Sarah [a good Biblical name :-) ] the reason that I often delight in the company of nonbelievers or atheists by any other name is for their very profound insights through which, in my opinion, God speaks, for you see things that religion blinds us to. You write:
> When I read the old testament as a child, I understand the Adam/Eve > story to represent the idea that knowledge is not just a gift, but is > a curse too, and we should not seek it carelessly. And that this life > can be regarded as hell, because we have lost the innocence of animals > - we know that we will die, we have self-consciousness, and we know > that the "I" will someday not be. This terrifies us, so we either live > lives of terror (if we think about it) or ignorance (if we don't think > about it). And this was the warning of the authors of the old > testament 2,000 years ago. Be careful of knowledge. You are very close to what Bonhoeffer was getting at in his writings on temptation and sin. He would have left out the words "of animals" and leave it that we live in lost innocence by the acquisition of knowledge. A lot of people of faith cannot grasp that but you have drawn the same conclusion as one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century - and that is as it should be. People of faith have much to learn from people without faith, for you see things that we cannot. People of faith too often have blinders on and cannot see what you see. And that is way, way proved by the following: > Another example: there's a debate as to who's to blame for the second > intifada. People on the Left tend to say it was Sharon because of his > provocative visit to the Temple Mount. People on the Right tend to > say it was the Palestinians, because although they claim it was a > spontaneous uprising against Sharon, in fact it was well planned, and > the Israeli government had contacted the PLO well in advance of > Sharon's visit to check that it would be okay. > > My thinking is: a plague on both their houses. Sharon was stupid to > visit what he knew others regarded as a holy site because he regards > it as such himself, and he therefore knew the strength of feeling. And > the Palestinians were stupid to care! They could have ignored him. > They're not automata. > > Now hundreds of people are dying because of one old man's visit to an > old building. That last sentence is so profound I will remember it all of my life, and you can bet I'll use it, too, and maybe not always give credit! :-) That is what is so fucking wrong with religion. If anything, faith should have taught us that there are no "holy" " places," But the corruption of faith into religion is that we have ended up with old buildings that old men visit and people dying. You have said it so well, so in a nutshell. I have criticized other things you have said, but here, I must, I willingly proclaim that you have spoken the truth that we need to here and which reminds us of the price of religion running amuck. Terry spoke of being a Jewish secular humanist. Susan said some good things too. In a non patronizing way, I want to embrace all of that as being exactly right, and that which I, a person of faith, identify with. I think any person of God must be first a humanist, and following Bonhoeffer, secular. I am glad and rejoice in every non believer, every atheist, who has posted for in each person's gracious sharing of their beliefs, they have said things that we all need to heart and pointed to things lacking in religion as oft practiced. Thank you all, beginning with Anne who may have kicked this off with her question, for much wisdom has been spoken in response and I want to acknowledge it. Vince
