Wow, that is deep, James. I really like that. We call that religious
intolerance of spiritual principles at our meetings. We all can come
together with a god of our understanding or what some call a higher
power. Even the Athiest that come to our meetings can accept a higher
power because we all come to the point of our best thinking got us
there. To some the higher power is the group itself or what we call the
group consciousness. Thanks for sharing that.

Sheila wrote:
“I'd like to think that people are born with an innate ability to
discern right from wrong, but we simply aren't. We are born into sin,
and, therefore, I believe at least SOME religious influence is
necessary.”

I don’t believe that people should need a religious basis for their
morality. I most certainly don’t and I know many people who are
basically atheists who appear to have much higher morals than many
religious people I know. So I completely disagree with you on this
point and I’d like to share a quote from someone else who feels this
way,…

”A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death” - Albert Einstein

I’ve been stating these words almost verbatim my entire life.

And I also totally despise the idea that “we are born into sin”.

In my mind that is a pathetic thing to teach people. I don’t believe it
for a second. And this is one of the things that I dislike about these
dogmatic religions. They put ideas and words into the mouth of god that
I personally don’t believe that god would ever utter. It’s total
nonsense.

Sheila wrote:
“I think it's wrong of you to accuse people who follow a particular
religion of being "duped,"

Whether it’s right or wrong it’s what I believe. Although I don’t
accuse the people of being duped, I accuse the religions of duping them.

I mean, I wouldn’t ‘accuse’ someone of contracting cancer. It’s not
their fault they’ve contracted the disease.

But that’s been my point all along. If a religion is a ‘disease’ how
can it be ‘treated’ without offending the person who has contracted it?

I’m not out to convert anyone to ‘my way’ of thinking. In fact, I’m not
really out to convert anyone at all. I’m just voicing my views on the
matter. I’m not a preacher of any kind. I have no desire to convert
people, but if I do have a positive affect in helping someone avoid the
disease I will feel good that I was able to make a contribution.

I dont think you need religion to know right from wrong.ya need parents
who give a damn.I believe in God but dont discuss it with my son unless
he asks.

well, despise away...I DO believe mankind is born into sin, and that is
the "whole" purpose for God having sent His Son, Jesus Christ, on this
earth.

Also, a "rose by any other name" might smell as sweet, but an insult, no
matter how you try to circumnavigate it, is still an insult. Unless,
that is, you somehow believe that if we're so gullible as to be "duped"
by the "dupers," that we're going to be as easily "duped" by you as
well, just because you change your wording around a bit?

Nice try, but not going to work. Not on this gal, anyway.

Roy wrote:
“I really like that. We call that religious intolerance of spiritual
principles at our meetings”

In the real world I do show tolerance of other people’s beliefs and I
respect other people for their choices.

However like Voileazur mentioned, I’m merely addressing the topic that
was invited in this thread.

That really makes a difference, Jax. I mean if you don't give a damn
then what do you expect of them.

Sheila wrote:
“well, despise away...I DO believe mankind is born into sin, and that is
the "whole" purpose for God having sent His Son, Jesus Christ, on this
earth.”

This has always been a big issue for me. I certainly hope that Jesus
didn’t die for my sins because that would have been a terrible waste of
time.

Oh, ok, James. It just reminded me of an old maxim. You can take the boy
out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy. Or you
can take the god out of the religion but you can't take religion out of
god. I think Salem cigarettes used to have a commercial along the same
lines. To me religion is this word that doesn't really define itself. I
don't like the word religion. Just me, I guess. To me it is so vague.
The word religion pisses me off.

Why do you think that would have been a "terrible waste of time," James?

I am sorry, but i did not read this entire thread...anyway, I believe
Jeseus' teachings are wonderful things and ALL good things come from
God...
Not necessarily a professing christian, as my views have been
compromised about the "word", as most. I love my God with all my
heart...make no mistake about it. My love is not bound by books. Perhaps
Ghandi said it best, " I like your christ, I just don't like your
christians." I have met wonderful people of lots of different schools of
thought. No madness here...to each his/her own.

P.S. Do you mean of His time, or of yours?

JeanC,

If one doesn't believe in 'sins', or doesn't believe that one would have
to die for his sins,

"... then someone claiming to have died for his sins would hav died in
vain."

Now JeanC, you and I have met on a post before, and you know I admire
your 'fighting' spirit. That being said, more important than the
'fight', one must chose his battles.

In my 'neutral' opinion, you have no battles with 'abra.'.

I don't feel as though I have "battles" with him, either, but I am
trying to understand "where he is coming from," however.

Discussions with like-minded people bore me. I mean, how far can one
discuss an issue with someone who agrees with you? Know what I mean?

JeanC,

You said:

"Discussions with like-minded people bore me. I mean, how far can one
discuss an issue with someone who agrees with you? Know what I mean?"

Totally agree with you on that one.

As for the rest,

"... I don't feel as though I have "battles" with him, either, but I am
trying to understand "where he is coming from, however."

'abra,' comes from believing in God, and where you come from is
believing in God, ... and 'religion' gets in the way by defining the
kind of 'God' it should be. There is only 'God': it is up to each one of
us to fill-in OUR blank, and not impose it on others.

Ironically, with the healthy distance you appear to keep with religion,
and possibly the mythical intepretation you might have of scriptures,
(as Mike had once put it: Mythical or Litteral relation with
scriptures?), you would be one to grasp the unhealthy 'duper/duped'
dynamics religions are too eager to maintain, which instead of helping,
keeps people from their individual spiritual journey.

Voile, yes, I do believe I know the difference between mythology and
reality, so I think it's unfair to categorize all people who follow a
certain religion as akin to being "dribbling, mindless, idiotic robots."
There are extremes to everything, though, including non-religious
viewpoints.

>> belief in EXISTANCE and REALITY requires a certain amount of faith.

Yes!!!

I haven't had this much fun in a discussion in a very long
time!

First off, for the record. I hope no one believes that opposition or
disagreement with an idea equals an attack, especially on a forum that
involves compulsory participation...that would be silly. So to those of
you that thought I was "attacking" Abra
(I know that might not be the case, but non-specificity of a target in
communication is the hallmark of the internet forum), I wasn't. I think
Abra has enjoyed the debate as much as most of us, and he didn't take
anything said personally.

That being said...

Abra, thanks for the clarification of Z's theory, however, the "spirit"
of my argument (if you'll pardon the pun) was actually supported by your
description of theories, and the uncertainty of some scientific
explanations. The point I was trying to make was that you are in fact a
religious man...

Allow me to clarify.

As you have explained your beliefs, you have a certain set of guidelines
that you use to structure your belief in a "higher being". You state
explicitly that your belief is that "God" as you describe the entity is
actually everything. Literally the Alpha and the Omega. While your
religion has fewer restrictions, it is arguably closer to Shinto than it
is to being your own unique philosophy. Of course, you had acknowledged
this earlier when you were trying to explain your beliefs.

If you need further proof, let me try to preempt a few counter points.

-If you think that your religion doesn't require faith, then what do you
call the basic agreement that reality exists? What I mean to say is- we
could argue all day, and conversations on proof and truth usually
devolve into questioning the infinite minutiae of details that comprised
the idea; inevitably leading to the question of existence. In order to
have any kind of discourse, or to even begin a debate, you have to
believe that you exist- in spite of the fact that you can never prove it
conclusively. Ever. Simple fact (after all, pick something apart enough
and you will find you don't have all the answers.) So without even
confirming it with you beforehand, I know that you believe you exist,
and this is a "fact" that you accept this on faith.

-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion ... I think the
definition speaks for itself, in light of your previous statements on
science supporting your belief as to the nature of God.

Now what is the point you ask? Well, you might not, but others might, so
to clarify: Lump yourself in with all the others that have been "duped"
by religion. If religion in general is responsible for close-mindedness
and ignorance, as a religious man you are not immune to it's effects.
Unless your religion just happens to be right.

You also argued that religion didn't answer the question of why, because
belief isn't an answer, but I think that is because I was lazy and
paraphrased my question. My deepest apologies. What I meant to say is
that science explains how everything works (as you eloquently pointed
out), and religion explains why it bothers to work in the first place.
One is instructional, and the other is inspirational. Of course, you
explained that best:

"As far as I’m concerned I know
the answer to the question ‘why?’.

Life.

That’s why.

At least that’s why we exist - so that the universe can perceive
itself."

Hardly a "rational" explanation full of the observable and measurable,
but very poetic.

I think that science will always fail when it comes to explaining God
because of an interesting thing, if God is everything, then He is the
Nothing in-between the everything that exists, and how can you be what
is not?

Also, nice nod to Conversations with God with your reference to the
Universe perceiving itself...

Of course, I whole heartedly agree with you that science doesn't negate
religious belief, as both have their own individual purpose.

Oh, my gosh, so much subject matter, so little time. Hey, just have to
share a new sticker I was given yesterday. Picture this,
a lovely picture of a rainbow and underneath the words -
"I have a hard time even thinking STRAIGHT". LOL ok, just thought
it fit here, so much to keep, ah, you know.

Well, I was going to make some comments here, wanted to address JeanC
as she is obviously a person of much conviction and clarity of thought
in her own beliefs, but I think I'll make it another topic. No sense
adding more keyed up people on a thread that questions why we get keyed
up????

In another post, then cheers to you all