To truly understand all that confusion in the gospels takes a real contortionist scholar.

-- (I @m anti.religion), March 26, 2001

Answers

If you love God, burn a church.

-- (I @m anti.religion), March 26, 2001.

It is more simple than you realize. Here are the four steps.

Step #1 Acknowledge Your Sin Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Step #2 Repent of Your Sin Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Step #3 Believe in Jesus John 3:16-17 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, [1] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Step #4 Make Your Decision Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Matthew 7:13-14 says: 13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Many 'Christians' are into 'Churchianity' and not 'Christianity'. Churchianity is filled with laws and rituals. Christianity is accepting God's love and gift of Jesus Christ. No one will enter heaven by doing good works.

blessings.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.

I disagree. You have to be steeped in this stuff right from birth. Otherwise, if you reach the age of reason before immersion, you might *claim* to believe it, but you'll be faking it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 26, 2001.

''THE HEART OF man is desperatly wicked'' book of ISSIAH. true that man is capable of doing good things. but no man knows his own heart,as does the LORD!

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 26, 2001.

Actually Flint, any conversion of ones belief, whatever it may be, becomes less likely beyond the teenage years. Generally speaking, whatever you believe, religiously, by age 21 is what you normally stick with until you die.

I say normally, not always.

blessings.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.

Flint,

You seem to suggest that any "rational" person not inculcated from birth must be an honest atheist (or agnostic) or a lying believer. An amazing (and arrogant) suggestion, Flint, from a man who values reason. Exactly how did you reach this stunning conclusion? Do have some untold ability to know the hearts and minds of others, to determine that their "faith" is false. Or is any faith in the divine de facto evidence that their reason is hollow?

Some of the greatest thinkers in history (far more capable than you or I) were devout believers. This faith did not keep them from revolutionizing science, mathematics, logic or philosophy. Many of the framers of the Constitution were men of faith. This did not keep them from establishing a republic where there is freedom of religion.

Science cannot explain all the mysteries of the universe, Flint. The complexity of life on earth suggests a development time frame of 25 billion years or so, if one believes evolution is random mutation and adaptation. We know the earth is not nearly so old. Is life self- organizing like a crystal, or might there be some element of the divine?

Faith provides answers, at least for some people. To the extent their faith does not interfere with you, why complain? Why make the rather foolish statement than anyone who isn't bred to Christianity and proclaims an adult faith is most likely a fraud or a fool?

-- O (yeoflittle@faith.com), March 26, 2001.

God would seem to be too big of a concept to be contained by one religion, of one planet, at any one point in time.

Jesus seems to be the concept that one religion, of this one planet, in this time, has embraced. Jesus is a personification of love, an anthropomorphic projection of God. If you believe in a loving God, you believe in Jesus, even though you may not except the mythology as literal.

Whether your belief be Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddist, Atheist or Satanic, consider these words:

Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

For further reading, see A Course in Miracles

-- ¤Ÿ¤ (@@...), March 26, 2001.

Any idiot can believe there was once a man named Jesus Christ....

It's easy to be a cynic, and you sound like one. What's more difficult is coming to the awareness that showing patience and love DOES make a difference in the lives of those we meet.

-- No (longer@a.cynic), March 26, 2001.

"Otherwise, if you reach the age of reason before immersion, you might *claim* to believe it, but you'll be faking it."

I agree, Dumbya is a classic example. The only religion he truly honors is the religion of the corporate elite. He is a loyal servant to the cause of making them richer and more powerful, while saying "go to hell" to everyone else.

-- (dumbya has faith @ in. corruption), March 26, 2001.

the BIBLE is more than just history & life stories. IT IT A TESAMENT=TESTIOMONIES. of men & women who walked & talked, with CHRIST JESUS. who died, suffered-we,re martyred for THE FAITH. YES OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE HAD=MARTYR'S-SATAN COPY CATS [TRUE]faith.

jesus/JASHUA/MESSIAH HAS RISEN. all the others are still dead.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 26, 2001.

to: anti religion, I am anti-religion also-but PRO relationship with the 1 TRUE GOD. religion is mans attempt to reach/please GOD. [true]christianity is simply accepting-what GOD [IN]CHRIST offers!! [IN] CHRIST we are offered free-salvation-REDEMPTION-PEACE- DELIVERANCE.

~~~~BIG DIFFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIP &/OR=RELIGION.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 26, 2001.

For people of faith, God is not a "concept," but a divine entity. For Christians, Christ is not an "anthropomorphic projection," but God as man. Christians believe that God is universal enough for not only this planet, but for any other inhabited worlds in the solar system. Even if you do not believe in Christianity, the religion and its moral philosophy has had a tremendous impact on the world. The idea of "loving one's neighbor" and "turning the other cheek" were radical to the point revolutionary two thousand years ago.

-- O (yeof little@faith.com), March 26, 2001.

I agree with you "No longer". But religion isn't the only avenue to love and kindness. I love many people. I dislike some people (emotional and physical abusers of any kind.) I'm probably a whole like you, so why then do I need religion?

"I believe", I realized that a psychological need for religion resulted from childhood indoctrination, and that it has alot of the characteristics of addiction. I prefer to live with as few addictions as possible, thank you.

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 26, 2001.

"I believe", I realized that a psychological need for religion

Religion kills! Jesus Christ was killed by the most religious people of His day. What I speak of is realationship and eternal life with He that offers it.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), March 26, 2001.

only an idiot believes there was a J.CHRIST-tell me was there an buddha--muhammed-confusious-g.washington-abe lincoln-elvis????

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 26, 2001.

To truly understand all that confusion in the gospels takes a real contortionist scholar. No, it only takes a humble heart and illumination from the Holy Spirit. Although a contortionist scholar can make a lot of money by plying their trade with the Bible, (or the daily newspaper for that matter).

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 26, 2001.

Futureshock, do you realize how much pain is apparent in your posts? You are so full of anger and hatred

What/who hurt you so badly?

-- (i see@your.pain), March 26, 2001.

O:

You are filled with assumptions. Let's deconstruct a bit.

First, "I believe" got it pretty much right. It becomes very unlikely that you'll change your religious beliefs the older you get. In this same way, there is an age beyond which almost nobody can learn to speak a foreign language without an accent. Certain things must be learned by certain ages to be fully assimilated. Read Piaget, who wrote all about this 100 years ago.

[Some of the greatest thinkers in history (far more capable than you or I) were devout believers.]

True. But their beliefs clearly did not *hinder* their development of new science, math, etc. Thus, the fact that they had devout belief was irrelevant to their accomplishments. I did NOT say that religion necessarily clouds the mind. It's perfectly possible to work around it. All I said was, if you don't have such beliefs by a certain age, you have become too old to adopt them in the same way -- without an accent. I was making a physiological observation, as "I believe" recognized.

[Science cannot explain all the mysteries of the universe]

But beware of the "God of the gaps", which holds that we will use God to explain everything science hasn't figured out yet. Those gaps tend to shrink, squeezing God right away in the process!

[The complexity of life on earth suggests a development time frame of 25 billion years or so, if one believes evolution is random mutation and adaptation]

At best, that 25 billion year number is based on the assumptions built into someone's computer simulation. Even if evolution works ONLY through gradual mechanisms, we emphatically haven't calibrated that rate accurately enough for such assumptions to be anything more than guesses. But even Darwin recognized that gradual, generation-to- generation change wasn't necessarily the whole picture. Genetic transposition can make drastic changes overnight that breed true, for example. You really can't use guesses about rates of change to draw any firm conclusions.

[Is life self- organizing like a crystal, or might there be some element of the divine?]

Either or both. But I contend that rational people prefer testable, disproveable hypotheses. Of course *anything* could be "pure magic", but such an explanation is probably not necessary and in any case doesn't really explain. We think we have the basic principles of life because they are both consistent and useful, and because predictions made using them have a good track record.

[Why make the rather foolish statement than anyone who isn't bred to Christianity and proclaims an adult faith is most likely a fraud or a fool?]

This is a misrepresentation. I agree that some people are unsatisfied with the inevitably tentative and incomplete answers science is limited to providing, and they want absolutes. So long as these absolutes do not try to describe the physical universe (the purview of science), they are harmless at worst and comforting to many.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 26, 2001.

Nice back pedaling, Flint. "Pretty much right" is a nice way of saying "I was talking out my ass making an unsubtantiated overgeneralization and someone called me on it." I notice that what you provide is a personal observation about religious beliefs totally unsupported by factual data. Are we to believe you are an expert in these matters? Or is this the rather biased personal conclusion of a man who has an admittedly dim view of religion?

Comparing langauge to religion is spurious at best. Some martyrs found religious faith beyond childhood, and cared deeply enough to die for this "false faith." If you want to use a more secular example, many devout followers of AA come to their faith late in life... and are quite sincere, I can assure.

The ability to formulate an accent is quite different than the commitment of faith. In fact, faith does not depend on any particular gift or ability.

Weasel all you want, Flint, but you made it pretty clear that you felt the only sincere believers require indoctrination from birth and implied that reaching an age of reason essentially prevents one from having a legitimate faith. Perhaps you can do better than a vague reference to Piaget in your next response.

-- O (yeoflittle@faith.com), March 26, 2001.

O:

I see you prefer insult to discussion. Very well. Be honest now, at what age did YOUR indoctrination start?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 26, 2001.

Nice try, Flint. (Do you suppose anyone will notice that you are dodging the issue?) How about a shred of intellectual honesty here? You "popped off" your in your first response and then you did a rather poor job of trying to rewrite it. What's insulting is an oblique reference to Piaget as if this supports the notion that religious faith is a behavior that can only be fully "learned" in youth. How about a citation or have you really grown so lazy beating on Y2K kooks and political hacks?

Let's have it, Flint, can you prove your thesis or were you just doing some stream of consciousness posting? Oh, part of my "indoctrination" was to learn how to tell the difference between bullshit and a real argument. Perhaps it's only something that can be fully learned in one's youth?

-- O (yeoflittle@faith.com), March 27, 2001.

O:

I'm collecting data. I see no age in your reply. Try again.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 27, 2001.

I believe, I'm glad to see you recognize religion kills. At least we have some starting ground here. I really would like to have an ordinary discussion with you about spirituality, so will you please quit with the cut and paste from the Bible?

You keep talking about the "eternal life" that you think Jesus offers. I believe that YOU will have "eternal life" with him because that's what you believe. I think we all get pretty much what we believe in the end. However, since I am of limited intellectual capacity, I can't conceieve of eternal life. I'm pretty much happy having good days and bad days here on earth. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the future because I have found the future takes care of itself - no matter what I believe. Why do you spend so much time worrying about it?

With that said, I have a few questions I'd like to ask. Since I know you're a Christian, I'd like to know what core values you hold. Also, I'd like to know what it means to "accept Jesus".

-- (Devil m@y .care), March 27, 2001.

Flint,

It would have been a bit more prudent to have your facts lined up before shooting from the hip. I can't wait until you come up with the "facts" measuring the comparative "faith" of children raised in a religious background against adults who come to faith later in life. Perhaps someone has "faith-o-meter" than can peer into a person's mind and determine to what extent their faith is sincere? Is there a Wonderlic for faith that measures one's FQ--faith quotient?

Come now, Flint. You have no facts. Faith cannot be measured like height or weight. Neither you nor any person can accurately determine if one person's faith is sincere and another's is not. Unless you can measure "faith" you cannot establish a correlation between faith and age of "exposure" let alone establish a casual linkage. Oh, you could use "self reported" data, but we both know how flawed that might be. It's like asking people their IQ rather than testing it objectively. Sure, everybody's a MENSA candidate on the "honor" program.

You've painted yourself into a neat little corner. I'm waiting to see you can swallow your considerable intellectual pride and admit you have nothing more to offer than a personal opinion. What say, Flint? When you cannot prove your thesis, will you prove yourself more honest than the Y2K kooks you derided for so long? Can the might Flint strike out?

-- O (yeof little@faith.com), March 27, 2001.

O:

I'll address what I think your complaint is, just to clarify my own thoughts if nothing else.

First, I want to draw a distinction between what I consider to very different senses of the word "believe". Saying "I believe in God" is quite distinct from saying "I believe the world is round", in that in the first sense the belief is not subject to either investigation or change. Beliefs that represent rote early training are a different *category* of thing than beliefs resulting from later observation and logic. We use the same word (confusingly, IMO), *both* for things taken on absolute faith and things tentatively considered most likely, unless and until something more convincing comes along.

So when I say that beyond a certain age belief is either ingrained or it must be faked, I'm saying that the belief is not internalized in the same way. You can be *absolutely convinced* the world is round, and still recognize that this is something subject to modification with additional data (like the earth not being exactly spherical but somewhat oblate).

Maybe "faked" is the wrong word? I think that people who come to be devout later in life are either reverting to early childhood training they had tried to reject for a while, or else adopting a *considered* position (as opposed to a trained position) because they feel the preponderance of the data they consider relevant points them in that direction -- kind of like being absolutely convinced the earth is round.

While I don't have voluminous data for my belief, this is still a belief in the second sense -- subject to investigation. In principle, these two meanings can be defined operationally, to permit fruitful investigation. In other words, the distinction I'm drawing here is falsifiable. Empirical data can prove me wrong.

There are several related questions I should look up current research on. For example, to what extent can early childhood training really be overcome? Is it really true that the fundamental character and beliefs are "set up" in the first 6 years of life, and everyting after that is just putting those things into practice? Is it possible for a "belief" in the first sense (that is, impervious to change however obviously contraindicated) to be adopted after the age of 6, or for such a belief trained-in early to be fully rejected? I hypothesize that our ability to do either one is severely limited.

Finally, please understand that none of this has anything to do with the actual *contents* of the teachings of any particular religion. It all applies equally to any early training, such as racial prejudice or respect for authority. Yes, I admit I fail to see the practical utility of any particular body of religious content, but I don't mind those who get great satisfaction/relief from such teachings provided they don't try to impose them on me.

P.S. Your refusal to lend your experience in support of my contention speaks volumes. Such an eloquent silence.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 27, 2001.

Flint,

LOL.

Are you really Bill Clinton? Your last post reminded me a lot of, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 27, 2001.

I believe that Jesus is God and that He died on the cross for my sins, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day, according to the scriptures.

I believe that the only way to be eternally saved is by grace through faith....ie believing "in Him" - believing in His identity...His person and His work.... see above. (exception - those who are never able to exercise belief in Him).

I don't believe that anybody is saved by baptism, going to church, being a "good" person, "making" Christ Lord of one's life, ect....ie nobody is saved through any type of their own system.

I believe that no matter what a saved person does, once they become saved they are eternally saved....not temporarily. It's salvation, not probation....or once saved, always saved.

I believe that God has set eternity in the hearts of people, and that we will all live forever in peace or in anguish.

I believe that the lake of fire is where those who aren't saved will spend eternity. I usually avoid discussing "hell," but I believe it's real, and worse than anyone could imagine.

I believe I am to show proper respect to everyone at all times.

As for "religion".....I believe it's right and wrong, God's definition being right.

If anyone wants verses that back up my beliefs stated above, let me know.

No longer a cynic said -

[What's more difficult is coming to the awareness that showing patience and love DOES make a difference in the lives of those we meet.]

If you (anyone of you who are not saved) were to die right now having never trusted in Christ as your personal Savior...then I don't believe that anything I ever did made any difference in where you spend eternity. And even if someone does come to believe in Him....it wasn't me who made a difference. Christ made the difference. Whether you accept the difference He made for you is your decision. Jesus Christ loves you. I love you. I cannot prove or persuade you of either one.

O said -

[Some martyrs found religious faith beyond childhood, and cared deeply enough to die for this "false faith."]

I heard that it was said - As persecuters were taking believers to be thrown to the lions or burned at the stake or whatever....other believers would step forward and die in their place. The unbelievers supposedly said of the believers, "Behold, how they love one another."

I'm astounded that a person could be this confident when facing execution -------- "Polycarp, a disciple and student of John was the pastor at Smyrna. His ministry ended in AD 156 when the persecution of the church was at its pinnacle. Polycarp was marched into the amphitheater and commanded to deny Christ or face the consequences. It is reported that he said, "86 years I have served Him and He never did me any harm; how then can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" Standing before the crowd in the Stadium, the governor (Kaiser Kurious = Caesar is Lord) shouted, "I'll have you destroyed by fire unless you change your attitude." Polycarp's answer is reported to have been, "You threaten me with fire that burns for an hour and after a little is extinguished. But you are ignorant of the fires of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment reserved for the ungodly. But why do you delay? Bring on what you will." http://ventures.net/JaysLittleCorner/Revelation.html#Smyrna\

If anyone's interested in reading about people who would died for Christ, I liked "The Hiding Place" by Corrie ten Boom.... true story about a Christian family who hid Jews during the holocaust for several years before they were found out. They didn't tell where they were hiding the Jews, so they were beaten and put in concentration camps. The author is the main character, so it's a first hand account.....not that that counts for anything......since anyone can say - this *really* happened to me.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 27, 2001.

I believe that no matter what a saved person does, once they become saved they are eternally saved....not temporarily. It's salvation, not probation....or once saved, always saved.

That's why I accepted Jesus before I went on my drunken whoring binges, just to be safe.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 27, 2001.

The vast majority of people lack the expertise, education or experience to prove most of what you might call "fact." For example, most people believe matter is composed of atoms. This is not based on personal observation or scientific inquiry. I doubt you have an electron microscope in your basement. To my knowledge, you are not an expert in molecular physics. Your faith is placed in the scientific community, a group proven wrong from time to time. Much of what is called "fact," is really more accurately described as widely accepted, educated guesses.

As a general rule, most people accept the explanations of science without any thought. If these beliefs change, they change because someone tells them, not because they applied logic or observation.

What you have yet to prove is that a "belief" formed in childhood is qualitatively different than a "belief" formed as an adult. I don't think you can, at least not until we have a far better understanding of the human brain. When you say you do not have voluminous data, what you are really saying is that you haven't any data.

What you have is a personal opinion that religion is "imprinted" on some children and not on others. Those who dodge this imprinting are fundamentally different in their ability to develop a "faith."

If we peel back the layer of "smug" from your first remark, it's an interesting theory. And I don't think my personal experience or yours is worth a tinker's damn in proving this particular theory. (And you ought to know better.) What's eloquent, Flint, is how you've managed make your original remark original remark sound considered rather than a knee jerk bias against faith.

So, can we expect proof of this theory any time soon? Or have you given us all a lesson in how transform an baseless remark into a learned thesis by sheer weight of prose?

-- O (yeoflittle@faith.com), March 27, 2001.

Better safe than sorry Unk,now what's this drinkin' and whorin' binge thingee? Sounds fun,but I wouldn't know as I have been sheltered these many years,please splain ; )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 27, 2001.

O:

You overreach yourself when you start to object to what *you* claim I was driving at. By now, your objection isn't to anything I have said in any post on this thread, but rather to an interpretation YOU have placed on what I said. You expected to see a "knee-jerk bias against faith", and by golly that's what you see regardless. Not bright. The ideas I've been expressing underlay my original statement, or else I wouldn't try to defend and expand it.

[As a general rule, most people accept the explanations of science without any thought. If these beliefs change, they change because someone tells them]

And do you change your religious faith if someone tells you? Would you stop believing in God if the Pope changed his mind and "converted" to athiesm, or perhaps decreed that Hinduism got it right instead of Christianity?

I find your "science is really religion" implication disingenuous. It's very true that we cannot all be world-class scientists at the forefront of discovery in every aspect of every discipline. Indeed, this fails to describe any single individual in all history.

But even you seem to recognize that if scientists (all properly tested and peer-reviewed) modify a theory, then the rest of us accept that the prior version was less adequate in some way, or even wrong. This is qualitatively different from a "faith" position, which (at least in my observation) is not testable nor falsifiable, so it cannot be found even partially wrong.

Scientists accept refutations of their proposals by other scientists, regardless of their different religions. Can you even imagine accepting that your religious faith might be refuted by someone of another faith? This is a qualitative difference.

[Much of what is called "fact," is really more accurately described as widely accepted, educated guesses.]

Well, so to speak. Science addresses the natural world, and makes statements about that world. The "facts" are the observations themselves, in the rawest and most primitive form. "Here is a rock". Yes, according to the accepted definition, that's a rock. So what? Once we start drawing conclusions we have degrees of certainty, short of 100%.

So we don't regard the scientific community as infallible. We instead consider that the *method* they use is the most reliable we've found yet. It does more than make mistakes, it *corrects* them. Contrast with religous faith.

[When you say you do not have voluminous data, what you are really saying is that you haven't any data.]

I don't agree. Piaget's ideas really have held all this time. Not for nothing do we say that "as the twig is bent, the tree is inclined." Behavioral psychologists have been investigating related areas for some decades now, with findings at least not inconsistent with my suggestions. Things learned in early childhood have proved remarkable indelible, despite efforts to overcome them later. I'm suggesting that religious faith falls in this category, and that such things are organic, physiological.

[So, can we expect proof of this theory any time soon?]

I wish I could answer this. Like I said, it seems to me we are moving in this direction, but "proof" is a slippery concept in psychology or human learning. The evidence suggestive of "early imprinting" is IMO far stronger than evidence (if any) against it. Yes, we still have a lot to learn about the human brain, no argument there.

I'll admit I started out phrasing a hypothesis as an assertion. But I stand behind what I wrote nonetheless. This transformation is in your own mind, I've just said the same thing repeatedly in different words.

By the way, I've responded to your challenge at great length. Now, how about answering my question to you. Go ahead, it won't hurt...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 27, 2001.

Photo of Jesus found

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 27, 2001.

Unk, does that mean I get to call you brother now? kidding.

nemesis, I like this one - http://www.jesuslaughing.com/

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 28, 2001.

I agree with you "No longer". But religion isn't the only avenue to love and kindness. I love many people. I dislike some people (emotional and physical abusers of any kind.)

I wasn't talking about religion; I was talking about patience and love and touching on the idea that there are different kinds love. There's the attraction between men and women, the love between close, long-time friends, the love a parent might show by dying while trying to save their child's life, and then there's agape love.

I'm probably a whole like you, so why then do I need religion?

I don't have much use for "religion" either. It's about love and patience and about being the kind of person you need to be so that you help rather than warp your family and those you know. The best example ever of what love and faith can do is the life, death and resurrection of the Redeemer -- Jesus Christ.

He's much too valuable an example to be left unread and ignored.

-- No (longer@a.cynic), March 28, 2001.

I disagree. You have to be steeped in this stuff right from birth. Otherwise, if you reach the age of reason before immersion, you might *claim* to believe it, but you'll be faking it.

Your original statement seemed pretty clear (and snippy) to me. Of course, I suppose I'll have to wade through Volumes 3 & 4 of your continuing explanation. I'm sure you'll explain that a reference to religion as "this stuff" was value neutral and the "age of reason" starts at seven. If one is "immersed" between the ages of 0 and 6, we are hard wired for religion. If not, we're "faking" if we say we have faith.

You have yet to produce a shred of data to support your original "thesis." You use the same tactics as the Y2K kooks, "Studies say." What studies, Flint. How about some citations rather than a grand wave over your hand over the entire realm of behavioral pyschology?

A person's belief in God is a matter of personal faith. You stare into the void and see nothing. I stare into the void and see God. To satisfy your curiousity, I never stepped foot inside church until my teens and both my parents were nonreligious. I suppose you'll want to know about breast-feeding and toilet training next.

Science will always be closer to religion than you are comfortable. Our ability to know and measure is always limited... and we are aware that the process of examining can distort that we attempt to study (the Heisenberg Effect). Peer review and testing are just methods to ensure we are making the best possible guesses. As for scientists accepting refutations so nobly, it seems clear you've never worked in academia. Scientists hold to theories as stubbornly as any deacon. It sometimes takes generations to displace old paradigms.

Perhaps someday we will be able to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. I have the distinct feeling you won't be alive to see it, but I can imagine you reacting like Scrooge, claiming that God is just a bit undigested meat even if he were standing before you.

I don't think faith is hard-wired or imprinted from an early age. Not every bent twig grows to a crooked tree. Young children who are abused can grow up to become wonderful parents. Childhood events may shape predispositions, but it is utterly wrong to suggest one cannot develop a genuine faith unless "immersed" as child.

Live by your lofty standards, Flint. Show me the peer reviewed, comprehensive studies that conclusively prove adult faith is determined by exposure to religion before the age of six. Thus far, your evidence has been less than compelling... at least from a strictly scientific standpoint.

-- O (yeoflittle@faith.com), March 28, 2001.

I have no hard data but I have known many people, including myself, who have achieved a measure of spirituality well into adulthood. Likewise, I have known many who were raised in a religious environment and rejected it as adults.

Flint, you are naiive if you think anyone who is religious was brainwashed into it before age six. They are many things that happen to adults that can generate conversions--war, disease, a death of a loved one, imprisonment, weariness of empty scientism, to name a few.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 28, 2001.

I readily admit that there are just as many things that can happen to adults to turn them away from spirituality---war, disease, a death of a loved one, imprisonment, weariness of empty spirituality, to name a few.

My point is that, altho what happens before age six is important, it is not the sole determinant of the rest of our lives.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 28, 2001.

O:

[Your original statement seemed pretty clear (and snippy) to me.]

It was intentionally provocative.

[Of course, I suppose I'll have to wade through Volumes 3 & 4 of your continuing explanation.]

And this is value neutral as well? How about just reading and thinking about it. I'm trying to discuss something with you, and your straining to find insults where there are none is getting kind of tired. I look forward to reading (not "wading through") your answers, in the hopes of finding nuggets of thought.

[I'm sure you'll explain that a reference to religion as "this stuff" was value neutral and the "age of reason" starts at seven.]

Try to distinguish between belief with and without any evidence, and the contents of evidence-free belief. I also lived through the ages of 0-6, and did not avoid the effects of early training either. My training was simply different. So I also have beliefs without any real evidence. I also have beliefs based on what I consider the preponderance of evidence, the statistical patterns. Remember "I believe" saying how few people adopt or change religions later in life. What is the reason for this? Could these statistics be reflecting something inherent in our learning process, similar to speaking without an accent?

Meanwhile, as an outsider looking in, I find the *contents* of your evidence-free beliefs to be arbitrary and unhelpful. I'm sure mine look the same to you.

[If one is "immersed" between the ages of 0 and 6, we are hard wired for religion. If not, we're "faking" if we say we have faith.]

Yes to the first. I expect we will (if we haven't already) identify specific neurological pathways corresponding to religious beliefs, much like we've found them for drug addictions. And those pathways remain strong even decades after the addict quits. They appear permanent. As for the second, I really do think "faith" acquired later in life is much more subject to being abandoned under proper (though perhaps extreme) circumstances. Note that Lars lists several ways to *acquire* faith later. Doesn't it make sense that what can be acquired can equally be "unqcquired" at an age when our minds can be changed? I think "Faith" from imprinting (for lack of a better word) cannot be "unacquired", anymore than the drug addict can abandon those pathways. He can abandon the drug, but not the wiring.

[Science will always be closer to religion than you are comfortable.]

On the contrary, these occupy separate magisteria, without overlap. Science deals with what can be observed and measured, religion does not. The realms being described by these disciplines are mutually exclusive.

[Our ability to know and measure is always limited... and we are aware that the process of examining can distort that we attempt to study (the Heisenberg Effect).]

And at the quantum level, this makes a difference. If you intend to discount all other areas of investigation by this blanket statement, you are misunderstanding the principle involved. Nonetheless I believe (as an article of faith, without evidence) in the inherent imperfectability of theory and observation.

[Peer review and testing are just methods to ensure we are making the best possible guesses.]

This is true. We can only do the best we can, and continue trying to do better.

[Scientists hold to theories as stubbornly as any deacon. It sometimes takes generations to displace old paradigms.]

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Indeed, most commonly new scientific theories displace older ones more because the adherants of the older theories die off and aren't replaced, than for any other reason. Being more true to the ideals of logic applied to observation is just that, an ideal, not always achieved. Scientists are people, as fallible as you or I.

[I don't think faith is hard-wired or imprinted from an early age.]

And I do. But this has not been (to my knowledge) a subject of specific investigation. If you're looking for proof chapter and verse, you probably won't find it. I can't find it. I am generalizing from a hazy knowledge of human learning, combined with every appearance of an involuntary rigidity of thought.

Lars:

Yes, I might be completely wrong about this. We have pretty well established by observation that learning changes in nature as we age, and that the first few years (maybe 6, maybe not) are very critical. That things learned very early and without life experience to verify them against seem qualitatively different. I suspect that religious faith falls into this category, and that faith "imprinted" early on is qualitatively different than faith "converted to" later in life. But I admit I do not know how to define this difference in some specific way conducive to experimental testing, especially so as to produce unambiguous results. Until we have some way to make useful measurements, my statement remains a fairly empty conjecture.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 28, 2001.

Religion [and the choice to follow one, the other, or none] seems to be based on individual preference. Early indoctrination doesn't seem to matter. My aunt [so I've been told] was a religious fanatic. She had a bunch of kids, one of whom is the one I mentioned in the Capn thread who married a Moslem. She had the very same upbringing as her younger brother, but HE'S still steeped in Christianity, while SHE accepts ANY faith as o.k., or even NO faith as o.k.

The first time I met my sister-in-law many years ago, she discussed how religion seemed to be more important to older folks. She was from Alabama and her mom had married at 13 years of age, but "developed" religion as she aged. I never agreed with much of what my sister-in-law said, but it made sense to me that older folks would somehow find comfort in religion as they found themselves approaching death. There was a "just in case" thing going on there, I think. It reminds me of the Y2k argument regarding preparation. It's fine to say, "I don't believe anything will happen.", but someone else chimes in with "But...what if you're wrong?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 28, 2001.

Anita:

I wonder what might underlie the personal preference you speak of. Having had some opportunity to think about this lately [grin], I'm starting to think what we really get early on is not so much the particular dogma and superstructure of a formal religion, as a fundamental value orientation, to which some particular religion may or may not later be a close fit.

I think the hedge-your-bets, just-in-case religion of old age is a different item altogether.

And I simply do not know what to make of some of the beliefs I've seen supported with such enthusiastic, grinding ignorance and deep- grained dishonesty. Whatever possesses these people I cannot imagine. I wonder if any good explanation will ever be found. My money today is on organic brain damage.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 28, 2001.

Just kicking anthills again, Flint? I do not find your prose insulting, just very, very long. In the end, we discover you have a "belief" about early childhood training and religion that is founded on absolutely no verifiable or replicable scientific evidence. My irony meter is pegged.

What you have, Flint, is an opinion. Find these mysterious neural pathways, and then drop me a note. Like Y2K, we'll all eventually find out one way or another.

-- Askforthetime (andhebuilds@clock.com), March 28, 2001.

Ask:

Me? Opinions? Imagine that! Sure, I love to speculate. Some speculations are duds, but nothing ventured nothing gained. I like exploring ideas. If your mind is made up and you're not willing to try out new ideas, you are the walking dead.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 28, 2001.

I see your pain:

???. Where was I in this thread before you made your remark?

And as I have said before, I gots dat heaven ding all locked up as I accepted da lord back in der 1992. The fundies LOVE my new age version, though. LOL.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 29, 2001.

PROOF, you want--look long at CHRIST on the cross,be wise and read the WORDS OF THIS CHRIST. AND MAYBE JUST MAYBE-as 1 witness said to the =pharisees. no man ever spoke like this 1 called jeshua/messiah> GOD prooved HIS =LOVE on a cross-for us. and then [ponder] this fullfilled=prophecy[on the 3rd day HE AROSE]

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 29, 2001.

Flint,

When you talk out your ass it's "exploring ideas." When someone has an unscientific notion, they are irrational--a victim of early imprinting, bad toilet training or a brain disorder. You are fraud, Flint. You don't care about ideas or discourse. You just get your kicks by kicking the now proverbial anthill. Even worse, you're not big enough to just admit you were shooting off your mouth at the beginning of this thread. It took two slopping buckets of prose to finally get to the point where we discover this is just a personal opinion of yours, no more scientifically based than thinking Big JuJu runs the universe.

Get a new hobby, Flint.

-- More (shit@Flint.com), March 29, 2001.

scratching my head wondering.... what's a fundie? I agree with whatever new age teachings reflect the truth of the bible.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 29, 2001.