Please do not mistake Politics for Religion

You are right, of course. Unfortunately people react before they think. And they do make the mistakes you refer to.

Perhaps you could publish this more widely to some of the groups on Gather so it could get more exposure? I think it's worth the discussion.

It is one think to react then think and another to react, think and react the same way time and again. If one reacts then think that is actually not so bad. The problem is when people react and do not think!

>Lynn G.: I was invited to join a couple of groups only :(

You hit the nail on the head...the most misery in this world has been caused by people who profess to speak "in God's name". God does not need anyone to speak in His name. He is quite capable of communicating with those who will listen.

Phil...you may say that "the most misery in this world has been caused by people who profess to speak 'in God's name'", but most of this world's goodness has equally been caused by those who profess to follow him. Education, hospitals, most charities, just to name a few, very broad, examples, were begun by Christians. I can give more if you would like...

Brandon...I concur. When there is no God in people's lives, there generally is no morality either.

You guys ever hear of a little adventure called the crusades? Well it was a barbaric war to convert the known world over to christianity....Guess what Islam is still fighting it.The ultimate goal as stated in the Koran is monotheism across the world... Islam tolerates and recognizes no other faiths....For chissakes the different sects of islam are killing each other....It's like the baptists, methosdists and Lutherans annihilating each........sitting around and reciting platitudes isn't going to make it true.....we are in a religious war and only one side is willing to admit it...Wake up!

>Bongo Mirror : I am struggling with this. I have some ideas and I hope to reconcile the two. Reconcile Faith and Logic, what you call "reason and evidence".

>Firoze H.: Or claim that God beheaded someone while they are in the process of hanging him, those *+&*!$*

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i13765

"Thou Shall Not Use The Name of the Lord in Vain" (BTW just to set the record straight, just because I can quote Bible, please do not jump to conclusions about my morality and religious affiliations)

>Brandon Ragle: Hitler?

>Hali L. : that bit about "morality"; I think that many atrocities are conducted in the name of obeying "commandments" as well.

Jesus asked: "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?"

Jesus said, "How much more value is a man than a sheep! Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

We might have to revise our idea of morality away from "rules" or "commandments"

>chris w.: well as long as those in the "war" do not have political power and do not openly proclaim "war" they will always be called terrorists and their impact limited. Horrendous no doubt, but limited. Certainly not in the scale like those commies in power, commanding armies.

>Brandon Ragle : Six millions Jews, not on religious grounds was it? BTW interesting that you say "Yap" and not "Andrew".

limited unless it's your son or mother riding tower 1000 feet down into the ground....it's only a matter of time before one of psychopaths gets a nuke.....and the Jews in germany were killed as scapegoats for the economic and societal morass germany was in it had nothing to to do with their religious teachings

>chris w. : Right, if it were your "son or mother" (even if not) it is horrific. The one that sells them the nuke would carry more blame or the one that drops the bomb? The world got rid of Hitler, but it is unlikely that we will get rid of them in the foreseeable future.

I am therefore trying to find a reconciliation between Faith and Logic; shed some light. Whether I am capable of doing it and whether anything positive will come out of that remains to be seen.

Andrew, you don't have to be invited to join a group unless it's private. Go to Groups, and then "search" using topics that interest you. When you find groups you like, just click "join this group" on the left side of the page.

>Lynn G. : Thanks for the tip!

Andrew...I agree. Many wars have been fought over commandments. We do have to get away from the shackles of rules and commandments, but throwing God out of the picture is not the way to do it. In fact, Jesus constantly taught us to do just that. To forget about rules and focus on loving people. I believe you just illustrated that. Just because you throw fundamentalism out does not mean God goes with it. You are talking about two very different things. I also want to know why there has to be a difference between faith and logic. Why do they have to be separate. Why cannot they be a part of each other. Just because one has faith does not mean one does not have logic. And just because one has logic does not mean one does not have faith. They go hand in hand.

Chris...you are correct about the Crusades. But I must ask, are you assuming that all bad is done by those professing to follow God? Are you insisting that the "secular" world does not do any killing of their own? Are they not equally hypocritical? It is called humanity. No matter what side one is on, no matter how "good" one thinks they are, they will always have that "badness" within them. It is human nature, no matter what God one follows (or doesn't follow).

>Hali L.: You are very progressive if you can say "God" "Jesus" and "forget about rules" in the same sentence. Interesting. What about "doctrine"? What about "Church" doctrine? What's your take on that?

I guess at some point we have to define what we mean by "Faith" and "Logic" to have a meaningful discussion.

Where I was coming from was from the view that "logical" "scientific" people live their lives based on "evidence" and "findings". They mistrust "Faith".

If the evidence and findings are lacking, they accept the best of the alternatives. They do not assume anything "By Faith".

Religious teachings comes with the premise that you "Accept by Faith" and you will know the truth.

It is incompatible. One side cannot accept unless you show them the evidence and findings and the other side insists that you must accept by Faith.

The Religion side gives evidence in the form of "witnesses". The witnesses even within the same religion give different accounts. For every "witness" the religion side produce, the "logic" side produces two of their own witnesses giving contradictory evidence.

The logical/scientific side builds on accepted premises one on top of the other. All they have to point out is that there are no evidence for the existence of God and the whole of the argument on the Religion side falls apart.

As for Buddhism, the religion without a "God"; they only need to show that there are no evidence for the Buddhists beliefs and the Buddhists arguments all fall apart.

Andrew, hate and prejudice make blind. There is no truth in either. Nor is there sanity in madness. Yet faith and politics can both be perverted to be whatever a person believes and wants to be true, no matter how untrue or insane it is. And nothing will convince that person to the contrary.

>I am Magi: To the point it becomes scary! It is sad that in a free country like the UK where information flows freely, the transport system bombers were local boys. Some of the US 911 bombers were well educated.

Going to war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism was a huge mistake IMHO. The only hope for Iraq is for the US now to appoint an undemocratic ruler, a "strongman" to bring the country under control; someone like Saddam Hussein.

Otherwise, the blood in Iraq will just keep on flowing in the chaos; it is a difficult choice. I pity the one that has to make the decision, but then, he started it didn't he? Do you think sending more American boys there will make an iota of difference?

Only sending Putin's Russian troops in Chenchenya and Hu's China troops that crush innocent students in Tiananmen might make a difference. After crushing the "rebels" they can appoint a "monster" to rule Iraq. Scary.

Excellent Thanks for posting this. 10

Words are not the thing and creativity does not demand explanation, just do it and don't look back- I think this intelectual fooder serves us best at my Happy Unbirthday Party. welcome, but it doesn't fit everywhere only in wonderland.

>joel: If we do not get it crystal clear in our own heads, we only add to the misery in this world. While we do not want to over estimate our influence, we do not want to underestimate it either.

The way to get it crystal clear is to say it out loud and consider the responses carefully, instead of simply harboring it in our own heads.

Hali- Religions (at least Christianity) we're created (for want of a better word) in large part to help government control the masses. Did God create man or did man create God? If God did not create man and evolution is correct it was inevitable that a society or culture would absolutely have to engender a belief in a higher power otherwise without a greater purpose anarchy would reign. At this point I see very little difference between government/ elected officials, monarchs, dictators etc and the hierarchy of organized religions. Imans, Bishops, Cardinals, Pope have nearly absolute power and have largely become conglomerates on a global scale. The Vatican has literally 10's of billions of dollars of preiceless works of art stored in vaults. In many ways these religions have completely wandered away from their original foundations. I believe in spirituality and a higher power, I just have a hard time believing that said higher power needs a man in funny hat to pass his message on to me. Considering that message has never chaned in tousands of years and can be boiled down to this. Treat others as you would have them treat you. The rest of this crap is window dressing and clouds the message.

>chris w: There is much to be said for "organizations". An individual can only do so much. I believe that much of the "commandments, rules, regulations and precepts" have to do with keeping the organization functioning. These have, IMHO, nothing to do with "spirituality".

Spirituality has nothing to do with all these "essentials" for a well functioning organization.

Spirituality is not behaving in a loving manner but BEING a loving person.
Spirituality is not behaving in a compassionate manner but BEING a compassionate person.

The wars and the atrocities that were fought and conducted and are being fought and conducted were politically motivated. It was not spiritually motivated.

When you become the head of an organization, religious or secular, the power gets to you and you try your level best to maintain the organization if you cannot expand it. The fact that you rose to the position would suggest that you are of that make up.

The individual should not get caught up in the politics and substitute comradeship and affiliations for true Spirituality. In Spirituality lies unspeakable bliss.

Chris...I like what you have to say. However, I am curious where the idea came from that Christianity came about because of government involvment. Christianity came about because of Jesus and no other reason. And there isn't really a way to say that the government had a part in the "creation" of Christianity because when Christianity began to take roots, the government hated it. In fact, they executed those who agreed with it.
As for the organized religion part, you don't need someone passing a message to you. God doesn't work through religion. And you certainly don't need to go through religion to meet with God. You can find Him on your own. But don't let the flaws in the church discourage you or keep you away from God, because if that's the case, you are missing something truly amazing.

Andrew...I am not saying that all rules and doctrine should be thrown out. Of course we need rules. Life without rules would be incredibly chaotic; they are essential. However, it seems like it is either one extreme or the other when it comes to looking at religion, or more importantly, God (I'm not a fan or religion). We usually think of Him as either a happy-go-lucky kind of God who lets everything slide and doesn't hold to any rules, or we have the polar opposite idea that He sits in heaven shaking His fist and waiting until someone messes up so they can be punished. The great thing is, He isn't either one. The rules and doctrine are important, but we mustn't place too much emphasis on them because that is using rules to take the place of God Himself.

>Hali L.: What I meant was, do you need rules and doctrine for personal spirituality? (red alert: spirituality needs to be defined)

If you think about your best friend or your spouse, I doubt that you can say for certain you "know" them and know what they want in all circumstance and situations. You need to be in constant communication with them and not "read" their instructions (rules, doctrine). Before you have a relationship with someone, you might want to read up on them but following formal introductions?

Somehow I have the impression that the church and other religious organizations/leaders rather preach rules and doctrine over teaching their members how to cultivate a relationship in a one on one manner with God. (red alert: define GOD) This is certainly one way to have control over them for those that have an ongoing personal relationship with God are free.

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Define spirituality, huh? Well, I'm honestly not sure. Spirituality, spiritual, those are not words that come out of my mouth very often, if ever. It's kind of like religion. It is a very broad term that means different things to different people. I honestly can't define spirituality, nor am I very interested in doing so. I don't concentrate on "spirituality".
The church and religion are unfortunately corrupt, because they are run by people, and people are corrupt. In my relationship with God, rules are a part of it, but they are not the main focus of my relationship. Now, I'm assuming that when you talk about reading the instructions, you are speaking about the bible, and yes, the bible does have the rules and doctrines, but it also shows the heart of God. It is not just a book full of rules.

God-He is the creator. He is my Dad, my Lover, my Friend. He knows exactly who I am, but oddly enough, He still chooses me. God is the God of the bible ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1). And you are most certainly correct when you wisely say "for those that have an ongoing personal relationship with God are free." You hit the nail on the proverbial head. God is freedom, love, justice, pure, jealous, and life.

Andrew...I would very much like to know what your "spirituality/religion/beliefs" are. I get the feeling that you are playing a sort of devil's advocate to get us to talk, but I would really like to know what you think.

I hope to be "neutral" and hear as many viewpoints as possible. I hope to hear from people affiliated with any religion or no religion. I will make as little comments as possible and will mainly ask questions.

Let's talk about Faith. Is Faith a set of beliefs/doctrine/practice that you cling to? That is to say, is your Faith defined by a set of beliefs/doctrine/practice? In other words, when you say, "I have Faith," do you mean that you have Faith in a set of a set of beliefs/doctrine/practice?

When you "have Faith" does it mean that you will continue in your "set of beliefs/doctrine/practice" even if it is not logical to do that?

When you "have Faith" does it mean that you will continue in your "set of beliefs/doctrine/practice" and your Faith includes the Faith that your "set of beliefs/doctrine/practice" will be proven right?

When you "have Faith" does it mean that you will continue in your "set of beliefs/doctrine/practice" and your Faith includes the Faith that no other ways can be better or is even worth considering?

When you "have Faith" does it mean that you will continue in your "set of beliefs/doctrine/practice" even when evidence is provided that contradicts your "set of beliefs/doctrine/practice"?

When you "have Faith" does it mean that you will never ever question or modify your "set of beliefs/doctrine/practice"?

Andrew, I stumbled upon your article here following your article on questioning your faith. I can't really figure out what you believe either. I'll attempt to answer these questions. Considering when you say faith you mean faith in religion:

When I say I have "faith" in a God, I am saying that I believe that he exists and that he created us and that I will eventually go to heaven when I die; without any real evidence to back this up. Faith it seems to me is any belief or feeling in which you choose to believe it but you have no real evidence to back it up. I practice my faith with some practices that I feel that I should do but my real faith has nothing to do with earthly rules. My faith has in the end has to do with my personal relationship with God.

In my faith, I have not seen anything that I believe not to be "logical". "Logical" comes down to what you make it out to be. I have not seen anything in my faith not to be "logical" so no; I will not continue anything that I see as not being "logical".

Yes, I do believe that one day my "faith", which I should just tell you is Christianity, will one day be proven right. And I will continue my beliefs until I die.

Uh, yes and no. I personally believe that my faith, Christianity, is the best path to "God" out there. Now this may come off as ignorant but when you think about it most people in the world believe that their faith is the real truth. Other faiths though are not worth just not considering. I am strong enough in my faith and in my walk with God that nothing could stray me from him; but that doesn't make me unable to consider anything else. Nothing will ever stray me from my beliefs but I have thought of other religions but I won't consider converting.

No; no evidence has ever been provided to contradict my set of beliefs so I would change my beliefs if evidence were provided. But I have seen no evidence to contradict my beliefs therefore I practice them to the full.

I will question my beliefs and I may modify theological philosophies on life, the origin of life, and the after life but I will never modify my faith altogether. Basically, the only thing that will stay solid is my belief in God and his love for me.

(repost due to typo) >Kodi Low: Thanks.
You said that you will go with your Faith unless evidence contrary to what you believe is offered you.

That is your prerogative of course and your personal choice. It is nevertheless troubling. There is nothing to stop anybody from believing anything as long as nobody can come up with evidence to the contrary. What is even more troubling is when the individual refuses to accept the evidence and calls the evidence false; he can continue in his Faith in the face of mounting evidence against it.

Do you not think that to prevent the problems I cited, it would be better to only accept something when there is firm evidence for accepting it?

But Andrew, that is the whole point of faith. The word "faith" according to the dictionary is "belief that is not based on proof". Or the definition I like best, "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1). So the whole point of faith is that you believe in something without all the evidence pointing to it.

Now, these questions that you asked, I'm not sure if you're asking about me personaly, or an individual in general, so I will answer from both perspectives. When one says that they have faith, it is a general statement that they believe in something, usually in a "supernatural" fashion. Now, when I say I have faith, I am speaking of my specific faith in Jesus the Christ.

As for the "logical" question, I think I answered that in the first paragraph. Now, I do not believe that Jesus or following Him and being loved by Him is not logical, but as for all faiths, there will always be someone to tell them that it is not logical, no matter what one believes in. Therefore, people will still believe what they believe even when one says it isn't logical.

I'm confused about the third question...

Of course one must consider other beliefs. It is dangerous to accept blindly (and in this instance, I mean blindly not as accepting without proof, but as accepting without thought to other ideas). I find it important to understand and learn about other faiths, and the great part is that the more I do this, the more I understand and accept other people and the more it solidifies what I believe. And I don't think that anyone is looking for the faith that is "better", but the faith that they feel is right, the one they know is truth. For me, it is never about being better than anyone else. In fact, Jesus teaches us that we should put ourselves behind others, to treat them like they are better than us.

As for the last question, in my life, I continue to modify what I believe. But this isn't because the truth changes, but because I continue to learn more about the heart of God. I'm constantly learning and sometimes I realize that what I thought before wasn't quite right. So yes, it does change. And of course, pretty much whatever it is one believes in, one will question it at some time in one's life. And that's ok. The important thing is not to believe just because someone has told you to.

Lastly, you didn't fully answer my question about what you believe. I see how you listen and ask questions, as do I. And you say "neutral", but what I want to know is what you believe, not whose side you are taking. I'm not even asking what religion you adhere to, but what do you believe?

Andrew; I have seen no evidence to prove my faith wrong. I have also seen no evidence in other faiths that would cause me to leave mine and accept their's. I have not experienced any of these problems with my faith and I have seen no faith more reasonable than mine so what is currently troubling me?

>Hali L. and Kodi Low:
As far as I can see and based on your comments, your ideas regarding Faith is, if you don't mind my saying, flawed. I see a "spinoff" discussion here, a discussion on "Faith".

I will start a new thread to discuss Faith.

Uh, Andrew, what are you talking about? I only answered your questions that you wanted answers for. Why are these "flawed"? Do you have an explanation to why they are flawed?

Either you is or you ain't!
We can all stand in a circle and hold hands and sing a song. I want to hold hands with the gals.
Faith is what you make of it. It comes from inside you.
Yes, brothers and sisters. Hate is a bitter pill. It poisons your soul and will cause illness. Have we come this far and still cannot get past the racial slurs..?
Woe is me! We are all a part of this and we should atempt to get along no matter color, creed, or religious differences.
I believe God has a sense of humor. If he did not he would have destroyed us long ago. Or, perhaps he is waiting fer us to destroy ourselves. We seem intent on doing just that. Without Faith, life would be an empty void of space.

>Kodi Low: Just for discussion sake, do you think that your statements:
"Christianity, is the best path to "God" out there."
and those "people in the world that believe their faith is the real truth," the statements above are political or Faith statements?

If Faith is believing without evidence and without facts, there are no basis to say that one is better than the other or that one is real and the other is false is there? They are only beliefs are they not? What works for you might not work for another. If it does not work fr him, he will say that, for him at least, it is not "real".

The beliefs that worked for him, he will say "truth". won't he?

>BuhBuh Gumm: I think "Without Faith, life would be an empty void of space" is way too sweeping a statement. Many people go through life without joining any religion. If their lives are "an empty void" they would certainly join a religious organization won't they?

Andrew, those were faith based statements I made. I never said that I had basis in what I was saying, I said that I believe what I was saying. A man will claim the beliefs that work for him as the truth. I don't though. I do believe that my beliefs are the truth, but I will not proclaim them as the truth because that is just an ignorant way to talk about things.

>Kodi Low: I cannot say that something is sweet out of nowhere can I? If I have never tasted it, seen it and heard anything about it, I cannot say anything about it can I? You must have basis don't you, except that while the basis is valid for you, you do not presume that it will be valid for another. This is a very good attitude.

Founders of religious movements preached a new theology and start a new religious movement based on what? Obviously your "religion" is based on what the founders preached is it not? If someone told you that something is sweet and you tasted it but found it to be bitter, what do you do?

Do you question your understanding? Do you question your own "faith"? Do you question the beliefs?

If someone told you that something is sweet and you tasted it but found it to be sweet but also bitter and a little salty, what do you do?

Andrew, no you cannot say something is sweet out of nowhere. The basis is valid for me, and I never said that it wouldn't be valid for somebody else. Founders of religious movements that preach a new theology base this on the Bible and many times their communication with God, as I understand it. Yes, my religion is based on what the divinely inspired founders preached and what Christ himself said. I also base my religion on my talk with the Lord myself.

I question how I interpret and understand my faith. I have questioned my faith, and I definitely question my beliefs. If I tell someone that something is sweet yet they taste it and say that it is sweet but also bitter, I would tell them that I disagree and wonder why they think it is bitter. What do you mean?

>Kodi Low: When you say "talk with the Lord myself" you must be referring to prayers, otherwise you could simply ask what you need to know?

About the bitter and sweet part, I was referring to how if it was up to each person's own basis, then it could be very open. Each person could come up with their own interpretations. How do you deal with that?

Andrew, when I say, "talk with the Lord myself"; I am referring to prayers based on how I have felt them work in my life.

It is up to each person's basis, and I never said it wasn't. There is no problem with each person coming up with their own interpretations. That is the way it should be.

>Kodi Low: Do you think that it is possible for "the Lord" to talk to you directly?

If each person coming up with their own interpretation is the way that it should be, then why is there the "religious conflict" as to who is right and whose "doctrine" is true? This happens even in the same "religion".

How do you handle the conflicts between "science" and "religion"? "Science" does not base anything on "each person's own interpretation" but the scientific community comes into a sort of agreement as to what is "acceptable".

Is it possible for "religions" to ever come to an agreement as to what is "acceptable" and "accepted" in the "religious worldview" like the "scientific worldview"?

Andrew; it is definitely possible to talk to the Lord directly. There is no problem with people coming up with their own interpretations and that is the way it should be. Being no problem with this, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't analyze what these people are coming up with. Belief systems affect a person's religion deeply and should be grounds for discussion. It's ok for someone to have their own ideas, but any person can find fault with those ideas and discuss theirs.

Science is totally different than religion and cannot be compared. Science can be tested and observed successfully with the root word of "know". See, we know that science is happening because it has been tested and observed. Religion is based off of a belief system that has not necessarily been tested or observed therefore leaving grounds for debate. They are two totally different things.

Again, the scientific worldview is and should be proven so there won't be many differences in interpretations. If you're talking about all the religions in the world coming to an agreement then no, it will never happen. All separate religions have totally different views and can never come to a total agreement. It will be hard to change the view of a man unless you can prove him wrong.

>Kodi Low: I can tell you that "the Lord" talks to you directly.

You might want to reconsider your stand that "There is no problem with people coming up with their own interpretations". It is a huge problem.

You might want to reconsider your stand that "Science is totally different than religion and cannot be compared". Science is a gift from "the Lord".

You might want to reconsider your stand that "all the religions in the world coming to an agreement then no". The disagreements and posturing IMHO are because of the necessary politics of organizations. Individuals of all faiths can come together and share their experiences, sans the politics, to reach a common ground.

I said in an earlier post to you (maybe in another article) that you have to move on from Faith. Move on from Faith to what?

Ok, it is a huge problem with people coming up with their own interpretations. How is that a huge problem? Ya, it causes a lot of conflict but if everyone wasn't able to come up with their own ideas there would be no real discussion and we would all think the same.

Science is a gift from the Lord. It is the wisdom of man created by the all-powerful God. I'm saying that science, which can be proven, cannot be compared to faith, which can't necessarily be proven. They're two different things. Don't you think?

I know all religions in the world can come together and discuss their experiences and reach a common ground but come on; they're never going to totally agree. They each have a totally different belief system. It has nothing to do with the politics of an organization it has to do with a person's faith. It is what they believe and continue to believe until they are touched in a different way.

I don't think you will have to move on from faith. I will never move on from my faith because of the strength I have in it. When you move on from faith you move to nothing. You just don't believe what you believe before. I don't understand what you are saying

>Kodi Low : You are so intellectually honest, you are amazing.

You might want to reconsider your position that "When you move on from faith you move to nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:13 KJV: And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I suspect that you have a concept of "charity" as an attribute of "faith".

That people "love" and are charitable because of their "faith".

I am here to tell you that "When you move on from faith you move to nothing" is not my experience. You move towards perfection. If you remain in "faith"; you will be stuck at "Faith".

Matthew 19:21 KJV: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Do not give up your "faith" but do not get stuck at "faith". Aim for perfection.

The longer you stay in your faith the stronger you will become in it. I guess you could say that you will become stuck in it but that is sort of a misleading way to put it. Saying that you will become stuck in it makes it sound like you will become stuck in it with no way to get out and that being strong in it is a bad thing. I don't get the perfection thing after you move on from faith.

>Kodi Low : When you move from Faith into Hope and from Hope to become Love; you become "Perfect". When you are "Love" many things associated with "Faith" changes and you have moved from "Faith".

Faith can be "acquired" by hearing and "affirmed" by professing and performing outward actions like baptism and doing rituals. Love can be demonstrated by loving acts and words. When you "become" Love it is much more than loving words and actions; Faith is superseded.

"Becoming" Love starts with Faith but does not end with Faith.