So what DOES he believe?

[MarkEsq]

I had a fascinating meeting with a priest this morning and would welcome insight from you smart folks.
Background: I am, I suppose, an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in God, but am open to discussion and would consider objectively any evidence of his existence. Nonetheless, for family and tradition reasons, I am planning to have my daughter (the cutie in my avatar) baptized. So we plan to do it at the Episcopal Church in town, where the godparents-to-be go (occasionally).

I end up talking to this dude for almost two hours. A sign over his desk reads: "Jesus died to take away your sins, not your mind." Good start. He tells me he doesn't believe in the Bible word-for-word, that the resurrection and virgin birth are not meant to be read literally. He told me that he usually tells people who don't believe in God: "Tell me about this God you don't believe in and I probably don't believe in him either."

He swore. Like, three times.

I was waiting for him to say, "Come to church, check us out." Instead he said, "Don't come to church. Check out something we do that interests you, one of our men's get-togethers or something."

All very cool. But I am left wondering: So what does he believe in? He reminded me of people who say, "I'm spiritual but not religious." Or, "I'm religious, but don't believe in a fixed concept of God."

All of which makes having a discussion about religion very difficult, it's the proverbial attempt at nailing a jellyfish to the wall. Everytime I say, "Well this is silly/stupid/nonsensical" they just say, "Oh, I don't believe in that bit."

*sigh* I don't know what I expect any of you to say, I mean how can you know what they believe in when it's so amorphous. But what is the response? How do you introduce logic or science or anything of substance into these "All I can tell is that God is love" discussions?!

[dirtsider]

I think he does believe in God but doesn't believe in imposing his beliefs on people, particularly someone who is an agnostic/atheist. I think he really knows how to talk to people, at least where religion (particularly his religion) is concerned. I think he's taking the "fisher of men" route. You're taking the first steps into his church for the sake of your daughter and he knows that beating you over the head with the "come to Jesus" routine is just going to annoy you. So he's letting you set the pace. And I think he realizes that your "take" on God is always going to be different than his "take" on God and he's comfortable with his own faith not to get upset by it.

If I were you, I'd take his advice and go to one of the get-togethers he suggests, particularly something he's the leader of, and get to know him and others at the church. Get a baseline of who and what they are. Then you can start having a dialogue with them.

[Shweta]

He's been thinking about God for a long time, and is clearly a thoughtful person. His beliefs and concepts are probably too complex and nuanced to explain in one meeting, especially to someone who doesn't come in with the standard background.

And it's an old and respected theological technique to define God by what 'He' is not. As I understand it, several groups do that. It's a way to avoid anthropomorphism.

[AMCrenshaw]

My spiritual mentor is a lot like this. He once told me that a literal reading of the Bible is only one reading, and not the most helpful one.

Since I am a non-theist I at first had difficulty communicating with him. However, one thing that you will find is that the traditional Judeo-Christian God is absurd to an increasing number of people. It's simply impossible for people to swallow. That said, Christ embodies something for certain people that is a suitable example to follow. My mentor, for example, believes in love and open-mindedness, which is more than acceptance and more than tolerance. He believes that both the historical Jesus and the mythological Christ are both the greatest sources of spiritual guidance. The concept of God is almost secondary, in that Jesus's words come to mean something else entirely when we consider The Eternal.

Now. Negative theology allows people to shed beliefs about God. God isn't this. God isn't that. Beliefs in fact stand in the way of an intimate knowledge of God. There is a saying: Be silent so that you may hear the whisper of God. All it is saying is that by defining God, you deny it. And by not trying to pin it down, you express a great humility, which is the only wisdom to attain (according to T.S. Eliot). So perhaps to answer your question, what does he believe?

Maybe as little as possible.

[johnnysannie]

I had a fascinating meeting with a priest this morning and would welcome insight from you smart folks.
Background: I am, I suppose, an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in God, but am open to discussion and would consider objectively any evidence of his existence. Nonetheless, for family and tradition reasons, I am planning to have my daughter (the cutie in my avatar) baptized. So we plan to do it at the Episcopal Church in town, where the godparents-to-be go (occasionally).

I end up talking to this dude for almost two hours. A sign over his desk reads: "Jesus died to take away your sins, not your mind." Good start. He tells me he doesn't believe in the Bible word-for-word, that the resurrection and virgin birth are not meant to be read literally. He told me that he usually tells people who don't believe in God: "Tell me about this God you don't believe in and I probably don't believe in him either."

He swore. Like, three times.

I was waiting for him to say, "Come to church, check us out." Instead he said, "Don't come to church. Check out something we do that interests you, one of our men's get-togethers or something."

All very cool. But I am left wondering: So what does he believe in? He reminded me of people who say, "I'm spiritual but not religious." Or, "I'm religious, but don't believe in a fixed concept of God."

All of which makes having a discussion about religion very difficult, it's the proverbial attempt at nailing a jellyfish to the wall. Everytime I say, "Well this is silly/stupid/nonsensical" they just say, "Oh, I don't believe in that bit."

*sigh* I don't know what I expect any of you to say, I mean how can you know what they believe in when it's so amorphous. But what is the response? How do you introduce logic or science or anything of substance into these "All I can tell is that God is love" discussions?!

Catholics have a long history of not pressuring people to join their faith. They are open to all, however, and invite anyone who is interested to come and experience Catholic worship. They have classes for those who want to know more and who may want to consider joining the church.

Catholic beliefs are not a simple - "Jesus died, you're saved, do it too or go to hell" message like some Christian but non-Catholic faiths I have been around.

The best way to gain insight into exactly what Catholics do believe is to either hang around at a parish, go to Mass, or join a discussion group.

Many books have been written that expound on what Catholics believe. A good Catechism will have every detail of the faith, large and small.

Most priests rather than try to "sell" someone on why they should believe or embrace the Catholic faith will answer questions but won't push the issue.

And despite the details in any cathechism, there are some fairly broad parameters of belief within the tenets of the church as well.

[Ruv Draba]

Edited for clarification

I had a fascinating meeting with a priest this morning and would welcome insight from you smart folks.
Background: I am, I suppose, an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in God, but am open to discussion and would consider objectively any evidence of his existence. Nonetheless, for family and tradition reasons, I am planning to have my daughter (the cutie in my avatar) baptized. So we plan to do it at the Episcopal Church in town, where the godparents-to-be go (occasionally).Hi Mark. Cute baby. Congratulations!

I confess to being a bit disturbed and perplexed by your post though.

Baptism is ceremony invoking supernatural powers over your kid - consecrating your child to a particular religion through magical ritual. Parents all over the world choose to do such things, but if you do it then you should realise that at some point you'll need to explain to the child what you've done and why - and this may be quite difficult.

From a personal perspective I resented it as a child quite early to discover that my atheist/agnostic parents baptised me. It took me ages to understand why I resented it and eventually it came down to this: they put conformity and their own convenience above their care for my education and social status and growth. As an infant they saw me as an object - a social token to be bartered - not a young person who had been entrusted to their care. It still rankles to write about it. Even at the age of six, I fought my parents sending me to Sunday school, and I was outraged by their baptism of me. Why wasn't my religion mine to choose? What right had they to make religious promises to the community on my behalf - especially when those promises were lies in the first place?

I hope your child doesn't resent you for doing it as much as I have. Hopefully your daughter won't be the literal-minded, truth-hunting analyst that I was (and am) but I reckon you should brace yourself for those questions anyway - kids ask about everything. :)

I don't think it matters what this minister believes. We know from many examples that there doesn't need to be clarity, cohesion or consistency in religious doctrine. People will show up anyway because they want community and ceremony and because they're sometimes scared or in need of comfort. People will also believe in anything if you mystify it enough. Maybe this minister has no faith at all -- other than that he's doing a good job. Does it really matter?

As for critiquing the baptising minister, well you're the atheist subjecting your daughter to a magical ceremony as one of her first public experiences... I don't think you can be poking your finger into anyone's else's ideological jelly here. :tongue

Regardless though, enjoy the day. :D

Ruv.

[Higgins]

Edited for clarification

Baptism is ceremony invoking supernatural powers over your kid - consecrating your child to a particular religion through magical ritual.


This is a bit puzzling. What exactly are you objecting to here? That the magic doesn't work? Well...it sort of does since it brings a person and a family into some sort of social roles.

I don't think it is very rational to object to rituals on grounds that their magic is spurious given that we can observe objectively that the rituals do have social functions.

[Roger J Carlson]

Catholics have a long history of not pressuring people to join their faith. They are open to all, however, and invite anyone who is interested to come and experience Catholic worship. They have classes for those who want to know more and who may want to consider joining the church.

Catholic beliefs are not a simple - "Jesus died, you're saved, do it too or go to hell" message like some Christian but non-Catholic faiths I have been around.

The best way to gain insight into exactly what Catholics do believe is to either hang around at a parish, go to Mass, or join a discussion group.

Many books have been written that expound on what Catholics believe. A good Catechism will have every detail of the faith, large and small.

Most priests rather than try to "sell" someone on why they should believe or embrace the Catholic faith will answer questions but won't push the issue.

And despite the details in any cathechism, there are some fairly broad parameters of belief within the tenets of the church as well.You can reduce any religion to absurdity by condensing a complex set of beliefs to a simple derogatory sentence. For instance, I could characterize Catholicism as that "Do whatever you want as long as you say three Hail Marys" religion. I'm sure you would disagree with that characterization (as do I), so why would you characterize others that way?

Everything you suggested for learning about Catholicism work equally well for any Christian denomination -- or any religion at all, for that matter.

[johnnysannie]

You can reduce any religion to absurdity by condensing a complex set of beliefs to a simple derogatory sentence. For instance, I could characterize Catholicism as that "Do whatever you want as long as you say three Hail Marys" religion. I'm sure you would disagree with that characterization (as do I), so why would you characterize others that way?

Everything you suggested for learning about Catholicism work equally well for any Christian denomination -- or any religion at all, for that matter.

Because that's the happy, cheerful, God-loves-you message that my Protestant community neighbors have been attempting to pound into my head for the last thirty years, ever since I moved into a largely Protestant area.

[Sarpedon]

Thats typical. Trying to lure you in with the camraderie of the men's club. Its the dirty secret of churches in America these days is that there are a lot of people who are there who don't believe.

I was sitting around at my fencing club one day, and a guy who I know fairly well there started talking to me, and asked me what church I went to. I said that I didn't go to a church, because I'm an atheist. He said 'wow, I never heard anyone just come out and say that.' and then he paused, and said 'I guess I am too. I only go to please the wife.' And he's not the only one I've met. There's even significant numbers of clergy who don't believe; they continue doing it because its their job, and they don't know how to do anything else. (I know this because several atheist groups I've been involved with have had former clergy as members, and they all speak of colleagues who lost their faith but didn't have the courage to leave)

Churches have apparently embraced this as marketing. Have you seen some of these religious advertisements? I've seen some that blantantly say that their church is a great place for singles.

Religious institutions are desperate to attract a younger membership. The statistics are clear; amongst 20 year olds, 25 % are not religiously affiliated, and the majority of the rest are not church going. (as opposed to those of 65+, where fewer than 5 % are not religiously affiliated) The trend is clear. Even the Pope has said publicly that christianity will die in Europe if things don't change.

What does he believe? He believes that if he can get you to come to church, thats more money in his pocket. If he can't get new members, he'll have to get an honest job that doesn't give him special privileges. And that, of course, is unacceptable to him, which is why he got angry and swore at you. Because that is what you represent to him.

If he can get you to come to men's club, then he can get your wife to join the women's club or whatever. You'll make friends there, and your daughter will play with the other kids, and before you know it you'll be a paying member, believe it or not. And thats all he really cares about.

He might say that he's trying to save your soul by whatever means necessary, and he might believe it himself, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. There's no way to tell the ones that don't believe from the ones who do, because they behave exactly alike. Religions that make hard distinctions and hard rules become extinct, like the Shakers. The more flexible ones survive.

[escritora]

Thats typical. Trying to lure you in with the camraderie of the men's club.

I agree.

[C.bronco]

My opinion: I think Jesus gave us some solid guidelines about how we should treat eachother. They called him "teacher" back in the day, and he went out and about trying to get a message about love and respect to the people. I think treating others with love and respect takes precedence over being able to make a leap of faith and believe in what you can't measure, and judging by His words, I suspect Jesus felt the same.

I also think that biblical interpretation varies according to those who think literally and those who think metaphorically. Likewise, there are liberal and conservative views on it just as there are on the U.S. Constitution.

[Roger J Carlson]

What does he believe? He believes that if he can get you to come to church, thats more money in his pocket. If he can't get new members, he'll have to get an honest job that doesn't give him special privileges. And that, of course, is unacceptable to him, which is why he got angry and swore at you. Because that is what you represent to him.

If he can get you to come to men's club, then he can get your wife to join the women's club or whatever. You'll make friends there, and your daughter will play with the other kids, and before you know it you'll be a paying member, believe it or not. And thats all he really cares about.

He might say that he's trying to save your soul by whatever means necessary, and he might believe it himself, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. There's no way to tell the ones that don't believe from the ones who do, because they behave exactly alike. Religions that make hard distinctions and hard rules become extinct, like the Shakers. The more flexible ones survive.You certainly paint with a broad brush.

[Sarpedon]

Because, once again, I have facts on my side. I never say anything without evidence. There IS a national trend of declining church membership, and that IS causing great concern among clergy, and they ARE doing everything they can to reverse the trend, including marketing that would have appalled church leaders fifty years ago.

Sure, I don't doubt that there are some clergy who are in it for god, but I doubt that they're the ones who swear and try to pimp out their churches to attract younger members.

Here's an article today about the Southern Baptists:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-06-10-southern-baptists_N.htm

we've peaked

it isn't about doctrine, its about demographics

[johnnysannie]

You certainly paint with a broad brush.

Is it broad or is it with truth?

In my opinion, it's with truth - which sometimes hurts.

[Roger J Carlson]

What does he believe? He believes that if he can get you to come to church, thats more money in his pocket. If he can't get new members, he'll have to get an honest job that doesn't give him special privileges. And that, of course, is unacceptable to him, which is why he got angry and swore at you. Because that is what you represent to him.

If he can get you to come to men's club, then he can get your wife to join the women's club or whatever. You'll make friends there, and your daughter will play with the other kids, and before you know it you'll be a paying member, believe it or not. And thats all he really cares about.

He might say that he's trying to save your soul by whatever means necessary, and he might believe it himself, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. There's no way to tell the ones that don't believe from the ones who do, because they behave exactly alike. Religions that make hard distinctions and hard rules become extinct, like the Shakers. The more flexible ones survive.

Because, once again, I have facts on my side. I never say anything without evidence. I'd like to see evidence of your mind reading skills.

[Ruv Draba]

This is a bit puzzling. What exactly are you objecting to here?There's no objection at all in the statement you quoted.

I don't think it is very rational to object to rituals on grounds that their magic is spurious given that we can observe objectively that the rituals do have social functions.I think you've missed my point, Higgins.

I don't object to what MarkEsq is doing. I just think it's likely that his kid will grill him on this one one day, cos kids do.

In terms of my irritation, it came from the reasons for my parents' decisions, and how they handled my questions. As a kid I objected strongly to Sunday school and to baptism, along with Santa and the Easter bunny. I loved school and learning. I just didn't want to have my parents commit me to things that neither I nor they believed in, or fobbed off with evasions, or told lies. Ultimately my baptism wasn't a 'baby welcoming' ceremony or a 'baby blessing and good luck' piece of superstition but a promise broken in the making, and which should never have been made. I picked that up as early as six.

The lesson I'm offering: don't assume that because kids don't understand at the time, they won't care later.

[Sarpedon]

You are correct that I can't read minds.

However, you can legitimately draw conclusions on the state of someone's mind based on their actions, can't you? Do you not ever do this?

Tell me, if clergy actually believed they were going to be rewarded in heaven, why the six figure salaries? Why the paid memberships at athletic clubs? Why the private jets and big mansions? Why the big cars and bodyguards? Why the desperate trying to get someone who doesn't believe to come to church?

The behavior is inconsistant with the stated belief, therefore I conclude that the stated belief is incorrect. Yes Roger, the evidence does show a lack of belief. If you can explain how the horrific greed, lust and power hunger of today's clergy are consistant with christian faith, I'd love to hear it.

If you want to be my disciple, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, for a camel will pass through the eye of the needle before a rich man will enter heaven. You cannot serve two masters. [i.e. both god and wealth]

Seriously, when was the last time you met a clergyman who actually did this?

There are some people who actually do sell everything they have and give to the poor. They are called monks and nuns, and they are a dying breed, and I will say nothing against them.

[callalily61]

*breaking promise to stay out of this thread*

Not all clergy are in it for the wealth and prestige.

Back when I was a nun, we really didn't have a whole heck of a lot, and most of us did our best to keep the vow of poverty. You'd actually be appalled at the cost of pre-made habits. That's why I learned to sew.

One of my friends, a nun living in El Paso right on the US border, spends every day helping the truly destitute get food, clothes, water, and medical care. She's actually fought (verbally) with her Bishop.

There's a tiny little Church of the Nazarene across the street from me. The pastor is over there 16 out of 24 hours every day of the week. Every day. The members distribute food and clothes to the needy. He camps out with the homeless to raise money for them. He and his family live on teh minimum. When the whole town lost power for 2 weeks a couple years ago, he trundled a generator around all night the first night, house to house, for an hour each, so we could all pump out our flooded basements. The whole neighborhood hung out at his house and pooled all our food before it went bad.

I get flashbacks when I go into a church (they ain't fun) and have told him so, with a laugh, when he's invited me to come to Sunday services. He never pushes.

There are exceptions. I live near one. I was one. My friend is one.

And one of my friends is a Pagan minister who helps everyone, and is friends with people of many faiths.

*going away now...*

[Roger J Carlson]

You are correct that I can't read minds.

However, you can legitimately draw conclusions on the state of someone's mind based on their actions, can't you? Do you not ever do this? Draw conclusions about someone I've never met based on a single description from someone else? No, I rarely do this, and when I do, I'm in the wrong.

Tell me, if clergy actually believed they were going to be rewarded in heaven, why the six figure salaries? Why the paid memberships at athletic clubs? Why the private jets and big mansions? Why the big cars and bodyguards? Why the desperate trying to get someone who doesn't believe to come to church? The vast majority of ministers make far less than six figures. Mostly, they make about what a teacher makes. Senior pastors a little more. Clubs? Private jets? Come on! You can't be that gullible.

Why the desperation to get people to come to church? Perhaps it has to do with the Great Commission where Jesus said to go into all the world a preach the gospel. It's a tenant of the faith. Of course, I can't be sure this is true for this particular minister, but it is consistent with my observation of ministers I've known.

The behavior is inconsistant with the stated belief, therefore I conclude that the stated belief is incorrect. Yes Roger, the evidence does show a lack of belief. If you can explain how the horrific greed, lust and power hunger of today's clergy are consistant with christian faith, I'd love to hear it. Once again, you are taking the evidence of a very few, high profile cases and generalizing it to everyone. This is sample bias of the rankest order and really beneath you.

Seriously, when was the last time you met a clergyman who actually did this? The command to sell everything was not a universal admonition. It was a specific injunction to a specific individual (the rich, young ruler) to give up the thing he held most dear, his money. It's not an admonition to all Christians everywhere. Not even minister. But yes, I have known clergy who did this.

[Higgins]

I think you've missed my point, Higgins.



I thought that since you referred to the supernatural and magical aspects of the ritual, there was something you thought was objectionable about
ritual invocation of supernatural or magical entities. If your noting these aspects was purely descriptive and atmospheric then I am even more puzzled.

[Little Earthquake]

I'm curious about why it bothers you that his faith is so amorphous. You don't believe in God, but it seems you have a very set idea about what people who believe in God (specifically Jesus Christ) should believe - and how they should act. Why is that?

For me, as someone who was raised in a very fundamental/evangelical belief of God - that the Bible is the literal and only word of God, that Jesus is the ONLY way, etc. - after I turned away from this faith I was very judgmental towards Christians that didn't fit in that box, even though I was unwilling to fit in that box myself! Part of me still had a set notion of what a "Christian" looks like, even though I knew from personal experience that cookie-cutter faith does NOT work. Does that make sense?

[Sarpedon]

Ummm, how is 'A camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man will enter heaven' not a universal statement? He was speaking to a specific person, but was speaking in general terms. If it wasn't a universal statement, but was intended for just the one man, why is it even in the bible? The bible doesn't record EVERYTHING Jesus said, after all, just his IMPORTANT TEACHINGS. Surely people asked him for specific advice, and he gave it to them, without it ending up in the bible?

And don't call me gullible when I talk about the clubs. The church I attended had a minister who had a membership at a VERY expensive club, paid for by some parishoner. He boasted about it. Not every one gets that particular perk, but I bet perks of some kind are common.

Once again, you are taking the evidence of a very few, high profile cases and generalizing it to everyone. This is sample bias of the rankest order and really beneath you.


First of all, there are a lot more than you'd care to think. Every day, practically, another preacher robbing his flock, having affairs with their wives, abusing their children. And then there's the well known phenomenon that clergy get away with more, because people BELIEVE they are good.

I did say, more than once, I know that not every clergyman reached that level of wealth, but that doesn't mean that they aren't trying for it. Some restauranteurs become rich. Most don't. That doesn't mean that they aren't trying to get rich.

You say my attention to the post prominent cases shows my bias. Sadly, it is the very worst clergy that are in the most prominent positions. Why is that? Why don't the good clergy keep them down? Why aren't the good clergy the leaders? Because they are all competing for the top spots, and the ones who get there are the best at what they do. Why shouldn't I use the top clergy as my examples? Don't businessmen look to successful businessmen as their models?

Its true I do tend to think the worst about clergy. After all, they make their living selling something that doesn't exist. If you assume that religion is about god, then nothing about it makes sense. Why would two slightly differing groups that worship the same god fight and kill one another? That makes no sense. However, if you assume that religion is about money and power, it makes lots of sense; both groups want to eliminate rivals, and the more similar two religions are, the more conflict they will have over members. Every event in religious history can be explained in terms of money and power.

I have never denied that there are some clergy that are good, however, and the fact is, I don't have any problem with them, so I don't waste much time talking about them. If they were all like that, I wouldn't have anything to say about it. The question to ask is this: Why aren't they all good? How many souls does god lose because of corrupt clergy?

[ishtar'sgate]

The question to ask is this: Why aren't they all good? How many souls does god lose because of corrupt clergy?
They aren't all good because they're just men and women subject to temptation and failure like anyone. How many souls lost because of corrupt clergy? Probably a lot. But the real question isn't what do we think about the clergy. The real question is what do we think about Jesus Christ. If one believes in God and believes Jesus is the Son of God then one knows they will answer to God for what they think about Jesus not what they think about clergymen or others. If one does not believe in God or that Jesus is who He says He is then it really doesn't matter how corrupt the clergy are because the Christian religion is futile anyway. It serves no real purpose and there are no real consequences to belief or unbelief.
Linnea

[Autodidact]

Mark:
Don't want to butt into someone else's life, but are you open to talking about your decision to have your daughter baptized?

[Roger J Carlson]

Ummm, how is 'A camel will fit through the eye of a needle before a rich man will enter heaven' not a universal statement? He was speaking to a specific person, but was speaking in general terms. If it wasn't a universal statement, but was intended for just the one man, why is it even in the bible? The bible doesn't record EVERYTHING Jesus said, after all, just his IMPORTANT TEACHINGS. Surely people asked him for specific advice, and he gave it to them, without it ending up in the bible? You're talking about something else here. The admonition to sell everything he owned (which is what I was referring to) was to the specific man. If you read it carefully, the man is trying to get to heaven through following the Law perfectly. Jesus' point is that none of us can follow the Law, none of us is perfect. Each of us has something we're unwilling to give up, some god that comes before God. In this case, it was money.

And don't call me gullible when I talk about the clubs. The church I attended had a minister who had a membership at a VERY expensive club, paid for by some parishoner. He boasted about it. Not every one gets that particular perk, but I bet perks of some kind are common. Perhaps it's not gullibility. Perhaps it's just honest ignorance to assume that because your minister did this, then all ministers do it. Generalizing from a sample of one is hardly good scientific method. You said something earlier about never saying anything without evidence. "I bet..." doesn't qualify.

First of all, there are a lot more than you'd care to think. Every day, practically, another preacher robbing his flock, having affairs with their wives, abusing their children. And then there's the well known phenomenon that clergy get away with more, because people BELIEVE they are good. Every day? More unsubstantiated exaggeration. Hyperbole has its place, but not in a factual discussion. But lets take it at face value. Every year, 365 ministers are caught doing these things. There are over 400,000 churches in the US. If we assume conservatively that each has only one pastor, that's 0.09%. That's a very, very small percentage of the population of all ministers and hardly one to be making generalizations on.

You say my attention to the post prominent cases shows my bias. Sadly, it is the very worst clergy that are in the most prominent positions. Why is that? Why don't the good clergy keep them down? Why aren't the good clergy the leaders? Because they are all competing for the top spots, and the ones who get there are the best at what they do. Why shouldn't I use the top clergy as my examples? Don't businessmen look to successful businessmen as their models? The bias I was talking about is sample bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias). I'm certain you know what that is. You've taken the cases of high profile abuse and generalized that to the whole population of ministers, whereas a non-biased sample would take a random sampling and see how many had the kind of perks and abuses you mentioned.

I have never denied that there are some clergy that are good, however, and the fact is, I don't have any problem with them, so I don't waste much time talking about them. If they were all like that, I wouldn't have anything to say about it. The question to ask is this: Why aren't they all good? How many souls does god lose because of corrupt clergy?Very good questions and ones I believe these ministers will have to answer for one day.

[Higgins]

They aren't all good because they're just men and women subject to temptation and failure like anyone. How many souls lost because of corrupt clergy? Probably a lot. But the real question isn't what do we think about the clergy. The real question is what do we think about Jesus Christ. If one believes in God and believes Jesus is the Son of God then one knows they will answer to God for what they think about Jesus not what they think about clergymen or others. If one does not believe in God or that Jesus is who He says He is then it really doesn't matter how corrupt the clergy are because the Christian religion is futile anyway. It serves no real purpose and there are no real consequences to belief or unbelief.
Linnea

I find this a bit confusing. So if a particular God doesn't exist it is okay if the practitioners of that God's religion are corrupt? It seems to me, that since there would no backup system (ie that particular God), it matters a lot more if the practioners are corrupt since they would be all that there is of that religion.

[TerzaRima]

Religions that make hard distinctions and hard rules become extinct, like the Shakers.

Yep. Just look at Islam. Dying out all across the planet.

And Sarpedon, the Shakers became virtually extinct (I think there are a handful still left in Ohio, actually) because their great mystic Ann Lee had a series of visions that sex was not pleasing to God, or something along those lines. They were not allowed to procreate (you'd think that the implications of that would have occurred to someone, but no).

[Higgins]

Yep. Just look at Islam. Dying out all across the planet.

And Sarpedon, the Shakers became virtually extinct (I think there are a handful still left in Ohio, actually) because their great mystic Ann Lee had a series of visions that sex was not pleasing to God, or something along those lines. They were not allowed to procreate (you'd think that the implications of that would have occurred to someone, but no).

Islam has plenty of ways of getting new or contextual interpretations if it needs to. Any Islamic scholar can issue a fatwa for example.

[MarkEsq]

Mark:
Don't want to butt into someone else's life, but are you open to talking about your decision to have your daughter baptized?

Yep, what's on your mind?

I will say in reply to Ruv Druba that I am not worried about her reaction later on. I'm not having her tattooed or circumsized (God forbid!) or permanently altered in any physical way. I can't really see what the objection is: if she doesn't believe in God later on then she went through a one-hour ceremony that she won't remember and lost nothing from it. If she does, then I have done her a favor. In reality, it's more of a tradition thing - her older bro and sister were baptized in my wife's childhood church a couple of years ago, and that pleased granny a lot and has brought and kept good friends in their lives as godparents. Truth is, we don't want her growing up with godparents and not baptized when her siblings were. No biggie.

[MarkEsq]

I'm curious about why it bothers you that his faith is so amorphous. You don't believe in God, but it seems you have a very set idea about what people who believe in God (specifically Jesus Christ) should believe - and how they should act. Why is that?

No, not quite. I have an idea that those who believe in God should have a set vision of him. Not a physical one, but how do you place your eternal life in someone's hands and not be able to tell me anything about that person? Other than... "No, he's not like that.. no, he doesn't do that." As a purely intellectual exercise, and I guess as part of a spiritual exploration, I want to know what others believe because I want to examine their faiths as well as my own lack of one. As I said to my wife, to do this exploration justice I should neither reject God outright, nor reject atheism outright. I guess I like the sound of this guy's god, would like to know more, but have no idea whether he is even describable. If that makes sense...!

For me, as someone who was raised in a very fundamental/evangelical belief of God - that the Bible is the literal and only word of God, that Jesus is the ONLY way, etc. - after I turned away from this faith I was very judgmental towards Christians that didn't fit in that box, even though I was unwilling to fit in that box myself! Part of me still had a set notion of what a "Christian" looks like, even though I knew from personal experience that cookie-cutter faith does NOT work. Does that make sense?

Yes. But if you believe "God is love" and not much more than that, as this minster said, is he really a christian? Jesus isn't the only one who said that. I think my mum said it once... I feel like I am being asked to sample the goods and give an opinion, make a buying decision, on the basis of the salesman saying, "It tastes like chicken. Kind of."

For the record, and to correct any misimpression I left earlier, the chap did not swear AT me, he swore in the way I would when chatting with friends. I was impressed, not offended!

[Sarpedon]

Well if you want my opinion, I'd say please your family. Family is precious, and its not worth it to let something as petty as religion come between you and them. After all, what is religion to us? A weird hobby, for the most part. I sometimes like to pretend its something much more sinister, and sometimes it is, but for the most part, its just folks hanging out, doing odd things. Like the masons.

As far as this guy and his god is concerned, its your choice to make. In my mind, of course he's a christian, if he says so. Sure, he probably doesn't pass the poison drinking test, but who does? It sounds as if his is the sort of god that is everything anyone could want, and at the same time nothing at all. A very popular brand these days. Its the sort of god designed to appeal to certain people, and get them to come to church. These all-inclusive ones are impossible to argue against, save that they seem to be too good to be true.

As I pointed out, lots of atheists go to church these days; If you think what he is selling is worth the cost, then by all means, buy. Just be on the lookout for hidden costs and fine print.

And, as a former sunday school teacher; keep your kid out of sunday school. Its brainwashing, usually done by people who aren't competent. (Like me)

[Shweta]

The church I attended had a minister who had a membership at a VERY expensive club, paid for by some parishoner. He boasted about it. Not every one gets that particular perk, but I bet perks of some kind are common.

I know Roger already mentioned this, but just so you know, this is pretty much a texbook case of sample bias. If you're going to argue empirical method, please use it? Otherwise it hurts those of us who do.

Why shouldn't I use the top clergy as my examples? Don't businessmen look to successful businessmen as their models?

Here you're making an assumption that makes your argument circular. It's that "prominence", wealth, and possibly notoriety are "success" for clergy. If so, then of course clergymen would look to the prominent and wealthy in their group as examples. Like businessmen do, indeed.

But if your assumption is wrong, then so is your sample choice. So basically your assumption causes you to look at only one part of the data, which supports your conclusions. This exact method with opposite assumptions could be used to "prove" the opposite.

Again, I'm not objecting to your beliefs. I'm objecting to a bad use of the empirical method, of a sort I see far too much.

Yep. Just look at Islam. Dying out all across the planet.
And Islam is, of course, entirely monolithic with hard boundaries and rules that never change :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know, this was mentioned already. But do you notice that you're talking about different Christian groups, then bundling all of Islam into one group as though there weren't, oh I don't know, Shi'ites and Sunnis killing one another as we speak?

No, not quite. I have an idea that those who believe in God should have a set vision of him.

Why? If God is by definition infinite and all-powerful and omniscient and so forth, and thus beyond human comprehension, wouldn't it be lack of faith that anthropomorphized him into a set idea?

Yes. But if you believe "God is love" and not much more than that, as this minster said, is he really a christian?

Did he say "I don't believe much more than that"? Because I'd guess from what you've said that he's starting off by pulling apart your presuppositions, and his actual position is rather more thought out than that.

Just my heathen 2c, and no, I can't prove my mind-reading skills either :D But your guy sounds a lot like the priest who married this Hindu girl and her atheist husband cause there's no way we were going with anybody else, we adore father Richard far too much.

[Sarpedon]

Very well, if you insist.

embezzlement in the catholic church (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/us/05church.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

A high percentage (85%) of catholic parishes report embezzlement in a five year period, with the priest being the most likely culprit. And this is just the reported ones. And of course, doesn't include the forms of crime that are official church policy; such as the well documented cases of soliciting donations under false pretenses, which I hope I don't have to rehash here. It is also worth noting that the catholic church has a better than average accounting system than smaller churches. So I think I'm quite justified in saying that clergy frequently commit such crimes. I doubt you will find such rates in other types of businesses.

And then there's the sex. Both clergy and psychiatrists consider it unethical to have sexual relations with clients (parishoners) yet 30% of 'conservative' and up to 50% of 'liberal' pastors admit to such relations. As opposed to 12% among psychiatrists.

And of course the 1.8% of catholic clergy and 2-3% of protestant clergy accused of child sexual abuse. (Teachers and school staff were the highest non-familial category, 5%) link (http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm) I need not point out that this link is very biased towards the clergy, but is bad enough.

And then there's the things that are dishonest, yet not necessarily a crime. Like the third of salaried church of england clergy who don't believe that Christ was resurrected bodily, and the unknown percentage that don't believe in god at all, yet go on collecting their salaries, and exploiting the church members.

So, yes, I think I am justified in thinking that clergy are indeed more dishonest than comparable professions. I have never said they are ALL dishonest. But there are plenty of dishonest individuals, and dishonest institutions.

I'm rather surprised that you think that this is isolated or blown out of proportion b the media. The fact is that the media and the public are biased IN FAVOR of the clergy adn religion in general. I guess I thought this was common knowledge. I guess I was wrong.

May I remind you that assuming that clergy are good because you know some that are good is as faulty as assuming they are bad because I know some bad ones. What do the facts say? Well, it isn't good, is it?

[AMCrenshaw]

Sarpedon:

You said: "Because, once again, I have facts on my side. I never say anything without evidence. There IS a national trend of declining church membership, and that IS causing great concern among clergy, and they ARE doing everything they can to reverse the trend, including marketing that would have appalled church leaders fifty years ago."

According to a 2006 poll, membership in traditional churches has declined steadily since the 1980s; however, your statistic is missing the bigger picture. Because you don't cite statistics on religiosity, do you? About what people believe. Nor do you cite how many NRMs have spawned in the past twenty years.

In Comprehending Cults the statistics are clear: traditional churches cannot give people what they need anymore. That is more likely why more of the older generation goes to church than the younger generations. So, people are bored by the scriptures as an intellectual exercise. They are looking for affective/emotive experiences.

That is all. There is a church in Chicago that attracts 15,000 people on most Sundays. It's no more than 10 years old. And has the message of that church changed? No. It's actually more fundamental than most of the American denominations. So what you cited originally as a fact of declining church membership is valid only if you consider which churches...

"And then there's the things that are dishonest, yet not necessarily a crime. Like the third of salaried church of england clergy who don't believe that Christ was resurrected bodily, and the unknown percentage that don't believe in god at all, yet go on collecting their salaries, and exploiting the church members."

There is one-part statistic and two-parts editorial here. You have made a caricature of what it means to be in the clergy. These people are not mindless, and thus struggle with their beliefs in God. To address more specifically the last statement: members of the clergy guide the formation of the church's spirit. What they ask for, they receive. And when a religion says that they have truth, they are already denying the truth of things. Regardless, the job of the clergy is not to say their personal beliefs (because, let's face it, who cares) but the beliefs of a specific tradition. For example, I met a man who worked for a Ford company and when he was at work he sold Ford cars. Then he drove home in a Toyota. Is that really exploitation? Or personal preference? I can't say for sure, but it's best for everyone to keep the pin from the donkey until we know both the pin and the donkey.

Last thing: "It sounds as if his is the sort of god that is everything anyone could want, and at the same time nothing at all. A very popular brand these days. Its the sort of god designed to appeal to certain people, and get them to come to church. These all-inclusive ones are impossible to argue against, save that they seem to be too good to be true."

It doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like someone has confronted the absurdity of the personal god and yet retained a sense of spirituality. And they are impossible to argue against, why? The same "proofs" and arguments yet apply. Unless, of course, it's Spinozan pantheism we're talking about. And, in which case, why not call it atheism... If this man believes in the God Which Is Love then his notion of God isn't a new God at all.

For the record, I've gone to church a very long time and have not donated anything but time and canned goods. Whew S*** they got me good!

AMC

[Pat~]

No, not quite. I have an idea that those who believe in God should have a set vision of him. Not a physical one, but how do you place your eternal life in someone's hands and not be able to tell me anything about that person? Other than... "No, he's not like that.. no, he doesn't do that." As a purely intellectual exercise, and I guess as part of a spiritual exploration, I want to know what others believe because I want to examine their faiths as well as my own lack of one. As I said to my wife, to do this exploration justice I should neither reject God outright, nor reject atheism outright. I guess I like the sound of this guy's god, would like to know more, but have no idea whether he is even describable. If that makes sense...!


Mark, for what it's worth, I happen to agree with you. A person who claims to believe in God ought to be able to describe the God they believe in. Not only that, but they ought to be able to tell you why they think God is the way they've described.

I couldn't begin to imagine why he was so vague, and my speculating would only tell you more about me than him, anyway. But...if you're interested in an intellectual discussion about religious belief, why not explore some of the thinking of the various intellectuals down through the ages who have believed in God? Besides C. S. Lewis and other literary giants, there are many, many brilliant thinkers who have explored the whole God-question even from a scientific angle: try reading some of the books by particle physicist and anglican priest John Polkinghorne (http://www.polkinghorne.net/) (Templeton Prize, 2002), for example. Take a look at his first book, The Way the World Is (1983, why a thinking person can be a Christian), or other books--With One World (1986), Science and Creation (1988), Science and Providence (1989), and Reason and Reality (1991), or study some of his Gifford Lectures delivered in 1993.

[AMCrenshaw]

"Mark, for what it's worth, I happen to agree with you. A person who claims to believe in God ought to be able to describe the God they believe in. Not only that, but they ought to be able to tell you why they think God is the way they've described."

This is simply absurd. If God exists, and has an infinite nature, then how do you suppose you will describe it? Any single word or phrase, up to and including "Infinite in nature" denies something about God. If I say God is Good, that means God was not the source of Evil which denies God in some way, doesn't it? If I say, God is Life then what of all the Death? etc etc.

So, in short, I think that describing God is more absurd than not. For, who among us could ever hope to describe God if God exists?

Hm?

AMC

[Pat~]

"Mark, for what it's worth, I happen to agree with you. A person who claims to believe in God ought to be able to describe the God they believe in. Not only that, but they ought to be able to tell you why they think God is the way they've described."

This is simply absurd. If God exists, and has an infinite nature, then how do you suppose you will describe it? Any single word or phrase, up to and including "Infinite in nature" denies something about God. If I say God is Good, that means God was not the source of Evil which denies God in some way, doesn't it? If I say, God is Life then what of all the Death? etc etc.

So, in short, I think that describing God is more absurd than not. For, who among us could ever hope to describe God if God exists?

Hm?

AMC

Are you married? Can you describe your spouse to me, if you are? Or how about your parents?

Being able to describe God doesn't mean I have to be able to describe Him exhaustively. You couldn't even do that describing a mortal to me, could you? Doesn't mean we don't try to know who it is we love.

BTW, I do believe God is Good, and therefore not the source of Evil. This doesn't deny God or 'limit' Him (unless you mean His essence, Who He is, 'limits' Him because it also defines what He is not).

[AMCrenshaw]

Actually, I could describe what my spouse looks like. I could describe her personality, sure. I could point to her "works". But could I ever hope to tell you Who She Is? Not a chance. could I describe to you our relationship? I could try forever and still fail.

So if you want God's identity (which is want you are doing by putting God alongside humans) rather than God's nature, then you have personalized it much more than the spiritual person seeking God.

[Pat~]

Actually, I could describe what my spouse looks like. I could describe her personality, sure. I could point to her "works". But could I ever hope to tell you Who She Is? Not a chance. could I describe to you our relationship? I could try forever and still fail.

So if you want God's identity (which is want you are doing by putting God alongside humans) rather than God's nature, then you have personalized it much more than the spiritual person seeking God.

No, I don't believe I am 'putting God alongside humans' by simply saying He is a Being that you can describe, however infinitely 'more' He is than my most basic understanding. God's identity is His nature. He is Spirit, so I'd be hard-pressed to describe His looks but I can tell you His nature as revealed in the Bible, just the way you can tell someone's nature by what they post here. (And yes, this assumes that God is the God of the Bible. Supposedly the same God that Mark's priest believes in.)

[AMCrenshaw]

Right, we're reduced to What The Bible Says again.

Thanks but no thanks.

AMC

p.s. Whether or not God inspired the Bible, He Himself did not write it. Humans recorded it, compiled it, and used it for political ends. Which, come to think of it, hasn't changed much. But in regards to the description of God's nature/identity, using the Bible, this is to say, in addition, that God is constant and does not change. That the description of God in the Bible is still perfectly relevant today. And it's clearly not at a literal level.

[Pat~]

Right, we're reduced to What The Bible Says again.

Thanks but no thanks.

AMC

p.s. Whether or not God inspired the Bible, He Himself did not write it. Humans recorded it, compiled it, and used it for political ends. Which, come to think of it, hasn't changed much. The fact that humans recorded it, compiled it, and even have used it for selfish or political ends during the course of history doesn't tell me that God could not have inspired it. That just tells me what humans have chosen to do with it (sometimes using it for good and sometimes twisting it for evil purposes).

But in regards to the description of God's nature/identity, using the Bible, this is to say, in addition, that God is constant and does not change. That the description of God in the Bible is still perfectly relevant today. And it's clearly not at a literal level. I think that may depend on what it is you think the Bible actually says about God's nature. (Which, personally, I believe is unchangeable and relevant today.)

But, I don't want to hijack this thread, or get into a discussion some may feel uncomfortable with in this 'house.' Just responding to your response to my post to MarkEsq.

[AMCrenshaw]

Ok. We can skip the hijack! My apologies to the rest. :)

[Ruv Draba]

I will say in reply to Ruv Druba that I am not worried about her reaction later on. I'm not having her tattooed or circumsized (God forbid!) or permanently altered in any physical way. I can't really see what the objection is: if she doesn't believe in God later on then she went through a one-hour ceremony that she won't remember and lost nothing from it. If she does, then I have done her a favor.That was part of my parents' argument too. It didn't save them. I nailed them on what the ceremony symbolised about their relationship to me, and whether using me as a symbol in a ceremony demonstrating their social conformity and appeasement of relatives was more important to them than committing to their responsibilities as my moral guardians and role models for truth and integrity. In short, I pinned them on both selfishness and hypocrisy.

In a further argument, I considered that if I wanted to join some non-mainstream religion their baptism might actually disqualify me for that -- which therefore made them guilty of pro-Christian bigotry while still being atheistic. (Not all these arguments came out at age six - I saved them and worked on them through my teens)

Man, was I a brat!

In fairness, I think that most kids wouldn't care for exactly the reasons you've given. But still... these can be dangerous waters to cross. As I said earlier, may you never have such a child. :D

Good luck! :D

[Higgins]

"Mark, for what it's worth, I happen to agree with you. A person who claims to believe in God ought to be able to describe the God they believe in. Not only that, but they ought to be able to tell you why they think God is the way they've described."

This is simply absurd. If God exists, and has an infinite nature, then how do you suppose you will describe it? Any single word or phrase, up to and including "Infinite in nature" denies something about God. If I say God is Good, that means God was not the source of Evil which denies God in some way, doesn't it? If I say, God is Life then what of all the Death? etc etc.

So, in short, I think that describing God is more absurd than not. For, who among us could ever hope to describe God if God exists?

Hm?

AMC

This is the very crux of the problem with the Big God concept: it doesn't even exist as a coherent concept. Now, one can have some kinds of ideas about supernatural beings that have some indefinite quality or other, but to have a being that is by definition indefinable in every possible way, but is everywhere doing everything all the time....its just beyond absurdity.

For example, I've definitely encountered events that seemed supernatural...but they still had definite causal structures and occurred in limited areas. Obviously, nothing the Big God would do since apparently He is adjusting things on the other side of the universe even as we speak...or would that have to be 14 billion years before we are speaking since He just knew we were going to mention that little adjustment thing of His?

[Sarpedon]

Thanks Crenshaw, for that enlightening bit of information.

I barely slept last night, so I hope you'll give me a miss from discussion today, as I feel grumpy and slightly incoherent and don't want to give anyone offense. And since Roger is bowing out gracefully, maybe I should do the same. I hope my posts have been of some interest, Mark. Good luck and have fun at church, if you choose to go.

[MarkEsq]

That was part of my parents' argument too. It didn't save them. I nailed them on what the ceremony symbolised about their relationship to me, and whether using me as a symbol in a ceremony demonstrating their social conformity and appeasement of relatives was more important to them than committing to their responsibilities as my moral guardians and role models for truth and integrity. In short, I pinned them on both selfishness and hypocrisy.

Hey Ruv, thanks for the input. But why do you see this as an either/or proposition? I can't imagine how my going through with a ceremony like this lessens my commitment to them in any way at all. Do you think that by outwardly inviting others to look out for my kids I am somehow abdicating responsibility? I don't think that's a tenable position so maybe I am missing your meaning.
As for the hypocrisy angle, I'm not pretending it means anything to me in a religious sense. I made that clear to the priest and he seemed cool with it. I even went through the questions he asks of parents and god parents, and we talked about my responses. He's fine with me standing there like a lump and not agreeing to things I don't believe in.

In a further argument, I considered that if I wanted to join some non-mainstream religion their baptism might actually disqualify me for that -- which therefore made them guilty of pro-Christian bigotry while still being atheistic. (Not all these arguments came out at age six - I saved them and worked on them through my teens)


This sounds like a purely theoretical argument because I can't imagine there is a religion out there that would disqualify you because you were baptized while an infant. Any such religion must be short on tolerance and forgiveness and, frankly, I'd be happy to pre-disqualify my kids from such a religion. On that note, it's not pro-Christian bogotry because I am pretty sure they could still become muslims, jewish, Buddhists, or atheists after being baptized.

Thanks for the input thoug, it's a fascinating discussion.

[johnnysannie]

This sounds like a purely theoretical argument because I can't imagine there is a religion out there that would disqualify you because you were baptized while an infant. Any such religion must be short on tolerance and forgiveness and, frankly, I'd be happy to pre-disqualify my kids from such a religion. On .

Thanks for the input thoug, it's a fascinating discussion.

Many Protestant faiths insist that baptism must be immersion and at an age when the individual is fully cognizant of what he or she is doing by being baptised. I'm Catholic and so was baptised as an infant but in my twenties, when I explored other faiths, I was told by several (Baptist, Pentecostal) that if I were to join their churches, that my "sprinkling" would not be enough and that I would have to be fully immersed (dunked into a deep pool of water, sometimes inside the church, sometimes in this area and parts of the South in a creek, river, or lake).

They won't disqualify someone for being baptised as an infant but there are quite a few denominations which will insist that it doesn't count and must be done over "the right way".

[AMCrenshaw]

"This is the very crux of the problem with the Big God concept: it doesn't even exist as a coherent concept. Now, one can have some kinds of ideas about supernatural beings that have some indefinite quality or other, but to have a being that is by definition indefinable in every possible way, but is everywhere doing everything all the time....its just beyond absurdity."

That's why people who believe in God do not believe it's a concept. And, as I mentioned before, there are things that escape nailed-down definitions. I could only point to my relationship with my spouse- but I would fail constantly. The union with God is indescribable because God is infinite; language is based on difference. So basically, the definition of the Big God is that it is All-in-All. But that's a manner of speaking and is not satisfactory, is it? And it will not ever be.

[Keyan]

\
If he can get you to come to men's club, then he can get your wife to join the women's club or whatever. You'll make friends there, and your daughter will play with the other kids, and before you know it you'll be a paying member, believe it or not. And thats all he really cares about.

He might say that he's trying to save your soul by whatever means necessary, and he might believe it himself, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. There's no way to tell the ones that don't believe from the ones who do, because they behave exactly alike. Religions that make hard distinctions and hard rules become extinct, like the Shakers. The more flexible ones survive.

Question is, does it matter? If the main function of the church becomes to provide a gathering place for somewhat like-minded individuals, it's still an important role. It's evident that churches are not quite achieving that for young people, and if they can morph into something that does, so much the better.

The great advantage of belonging to a church is that it provides a sort of network if you're out of your usual social circle.

Of course, these days I suppose there are other mechanisms.

[oscuridad]

Thats typical. Trying to lure you in with the camraderie of the men's club.

too right, run and keep running.

[Keyan]

In fairness, I think that most kids wouldn't care for exactly the reasons you've given. But still... these can be dangerous waters to cross. As I said earlier, may you never have such a child. :D

Good luck! :D

Oh, I think you missed the underlying dogma: Parents Can't Win.

I felt the opposite. I wasn't baptised, for the simple reason I wasn't catholic. But I went to a Catholic school (since they offered the best education) and when - around 6 or 7 - my closest friends were making their First Holy Communion, I was pissed off I couldn't. But I'd have to be baptised first, which of course was for babies and just embarrassing at age seven. It was All Their Fault.

[Ruv Draba]

But why do you see this as an either/or proposition? I can't imagine how my going through with a ceremony like this lessens my commitment to them in any way at all.I don't know whether it does or not, Mark. In my case, I had a strong sense of being used as a prop in a ceremony really meant for the edification of adults; a ceremony that dishonoured the participants (who weren't there from genuine belief, but just for lip-service), and their relationship to me.
Do you think that by outwardly inviting others to look out for my kids I am somehow abdicating responsibility?No; I think that this is a very cool thing - heck, almost a mandatory thing. We ignore one another enough as it is. It's important to make a fuss when a new life joins our community. I'm all for it! :D (And parents have a right to skite. :))

Here's the thing though - I was a very sensitive sort of kid. Where my parents were practical, unimaginative, conformist and (of course) very well-intended, I was idealistic, highly imaginative, individualistic and (alas for them), extremely judgmental. With an adult's perspective I can see that it was simply that the form didn't fit the values my parents held. They had the right idea, but the wrong ceremony. Lacking the imagination and strength of their conviction to invent their own, they just borrowed whatever ceremony society offered, and the infrastructure in which to execute it. A pragmatic, if somewhat lazy decision maybe... but with a child's perspective it looked like they were freakin nuts. It damaged my trust in them because no way could they possibly explain from a symbolic perspective why they'd done it that particular way. (And of course, they still can't but I've stopped hassling them over it).

It never bothered my brother or my sister - but my sister likes conformity and my brother has a surf-bum 'go with the flow' attitude. Neither of them had my childhood idealism or aesthetic sensitivity. If my parents had invented a ceremony it would have delighted the kid I was. It would have touched my heart very deeply, but perhaps my sister would have grown up embarrassed that her parents were freakin hippies. So whaddayagonnado? :) :)

Alas, but we don't have (or at least I don't know of) a traditional secular community 'baby-welcoming' ceremony. Again, with adult perspective I must wonder: why the heck not? It's a very fine idea. Why must churches own this function? Why do we let them? Just laziness, I guess.
This sounds like a purely theoretical argument because I can't imagine there is a religion out there that would disqualify you because you were baptized while an infant.I don't know of one either - but I bet there's one out there. I certainly know of religions that disqualify people on grounds of birth or ancestry; I bet there are some that do so on the basis of ceremony or religious history too. But you're right. It was a purely theoretical teen argument - I had no intention of seeking such a religion. What I was really bothered about was my parents' laziness in just borrowing a religion's forms without understanding (or caring about) the symbolism of the forms. In other words, they'd borrowed the bias of the society in which they found themselves, instead of being their own moral compass. Realistically, they weren't the first parents to ever do that, but as I said, I was a judgemental sort of kid. :)

I have a lot of sympathy for your plight, Mark. What I find very funny from this discussion though is the atheist engaging an empty shell of a borrowed ceremony while staring at the (possibly faithless) officiator of the ceremony wondering:


. o O ( What DOES he believe in?)


It's almost cartoonable. :) It's like an icon of our modern times.

(Looks like I'm still too sensitive and judgemental. :))

Ruv

[AMCrenshaw]

I started a new one, Pat. Just because I don't want to further an off-topic discussion...

[dpaterso]

At Pat's request some posts were moved out of this thread and into a new thread titled "Is God Definable?"

Don't worry if a post got missed out or a wrong post got taken, any tidy-up will only take a moment or two once Pat points it out.

AMC, I see you started a new thread, I've merged it into the new split-off thread which seemed the right thing to do. If this is wrong, no worries, it's easily fixed.

-Derek

[zornhau]

Hey Ruv, thanks for the input. But why do you see this as an either/or proposition?...

There is another aspect - baptism is political. For example, as long as parents like you keep pleasing the older generation, the churches can say to politicians, "Look, we're basically a Christian country".