Monday, May 29, 2006

Tell Me All Your Thoughts On God

There's a fascinating interview up on Salon.com with Karen Armstrong about religion and belief. I recommend it highly. Ms. Armstrong manages to put many of my own thoughts on the practice of religion and the notion of "spirituality" into words that would shame any attempt on my part to convey them.

Here're a few choice tidbits. Click over to Salon for the full piece. You have to sit through a brief ad, but the experience is painless.

....Religion is a search for transcendence. But transcendence isn't necessarily sited in an external god, which can be a very unspiritual, unreligious concept. The sages were all extremely concerned with transcendence, with going beyond the self and discovering a realm, a reality, that could not be defined in words. Buddhists talk about Nirvana in very much the same terms as monotheists describe God.

....Jesus did not spend a great deal of time discoursing about the trinity or original sin or the incarnation, which have preoccupied later Christians. He went around doing good and being compassionate. In the Quran, metaphysical speculation is regarded as self-indulgent guesswork. And it makes people, the Quran says, quarrelsome and stupidly sectarian.

You can't prove these things one way or the other, so why quarrel about it? The Daoists said this kind of speculation where people pompously hold forth about their opinions was egotism. And when you're faced with the ineffable and the indescribable, they would say it's belittling to cut it down to size. Sometimes, I think the way monotheists talk about God is unreligious....people very often talk about him as a kind of acquaintance, whom they can second-guess.

People will say God loves that, God wills that, and God despises the other. And very often, the opinions of the deity are made to coincide exactly with those of the speaker.

....It's really only Christianity and Islam that are obsessed with afterlife in this way.....I think the old scenarios of heaven and hell can be unreligious. People can perform their good deeds in the spirit of putting their installments in their retirement annuities. And there's nothing religious about that. Religion is supposed to be about the loss of the ego, not about its eternal survival.


Stirring stuff, and worthy of thought and discussion.

Are you religious? What do you believe? What do you think of Ms. Armstrong's views?

25 Comments:

At 9:08 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

This woman annoys the crap out of me for some reason. I think I shall write a response to the article that's a bit longer, but I'll nutshell it here.

The Golden Rule as taught by Jesus (Matthew 7:12), "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." is different in a small but significant way from the one taught by others and as he pointed out it's not new. It runs throughout the OT which is pre "Axial Age". As is the idea of a personal god.

I do agree with her on a few points though. People often view God as Santa Claus and too much focus is put on the after life by some. And religion is hard as she says.

 
At 12:32 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

I'd like to know why she annoys you. Looking forward to reading your thoughts.

 
At 12:47 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

I wish I could articulate that beyond the fact that she just seems to ignore or not understand some very basic tenets of the Chritian faith. And considering she's supposed to be an expert that's inexcusable.

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

What basic tenets does she ignore?

 
At 1:13 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

It seems as I said above that she doesn't realize that the GR has been round monotheism since before 500 BCE, it doesn't seem that she understands the reason for the miracles that Christ performs, or even the extent of what he did while he was here. It sounds like to her he was just a good fella who did nice things for people. That view of Christ, particularly in someone who claims to be some sort of expert on religion, annoys me and make her look like she just read a children's book of Bible stories.

She had a hard time as a nun, fine. She didn't "find god". I dig that. It also seems like she hasn't cracked the NT in a while.

 
At 1:30 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

I disagree. Not to be a dick or anything, I just disagree.

First, she does talk about the existence of the GR, pre-monotheism, specifically with reference to Confucious.

Secondly, from a scholarly point, she's right about Jesus' miracles. I'm no expert, but I've taken theology, and read a decent amount, and from what I've studied most of Jesus' miracles can be interpreted as spiritual puzzles of a sort. Metaphorical magic tricks that illustrate higher pinciples about his philosophy.

Now, you can add to that, and say that those miracles actually took place, but she's approaching it from a more skeptical place.

It seems to me that it isn't her knowledge of the NT that's lacking, it's her lack of adherence to church-sanctioned interpretation of the text.

 
At 1:30 PM, Anonymous Hattie said...

Scott: you are obviously committed to the notion of the superiority of Christianity to other religions.
I know a lot of people who are not conventionally religious but who are interested in spirituality, and I enjoy talking to them about spiritual matters.
My paths to the higher life are, however, art and science. I try to be ethical in my daily life and to follow my conscience.
There is this problem though: as Amstrong's interviewer pointed out, the mass murderers of our time have been secularists.
However, the worst genocide in history, the taking of the New World in the 16th Century, happened under the banner of Christianity. The ethical battle then became between the "good" Christians and the "bad" Christians, with the Indians playing the role of colorful others, victims and converts. The movie,"The Mission" is good on that.
So I would say religion without ethics creates a dialectic of monsters and saints.That's our situation today. It's destructive in the extreme.

 
At 2:34 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

"First, she does talk about the existence of the GR, pre-monotheism, specifically with reference to Confucious."

I'm talking about the GR pre-Confucious. Jesus references the Law and the Prophets as teaching the GR which pre-date Confucious by some millenia. That's what she doesn't talk about.

"Secondly, from a scholarly point, she's right about Jesus' miracles."

About his healing miracles, yes. But when he brought Lazarus back from the dead or calmed the storm it wasn't about forgiving sin. Even if you don't believe that those things happened they were about teaching that Jesus had the very power of God himself.

"Now, you can add to that, and say that those miracles actually took place, but she's approaching it from a more skeptical place."

And I have no problem with skepticism. I'm just saying that she ignores the other miracles that Jesus performs. And I find it interesting (as I always do) when people who don't believe that the Gospels are "historical" say what Jesus did or didn't do. Aren't they just engaging in a bit of fiction since they have no other basis for knowing his thoughts, word, and actions?

"it's her lack of adherence to church-sanctioned interpretation of the text"

Well she pretty obviously doesn't believe that the view of Jesus given us in the Gospels is accurate so it isn't really about interpretation is it? And you aren't being a dick at all. This is good discussion. I don't want to come across as rude either. Just a little passionate. I put up more thoughts at my blog but we can keep this here if you like.

 
At 2:38 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

Hattie, I think that most people strive to be "ethical" and that's to be while not applauded at least appreciated. Personally I think that desire comes from the image of God in each of us. Unfortunately humanity (whether they profess Christ or not) are also creatures in a fallen world and susceptible to all of the ugliness that comes from that.

"So I would say religion without ethics creates a dialectic of monsters and saints."

Can you expand on this idea?

 
At 3:20 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

Hattie, I'll defend Scoot insofar as his belief in Christianity does not prevent him from being sensitive to other religions, or openminded about his faith.

Too often, we lose sight of the fact that many people who obxserve a faith are not extremists, but simply believers. There's an inherent danger in branding them with the same rough iron, because it's simply too generalized to be effective or accurate.

Scott -

I think that you have to remember her skepticism when she's discussing this stuff. To her, Lazarus didn't actually rise from the dead. It's allegorical. As such, I think it's not unreasonable to interpret that miracle as a metaphor for the death and rebirth that comes with renewed faith in God.

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

I've seen too many trivialize what Christ did (according to my beliefs) so forgive me if what Ms. Armstrong said pushed some buttons. But I'm of a mind to think that one should either believe in the Jesus that the Bible puts forth or believe in him not at all. The accounts of the miracles aren't written as metaphor, but as eyewitness accounts. I realize that not everyone believes that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses but they belong to that "genre" if you will. If one chooses to read them in a metaphorical sense only (I do see the metaphor that you mention but naturally I believe in a more literal interpretation) then why read them at all?

 
At 4:24 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

Because they speak truths?

Your argument seems to say that if Jesus wasn't actually the Son of God, or was, but didn't do everything they say he did, then what he says has no real value.

That's not something I can get behind. We know for a fact that the New Testament was written over a period of hundreds of years. We know that it's been changed - in translation and in substance - over thousands of years.

Given that, how can there not be a question of accuracy, especially given obvious contradictions elsewhere?

 
At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Hattie said...

Maybe some time I'll expand on my idea. Right now I'm busy trying to save democracy. :)
I'm not trying to brush you off, Scott, I'm just suddenly very busy.

 
At 4:42 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

Well no, his words (things like "Love one another.") hold value whether he existed or not. But how can one believe that God has the power to change lives if God does not have the power to raise the dead? Where's the value in that metaphor?

What I was discussing isn't accuracy per se. I know that the precise words may not be exactly the same aren't in fact given layers of translation. I just can't imagine that the passage went from "God can change your life." to "Christ can raise the dead."

 
At 2:18 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

But how can one believe that God has the power to change lives if God does not have the power to raise the dead?

Well, I'd ask yourself these questions:

Have you ever seen someone raised from the dead by God?

Have you ever seen someone's life made better through religious/spiritual belief?

I'd wager you've answered no to the former, yes to the latter.

 
At 8:22 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

Is it the belief that makes the person better or is it God? I wager you'd say the former.

As far as things miraculous I have witnessed what I believe to be a mionor miracle.

Also I thought about this "Your argument seems to say that if Jesus wasn't actually the Son of God, or was, but didn't do everything they say he did, then what he says has no real value." more after I left work last night and I have a question.

If he wasn't the son of God in a very real and very unique snese then why is what the bible says he said of any more value than any slef help book out there right now? He said love your neighbor as yourself. He said feed the hungry. He said clothe the naked. Are those things good because he said them or good because we read them and say they're good? IOW do the words have intrinsic value or does there need to be some sort of authority behind them? If Christ had no authority then where does the words' value come from? Have we just agreed "These things are good."? If so then who are we to say? If the whole thing is just some sort of social contract then why worry about what a Jewish rabbi who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago may or may not have said? Just read some best seller and go from there.

*Note, my tone here is not anger or sarcasm but honest questions.

 
At 9:31 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

No worries about tone. We know each other well enough to start disposing of those sorts of disclaimers. We're both grown men. And I fucking love this sort of debate.

As far as things miraculous I have witnessed what I believe to be a mionor miracle.

I'd believe you. I think most of us have experienced something close to the miraculous in our lives; it's one of the reasons religion continues to hold such fascination for us. We need an explanation for the miraculous, much like our ancestors needed an explanation for thunder and lightning.

I'm not trying to imply that miracles can't happen/don't exist. Simply that miracles aren't necessary to appreciate Jesus' philosophy. Which, quite unplanned, dovetails nicely into your main point, which I think is good meaty theological philosophizin' in the truest sense. It's good stuff. Let's tackle it:

If he wasn't the son of God in a very real and very unique snese then why is what the bible says he said of any more value than any slef help book out there right now? He said love your neighbor as yourself. He said feed the hungry. He said clothe the naked. Are those things good because he said them or good because we read them and say they're good?

IOW do the words have intrinsic value or does there need to be some sort of authority behind them? If Christ had no authority then where does the words' value come from? Have we just agreed "These things are good."? If so then who are we to say? If the whole thing is just some sort of social contract then why worry about what a Jewish rabbi who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago may or may not have said? Just read some best seller and go from there.

Those are questions that cut to the very heart of what religion means to me, and to the general question of what, at the end of the day, does religion mean, period. They've been asked for thousands of years, so forgive me if I don't shed any new light on them.

I don't pretend to understand God. I do elect to believe in the concept of such.

And as such, I tend to believe (personally, and without any sort of denigrating attitude towards those of different thought) that moral truths are moral truths, no matter who is speaking them.

Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, his wisdom (and it is wisdom of the highest and best sort) is not exclusive to him. Many have preached what Jesus did. If anything, this gives me greater surety in the existence of a deity - caring or Watchmaker - because the moral truths that Jesus espouses are seemingly universal.

What's interesting/ironic/fascinating about your question is how it is sort of the negative version (in the photographic, not moral, sense) of the larger argument for faith in God.

You ask, if Jesus isn't the actual Son o' God, then why should his opinion matter more than a self-help book's? I'd answer that the difference is faith, defined.

I have no way of knowing whether Jesus turned water into wine, and the truth is that neither do you. At the end of the day, it's about what and how we choose to believe something that seems impossible to us.

Is choosing to have faith and hope in a particular moral philosophy any different than the leap of faith required to believe that Christ rose Lazarus from the dead, or cast Legion into the swine? I don't believe it is, in any substantial way.

For me, the value in any words or in any actions originates from those words or actions themselves. The value of the Prodigal Son parable depends not upon the authority of the person relating it, but upon the story itself.

Take Saul/Paul. He was, in his previous life before conversion, a pretty terrible guy. Yet he found enlightenment in the teachings of Christ and proceeded to write something worthy of inclusion in the Bible.

Is it Paul that makes the words worthwhile? Or are the words worthwhile despite Paul's obvious humanity and growth/change?

I tend to believe, like the Greeks, that there are certain universal truths and goods, and that they exist in much the same way that Plato's "forms" existed - ineffable, constant, and unchanging. It's great men like Christ who can interpret and push forth these truths in inspiring and world-changing ways.

Long story, short:
I don't think you need to believe that Christ was divine to believe that he spoke Truth. I don't need to believe that the Buddha was divine to believe that he did the same.

I can believe in the divine, the existence of Truth, and accept that real knowledge of Jesus' actual spiritual parentage will always be beyond me.

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

My disclaimer was largely for that imaginary peanut gallery. I figured you’d feel me.

Believing in God is a good place to start for having answers to these sorts of questions. I personally have never understood how non-theists answer these questions. Lord knows they've tried to explain it to me, but I can't see how a mere social contract can be enough to base a system of morals on. I don't really trust human nature that much.

I agree that moral truths are moral truths and that they are absolute. I believe that those moral truths are found in the Bible as well as a number of other moral/religious texts. I don't think that Christianity/Judaism cornered the market on truth, but I do think that the God of those religions authored them so I think at least to that degree we agree.

And I'll echo the sentiment that I don't understand God or if I do it's only to the degree that I understand him based on how he chose to reveal himself in nature and the Bible. I am curious as to why you believe. I've never heard about your journey in that respect.


I also agree that faith (which also agrees with Ms. Armstrong) is fair more than "belief" or intellectual assent and it is that faith (in my case) in the authority that Jesus had that gives his words weight beyond them just being morally right. Parables in and of themselves don't require that the teacher have any special authority though Jesus' parable are indicative of a great amount of wisdom (not superhumanly so, but still great) Here’s a question for you. How do you decide what you think Jesus said? Here's why I ask. If Jesus says "Love your neighbor" you say (if I understand) "Fine. That's a good moral truth. I can do that." Jesus says "No one can come to the Father except through me." What do you say and why? I know some would say that that's added later or whatever, but I'm not sure how they pick and choose.

Regarding Paul, he doesn't say that he found enlightenment in the teachings of Christ. He says that he saw Jesus and Luke (who is believed to have written Acts) describes his conversion in more miraculous terms. Now you can accept or reject that. Myself I think to go from someone who's killing Christians to someone who is their most fervent supporter in fairly short order practically begs for the miraculous.

And about Christ/Buddha I don't think that their teachings always run alongside each other. That's where we get back to authority. How do you decide which one is "truthier"?

 
At 12:45 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

There will be no feeling of you.

Believing in God is a good place to start for having answers to these sorts of questions. I personally have never understood how non-theists answer these questions. Lord knows they've tried to explain it to me, but I can't see how a mere social contract can be enough to base a system of morals on. I don't really trust human nature that much.

Neither do I, but I believe in human nature to the extent that I believe some people do want order, and that those people are naturally drawn to positions that require the disposition thereof. I have no difficulty imagining a godless world wherein our morality is self-imposed. After all, it nicely explains the existence of sin without any apples.

Having said that, I choose to believe in the existence of God, but not necessarily a God involved in day-to-day life. Frankly, I can't understand why God would send his Son to earth 2000 years ago, aware that doing so would create massive confusion. If God wanted Jesus' message to be the true authority, why not plop him down in the age of television?

Why not make his presence clear and known to us? In not doing so, logic would seem to suggest that either a) God is playing games, or b) God has better things to do, or c) Jesus was God's Son, but in the sense that he was A messenger from God.

I agree that moral truths are moral truths and that they are absolute. I believe that those moral truths are found in the Bible as well as a number of other moral/religious texts. I don't think that Christianity/Judaism cornered the market on truth, but I do think that the God of those religions authored them so I think at least to that degree we agree.

Well, we do and we don't. Again, I think those books are trying to convey Truths, but they were written by men, not God. How else to explain inconsistencies/contradictions/changing standards of acceptance?

When Genesis begins with two separate, differing accounts of creation, which is God's "version?" Which is man's?

That said, we do agree that they're all attempting to convey something of God. It's just a mistake, in my humble opinion, to think that what you're reading isn't altered or shifted by human hands.

And I'll echo the sentiment that I don't understand God or if I do it's only to the degree that I understand him based on how he chose to reveal himself in nature and the Bible. I am curious as to why you believe. I've never heard about your journey in that respect.

I've had a heck of a journey, personally speaking. I've always had an interest in religion, and for a few years, I was set on attending seminary for the Dutch Reformed Church of America. But as my experiences in life grew, as i traveled, and met people the world over, and read more about my faith and the faiths of everyone else, I came to the conclusion that there's no ultimate answer to be found, because we're still trying to figure out what the question is (42?). I became a professional actor and made friends with homosexuals; I studied the torah and yoga and meditation and read up on primitive religion and culture...

I "lost faith" to an extent, in that I can't reconcile what I know of the world with the idea of one faith being the "true" faith.

I can, however, respect and revere Jesus Christ for what I consider to be a granite foundation of philosophical and moral wisdom. I don't have any clue what happens when we die, but I won't spend my days on earth insisting that everyone believe what I believe, because everything I know tells me that I know nothing. I don't "understand" God. No one does. And I'd argue that those who adhere to dogma and ritual over a search for enlightenment know God in an even more limited fashion - because they've chosen a form for "Him" to fit.

I also agree that faith (which also agrees with Ms. Armstrong) is fair more than "belief" or intellectual assent and it is that faith (in my case) in the authority that Jesus had that gives his words weight beyond them just being morally right. Parables in and of themselves don't require that the teacher have any special authority though Jesus' parable are indicative of a great amount of wisdom (not superhumanly so, but still great) Here’s a question for you. How do you decide what you think Jesus said? Here's why I ask. If Jesus says "Love your neighbor" you say (if I understand) "Fine. That's a good moral truth. I can do that." Jesus says "No one can come to the Father except through me." What do you say and why? I know some would say that that's added later or whatever, but I'm not sure how they pick and choose.

Well, I try not to pick and choose. I try to read his words and interpret them the best i can. "No man comes to the Father but through me" can be read as an insistence on following the teachings of Christ, but that interpretation as held by many modern Christians ignores the fact that at that time there was no Christianity. There were Christ's teachings. "No man comes to the Father but through me" would seem to be an assertion that unless you study Jesus' thoughts, words and deeds, you cannot begin to understand enlightenment, or God.

The same goes for some of Jesus' other, more "controversial" statements. I'm thinking specifically of Jesus' admonition that you must love God before your own family. While you can take that as a warning that God demands your love in an overwhelming way that precludes familial relationships, you can also read it as a warning that living your life in accordance with Jesus' espoused principles requires a devotion that's even more arduous than that of your family.

And about Christ/Buddha I don't think that their teachings always run alongside each other. That's where we get back to authority. How do you decide which one is "truthier"?

That's sort of my point. Their teachings intersect and compliment one another, even as they sometimes parallel and contradict one another. Shouldn't that suggest a commonality of source? A pure "form" both are attempting to interpret through the prism of their time, culture, and society?

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

Just feel for me then.

I can certainly imagine a world without God (I'm a big fan of John Lennon) I just think it would look a little different than ours. How different? I don't have that nailed down, but better in some ways, worse in others.

I'm firmly of the opinion that if God did drop JC down amongst us right now and he got on TV people would change the channel. After all, men that lived with him oft times just didn't get him. The fact that his presence isn't clear and known to all falls more under (d)men are stubborn creatures and follow their own paths to destruction.

Scholars brighter than either of us have addressed the Bible's inconsistencies on both sides of the coin and I like you said can't really add anything new to that equation. For my two bits worth, I still hold that the Bible was inspired by God to be his only missive to mankind. Other books may reveal some truths, but not sufficient ones. I understand that at the very least one has to be careful in the reading of it due to the number/qualities of translations that it has passed through, but I think that the basic truth remains unchanged. Man is unable to have a direct relationship with God short of his intervention.

Sounds like an interesting adventure you've had. It's made you into a seemingly kind, introspective, and thoughtful person. Even though it's resulted in you having questionable taste in movies. A burden that I also bear. ;-)

I interpret what Christ said as his being not so much a conduit, or his laying out a set of behaviors, but rather he is the mediator, but I think what you believe is also true. And I think you're spot on with your interpretation of the family passage.

I could see how someone would think that about Buddha/Jesus. A buddy of mine who's journey paralleled mine and took him in a different direction theologically told me about a German named Rudolf Otto. Sounds like you and he might have something in common. What it suggests to me is similar, but not the same. I think they both had some access to the truth, but that Jesus' access was a back stage pass versus Buddha's second row center.

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

Scholars brighter than either of us have addressed the Bible's inconsistencies on both sides of the coin and I like you said can't really add anything new to that equation. For my two bits worth, I still hold that the Bible was inspired by God to be his only missive to mankind. Other books may reveal some truths, but not sufficient ones. I understand that at the very least one has to be careful in the reading of it due to the number/qualities of translations that it has passed through, but I think that the basic truth remains unchanged. Man is unable to have a direct relationship with God short of his intervention.

Why? Because the Bible says so? Isn't that a sort-of circular argument? On what authority are we to take it that we can't be close to God without him? His own?

I know this sounds "blasphemous," but I tend to believe that God wants us to consider our existences, so I'll say it anyway. If Jesus saying he's the Son of God makes it so, does that mean that David Koresch (sp?) was also the Son of God?

How do we decide who's the "real" Son of God? There've been thousands of people who have claimed to be a messenger from God. Which of those do we believe? Was one of them Jesus, returned? Are we supposed to be on the lookout for other messengers? Are we missing them?

I've obviously got to buy Otto's work.

 
At 8:34 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

"Why? Because the Bible says so? Isn't that a sort-of circular argument? On what authority are we to take it that we can't be close to God without him? His own?"

The Bible seems to me to be a very accurate representation of human nature and the message of redemption that it carries strikes me as true and necessary. Add to that fact that my studies indicate that it is more historically accurate and consistent than any other book that makes the same or similar claims (message from a deity). Is the Bible we have today perfect? I can't say that. I agree that the translations we have are flawed. I just haven't seen anything tho indicate that they are so flawed as to change their original message.

"I know this sounds "blasphemous," but I tend to believe that God wants us to consider our existences, so I'll say it anyway. If Jesus saying he's the Son of God makes it so, does that mean that David Koresch (sp?) was also the Son of God?"

If it were only his say so then no. But if you accept that he did indeed perform the miracles that he did and if you accept that his life, death, and resurrection fullfill a number of OT prohecies then I say that's a good pile of proof. Now of course if you don't accept those things because you believe that they're all inventions of later Christian traditions then I don't see why anyone would accept that Christ even lived, much less that he said anything nice or true or accurate.

"How do we decide who's the "real" Son of God? There've been thousands of people who have claimed to be a messenger from God. Which of those do we believe? Was one of them Jesus, returned? Are we supposed to be on the lookout for other messengers? Are we missing them?"

Granted there are a number of people around Jesus' time that claimed messiagship, but his story stood the test of time. As for the thousands of other people, if their message is consistant with Jesus' and if they were able to do the things he did then you'd have room for comparison. Now as I said, I accept that Jesus' did those things on faith. I don't have proof that he did, so I can't prove it to you in the same way I can prove water freezes at a certain temp. All I can do is testify to what my experience and research tells me.

 
At 9:20 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

Which is, I suppose, my point at day's end.

You can't prove any of this (you in the Universal sense, not YOU). As such, no one religion is in a position to dictate to others how they should live their lives.

Your idea of faith is pretty darn open-minded as far as it goes, and I respect that. What matters to me is that religion changes lives for the better. What worries me about religion is it's tendency to isolate and propogate hatred through the guise of righteousness. And I think that the largest cause of this is surety that the faith you choose is the only faith that actually matters.

 
At 9:41 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

"What worries me about religion is it's tendency to isolate and propogate hatred through the guise of righteousness. And I think that the largest cause of this is surety that the faith you choose is the only faith that actually matters."

Yup I hate that a religion founded on love and sacrifice for your fellow man has become so twisted by so many. I had to convince my wife that there are people who are as afraid of Christianity as many right wingers are of Islam.

Man this has been a good discussion. Thanks Matt!

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

A good time was had by all.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home