to disagree, while we're all here in one place.
I'll believe in God, and you believe what suits your taste.
We don't have to see eye-to-eye,To live life face-to-face .
Respectfully .... Lonnie Ray Fowler //////////////////////
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
Everyone has a system of belief that can be classified as a "religion." It's just that we only place the "religion" label on systems that include a supreme being. Humanism and naturalism are nothing more than religions lacking a supreme being. It takes faith to believe in them just the same.
seem to speak in the same tone of voice : hateful and condescending.//
Bitterness and judgment work both ways. That's what I'm trying to fight against when I say WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE EYE-TO-EYE, to live face-to-face. Agree to disagree, and share the planet . Even when 'the planet' is Gather./// Respectfully, Lonnie
And if I didn't express it here or you didn't read where I wrote it before : I consider atheism as a religious preference/faith choice: the religious preference to believe there is no God. Faith in God, or faith that there is no God, as you allude to above, is still a conscious faith choice. In fact i plan to be writing an article entitled ATHEISM AND FAITH-ISM. respectfully, Lonnie
I had to use religion in a broad sense here. But certainly-- religion as too many have practiced it
has not done justice to a great God. And again, that fault falls on the shoulders of the practicioners and their manner of doing so.
This is what I and others of my ilk ( there seems to be one or two ) are trying to do--- extricate God from all the damage religion has done to HIM in the sight of man ( by man.)
To quote a hillbilly-speaking bear (toy) from a couple yrs back:
Am I making any sense here????
You certainly are making sense. I would like it if your point of view were widely adopted.
Lee,
I can't agree that a lack of faith causes terrible actions. I agree that it does not prevent terrible actions. Those who claim no belief certainly can and do find other justifications for terrible actions.
I don't go so far as to say that everyone has a religion. In my own case (I have no idea whether there is a God or not and have no certainty at all as to my ethical system which is based purely on assumptions) I don't feel that I have any religion. I have a "crusade" as you may have noticed, but no religion. I have no faith at all.
Terrible actions are the result of wrong thinking and/or faith in the wrong object whether it is labeled "religion" or not.
An honest study of Hitler reveals he was greatly influenced by the naturalistic hypothesis of human evolution. He believed the Germans were the superior race. The extermination of the Jewish race became a logical and rational method for "progress". Hitler had faith in naturalism as the "correct" world view or I could say "correct religion".
I think the problem that comes in to play is that when we say my religion
is right and yours is wrong.
I believe we all come from the same God, the God of love.
In studying and comparing the 3 Abrahamic God-Believing World religions, and in trying to choose which one was 'right' ( so to speak), when all 3 claimed to be 'right'--but were all different :
I saw then and there " how can all 3, which treat God in different lights, all be 'right' and which one would be the 'right' one.
I am not particularly 'religious' anymore--but I had to use the term in a broad sense here. My problem comes in with the still-churched who might look at me and ask: how can you say you believe in God but 'not' be religious.
I guess because then I would have to say : okay---then who does God love the most : Christians, Jews, or Muslims???? I know The Bible calls the Jews God's chosen, and I know even salvation was for The Jews first, etc.//// But I leave God looks at the heart of man.
I had to use religion here in a broad sense--but : I don't rely on religion for my belief in God.
In fact I don't go to church anymore./// But in refernce to your comment: I do believe strongly in God--- without the limitation/restraints/dogmas etc of any religion.
But I wouldn't see why my belief in and relationship with God ( above and beyond any and all religion) should necessarily define me as weak or cowardly.
I'm just all for trying to get 'both sides' so to speak, or perhaps all sides--to quit labelling, defining each other . It's not a soccer match. It's life.
We don't have to see eye to eye to live face to face.
Respectfully, Lonnie.//// ( as an example--- I write and communicate respectfully with atheists, and in that realm I don't label atheists as immoral or evil or any such labelling system just because they don't believe in God . I certainly don't label an atheist as a fool because he/she doesn't believe./// And I am only assuming here that your comment 'religion is for the weak and cowardly ' would also translate to 'God is for the weak and cowardly . If you do mean that, wouldn't that be as inflammatory as if I were to say that atheists can't possibly be moral, loving, good people. .????? ( Which I don't.)// Respectfully, Lonnie
You have to move out of the creation myths and the fantasy and allegory of the Bible and accept the learned decisions of Science.
How is it possible to keep a person's belief system "private". How we view the world affects every area of our life. Your belief in channeling influences your views on your moral, political, and economic positions. This is very evident in your comments and articles. There is nothing wrong in expressing your views, its just that it is not logical to say others should keep their belief system private.
shouldn't that also work the other way as well ? If religion/faith ( and you know, I don't rely on religion per se ) should be kept private, the opposite should be kept private.
Likewise, if science/disbelief can be vocal and out-front-- shouldn't religion/faith be as vocal and out-front.
I'm just saying equal rights/exposure/expression, etcetera.
And I just wish we could all be respectful with each other doing so.// Thanks for joining in. You're a welcome voice in my threads anytime. respectfully, Lonnie
Dunno Lonnie..... religion/faith is the substance hoped for
Science is proven fact once a hypothesis can be verified
Biblical creation is faith - Big Bang is hypothesis unverified
Once faith goes public, the audience is required to use more faith to agree
Once science goes public, the audience has facts to rely upon in order to agree.
Likewise, don't think that all God-believers totally discount science.
Indeed, I like to look at God as perhaps the first and best scientist of all.
To believe that God created the world, I don't ( and believe me, I don't) have to believe he did so within the time constraints or ways the book of Genesis reports.
To believe God created man , I don't have to believe he used 'incest' as a way to populate the world ( which is a biggie with me. )
This is exactly why I promote UNTANGLING GOD ( my expression) from all that people have tangled Him up with and in. And TAKING GOD OUT OF THE BOX (or boxes) ( again, my expression) people and religions have built to contain Him in.// This is also why I say : DON'T JUDGE GOD BY THE COMPANY WHO KEEPS HIM.
Respectfully, Lonnie
Copywrite that now Lonnie. It would look great on posters, bupmer stickers and on T shirts.
Most people are comfortable believing in things that are proven, but to believe in something that has not yet happened or proven, is to them crazy. These are the same people who 'believe' that science will save them.
"Show me the money" In earthly terms what we need now is a miracle, something that is so unbelievable that even the unbelievers will believe.
We "religious" folks often are poor advertising for what we believe. Years ago I heard a saying that describes the problem,
"What you are speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say"
When others can't see God's love in our words and actions, they get the wrong message.
As you can guess from our earlier conversations, I agree wholeheartedly with your last stanza. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE EYE-TO-EYE / TO LIVE LIFE FACE-TO-FACE . That is the essence of what I personally believe, right there. Beautifully put.
I do take issue with your fourth stanza, however, and I think that examining it will give you part of the reason that the intolerance keeps mounting. Yes, there are obnoxious atheists around, and some of them are influential. But comparing their words to ETHNIC CLEANSING? (Your caps, not mine) That kind of excessive accusation does not serve to make the discussions more civil.
The fact is, historically atheists have killed far fewer religious people than religious people have killed other religious people. And the civil values that make it possible for Hitchens and Dawkins to publish their smug and rather obnoxious books have provided religious people of all stripes perhaps the greatest freedom to practice free of interference that the world has ever known.
So my advice is this: if you want to engage in serious dialog with non-believers, you would do well to tone down your own rhetoric a notch... or more.
(Just my views, but hey, you asked for 'em, lol.)
I stand gratefully corrected by both your comments. Live and learn, love and learn---WRITE and learn.
If I have added to the problem I seek to remedy, per my own tone or rhetoric--I've shot myself and my cause in the foot.
I get impassioned, and perhaps in that passion, overspeak ( so to speak.)///
I do react to what I consider often venomous comment from the more vindictive non-believing community --- but if that poisons my own tone and phrasing--then what have I accomplished.
Thank you both for your friendly reminders.
Even at 58, I have much to learn, and much room to improve.
I appreciate you both--a well as all who have engaged in this thread.
Respectfully, Lonnie Ray Fowler
You make us all think about what we believe, and you start discussions that teach us a great deal. Thank you.
Possibly because it's such an ambiguous word.
It can mean:
1. a worldview or philosophy put into practice
. . . a. an effort to relate to God or a god
2. a creed claiming to know the existence, relevant attributes, and behavioral requirements of a God to whom mankind is accountable
. . . a. any of the thousands of institutions that profess such a creed
3. a dogmatic mindset arising from claiming to know what you don't know about supernatural reality
I like your poem and what I think that you are saying with it ... I will withhold further comment though for now.