TRIP AROUND THE SUN
41 of 52 –
Thoughts:
The following came through the Atheist’s talk-site.
Matt writes:
Xian memes are indoctrinated/taught to obey &to (dare) question any man of
gawd is tantamount to questioning gawd
himself! What a crock!
Matt - I like this - I'm going to edit it a little so that others I may send it
to can interpret. I’ll leave your format in also.
"Christians are often indoctrinated to obey and not dare to question a
'man of God,' as that is tantamount to questioning God himself."
Absolutely!
Besides, if one believed in a god - what would be wrong with questioning the god
directly? Nothing! If God were so small that he could not survive questioning,
He ought to quit the god job anyway and take on something easier and less
challenging.
If God had asked me to kill my son to prove I loved Him, I would answer,
"If you are evil enough to kill my innocent son, I cannot stop the
all-powerful, but I will not do this evil thing myself. I also would never ask
my son to kill my grandson to prove he loves his daddy. Go sit on a tack."
Other words come to mind. I could add $#@!^%#$@.
- Chuck
If a country has only one religion, it will be totalitarian;
if there are two religions, they are going to cut each other’s heads off; but
if there are many religions, it will be peaceful.
Voltaire.
Sept. 4 - Three more Muslim suicide bombers
killed themselves and
unsuspecting Jews in a
A “what” mall? Is there any other kind of mall? Ones you drive your car in? I
don't understand the name.
This is
similar to an old poem:
|
The
Purist |
|
|
|
I give you now Professor Twist, |
This
exaggerated attention to a trivial issue when contained within a very important
issue is something religions do a great deal of.
“Baptism
must be done by immersion! It cannot be done by sprinkling!”
“Only
we can do it; no one else has the authority – God has given this only to us.”
“Anyone
at all can perform a baptism.”
“God
has a body of flesh and bone.”
“God is
a spirit - and only a spirit!”
“God is
a man.”
“God is
a woman.”
“God is
the whole universe.”
“God is
a concept – not a reality.”
On and on.
They
tend to measure one another by measuring the adherence of the person to all this trivia. “Do you accept Jesus?” “Do you know that
Joseph was and is a prophet of God?”
Who
should care? If one serving and good person looks at all the data and concludes
that Joseph talked with God – and another looks at the data and concludes there
is no God at all – one that Jesus is the Messiah – another that he is not -
What difference does it make?
If two
others who don’t care at all about their fellows – and live selfish lives – had
the same two positions – what difference does it make?
There are
good Atheists - good Christians - good Buddhists, etc.
There
are bad Atheists - bad Christians - bad Buddhists, etc.
The trivial issue? Whether the person believes or does not believe in a
deity.
The important issue? How the person lives with and among his fellows.
I have
met quite a few on this trip who absolutely reverse this – with gusto.
Believing is all that counts – Doing is fine – but does not count. Surely you
know what I want to say when I say “poppycock!” These are the so-called
“fundamentalists.”
Atheists
who also have become in addition anti-theists are in the same boat. They are
also “fundamentalists.” The important thing to these people is that one “not
believe” in the unproven. Many atheists are not like this at all; they are not
anti-theists – and they have a good sense of priority.
If we
feel to measure, we ought to do it with regard to the goodness of the person,
regardless of his religion or the absence of religion. And goodness should be
measured by what people do with their abilities – individually.
Most of
what we must believe to continue existing – is unproven. But the results of
actions are seen – and the value. A person needs no scientific understanding of
the role of oxygen – to know that when he breathes, it feels good and supports
him.
One
with a religion has this kind of data – the system works to help him raise his
family – whether he understands how it works or why it works, is trivial in
most cases.
My most
important measure of the success of one’s religion – is to observe how happy
the person has become – and how the happiness of others has been affected by
him.
I would
measure the value of atheism exactly the same way. I know many happy ones – and
have of late met some unhappy ones – angry ones – more so than the people of
any of the religions I have visited – including even those I think very poor
religions.
Perhaps
I too - am looking at trivial issues within these religions I don’t like – If
they are happy and if they add to the happiness of others – maybe their belief
that all the others are going to burn in Hell is just another trivial belief.
So long as I believe it to be untrue, what should I care that someone believes
it? They can’t act on that belief. Beliefs that may be acted upon – those are
the ones to fear. “Homosexuals are evil – I should do harm to them,” is an
example.
(This
thought is a little awakening to me. I’m not sure I like it. I don’t like
losing arguments with myself.) The bottom line is that if someone believes I am
going to burn in Hell – loves me – and wants to fix it – of what am I to worry?
But if they believe they themselves have been called to punish me – then that’s
a whole different story.
The
Visit:
This basically
fundamentalist church was very similar in most respects to others I’ve visited,
so I won’t include a long treatise on the basics. There were a couple
interesting things, however – and I can report on those. I’ve been pretty busy
this week with the atheists – they love to communicate. I like that about them.
The atheists I’ve known as a scientist were generally pretty quiet about such
things – and about all other things they don’t believe – they were very busy
with things they did believe – and were dedicated to those.
The
program for this meeting had a very beautiful picture of the Savior with a
staff and a little lamb nuzzled up to his leg. On a rocky hill perhaps thirty
feet away were two waiting wolves. (They look a lot like some of the dogs I’ve
had.)
I
circled the wolves with my ballpoint pen – and put a line to some words I
wrote.
“Does
He also love these? What would He have them eat? Are there ‘other’ lambs
provided for these wolves that the Savior is not caring for?”
I took
it to one of the ministers and asked the question – showing him the picture.
This
was a bit of a stumper. We decided together that these particular wolves must
have stood for evil men – not wolves. Analogies are never perfect, of course,
but I have never liked this sheep and wolf one. (Did anyone see “Born Free?”) We gain sympathy for the lion who does not know how to
make a kill. Suddenly, the lion becomes the victim of the world’s
circumstances. We cheer in our hearts when the lion’s first kill is made. Now
it can be set free – to live as it was meant to live.
There
was a statement in the program – I think also on the wall – it said:
“God Is
the God of All Gods.”
I
asked, “Who are these other gods – over whom God is?
Again -
this came to him as a hard question at first. We decided together that it must
refer only to false gods - like money, etc. But then I wanted to know if the
One and Only God then was a God over money? Why would He want to be a God over
false gods?
For
that matter – why would He want to be a King of Kings? When asked if He was a
king, he said, “Thou sayest,” and spoke of a
“kingdom” not of this world. Do we think He meant He would be a King in that
other world - or was “kingdom” just a way of speaking their language? A king is
a dictator - it doesn’t matter how good they are – agency is gone. The D&C
makes it clear that no one who wants such power - can retain the priesthood. He
said He did not want Glory - why do we shower Him with it? He’s our brother -
give him a hug - that’s what He would like - don’t bow down – He wouldn’t like
that. Wash his feet – and he’ll wash yours to make the point.
Lots of music at the first – electrified, as usual for
these groups.
Oh – I
almost forgot the best part.
The Sacrament. Now on this trip I’ve seen the sacrament taken several ways. It may
appear trivial to some – but there really are some psychological differences
that appear significant to me.
Way 1:
Mormons:
First a
song is sung by the congregation. Then a Priest (usually a 16-18 year old boy) says
a fixed-word prayer word for word – if he gets it wrong – even one word – he is
asked to say it again. It’s a blessing on the bread. Then deacons (usually
12-13 year old boys) pass the bread to all in the congregation. Only members
are supposed to partake. Once in a while a member will not partake – if feeling
badly about him or herself at the time. This is very visible – sometimes having
to gesture a “no” to the one passing it to him or her. Each person eats it when
he or she gets it. Very quiet – no music – no talking.
Then
another Priest says another fixed-word prayer, a blessing on the water. Then
they pass the cups of water the same way – each drinking and replacing the
empty cup in the holder – all quiet – no music – no talking at all. When finished,
the deacons move in a very organized fashion back to their seats – and sit in
unison. A couple seconds of silence – and then they are complimented for their
reverence and excused to “Sit with their families.”
Way 2:
Seen several times:
First
the minister gives a short talk on what the “Eucharist” is about – then Row by
row, the congregation comes to the front and is given the bread (or cracker
piece) and the grape juice. They eat and drink it there at the front and then
return to their seats as the next row is approaching. Usually, there is music
playing throughout the time.
Way 3:
Something
different is added. I messed up on this a couple of times. They go to the front
as above – but they take the emblems – the bread and the wine – back to their
seats. Then while all are holding their emblems – the minister or someone else
gives the talk – and then everyone takes the bread and grape juice together.
Almost always (also in way 2) someone announces that all may partake – one does
not have to be a member of this church. Again – music is playing the whole time
– even during the talk. At a couple of churches, wine was used – though there
was also one tray of grape juice for minors.
Way 4:
This is
the one I saw this week – first time. There is music. We went up row by row to
get the little piece of cracker and cup of grape juice. We returned to our
seats holding the piece and the cup. Then there were talks along with music and
pictures. There were no gory pictures – positive pictures of the Savior’s life.
I was watching to make sure I knew when to partake. Then I saw one person
partake. Then another over here – and another over there.
Each person takes it when he or she feels like it. It was really very effective
and sweet. Again – all were invited to participate – no membership required.
I do
believe there are things to be learned here. Some of our stilted ways do not
come from scripture – but from stilted people.
41 of 52 –
(