Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

I have not been able to figure out how to quote individual areas or sentences, respond to them and then continue that process. So..........

I believe God, sometimes referred to as Mind or Consciousness, is beyond the scope of science as God is not part of the natural or physical universe. Therefore, science can offer much about the universe but nothing for or against God. And, your saying there is no evidence of God/Mind goes directly to this point: God is not an object or a physical entity that science can study. Of course the believer assumes God Is.......just as the atheist assumes God is not - and there is no evidence that he is not (or is) on which the atheist can base what is simply an 'opinion.' In part I say there is a God because it is eminently reasonable to me and because I find the atheist stance nonsensical: despite all arguments meant to bolster it, man/life is ultimately meaningless and all therefore is absurd.

I presume nothing about a non-natural universe and it is not my worldview that such a universe exists. I, therefore, don't believe science can makes any statements about such a universe but if they can......I would be interested in such theories........just for the fun of it. However, the actual idea is absurd:+}

Early man was trying to makes sense of the universe and looked beyond themselves for that meaning........burial was an early religious practice: ssimple fact. I get that you don't believe there is an answer beyond man and the physical universe but again that is opinion. Even today, some scientists and many others, being transcendent beings, look beyond themselves, beyond the physical universe for answers, for ultimate meaning. Science can help to 'make sense' of the universe (ex. Big Bang, gravity, evolution) but it cannot provide 'ultimate meaning or answers'; it cannot answer Why - and, as discussed, neither can atheism.

And I too was paraphrasing Orwell and as stated I do believe that some are 'more fully or truly human' than others (again as evidenced in our language about the best and worst among is) but I did not say one is more special than the other. I believe that all men and women are meant for such fullness and therefore special, or in religious terms, children of God.

I agree on actions but not on your grasp of the Way, I accept that we have evolved in our capacity for survival of the species but I also believe, as evidenced in throughout our history, that some make a choice against the species, against the human, against life - and then there are those who make the decision to take it to a 'higher level' - the decision to be for others (even the stranger, even the enemy) that is beyond where evolution has brought them. The world has seen such individuals in its history and they are different in degree and in kind.

Whether religion leads or follows is an interesting topic and it is both; it depends on the believer. Even on this site, look at the discussions on homosexuality where some Christians quote the Bible and are adamantly opposed to homosexuality no matter what is said. Given where societies are, they don't merely follow, they actively resist societal norms. But then there are Christians who find such arguments and harsh judgments against the homosexual as absurd and simply wrong, even un-Christian. Some are in step with their culture but some are (and have been) at the leading edge, bringing others to acceptance based on their understanding and embodiment of he Biblical concepts of love, acceptance and not judging others. Christianity, religions, are not a monolith: there is diversity.

Next you'll tell me there are no angels:+} You don't believe - yet still God IS.

I believe God Is, therefore that is what I assume (i.e. suppose to be the case without proof/evidence). This is textbook belief. And you assume/believe the opposite without proof or evidence. And, yes, myth provide 'insight' about the God we believe IS.

Poetry is indeed art and ..........religion is both poetry and art - not science. There you go, well done:+}

Bingo, I do believe there is more than the physical and I allow that mind is more than a physical manifestation of the functioning of the brain. Mind, consciousness, soul, spirit - however it is named, man is more that the physical. Going back to our myth, Being/God breaths life into the figure molded in clay and there is man: the physical being but not only that.

Where do you get this stuff? Being risen was not the expectation of such holy men - it was certainly not the expectation of the disciples of Jesus: they scattered for their lives, thinking it was all for naught. And then came their profession that they 'experienced' him Risen! But expectation or not, Jesus is the one who is actually proclaimed Risen.......and therein is the difference. Are any of the holy men of Judaism risen?

I guess they would be happy since they just have to float along on the tide of evolution and it has no meaning anyway:+] The Christian has to work for his Humanness and for the establishment of Abundant Life (after all man is believed to be the co-creator).

Again, thanks god I am right about the fate of Christianity:+}

The point is for some artists and art lovers, the deeper human experience is the divine and/or the spiritual. This simply fact cannot not be denied.

[Tassman]

I have not been able to figure out how to quote individual areas or sentences, respond to them and then continue that process. So..........

Oh, it’s simple (when you know how): Just SHADE the part you want to quote and then click the large INVERTED COMMA in the work-bar at the top.

I believe God, sometimes referred to as Mind or Consciousness, is beyond the scope of science as God is not part of the natural or physical universe. Therefore, science can offer much about the universe but nothing for or against God. And, your saying there is no evidence of God/Mind goes directly to this point: God is not an object or a physical entity that science can study.

But why would you assume ANYTHING is “not part of the natural universe”. There is NO evidence of a non-natural universe outside of the minds of our species.

Of course the believer assumes God Is.......just as the atheist assumes God is not - and there is no evidence that he is not (or is) on which the atheist can base what is simply an 'opinion.' In part I say there is a God because it is eminently reasonable to me and because I find the atheist stance nonsensical: despite all arguments meant to bolster it, man/life is ultimately meaningless and all therefore is absurd.

Believers in many things, from astrology to ancient legends and imaginary animals, claim their beliefs are true. But, whilst possible, they are improbable to the extent they can be reasonable disregarded.

I presume nothing about a non-natural universe and it is not my worldview that such a universe exists. I, therefore, don't believe science can makes any statements about such a universe but if they can......I would be interested in such theories........just for the fun of it. However, the actual idea is absurd:+}

God and gods are by definition beyond the natural universe - as are angels, cherubim and seraphim etc.

Early man was trying to makes sense of the universe and looked beyond themselves for that meaning........burial was an early religious practice: ssimple fact. I get that you don't believe there is an answer beyond man and the physical universe but again that is opinion.

It’s an opinion grounded in the non-evidence of anything beyond the physical universe.

Even today, some scientists and many others, being transcendent beings, look beyond themselves, beyond the physical universe for answers, for ultimate meaning. Science can help to 'make sense' of the universe (ex. Big Bang, gravity, evolution) but it cannot provide 'ultimate meaning or answers'; it cannot answer Why - and, as discussed, neither can atheism.

You have yet to explain that there is a “WHY”. This assumes a purpose and “purpose” assumes a mind. And there is no verifiable evidence of an immaterial “mind” operating in the universe.

And I too was paraphrasing Orwell and as stated I do believe that some are 'more fully or truly human' than others (again as evidenced in our language about the best and worst among is) but I did not say one is more special than the other. I believe that all men and women are meant for such fullness and therefore special, or in religious terms, children of God.

All of us are “human” – some are more compassionate than others but this speaks more to poor socialization than any intrinsic human qualities.

I agree on actions but not on your grasp of the Way, I accept that we have evolved in our capacity for survival of the species but I also believe, as evidenced in throughout our history, that some make a choice against the species, against the human, against life - and then there are those who make the decision to take it to a 'higher level' - the decision to be for others (even the stranger, even the enemy) that is beyond where evolution has brought them. The world has seen such individuals in its history and they are different in degree and in kind.

These are artificial distinctions. All our choices are grounded in our genetic make-up, socialization and environmental pressures.

Whether religion leads or follows is an interesting topic and it is both; it depends on the believer. Even on this site, look at the discussions on homosexuality where some Christians quote the Bible and are adamantly opposed to homosexuality no matter what is said. Given where societies are, they don't merely follow, they actively resist societal norms. But then there are Christians who find such arguments and harsh judgments against the homosexual as absurd and simply wrong, even un-Christian. Some are in step with their culture but some are (and have been) at the leading edge, bringing others to acceptance based on their understanding and embodiment of he Biblical concepts of love, acceptance and not judging others. Christianity, religions, are not a monolith: there is diversity.

All this merely reinforces that evolving societal values lead the way and religious beliefs are made to conform. Any perspective on the social values of the day can be made to find some support in the bible – from slavery to the subjugation of women.

Next you'll tell me there are no angels:+} You don't believe - yet still God IS.

So, you say but you have not provided any good reasons for your beliefs.

I believe God Is, therefore that is what I assume (i.e. suppose to be the case without proof/evidence). This is textbook belief. And you assume/believe the opposite without proof or evidence. And, yes, myth provide 'insight' about the God we believe IS.

Poetry is indeed art and ..........religion is both poetry and art - not science. There you go, well done:+}

Bingo, I do believe there is more than the physical and I allow that mind is more than a physical manifestation of the functioning of the brain. Mind, consciousness, soul, spirit - however it is named, man is more that the physical. Going back to our myth, Being/God breaths life into the figure molded in clay and there is man: the physical being but not only that.

These beliefs of yours are subjective religious beliefs which are not supported by any objective evidence.

Where do you get this stuff? Being risen was not the expectation of such holy men - it was certainly not the expectation of the disciples of Jesus: they scattered for their lives, thinking it was all for naught. And then came their profession that they 'experienced' him Risen! But expectation or not, Jesus is the one who is actually proclaimed Risen.......and therein is the difference. Are any of the holy men of Judaism risen?

Signs, wonders and supernatural magic in whatever form was acceptable to the gullible pre-scientific culture. Many very similar miracles ascribed to figures in the bible, including some of those of Jesus appear in recognizable form in the myths and legends of other cultures.

I guess they would be happy since they just have to float along on the tide of evolution and it has no meaning anyway:+] The Christian has to work for his Humanness and for the establishment of Abundant Life (after all man is believed to be the co-creator).

Again, thanks god I am right about the fate of Christianity:+}

The ONLY “meaning” we have as evolved social animals is the fulfillment of our role as members of a loving family and supportive community. This is surely sufficient.

The point is for some artists and art lovers, the deeper human experience is the divine and/or the spiritual. This simply fact cannot not be denied.

Certainly. But this is not necessarily the reason for most artistic endeavors.

[thormas]

Thanks, I'll work on that but tried with no luck. If I highlight a sentence from your post I am not seeing a work-bar?? Anyway........

First, I do understand the early history of religion and man seeking answers to the unknown because he, for example, feared the lightening and flooding and assumed there were higher powers that he could either plead with or 'control' by bribe or worship. I also understand that many were born into a religion and grew up assuming there was a higher power, force, being, they called God. However, living in our age with our worldview (including our sciences) and having left all things religion to the side while I studied philosophy (and other subjects in college), I find, through experience and reading, that man is a transcendent being - always looking for meaning, always searching for wisdom and answers to the big question like Why and What does it mean. And I have seen incredible despair and people lost and escaping when they have no answers, no real meaning, no wisdom ( and I still do).

I found that man, even as he advanced from his primitive state (the Greek philosophers yes, still in a pre-scientific era) still sought to understand and do so to this day through all the ages of man, including Renaissance and Enlightenment and our Scientific Era and I suspect into our distant future. Even with our sciences, man still seeks wisdom, answers, meaning and he does not find it in just the sciences, in just himself. I see this reach in his art, sculpture, literature, poetry, philosophy and in religion (theology, the 'queen of the sciences.' Yes I know the objections to that characterizations). And having studied, read, discussed, written, argued and thought, I find not 'old time religion' (since I have many, even more, of the same criticisms as you do) but the best religious thinkers and philosophers (sophisticated, worldly, even brilliant men and women) pursued such ultimate meaning and I find their 'answers' (or what we might also call their theories, their insights, their suppositions, their discernment into Reality) resonates with me (not all of course) and I find them eminently reasonable. In other words, they (begin) to answer the questions, they (begin) to discover ultimate meaning. Now, as we have been discussing, I have no problem recognizing that this is and remains belief and is not provable - but I think that is the reality in which we find ourselves. And, such meaning is not merely to be studied or memorized, it is to be lived and in the living it is known: you have the answer or you live the answer; you find meaning and you are that meaning; you enter wisdom and you are wise. I have no other way to say it and I suspect that only the fellow poet (so to speak) will understand what I have said.

I love the sciences and I think they do provide answers and insights into the universe........but these are not the only answers that man seeks and science cannot help in finding those answers; it cannot discover and prove meaning, it cannot give us wisdom, it cannot 'give' us life; it cannot present a reason to be. That others don't accept this is not a big issue for me, some of my best friend don't -yet even the Judge (an avowed atheist), I mentioned, still wonders, still transcends, still seeks and looks beyond the sciences to understand and to Live.

There is no astrology, or ancient legends or myths (taken literally) and no imaginary animals existed or were hurt in my understanding of God. I reject these things (and much more) as much as you and for an ancient writer to employ mythological writing is not an issue for me, since I understand myth and I look to the truth in the myth and do not accept the myth as literal.

I do accept that God is beyond the natural universe but I don't believe that gods, angels, cherubim and seraphim are because I take them as myths (or in some cases fables) and do not accept their 'reality' as I do God's (although I hasten to add that I do allow that there might be other creatures on other worlds, similar to man who behave in a more advanced, more 'human' way and such beings might be considered angelic in our understanding:+}

Let me put one part of this discussion to rest: religion is belief and it is not based on scientific evidence and it assumes there is 'more' than the physical universe. Therefore, to continually state that such belief is not based on evidence ......is uselessly redundant:+{

You have stated the religious belief or assumption: that there is Mind (God) and therein there is purpose (i.e. the answer to Why) and there is no verifiable evidence of Mind that is the source of all yet not part or the sum of all (the physical universe).

We disagree on the human: for me, for the Christian thinker, human nature is open ended and something that is not simply implanted in the beginning (like for a rock, tree or dog) but is something that is developmental; it is that which must, by ones acts, come into being (i.e. become). And some are further along than others, some get there and others never do - and we say therefore that some are more human. Some men and women have more fully allowed and enabled their humanity to come to fruition: they are 'more human.' This again is religious belief and I accept that you don't share such belief. Such distinctions are not artificial but speak to the reality of the person: I give you Hitler, I give you Gandhi: we see and explain them differently.

No one is denying that religious belief is belief: it is subjective but also shared and communal.

Simply, you are wrong in your assumption that holy men of the 1st C CE were expected to rise from the dead. The death of Jesus came as a complete shock to his disciples and followers: it was not what they expected or hoped for and they didn't sit around having a smoke and a glass of wine waiting for his inevitable resurrection since he was known as a worker of wonders.

What you say is meaning is, again, the individual man's saying X or Y is meaningful ......but in the end, the reality is that it matters not at all. Thus we are back to utter meaninglessness and absurdity. And what are we to say. in your reality. of those who are not and will never be part of a loving family and a supportive community? Simply that they experience the meaningless of it all long before the others in your reality.

The spiritual or the divine is the reason for some/much art and also found in many who are drawn to such art or even drawn to those artists for whom the spiritual was not their intent (art in the eye of the beholder).

[Tassman]

Thanks, I'll work on that but tried with no luck. If I highlight a sentence from your post I am not seeing a work-bar?? Anyway........

The “WORK BAR” is the row of icons – such as FONT and SIZE etc. at the top of the page when you click onto QUOTE. It includes INVERTED COMMAS near the middle of the WORK BAR. So again, SHADE the part of the post you want to quote and then click the large INVERTED COMMAS – as often as you need to quote the other person .

First, I do understand the early history of religion and man seeking answers to the unknown because he, for example, feared the lightening and flooding and assumed there were higher powers that he could either plead with or 'control' by bribe or worship.

Indeed. But there is no reason to think that religion has been correct in assuming the existence of “higher powers” – then or now. E.g., we now know that lightening is caused by naturally occurring electrostatic discharges, not by Thor having a bad day. And did the Judeo/Christian God really need a sacrifice on the cross to forgive mankind for the Garden of Eden fiasco?

I also understand that many were born into a religion and grew up assuming there was a higher power, force, being, they called God.

And in the secular countries (including mine) the majority are born into an environment where religious belief is completely irrelevant and rarely mentioned.

However, living in our age with our worldview (including our sciences) and having left all things religion to the side while I studied philosophy (and other subjects in college), I find, through experience and reading, that man is a transcendent being - always looking for meaning, always searching for wisdom and answers to the big question like Why and What does it mean.

All intelligent animals are curious about meaning in the world in which they live – it’s an evolved survival mechanism to understand what is dangerous and what is safe - hence they search for meaning of themselves and the environment. But scientific methodology has proven more productive in the search for meaning than philosophical searches for wisdom.

And I have seen incredible despair and people lost and escaping when they have no answers, no real meaning, no wisdom ( and I still do).

There are more practical ways to ease existential human suffering than offering religion.

I found that man, even as he advanced from his primitive state (the Greek philosophers yes, still in a pre-scientific era) still sought to understand and do so to this day through all the ages of man, including Renaissance and Enlightenment and our Scientific Era and I suspect into our distant future. Even with our sciences, man still seeks wisdom, answers, meaning and he does not find it in just the sciences, in just himself. I see this reach in his art, sculpture, literature, poetry, philosophy and in religion (theology, the 'queen of the sciences.' Yes I know the objections to that characterizations). And having studied, read, discussed, written, argued and thought, I find not 'old time religion' (since I have many, even more, of the same criticisms as you do) but the best religious thinkers and philosophers (sophisticated, worldly, even brilliant men and women) pursued such ultimate meaning and I find their 'answers' (or what we might also call their theories, their insights, their suppositions, their discernment into Reality) resonates with me (not all of course) and I find them eminently reasonable. In other words, they (begin) to answer the questions, they (begin) to discover ultimate meaning. Now, as we have been discussing, I have no problem recognizing that this is and remains belief and is not provable - but I think that is the reality in which we find ourselves. And, such meaning is not merely to be studied or memorized, it is to be lived and in the living it is known: you have the answer or you live the answer; you find meaning and you are that meaning; you enter wisdom and you are wise. I have no other way to say it and I suspect that only the fellow poet (so to speak) will understand what I have said.

Wisdom is grounded in reality, NOT beliefs in subjective “ultimate meanings”. And this is best obtained via scientific enquiry rather than poetic explorations into our supposed psyche.

I love the sciences and I think they do provide answers and insights into the universe........but these are not the only answers that man seeks and science cannot help in finding those answers; it cannot discover and prove meaning, it cannot give us wisdom, it cannot 'give' us life; it cannot present a reason to be. That others don't accept this is not a big issue for me, some of my best friend don't -yet even the Judge (an avowed atheist), I mentioned, still wonders, still transcends, still seeks and looks beyond the sciences to understand and to Live.

Science gives us the ONLY “reason” that matters, namely the understanding of our place in the evolved universe as evolved social animals and our role as members of a supportive community. If this is insufficient, you will waste your life searching for “meaning” that doesn’t exist.

There is no astrology, or ancient legends or myths (taken literally) and no imaginary animals existed or were hurt in my understanding of God. I reject these things (and much more) as much as you and for an ancient writer to employ mythological writing is not an issue for me, since I understand myth and I look to the truth in the myth and do not accept the myth as literal.

Except that you haven’t been able to explain what you DO accept as the “literal” – merely that you assume that there’s “more” to us than social animals living the life we have evolved to live.

I do accept that God is beyond the natural universe but I don't believe that gods, angels, cherubim and seraphim are because I take them as myths (or in some cases fables) and do not accept their 'reality' as I do God's (although I hasten to add that I do allow that there might be other creatures on other worlds, similar to man who behave in a more advanced, more 'human' way and such beings might be considered angelic in our understanding:+}

So, if God is “beyond the natural” I guess he IS ‘supernatural’ after all, despite your previous protestations at the word.

Let me put one part of this discussion to rest: religion is belief and it is not based on scientific evidence and it assumes there is 'more' than the physical universe. Therefore, to continually state that such belief is not based on evidence ......is uselessly redundant:+{

This is no more than a subjective belief based upon personal feelings. There is no reason why anyone should accept such a bald assertion.

You have stated the religious belief or assumption: that there is Mind (God) and therein there is purpose (i.e. the answer to Why) and there is no verifiable evidence of Mind that is the source of all yet not part or the sum of all (the physical universe).

And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is an immaterial “mind” operating in the universe.

We disagree on the human: for me, for the Christian thinker, human nature is open ended and something that is not simply implanted in the beginning (like for a rock, tree or dog) but is something that is developmental; it is that which must, by ones acts, come into being (i.e. become). And some are further along than others, some get there and others never do - and we say therefore that some are more human. Some men and women have more fully allowed and enabled their humanity to come to fruition: they are 'more human.' This again is religious belief and I accept that you don't share such belief. Such distinctions are not artificial but speak to the reality of the person: I give you Hitler, I give you Gandhi: we see and explain them differently.

Homo sapiens are humans – there have been several human species though the eons. There are compassionate humans and not so compassionate humans. To say that some are “MORE” human than otters is meaningless.

No one is denying that religious belief is belief: it is subjective but also shared and communal.

Certainly. But particular beliefs being “shared and communal” can be just as easily (and often are) atheist beliefs or any of the myriad of nonsense beliefs such as Scientology.

Simply, you are wrong in your assumption that holy men of the 1st C CE were expected to rise from the dead. The death of Jesus came as a complete shock to his disciples and followers: it was not what they expected or hoped for and they didn't sit around having a smoke and a glass of wine waiting for his inevitable resurrection since he was known as a worker of wonders.

I did not SAY that “holy men of the 1st C CE were expected to rise from the dead”. I said that the pre-Renaissance era before the advent of modern science was gullible and superstitious and amenable to accepting ANY wonders, miracles and magic. Rising from the dead would come into this category.

What you say is meaning is, again, the individual man's saying X or Y is meaningful ......but in the end, the reality is that it matters not at all. Thus we are back to utter meaninglessness and absurdity. And what are we to say. in your reality. of those who are not and will never be part of a loving family and a supportive community? Simply that they experience the meaningless of it all long before the others in your reality.

There is no “utter meaninglessness and absurdity” for those who live as they have evolved to be – namely social animals living in family units in communities. Quite the reverse. The World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness that ranks 156 countries by how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be. And the more secular, less-religious countries such as Norway and Denmark tend to be the happiest.

The spiritual or the divine is the reason for some/much art and also found in many who are drawn to such art or even drawn to those artists for whom the spiritual was not their intent (art in the eye of the beholder).

Yes, the “spiritual or the divine” is the reason among artists who are religious and spiritual – but it is NOT the reason for artists who are (increasingly) NOT religious and spiritual.

[thormas]

The “WORK BAR” is the row of icons – such as FONT and SIZE etc. at the top of the page when you click onto QUOTE. It includes INVERTED COMMAS near the middle of the WORK BAR. So again, SHADE the part of the post you want to quote and then click the large INVERTED COMMAS – as often as you need to quote the other person .

Ok, let's see if this worked.

Indeed. But there is no reason to think that religion has been correct in assuming the existence of “higher powers” – then or now. E.g., we now know that lightening is caused by naturally occurring electrostatic discharges, not by Thor having a bad day. And did the Judeo/Christian God really need a sacrifice on the cross to forgive mankind for the Garden of Eden fiasco?



And in the secular countries (including mine) the majority are born into an environment where religious belief is completely irrelevant and rarely mentioned.



All intelligent animals are curious about meaning in the world in which they live – it’s an evolved survival mechanism to understand what is dangerous and what is safe - hence they search for meaning of themselves and the environment. But scientific methodology has proven more productive in the search for meaning than philosophical searches for wisdom.



There are more practical ways to ease existential human suffering than offering religion.



Wisdom is grounded in reality, NOT beliefs in subjective “ultimate meanings”. And this is best obtained via scientific enquiry rather than poetic explorations into our supposed psyche.



Science gives us the ONLY “reason” that matters, namely the understanding of our place in the evolved universe as evolved social animals and our role as members of a supportive community. If this is insufficient, you will waste your life searching for “meaning” that doesn’t exist.



Except that you haven’t been able to explain what you DO accept as the “literal” – merely that you assume that there’s “more” to us than social animals living the life we have evolved to live.



So, if God is “beyond the natural” I guess he IS ‘supernatural’ after all, despite your previous protestations at the word.



This is no more than a subjective belief based upon personal feelings. There is no reason why anyone should accept such a bald assertion.



And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is an immaterial “mind” operating in the universe.



Homo sapiens are humans – there have been several human species though the eons. There are compassionate humans and not so compassionate humans. To say that some are “MORE” human than otters is meaningless.



Certainly. But particular beliefs being “shared and communal” can be just as easily (and often are) atheist beliefs or any of the myriad of nonsense beliefs such as Scientology.



I did not SAY that “holy men of the 1st C CE were expected to rise from the dead”. I said that the pre-Renaissance era before the advent of modern science was gullible and superstitious and amenable to accepting ANY wonders, miracles and magic. Rising from the dead would come into this category.



There is no “utter meaninglessness and absurdity” for those who live as they have evolved to be – namely social animals living in family units in communities. Quite the reverse. The World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness that ranks 156 countries by how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be. And the more secular, less-religious countries such as Norway and Denmark tend to be the happiest.



Yes, the “spiritual or the divine” is the reason among artists who are religious and spiritual – but it is NOT the reason for artists who are (increasingly) NOT religious and spiritual.

[thormas]

Apologies for the duplication above.

Ok. will work on that but something is still not working and time is short right now.

Again we are talking about belief. My point is that many of us know the history of religion, have no need or belief in gods, fairies, angels or other 'supernatural' creatures, have no need of a God to plead with or to bribe and understand the ins and outs of old time religion. Yet we still say that it is sensible or reasonable to state that Being or God is that from which all else has its being, that God is 'more' than the physical universe and that man's destiny is to become fully Human and be one in Being/God.
Note: your idea of atonement - sacrifice demanded by a vengeful god for the sin of A&E is not accepted by many progressive Christians, including me and this fact has been previously stated - yet oddly ignored by you. It is a straw man that you love to swat at:+{

Even in secular countries, as discussed above, there are still a goody number of believers born into that same secular society who share a religious belief and so too the reverse in so-called religious countries.

You acknowledge that man searches for meaning, however you think it only for survival and about man's physical environment/universe. Yet you miss that man also searches for what might be called ultimate meaning and, again, this is not the purview of science. It remains that man is a transcendent being who seeks after his meaning and such meaning is not defined only by the physical universe or the planet on which he finds himself.

Science is definitely more effective in the search for knowledge of the universe but religion/philosophy is more essential is man's search for wisdom, for ultimate meaning, for an answer to 'Why." Science gives us tools to deal with suffering but it cannot motivate man to address that suffering; science cannot answer the deep longing in man for meaning, for connectedness - it simply cannot answer Why man is and What is he to do.

The religious man, the philosopher, believes that wisdom is not merely found in or defined by the physical universe. This is the difference between the religious and the non-religious man.
Science does indeed given reasons for why things fall, for the development of life on our planet, for the expansion of the universe .....but it gives us no 'reason to be' which is the reason that is essential to human life. Our psyche is exposed and science has no answer for it.

I have previously stated what I believe about God, creation and man. I have done this to a sufficient enough degree that you have disagreed and argued specific points that I explained. And, it is you who is bounded by the literal and even apply it to myths, whereas I have acknowledged that man uses myth, poetry, art and language itself as he is able to express what cannot be captured or expressed fully in words. Much like love is too rich a reality and we utter "it is like a red, red rose."

If you want to refer to God as supernatural, I follow and can accept that description so we have a common language. However, I have no need to call God supernatural for the simple reason that such language is 'one-sided or lop-sided' emphasizing, as it does, that God is above, beyond and at a distance from man whereas I believe that God is also immanent, that God is equally in, with and present to man in his everyday existence. I strike a balance between the supernatural or transcendence of God and the immanence of God. Therefore I can say that God is supernatural in that God is not part of or the sum of the physical universe but is 'beyond' it or 'transcends' it or is 'other' .......and I can also say that 'we live, move and have our being in God or, conversely, that God is with (even in) man.

To say that Mind or God is beyond or more than the physical universe ..........is religious belief. And I am with Orwell: what I said about some being 'more human' is not only religious belief but is evident in our ordinary language (as previously discussed). And such everyday language that some humans are monsters or inhuman or animals speaks volumes and is very meaningful.

Many beliefs are subjective, shared and communal be it religious beliefs, atheistic beliefs and the religious belief called scientology.

Actually atheism points to the utter meaninglessness of human action, desires and wants and thus renders all human action absurd. You can say X or Y is meaningful, while your neighbor can say A & B is what counts for him and you can even all agree on X but as you said, it is you who designates it as meaningful. But it has no meaning in or to the vastness of time and space that is the physical universe; that you existed or never existed is the same for the universe. Man did not matter. The point is that temporary happiness is not the same as meaningfulness: the drunk or the addict would also report themselves happy in the midst of their high but their or your stated 'happiness' has nothing to do with the meaningfulness of human life. Such happiness as you report, in the atheist stance is mere illusion for it disappears as if it never was. This is not the Christian belief.

And I see you have made some movement on art.

[Tassman]

[Apologies for the duplication above.

Ok. will work on that but something is still not working and time is short right now.

No problem.

Again we are talking about belief. My point is that many of us know the history of religion, have no need or belief in gods, fairies, angels or other 'supernatural' creatures, have no need of a God to plead with or to bribe and understand the ins and outs of old time religion. Yet we still say that it is sensible or reasonable to state that Being or God is that from which all else has its being, that God is 'more' than the physical universe and that man's destiny is to become fully Human and be one in Being/God.

Note: your idea of atonement - sacrifice demanded by a vengeful god for the sin of A&E is not accepted by many progressive Christians, including me and this fact has been previously stated - yet oddly ignored by you. It is a straw man that you love to swat at:

You can say that “it is sensible or reasonable to state that Being or God is that from which all else has its being, that God is 'more' than the physical universe”. What I’m saying is that there is no reason to believe it. There is NO evidence supporting a bald assertion such as this.

Even in secular countries, as discussed above, there are still a goody number of believers born into that same secular society who share a religious belief and so too the reverse in so-called religious countries.

Many people in the more secular countries like Australia nominally claim religious belief but their behavior belies their claim. They never attend church, do not contribute donations and religion doesn’t impact on their political views or lives. My parents and extended family are typical examples.

You acknowledge that man searches for meaning, however you think it only for survival and about man's physical environment/universe. Yet you miss that man also searches for what might be called ultimate meaning and, again, this is not the purview of science. It remains that man is a transcendent being who seeks after his meaning and such meaning is not defined only by the physical universe or the planet on which he finds himself.

I do NOT claim that man searches for “ultimate meaning”. What we search for is understating of how the universe functions. There’s a difference. And this is very much in the purview of science.

Science is definitely more effective in the search for knowledge of the universe but religion/philosophy is more essential is man's search for wisdom, for ultimate meaning, for an answer to 'Why." Science gives us tools to deal with suffering but it cannot motivate man to address that suffering; science cannot answer the deep longing in man for meaning, for connectedness - it simply cannot answer Why man is and What is he to do

“Wisdom” is the ability to think and act appropriately, applying knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense and insight as informed and reinforced by scientific knowledge.

The religious man, the philosopher, believes that wisdom is not merely found in or defined by the physical universe. This is the difference between the religious and the non-religious man.

Wisdom is indeed found in the material universe. See above.

Science does indeed given reasons for why things fall, for the development of life on our planet, for the expansion of the universe .....but it gives us no 'reason to be' which is the reason that is essential to human life. Our psyche is exposed and science has no answer for it.

Of course, science explains (or has the potential to explain) how and why life on this planet works. The cognitive sciences study how the mind works, functions, and behaves by utilizing multiple disciplines such as philosophy, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence in order to understand how the brain makes a decision or performs tasks.

I have previously stated what I believe about God, creation and man. I have done this to a sufficient enough degree that you have disagreed and argued specific points that I explained. And, it is you who is bounded by the literal and even apply it to myths, whereas I have acknowledged that man uses myth, poetry, art and language itself as he is able to express what cannot be captured or expressed fully in words. Much like love is too rich a reality and we utter "it is like a red, red rose."

Nevertheless, “love” is grounded in our evolved needs as a social species for attachment and social bonding – this is what we call love. It is biological in origin i.e., material, not the subjective ‘warm fuzzies’ – of Hollywood movies or the Bronte sisters.

If you want to refer to God as supernatural, I follow and can accept that description so we have a common language. However, I have no need to call God supernatural for the simple reason that such language is 'one-sided or lop-sided' emphasizing, as it does, that God is above, beyond and at a distance from man whereas I believe that God is also immanent, that God is equally in, with and present to man in his everyday existence. I strike a balance between the supernatural or transcendence of God and the immanence of God. Therefore I can say that God is supernatural in that God is not part of or the sum of the physical universe but is 'beyond' it or 'transcends' it or is 'other' .......and I can also say that 'we live, move and have our being in God or, conversely, that God is with (even in) man.

Your hypothesized deity is either part of the natural world or he is not. He cannot be both. If he is NOT part of the “natural world” then he’s supernatural.

To say that Mind or God is beyond or more than the physical universe ..........is religious belief. And I am with Orwell: what I said about some being 'more human' is not only religious belief but is evident in our ordinary language (as previously discussed). And such everyday language that some humans are monsters or inhuman or animals speaks volumes and is very meaningful.

Why bother with such ‘God talk’ at all if he Is merely a concept and not a reality.

Many beliefs are subjective, shared and communal be it religious beliefs, atheistic beliefs and the religious belief called scientology.

Maybe so. But subjective beliefs are based in perceptions not objective reality – whether one’s experience of God or one’s appreciation of beauty.

Actually atheism points to the utter meaninglessness of human action, desires and wants and thus renders all human action absurd.

As opposed to theism providing meaning via what one wishes to be true rather than what is supported by evidence and actually true. Which is the more absurd - self-delusion or reality grounded in verifiable evidence? .

You can say X or Y is meaningful, while your neighbor can say A & B is what counts for him and you can even all agree on X but as you said, it is you who designates it as meaningful. But it has no meaning in or to the vastness of time and space that is the physical universe; that you existed or never existed is the same for the universe. Man did not matter. The point is that temporary happiness is not the same as meaningfulness: the drunk or the addict would also report themselves happy in the midst of their high but their or your stated 'happiness' has nothing to do with the meaningfulness of human life. Such happiness as you report, in the atheist stance is mere illusion for it disappears as if it never was. This is not the Christian belief.

There is no “meaninglessness” for those who live as they have evolved to be – namely social animals living in family units in communities.

And I see you have made some movement on art.

There is no “meaninglessness” for those who live as they have evolved to be – namely social animals living in family units in communities. What is the alternative, self-delusion?

[thormas]

I apologize for the repetition which becomes even more obvious when I answer in one long response and try to address all of your points (it seems a bit less when points are addressed individually yet we still repeat ourselves).


You can say there is no evidence but you can only say there is no reason to believe for yourself, since many serious thinkers think it is quite reasonable to believe what I have said about God, man and creation. This then seems to now be a moot point that we have gone over numerous times.

Christians come in all varieties and one can be a Christian without attending church services, following ever utterance of the Pope or taking the Bible literally and using it to hammer other people. It would seem that even in secular countries a significant number of people self-identify as Christian or religious, regardless of certain measurements like church attendance. I remember my Father, after we hit our teens, never attended church but I would still see him take a knee daily to pray.

Don't think I said you personally search for ultimate meaning, simply that man (generally speaking does). Many of us are extremely interested in the functioning of the universe - but we are also interested in 'ultimate meaning' and I think that this is 'natural' for man and unanswered by science. I agree that science give us knowledge and some of us take that knowledge and it becomes part of our wisdom but it is not the only source of wisdom. Science seeks to know 'how it works' but not 'what it means.'

It you believe that love is only grounded in the evolution of the species, that is fine.........but you are in the minority. It seems that many are only nominal or convenient atheists since it is questionable if they live their believe or fully share/explain that belief (as my earlier rhetorical question suggested) with their loved ones. It is a nice intellectual position but it is not lived. If there are no 'warm fuzzier' in the atheist's love of their partner, their kids, their friends, their wider family????

Language though not always up to the task is still important. So it is not that God is 'part of the natural world or not'- it is that God is (believed to be) both transcendent or beyond everything (in other words, God is 'other' and not simply another being in the universe)) but also immanent meaning 'in or with' creation and man. So in religious thinking it is indeed both and is often referred to as a paradox.

The belief, my Belief is that God is Reality but I have been sharing my concept about that Reality that is God.

Actually, my theism or panentheism does not impose wishful thinking on God or reality, rather (it believes) it discerns what Reality is, it's challenge and possibilities. Christianity's way is called the cross - not sure about you but if I were to indulge in wishful thinking I would opt for something a bit less demanding and daunting. Christianity, true lived Christianity, as Chesterton once said, "has been found difficult and not (really) tried." Again, hardly wishful thinking. So the question becomes what is more absurd: all human effort in a universe that cares not a whit about man and upon which man makes no difference (and is nothing) - or that same human effort within and part of a universe, a Reality that is more meaningful than words can ever express? I'll go with meaning over absurdity.

[Tassman]

I apologize for the repetition which becomes even more obvious when I answer in one long response and try to address all of your points (it seems a bit less when points are addressed individually yet we still repeat ourselves).

It also enables you to gloss over the brilliance of my points and focus on your own agenda.

You can say there is no evidence but you can only say there is no reason to believe for yourself, since many serious thinkers think it is quite reasonable to believe what I have said about God, man and creation. This then seems to now be a moot point that we have gone over numerous times.

And "many serious thinkers" think it is NOT at all reasonable to believe in the existence of God, man and creation Furthermore, because “many believe it, it must be true’ is a fallacious argument which concludes that the proposition is true because many people believe it. But this kind of reasoning is not valid and it is a fallacy.

Christians come in all varieties and one can be a Christian without attending church services, following ever utterance of the Pope or taking the Bible literally and using it to hammer other people. It would seem that even in secular countries a significant number of people self-identify as Christian or religious, regardless of certain measurements like church attendance. I remember my Father, after we hit our teens, never attended church but I would still see him take a knee daily to pray.

Nevertheless, some of the best educated countries in the developed world are the least religious. The USA is an outlier in this regard; it also has the greatest social inequity and the highest number of prison incarcerations in the world.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-religious-countries

Note that in my country of Australia 68.00% do not consider religion important in daily life.

Don't think I said you personally search for ultimate meaning, simply that man (generally speaking does). Many of us are extremely interested in the functioning of the universe - but we are also interested in 'ultimate meaning' and I think that this is 'natural' for man and unanswered by science. I agree that science give us knowledge and some of us take that knowledge and it becomes part of our wisdom but it is not the only source of wisdom. Science seeks to know 'how it works' but not 'what it means.'

Again, you assume for no good reason that there is such a thing as “ultimate meaning”. Why would you assume this? And what IS it?

It you believe that love is only grounded in the evolution of the species, that is fine.........but you are in the minority. It seems that many are only nominal or convenient atheists since it is questionable if they live their believe or fully share/explain that belief (as my earlier rhetorical question suggested) with their loved ones. It is a nice intellectual position but it is not lived. If there are no 'warm fuzzier' in the atheist's love of their partner, their kids, their friends, their wider family????

Again, “love” is grounded in our evolved instinctive need as a social species for attachment and social bonding. This is what is grounded in because it is essential for our survival as a species. The romantic love of Hollywood movies or Barbara Cartland novels is a by-product of "love" not its core. .

Language though not always up to the task is still important. So it is not that God is 'part of the natural world or not'- it is that God is (believed to be) both transcendent or beyond everything (in other words, God is 'other' and not simply another being in the universe)) but also immanent meaning 'in or with' creation and man. So in religious thinking it is indeed both and is often referred to as a paradox.

“God is ‘other’” than what?

The belief, my Belief is that God is Reality but I have been sharing my concept about that Reality that is God.

So, you keep saying. But what does “God is Reality” actually mean? Especially given the sort of deity you apparently believe in, namely Spinoza’s God or Hartshorne’s panentheism. whereby God is the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe.

Actually, my theism or panentheism does not impose wishful thinking on God or reality, rather (it believes) it discerns what Reality is, it's challenge and possibilities. Christianity's way is called the cross - not sure about you but if I were to indulge in wishful thinking I would opt for something a bit less demanding and daunting. Christianity, true lived Christianity, as Chesterton once said, "has been found difficult and not (really) tried." Again, hardly wishful thinking. So the question becomes what is more absurd: all human effort in a universe that cares not a whit about man and upon which man makes no difference (and is nothing) - or that same human effort within and part of a universe, a Reality that is more meaningful than words can ever express? I'll go with meaning over absurdity.

The “wishful thinking” is entailed in the very assertion that a God exists in the first place. And how can there be any particular “meaningfulness” of this “Reality” when God is merely - as per Spinoza and panentheism - “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and not an individual entity or creator”.

[thormas]

And many of your point are brilliant: flawed but brilliant :+}

I agree that some serious thinkers do not think the concept of God is reasonable but again that comes down to belief. Plus I don't believe I ever said because X believes it, it must be true: the entire idea behind belief is that we think or believe it is true - we cannot know.

My point holds that there is great diversity in Christianity and I accept your point that some of the best educated countries have a goodly percentage of non-believers (and also have a considerable numbers of believers). I wonder what religion not being important to daily life means. For my Father, many parts of religion were not important yet he was indeed Christian and I too consider myself Christian but do not believe that many parts are important to my daily life. Again, there is variety in Christianity.

This is again belief: I accept that man is a transcendent being, what he seeks is not answered by the sciences and I find those answers to be (found in and to be) God. We differ on the ground of Love and I have never read these authors you keep mentioning (have you?).. There are different kinds of love and what you describe is eros with your references to rom-coms and philia with reference to attachment, bonding and survival. I speak of agape which goes beyond eros and philia and the cross, for the Christian, is the sign and symbol of this agape: a total self-emptying for the other that transcends survival of self and goes beyond survival of the species to the healing (saving) of the individual man and woman. There is more to this but this must suffice for now.

God is other than a being, thing or object that is part of the universe and other than the entirety or the sum of all things in the universe. God is 'that' by which all is able to be and 'that' to which all is to become (One). Again........a belief statement. The paradox is that the God who is 'other' or transcendent is also the God who is present or immanent in all that is.

If either of these two men believe that God is the sum of the universe, I couldn't disagree more. This is pantheism.......... not panentheism and such a god is not God. Even the Jewish scriptures depict this God naming himself "I AM" .............'Am' (Being) precedes and is other that the universe, other than all.

Again, we have discussed wishful thinking and this is not it (see above). I can think of many more and vastly different things that I would wish for if I had my druthers and it would not be symbolized by a dead man on a cross. Just saying.

[Tassman]

And many of your point are brilliant: flawed but brilliant :+}

Just “brilliant” will suffice.

I agree that some serious thinkers do not think the concept of God is reasonable but again that comes down to belief. Plus I don't believe I ever said because X believes it, it must be true: the entire idea behind belief is that we think or believe it is true - we cannot know.

This was the implication underlying your assertion: “many serious thinkers think it is quite reasonable to believe what I have said about God, man and creation.”

As for “we cannot know” we can assess what is probable based upon credible evidence.

My point holds that there is great diversity in Christianity and I accept your point that some of the best educated countries have a goodly percentage of non-believers (and also have a considerable numbers of believers). I wonder what religion not being important to daily life means. For my Father, many parts of religion were not important yet he was indeed Christian and I too consider myself Christian but do not believe that many parts are important to my daily life. Again, there is variety in Christianity.

What “religion not being important to daily life means” is just what it says – i.e., religion does not have a significant role in their lives - 68% in my country alone. Interestingly, the top 10 least believing countries, namely Australia, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Denmark, Canada, France and Austria are all highly developed, well-educated nations.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-religious-countries

This is again belief: I accept that man is a transcendent being, what he seeks is not answered by the sciences and I find those answers to be (found in and to be) God.

Your belief that “man is a transcendent being” is unsubstantiated.

We differ on the ground of Love and I have never read these authors you keep mentioning (have you?).. There are different kinds of love and what you describe is eros with your references to rom-coms and philia with reference to attachment, bonding and survival. I speak of agape which goes beyond eros and philia and the cross, for the Christian, is the sign and symbol of this agape: a total self-emptying for the other that transcends survival of self and goes beyond survival of the species to the healing (saving) of the individual man and woman. There is more to this but this must suffice for now.

Barbara Cartland (whom I have NEVER read) and the Bronte Sisters (Charlotte, Emily and Anne) or Jane Austin etc. are well-known authors specializing in romantic love. This was in the context of “warm fuzzies”. And yes, there are different types of love – CS Lewis has written about them in “The Four Loves”. But underlying them all is the evolved need for social animals such as us for attachment and social bonding to enable community living. Without this crucial survival instinct there is no ‘love’ of any sort.

God is other than a being, thing or object that is part of the universe and other than the entirety or the sum of all things in the universe. God is 'that' by which all is able to be and 'that' to which all is to become (One). Again........a belief statement. The paradox is that the God who is 'other' or transcendent is also the God who is present or immanent in all that is.

Once again, your “belief statement” is unsubstantiated..

If either of these two men believe that God is the sum of the universe, I couldn't disagree more. This is pantheism.......... not panentheism and such a god is not God. Even the Jewish scriptures depict this God naming himself "I AM" .............'Am' (Being) precedes and is other that the universe, other than all.

“The multiplicity of ways that panentheists describe the mutual relationship between God and the world indicates a vagueness of understanding of the ontology of the relation between God and the world”.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

Again, we have discussed wishful thinking and this is not it (see above). I can think of many more and vastly different things that I would wish for if I had my druthers and it would not be symbolized by a dead man on a cross. Just saying.

Yes, it is exactly that. Your “wishful thinking” is entailed in the very assertion that a God exists in the first place – as “symbolized by a dead man on a cross”, or anything else.

[thormas]

There was no implication as I did preface all with it "comes down to belief." Thus, X is not true because one believes it, rather one believes X is true.

Religion being important to one's daily life depends on how one understands religion or faith, as discussed.

Once again, you confuse science with religious belief: there is no evidence for or against.

You seem very familiar with Cortland - are you sure you are not a secret fan? However, whether you are or not, the point is you are confusing eros with agape, as discussed. And no one is saying there is not a survival instinct in man - simply that that is not all there is:+}

My belief statement is a............belief statement.

Of course there is vagueness (again, not denied), however the religious person would call it mystery and point (as has been done here) to the limits of human language. Vagueness has never scared me, even the vagaries of rom-coms don't scare me.

Actually, I have never wished that God exists, rather I have always believed God IS (again as discussed).

[Tassman]

There was no implication as I did preface all with it "comes down to belief." Thus, X is not true because one believes it, rather one believes X is true.

No, you said more. You linked your belief to “many serious thinkers think it is quite reasonable to believe” what you believe as though this validates your beliefs.

Religion being important to one's daily life depends on how one understands religion or faith, as discussed.

Well clearly large numbers of people in many of the well-educated countries of the world (e.g., 68% in Australia) understand religion to be NOT important in their daily lives.

Once again, you confuse science with religious belief: there is no evidence for or against.

There are probabilities for or against religious belief. For example, it is probable that the god of lightening does NOT exist given that we have scientific evidence of how lightening occurs. No gods necessary. Just as it probable that souls do not exist given that cognitive neuroscience is increasingly unaware of any immaterial inner reality beyond the physical activity of our brain. And it is probable that a non-natural entity such as God doesn’t exist given that there's no evidence of God existing outside of the minds of our species and other intelligent hominids such as the Neanderthals.

You seem very familiar with Cortland - are you sure you are not a secret fan?

Absolutely sure re Babs, no secret fan here. She wears too much pink..

However, whether you are or not, the point is you are confusing eros with agape, as discussed. And no one is saying there is not a survival instinct in man - simply that that is not all there is:+}[

I’m not confusing any of the forms of love. But they ALL arise because of the evolved need of social animals like us for attachment and social bonding to enable community living. Without this crucial survival instinct there is no ‘love’ of any sort. Self-preservation i.e., “survival” is the driving force that fuels ALL our behavior and that of all living creatures.

My belief statement is a............belief statement.

Your belief that “man is a transcendent being” is an utterly unsupported bald assertion. Just as “Tinkerbelle is a naughty fairy” is an unsupported belief other than that of her existence as a fictional character.

Of course there is vagueness (again, not denied), however the religious person would call it mystery and point (as has been done here) to the limits of human language. Vagueness has never scared me, even the vagaries of rom-coms don't scare me.

Oh rom-coms can be seriously scary.

“Vagueness” is not scary but it is difficult to base a theological argument on “lack of preciseness in thought or communication”, which is how vagueness is defined. Vagueness is not a problem with a true Christian “mystery” such as the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is excruciatingly precise – just contradictory.

Actually, I have never wished that God exists, rather I have always believed God IS (again as discussed).

No, “God IS” has not been discussed – merely asserted by you. So again: God IS what?

[thormas]

Mine (as all religious belief) is a belief and theology is that discipline which describes, discusses, explicates that belief and its implications. And many serious religious thinkers, many theologians are 'quite reasonable' and 'make a great deal of sense' in their theologies. And, I agree with. specifically those theologians who reflect a 20 and 21st C world view and use contemporary philosophical systems in their theologies. I even find their differences of great interest because it allows me to decide what best resonates for me. Thus their basic belief is in agreement with mine and yes their writings speak to and agree (validate but still without proof) the reasonableness of those beliefs. I get that you don't share this belief and do not find their arguments reasonable........and I feel the same way about the atheist belief: I don't accept it and find it unreasonable, absurd and thus irrelevant (but I still like atheists:+}

Seemingly you are right but I do wonder exactly what those 2/3s believe (agnosticism and atheism are not monoliths). I have been told that I am not a Christian, so some would put me in those numbers, burning right along side of them - especially here in the US. I do find that some atheists are 'more Christian (no insult intended) than many Christians.

You really have to stop talking about gods and earliest man's belief: these have been discussed, acknowledge and the religious belief of the serious religious thinker is not that belief. Actually, serious thinkers do not accept that God messes with nature or is a being at all, never mind one that can be bribed - and even their idea of 'worship' is radically different. I don't even think in terms of souls anymore (assuming we even agree on the term) but the cognitive sciences are not in agreement on mind/brain/body/the physical and it is questionable if they can ever give evidence for or against 'mind' or 'soul' just as they cannot (as has been discussed) give definitive evidence against (or for) God. So again you continue to mistakenly mix science with religious belief, whereas I have no issue with the reality that science and religion are two different fields dealing with two very different 'subjects.'

How many non-fans would know that Babs (I like the familiarity) wears pink? Come on, fess up :+}

Again, I have no problem pointing to evolution, survival of the species, etc. (I have no problem with the sciences) I simply (as previously discussed) do not think that 'survival' is the be all and end all of love.

Again, we differ as I never thought 'Tink' was a 'naughty fairy.'

I find that theology exhibits an amazing “preciseness in thought or communication” even as it deals with that which transcends the human. I have read, just to give two examples,John Macquarie's 'Principles of Christian Theology' and David Bentley Hart's 'God' and both are amazingly precise in their thought and in their systematic presentation and there is certainly no lack of communication. So I'm not sure to whom you refer or how familiar you are with serious modern theologians. However, vagueness goes to the reality (again belief) that God is not a thing, being or object and that is what our language deals with, so in such discussions, it is of course 'vague' because the Reality is too rich for human language. Thus we are left with metaphor, symbol, analogies, parables, etc. However, this never bothered me because I find the same limitation in 'thought and communication' when trying to say something meaningful about love, about friendship, about one's love for his child: what we experience cannot be captured or fully expressed in language, yet there is the reality. I have always liked a quote from O'Henry, "Tis what I feel, but can't define. Tis what I know. but can't express."

God has been asserted and discussed: to say that God IS is to say God is not an object, thing or being (even a supreme being); it is to say that God is 'Being' - the very (logical and ontological) possibility that any and everything at all 'is' and participates in Being. And that belief also goes to the destiny of all: fullness in Being or what some might call the One. In addition it has been discussed that there is a 'way' to be (or be-come) and that way is found in the embodiment or incarnation of love. This is humanization or what some of the early Greek Fathers called the divinization of the human. That is enough for now since it would take much more time to go into a full theology and Christmas is coming (actually the virginal conception is not to be taken literally but is a faith statement put in mythological languafge that God is intimately involved in the life of this man, Jesus (as God is so involved in all human lives). But that too is a belief statement.

[Tassman]

Mine (as all religious belief) is a belief and theology is that discipline which describes, discusses, explicates that belief and its implications. And many serious religious thinkers, many theologians are 'quite reasonable' and 'make a great deal of sense' in their theologies. And, I agree with. specifically those theologians who reflect a 20 and 21st C world view and use contemporary philosophical systems in their theologies. I even find their differences of great interest because it allows me to decide what best resonates for me. Thus their basic belief is in agreement with mine and yes their writings speak to and agree (validate but still without proof) the reasonableness of those beliefs. I get that you don't share this belief and do not find their arguments reasonable........and I feel the same way about the atheist belief: I don't accept it and find it unreasonable, absurd and thus irrelevant (but I still like atheists:+}

The key here though, is your phrase: “what resonates with me”. In short, unlike scientific methodology and evidence, your beliefs are merely subjective.

Seemingly you are right but I do wonder exactly what those 2/3s believe (agnosticism and atheism are not monoliths). I have been told that I am not a Christian, so some would put me in those numbers, burning right along side of them - especially here in the US. I do find that some atheists are 'more Christian (no insult intended) than many Christians.

One can only accept what people say about their own beliefs in polling and census results and NOT second-guess what you think they really think deep down.

You really have to stop talking about gods and earliest man's belief: these have been discussed, acknowledge and the religious belief of the serious religious thinker is not that belief.

Religious beliefs of the religious thinker today evolved from the earliest beliefs about gods. And these “beliefs” arose for the same reason and were grounded in pre-scientific language and methodology.

Actually, serious thinkers do not accept that God messes with nature or is a being at all, never mind one that can be bribed - and even their idea of 'worship' is radically different.

ALL non-scientific thinkers about God – serious or otherwise – can do no more than speculate on the notion of a deity.

I don't even think in terms of souls anymore (assuming we even agree on the term) but the cognitive sciences are not in agreement on mind/brain/body/the physical and it is questionable if they can ever give evidence for or against 'mind' or 'soul' just as they cannot (as has been discussed) give definitive evidence against (or for) God.

The only current disagreements among the cognitive sciences are NOT about the physical nature of the mind/body but HOW they interact.

So again you continue to mistakenly mix science with religious belief, whereas I have no issue with the reality that science and religion are two different fields dealing with two very different 'subjects.'

We are NOT “dealing with two different subjects”, just one subject. There is absolutely no evidence for the mind/soul beyond the physical activity of the brain. This is a matter for science, NOT metaphysical religious speculation.

How many non-fans would know that Babs (I like the familiarity) wears pink? Come on, fess up :+}

How many “non-fans?” Anybody who saw Barbara Cartland pontificating on TV about her step-granddaughter princess Diana, which she did frequently back in the day - usually in pink with lots of ruffles. .

Again, I have no problem pointing to evolution, survival of the species, etc. (I have no problem with the sciences) I simply (as previously discussed) do not think that 'survival' is the be all and end all of love.

Love is merely the byproduct of the evolved need of social animals like us for attachment and social bonding to enable community living.

Again, we differ as I never thought 'Tink' was a 'naughty fairy.'

Oh yes. Check JM Barry 's Peter Pan. Tinkerbelle was a mischievous, naughty fairy who had it in for Wendy.

I find that theology exhibits an amazing “preciseness in thought or communication” even as it deals with that which transcends the human. I have read, just to give two examples,John Macquarie's 'Principles of Christian Theology' and David Bentley Hart's 'God' and both are amazingly precise in their thought and in their systematic presentation and there is certainly no lack of communication.

The Christian creeds also offer “amazing preciseness in thought or communication” as I previously noted. But they are utterly contradictory nevertheless.

So I'm not sure to whom you refer or how familiar you are with serious modern theologians. However, vagueness goes to the reality (again belief) that God is not a thing, being or object and that is what our language deals with, so in such discussions, it is of course 'vague' because the Reality is too rich for human language. Thus we are left with metaphor, symbol, analogies, parables, etc. However, this never bothered me because I find the same limitation in 'thought and communication' when trying to say something meaningful about love, about friendship, about one's love for his child: what we experience cannot be captured or fully expressed in language, yet there is the reality. I have always liked a quote from O'Henry, "Tis what I feel, but can't define. Tis what I know. but can't express."

No, actual reality is NOT too rich for human language. YOU are left with “metaphor, symbol, analogies, parables, etc.” because there is no actual evidence to support what you want to believe.

God has been asserted and discussed: to say that God IS is to say God is not an object, thing or being (even a supreme being); it is to say that God is 'Being' - the very (logical and ontological) possibility that any and everything at all 'is' and participates in Being. And that belief also goes to the destiny of all: fullness in Being or what some might call the One. In addition it has been discussed that there is a 'way' to be (or be-come) and that way is found in the embodiment or incarnation of love. This is humanization or what some of the early Greek Fathers called the divinization of the human. That is enough for now since it would take much more time to go into a full theology and Christmas is coming (actually the virginal conception is not to be taken literally but is a faith statement put in mythological languafge that God is intimately involved in the life of this man, Jesus (as God is so involved in all human lives). But that too is a belief statement.

Yes. It is ALL just a statement of what you choose to believe and ALL utterly unsupported by any actual evidence whatsoever. As for the “mythical language” of the virgin birth one can reasonably argue that it is ALL mythology, no different in principle to the colorful myths of Greece and Rome. It can result in great art, as can any fiction, but no more than that.