the way i see it

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that all the clamor over whether gays should serve as priests in the Anglican church is causing problems within the church. So his solution is to allow homosexuals to serve yet remain celibate. How brilliant! Does he not understand why this issue causes clamor in the first place? Perhaps it's because Anglicans believe that gays are entitled to the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals? And why would they think that? Perhaps because lots and lots of other people around the world believe that homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals? Some would say that more problems will be caused if gays are allowed to serve. I think that the possibility of problems is increased umpteen-fold by restricting sex. Just look at the Catholic church and all their pedophiles and perverts serving in churches around the world. Sex is not the evil here; the evil is attempting to deny human beings from being human beings. It seems that the Archbishop may not personally know any gay people. If he does then he maintains a position of superiority over his gay friend/s, which in quite disrespectful, if you ask me. That's the way I see it...

Another article in the news is one speaking to the issue of Eddie Long. Churches will continue to have problems with pastors and others in leadership when it comes to inappropriate behavior. Given enough money, power, prestige, and "Jesus will forgive me" doctrines, any man or woman could fall to the temptations available. Entitlement is not something from which religious people are immune. Politicians suffer the same fate, why shouldn't religious folks? Should there be tighter scrutiny on leaders of religious groups in order to keep them in line? Good luck with that one. Most religious people are so scared of having to deal with sex publicly. They'd rather turn the other way and ignore it. "Let God deal with it." (cop-out thinking). That's the way I see it...

On a recent Facebook thread I noticed a bit of a battle of words going back and forth between Christians. One was espousing the grace message while the other was certain that law and grace were still in effect. Despite the convoluted thinking necessary to put forth either of these two messages I thought to myself... "this message of grace sounds a lot like atheism except for the "righteousness" part. I'm not too keen on self-righteous thinking, so I tend to wince when I hear people talk about righteousness in general. I do agree that freedom is what we humans thrive on. Without it we are less human in the here and now. And that's the only place I chose to live... here and now. Looking towards the hereafter tends to lessen the experience that I'm trying to have now." That's the way I see it...

how to start a movement

I can so relate to the part where the people who were reluctant to join finally did so once they were the last ones sitting down. Boy, does that take me back to my years of church going and participation. This is so indicative of us humans wanting to be part of the crowd. Naturally gravitating to where it's happening in order to not feel left out. Perhaps Christianity would have never developed into a world religion if Peter, James, John, and Paul hadn't joined in.

a god of goodness?

What is the Christian response to this statement by Friedrich Nietzsche?

"A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention—could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? . . . Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then . . . be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?"

Or Robert Ingersoll's words...

"Every [Christian] sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all."

The typical response from Christians would probably be something like this... "God gave us free will because he wants us to love him freely. It's not His fault we've messed it up." To which I would say that God being God, being omniscient, knew in advance what 'free will' would or would not produce. He would have known that we mere humans would struggle in our ability to love him. That makes God completely responsible. This is why the Christian god no longer makes sense to me. An all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god cannot exist. This world is set up all wrong if these things are to be true.

the progression (progress) of christianity

I listen to The Bible Geek, Robert M. Price. In this article he talks about how Christianity shifts its standards by following the cultural trends of its day in order to remain relevant to the next generation. The gradual acceptance of movies, dancing, divorce, women working outside the home, no eternal hell, and even ultimate reconciliation has changed the face of Christianity in just the past 50 years or so.

Dr. Price says that the next bastion to fall will be sex. The fundamentalists and evangelicals have a difficult time talking about sex as a normal function of the human being. At the same time homosexuality is accepted as natural by many Christians, especially young folks. The gay marriage issue may not be resolved anytime soon, but the fact that it's on the table shows the progression which Dr. Price speaks of.

is your god a little god?

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said—grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." — Carl Sagan

The universe is more awesome to me now than it ever was when I was a religious person attempting to believe in and follow a man-made god. Constructing make-believe gods is a self-protecting activity and thus self-centered. Now that I'm thinking this life may very well be all that there is, I am taking more personal responsibility for my thoughts, words, and actions here and now.

As a Christian I always thought "it" would all get worked out in the end by God. I was off the hook for having to figure out or give an opinion regarding some of the more controversial problems in the world. Passing personal responsibility off to God was one of the most debilitating things I did to myself during my 35+ years of following religious belief. My "thinker" became rusty.

Reasoning is not encouraged in the religious world. It's dangerous. Creeds and doctrines must be preserved at all cost in order to ensure religion's survival. Reasoning and dogma do not mix. I've proved it!

that pale blue dot

necessary skepticism

"The tenets of skepticism do not require an advanced degree to master, as most successful used car buyers demonstrate. The whole idea of a democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. All science asks is to employ the same levels of skepticism we use in buying a used car or in judging the quality of analgesics or beer from their television commercials.

"But the tools of skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society. They're hardly ever mentioned in the schools, even in the presentation of science, its most ardent practitioner, although skepticism repeatedly sprouts spontaneously out of the disappointments of everyday life. Our politics, economics, advertising, and religions (New Age and Old) are awash in credulity. Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism."

The Demon-Haunted World, (p. 76-77) --Carl Sagan