The largest, deepest issues require religious engagement for political resolution to become possible.

http://jyte.com/cl/science-is-a-religion
http://jyte.com/cl/science-is-inherently-skeptical

I read the article. It's saying that separation of church and state is vital for the decency of both church and state, but that the state and people should not ignore the views of those with religion. It also says religion should stay the hell out of telling people what to do, but instead speak prophetically about what it views as right.

I wouldn't call that engagement.

This is a silly claim. There are so many religious people in the world it's impossible to do just about anything without involving some of them.

I see nothing about having a belief system which places some personal experience or belief over reason and empiricism which makes you a more qualified decisionmaker for the polity, or more capable of finding common ground with other factions (except, possibly, factions which share your particular notion).

Faith may be instrumental to your sense of purpose and connection to the world community. It may inspire you to be a better person. Good for you. It is, however, vanity to presuppose that this characteristic makes you somehow superior to anybody else.

After all, pride is a sin. Wasn't it supposed to be the first and greatest, too?

Xavier AM: How is empiricism different from personal experience?

I should be more careful in my usage of words with multiple meanings.

I meant: # Employment of empirical methods, as in science.

Reproducible. Objective / non subjective. Testable.

Still, I think you know what I meant. Good for you to have faith - but I see no evidence that people of faith are inherently better at this stuff than otherwise.

Xavier AM: I still am unclear. How is empiricism different from personal experience? How would a personal experience contradict or violate empiricism or reason?

Because merely having experienced something personally is insufficient reason to believe it is true.

Talk to any schizophrenic.

While this is trivial in relation to workaday events, the more remarkable a claim the more evidence required to support it. If you said you stubbed your toe, sure, whatever I won't dispute it. You could tell me that your best friend is a special ops assassin for the CIA. It's quite possible, but unlikely.

It's also possible the FBI is following you because you're a secret scientist and they have a satellite which can read your thoughts. But... yeah...

Now, I ask you - if you did not already share this belief, where do you think

"I have an invisible best friend who can do anything, who loves me no matter what and will take care of me forever when I die. All I have to do is follow his orders, no matter what..."

...falls into the spectrum of credibility from "I stubbed my toe" to "I wear a tinfoil hat to keep out the mind rays."

Ooh, bad example, X. Tinfoil hats apparently strengthen the frequencies the government beams out mind control messages on.

Ben, no, that's what makes it a good example of a bad belief. :)

No, you see it's perfect. People hear voices in their head and they think that wearing a tinfoil hat, or going to Church, will make it better.

Well, drat.

XaierAM: I think the question is posed incorrectly. I think the question should be, If a visible best friend who can do anything and follows his masters orders perfectly unlike anyone else, and who loves everybody no matter what, dies but comes back to life and appears to over 500 people, what would a jury decide based on the testimony of the witnesses?

loves everybody except for fig trees and yells and rants at moneylenders and such.

Jim: conflicting testimony recorded 50 years+ after the fact would be inadmissible in court.

Attempting to prove your faith by historical documentation is a dead end. Lots of people have holy books. Yours is no more historically persuasive than anybody else's, sorry.

Also, I've no intention of ever being anybody's slave. And anybody who threatens to hurt me, let alone torture me forever, if I don't obey... well, I don't see that as love.

XaiverAM: Pride is a sin I am guilty of. I suspect the first sin was disobedience.

XavierAM: Christians are taught to not think of themselves more highly than they ought, but rather with sober judgment.

Granted, Christians struggle with pride and all sin.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

Jim: Check out the lyrics to this song. That just about sums up how you're feeling.

"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. But it doesn't sound like you're having a good time, suppressing your nature and identity.

Hatred is a yucky emotion. I have to say you're not making much of a case for your religion, here.

Jonathan:thanks for the link. That was my first exposure to the Smalltown Poets.

Rachel: Who "yells" at money changers?

Who brings not peace, but a sword, turning mother against father, etc. Not with me, against me. Follow me, or burn. Curse you, fig tree!

Quite frankly, he doesn't seem like a very likable guy.

I am ignorant about the significance of the fig tree. Who and why was anyone offended by a cursed fig tree?

Well, I assume you're familiar with the story.

It just seems like a really unfair & unreasonable thing to do - to wither a tree because it's not producing fruit... out of season.

Jim Ley, have you read the Bible? If you haven't, I strongly recommend that you do. Seriously, take some time to read it all the way through. It's useful to do even if you don't believe in it, because it has a strong affect on certain cultures and on literature. It's good to know what it says.

X & R:

I did a search on fig at Biblegateway.com.

There are all kinds of references to fig trees.

Habakkuk 3 Though the fig tree does not bud yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior.

In Amos 4 the Lord smitten the fig trees and laments that the audience has not returned to him.

In Mark 11 Jesus curses some fruitless fig tree that then withers from its roots.

Will some Bible student more knowledgeable than me expound on the significance?

XavierAM: How do we know what is unfair or unreasonable?

XavierAM: Do you think there should be a statue of limitations on bringing Nazi war criminals to justice? If new evidence is published, should it be ignored?

XavierAM: Some Christians are taught that Jesus said,"I did not come to bring peace but a sword". They are taught that the sword is the Word of God....and that in the beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Granted, some people loved the Word and others didn't think the Word was very nice.

Some hated the Word because the Word said, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Yes, we were talking about the fruitless fig tree.

Well, part of the standard specification for "fairness" I abide by is that is that is unfair to punish somebody for not doing something they couldn't possibly do anyway. In reality, you are simply being cruel to some innocent being.

While a fig tree is far from sentient, I believe all life is sacred and senseless cruelty is always wrong.

In a season, that tree could have provided some traveler shade and sustenance. Birds a home. Scrubbing a bunch of CO2 from the air is always good.

But no, Jesus wanted something, he wanted it now, and he's the Son of God so you better give it to him.

It's just strikes me as spoiled and selfish.

Well, you can certainly imagine he meant "sword" as "word of God." With creative usage of metaphor you make anything anybody has ever said sound good. It's not really that hard and doesn't impress me.

It seems some people take that metaphor in a totally different direction, as an endorsement of butchery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_10:34

If Jesus was really that prophetic, he might have chosen some other metaphor besides "sword" - so that nobody got confused and started killing people in his name. Unless, of course, that's what he wanted.

As for the Nazi's... I'm for the revelation of historical truth, certainly. The more we can learn about what happened, the better.

But the actual criminals... they have to be in their 90s now. They're sick, old men, dying in fear of being discovered - lost for a cause the world has repudiated. For me, it's enough.

XavierAM: Some Christians are taught the only appropriate offensive weapon is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. This sword is to be used in spiritual warfare, not against flesh and blood.

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

XavierAM: Some Christians are taught that those who live by the actual sword (violence) will perish by the sword (violence).

Some Christians are taught that, sure. Though girding my loins with truth seems somehow dirty to me.

"No baby, it's okay, my loins have been girded with truth"

"Mmmm, these pork loins are delicious, Martha - did you gird them with truth?"

Some people of any GroupX are probably decent. Some aren't.

I see nothing special - except a penchant for overwrought metaphor exceeding even my own - about your group to recommend it above any others. If your God didn't want people going around murdering people in His name, he should have spelled out those religious texts a LOT more clearly. I can only assume that either he's inept or malign.

Even if I would want to start believing in some religion - I should want my God to promote peace, justice and tolerance. I would want a God who loved his children so that he would want them to grow up strong and make their own decisions, like a good parent would.

Not a God who rewards his good servants by letting them in the house, so they can sing his praises for all eternity (how vain!) and casts everybody else into eternal torment (how cruel!).

Wow, this comment thread has really run away from the claim. Let me just toss my two cents about the claim in.

Most of our "largest, deepest" issues involve people who are religious, and unwilling to set their religion aside. Therefore, it is clear that resolving these issues will involve engagement on a religious level.

If the issue involves people who are religious, I consider this to be "religious engagement" already. Then further "engagement", the other way, is probably necessary to resolve the issue. Of course, if we cut out all the "engagement" I think the issue could still be resolved politically.

XavierAM: On March 7,2007, NPR Fresh Air

broadcast an interview with a Navy medical doctor

On Call In Hell: A Doctor's Iraq War Story

Five minutes into the interview, he talks about the armor the warrior wears. Six minutes into interview, he talks about the vulnerbility of the groin and seven minutes into interview he discusses how the enemy tarkets the groin because of its vulnerbility. As you well know, XavierAM, the enemy knows the weakness of a man's groin. Without truth to protect his groin,
he is going to remain wounded or dead.

Truth isn't enough without physical armor. If you were fighting in Iraq, you'd want armor, not someone giving you "truth".

Rachel:

Put on

the full armor of God

Which is still not going to help you much against physical warfare.

Rachel:

If you were Gandhi fighting in India or Martin Luther King Jr. fighting in the United States, what kind of armor would you use?

The pen. But if I were either of them, I wouldn't be in modern day Iraq surrounded by guns and bombs. The kind of thing you're talking about it great for changing minds - if you stay alive to do it - but is vastly insufficient against a gun.

If we were dueling, three paces, turn around, and shoot, would you rather have the "armor of god" or some kevlar?

Earlier, I asked for a possible explanation for the story about a cursed fig tree.

If anyone else cares, this might shed some light.

Possible Fig Tree explanations

Even if the tree is barren this year, possibly because hungry peasants have eaten the pre-figs, withering it for all time is still a senseless loss. Wouldn't it have been more generous and miraculous to cause it to give fruit?

Also, throwing a mountain into the sea... wow. Death for hundreds of miles.

Newsweek

April 9, 2007

page 62

The God Debate

WARREN: All of the great questions of the 21st century will be religious questions. Will Islam modernize peacefully? What's going to happen to the influx of Muslims into secular Europe, which has lost its faith in Christianity and has nothing to counteract this loss in religious terms? What will replace Marxism in China? In all likelihood it's going to be Christianity. Will America return to its historic roots—will there be a Third Great Awakening, or will America go the way of Europe?

Newsweek

March 12, 2007

page 50

The Gospel of Prothero

A Boston University professor argues that Americans, though 'spiritual,' are woefully ignorant about religion.

By Lisa Miller

......In a world where nearly every political conflict has a religious underpinning, Prothero writes that Americans are selling themselves short by remaining ignorant about basic religious history and texts.... "Given a political environment where religion is increasingly important, it's increasingly important to know something about religion," he says. "The payoff is a more involved [political] conversation."