Is Felix hostile toward religion?

[felix dakat]

It has been suggested that we should have a religion moderator that isn't overtly hostile toward religion. The implication is that I am overtly hostile to religion. My accuser said that he/she believes that I hate religion with a passion and that the atmosphere on the religious forum is a big part of the reason why he/she does not contribute here or even pay attention to what is posted. I do not hate religion. I believe in religious freedom and in freedom from religion. I have religious feelings of my own and respect those of others. I don't believe that my behavior on this forum is hostile to religion or that the atmosphere here is such as to discourage participation by religious persons. I hope that my attitude and the climate on the religion forum is such that persons of all religious persuasions including the unreligious feel welcome and encouraged to participate. But, those are my opinions. I created a poll so that anyone who wishes to weigh in with their opinion on the issue, can. I welcome you to discuss your opinions on the issue if you choose to as well.

[James S Saint]

Felix conspicuously disfavors Christianity, and thus probably favors any competitor.

It is one thing to support what you believe. It is another to attack or attempt to persuade against what you do not believe.

In a strictly logic oriented or scientific sense, there is nothing wrong with attacking any theory. But this isn't Science. And even if it were, what is the point in attacking one with persuasion tactics if you don't have a specific other with which you wish to replace it. But then if you DO have such a wish, then like is accused, you should not be moderating as such imbalances the table of just pursuit of truth.

The issue is one of being a true altruist (the willingness to go by the exact rules regardless of preferences). But being an altruist is currently a social taboo.

[The Watcher]

No, Felix is not hostile toward religion, Not many know this or seem to still be here from before but he was at one time a "Bible Thumper". A great champion and defender of God and the theory of such. (if memory serves right, have to check the posts)

Him and I had many debates on the topic, however.

But between my absence and now, he seems to have converted out of it.

What you seeing as hostility is probably bitterness, when he decided for himself it was a sham. The responses and replies he makes are of someone who is in the stage of recovering, anger, lashing out, takes years to get over once your world falls in and your mind comes to grasp with the vastness of what is possible once you realize God, is simply not "God". (God's etc / whatever).

I may be wrong....

Point is, Universe is a lot bigger and it takes time to recover. It's a common symptom of those who eventually loose faith for whatever reason, until they find a suitable replacement for it. Even though they don't need a God....

You can have spirituality (Believe int he metaphysical), and not need a God or gods to worship.

[The Watcher]

And yes Felix, I just defended you. you see, I am Neutral after all .

[omar]

How about you present those religious feelings and expose them to the same standards you have used for those "cargo" religions? Just what exactly do you believe?

[felix dakat]

How about you present those religious feelings and expose them to the same standards you have used for those "cargo" religions? Just what exactly do you believe?

I want to be a Christian in my heart. I want to be like Jesus in my heart. Groucho Marx said he wouldn't belong to any club that would accept him as a member. I can't believe in any conception of God that I can understand. That could be the definition of negative theology which is what you say you practice.

[felix dakat]

And yes Felix, I just defended you. you see, I am Neutral after all .

Thanks Watcher. I need all the defense I can get. If you are God, I don't believe in you. Does that make me an atheist?

[James S Saint]

I can't believe in any conception of God that I can understand.

Emm.. huh?

You can't believe in the concept that reality has actual unimpeachable rules, that somethings are simply impossible?

[felix dakat]

Felix conspicuously disfavors Christianity, and thus probably favors any competitor.

It is one thing to support what you believe. It is another to attack or attempt to persuade against what you do not believe.

In a strictly logic oriented or scientific sense, there is nothing wrong with attacking any theory. But this isn't Science. And even if it were, what is the point in attacking one with persuasion tactics if you don't have a specific other with which you wish to replace it. But then if you DO have such a wish, then like is accused, you should not be moderating as such imbalances the table of just pursuit of truth.

The issue is one of being a true altruist (the willingness to go by the exact rules regardless of preferences). But being an altruist is currently a social taboo.

James,

I consider myself a Christian. Apparently you don't. I have been asking hard questions and making critical observations about my religion. My God can take it, can yours?

[felix dakat]

I can't believe in any conception of God that I can understand.

Emm.. huh?

You can't believe in the concept that reality has actual unimpeachable rules, that somethings are simply impossible?

I don't know what that means. Why believe in a concept at all? Eliminate the middle man [the concept]. Concepts are idols. Go straight for the reality itself. That's the ticket.

[James S Saint]

I don't know what that means. Why believe in a concept at all? Eliminate the middle man [the concept]. Concepts are idols. Go straight for the reality itself. That's the ticket.

In other words, you don't know what the word "concept" means.

Okay, maybe I should use a different wording;
You can't believe that some things are simply impossible?

[felix dakat]

I don't know what that means. Why believe in a concept at all? Eliminate the middle man [the concept]. Concepts are idols. Go straight for the reality itself. That's the ticket.

In other words, you don't know what the word "concept" means.

Okay, maybe I should use a different wording;
You can't believe that some things are simply impossible?

Your "other words" are words you put in my mouth. I'm saying skip the concepts and get in touch reality itself. But, of course, you use my words as an opportunity to play a game of One Up-One Down, cuz that is how you roll. Always nice talkin' to ya James.

[phyllo]

Just what exactly do you believe?

I want to be a Christian in my heart. I want to be like Jesus in my heart.

Those are wants, not beliefs.

I can't believe in any conception of God that I can understand.

Let me figure this out:
If you understand it then you don't believe it.
If you don't understand it then you might believe it.

'Emm.. huh?' as James has already said.

[phyllo]

I would say that Felix is hostile towards religion but so what. He is well qualified to moderate it. This isn't a Religion Forum, it's an Atheist Religion Forum. It's a place for the atheists of ILP to go and attack religion directly. If you post here then be prepared for the usual talk about brainwashing, delusion, pink unicorns and imaginary friends. A theist who wants to constructively discuss religion and spirituality has to find another internet forum.

[Flannel Jesus]

a christian who's hostile towards atheism is at least as, and probably a lot more, unqualified to moderate a religion subforum of a philosophy forum than someone hostile towards religion. i've seen forums with mods like that. yuck.

[Oughtist]

Was Meister Eckhart hostile toward religion?

'...Meister Eckhart would not even admit that God was good....Eckhart's position was that anything that was good can become better, and whatever may become better may become best. God cannot be referred to as "good", "better", or best because He is above all things. If a man says that God is wise, the man is lying because anything that is wise can become wiser. Anything that a man might say about God is incorrect, even calling Him by the name of God. God is "superessential nothingness" and "transcendent Being"..."beyond all words and beyond all understanding. The best a man can do is remain silent, because anytime he prates on about God, he is committing the sin of lying. The true master knows that if he had a God he could understand, He would never hold Him to be God.' (Andrew Davidson, The Gargoyle, pp.140-41 [from Wikipedia])

[turtle]

I would say that Felix is hostile towards religion but so what. He is well qualified to moderate it. This isn't a Religion Forum, it's an Atheist Religion Forum. It's a place for the atheists of ILP to go and attack religion directly. If you post here then be prepared for the usual talk about brainwashing, delusion, pink unicorns and imaginary friends. A theist who wants to constructively discuss religion and spirituality has to find another internet forum.

i see this as a religion forum....i want to talk with people of other beliefs....this helps me formulate my own beliefs.....but i feel very strongly that my beliefs are to be respected also.....like i do not believe that jesus is god...i think criticism is uncalled for...

felix stays...it doesnt matter what he believes...the important question is how does he moderate..i support him at this time...

[omar]

Hello Felix,

--- I want to be a Christian in my heart.
O- What exactly does that mean? Falwell was a christian. Is that what you want to be in your heart?

--- I want to be like Jesus in my heart.
O- And believe in a God that requires a human sacrifice to save us. Doesn't matter that it was one of His persons that He let be crucified, but the principle that this had to be the way. Is any salvation paid by the life of an innocent worth it? But since he was resurrected, then we must ask whether the immense suffering of an innocent...is that sort of means ever justified by the end?

--- I can't believe in any conception of God that I can understand. That could be the definition of negative theology which is what you say you practice.
O- I know what I practice, but just like I can defend Christian orthodoxy, which I don't believe, I can also attack negative theology, because, at the end of the day, it is MY CHOICE. If I hold this belief it is not because it is the only tenable belief or the only belief that stands up to scrutinity. Not at all. Rather it is a conscious choice one has to make. In Franz kafka's "The Trial" there is one scene where the protagonist sits in a Church waiting for someone. Eventually he gets up, tired of waiting, and begins to walk out, but before he makes it out he hears his name loudly. He pauses for a second and realizes that he might as well pretend he didn't hear or walk out regardless. Let me use the text:
"At the moment he was still free: he could walk on and leave through one of the three small dark wooden doors not far from him. That would mean he hadn't understood or that he had understood but couldn't be bothered to respond. But if he turned around he was caught, for then he would have confessed that he understood quite well, that he really was the person being named, and that he was prepared to obey."
This could be a metaphor of the jewish community confronting the Catholics, but you can use it even in our collective dilema.

Negative theology has many levels. It can be the basis of agnosticism or an ingredient of orthodoxy, as it was, at least for a time, for Augustine. But in itself it is the stance one takes, that one chooses, that determines the scope of our negativity and not a necessity in itself, as it is illogical to think of what is not only.

[omar]

a christian who's hostile towards atheism is at least as, and probably a lot more, unqualified to moderate a religion subforum of a philosophy forum than someone hostile towards religion. i've seen forums with mods like that. yuck.

If it was only so, but the hostility is almost always exclusive to Christianity or Islam. Buddhism? How come no one is hostile to Buddhism, Hinduism or Taoism or at least understands how these are exempt from the grounds of their hostility? What you find is that a lot of the hostility has more to do with irrational causes because we think we KNOW Christianity because our parents took us to it or we met a hell-judgment day-monger at a public even. Or we think we know what Islam is all about because we have seen the news about the middle east. Further down this fantasy, many think that the problem IS religion, that if it did not exist, everything would be perfect. There is a denial of natural aggression, natural competition that of course, in this romantic view of our noble savage, we become victims of an illusion.

[The Watcher]

And yes Felix, I just defended you. you see, I am Neutral after all .

Thanks Watcher. I need all the defense I can get. If you are God, I don't believe in you. Does that make me an atheist?

Concerning me? No.

If I was God I would neither require nor need your belief in me, i would respect the decision I made to give you intelligence and expect you to figure things out for yourself, as an independent species, and when you died, you would still be welcome in my home. Hopefully life taught you something. But if not, so be it.

You don't give a creation freewill and intelligence, and then punish them for expressing or using it. (Unless of course your only goal is to siphon energy from the freewill multiplier/catalyst for faith, In which case, your obviously not a god anyway.)

That is the attitude of a true "God" worthy of worship. and there is no "God" under any monotheistic religion which meets that standard, and the polytheistic gods are too busy trying to kill each other off to care.

[The Watcher]

Hello Felix,

--- I want to be a Christian in my heart.
O- What exactly does that mean? Falwell was a christian. Is that what you want to be in your heart?

--- I want to be like Jesus in my heart.
O- And believe in a God that requires a human sacrifice to save us. Doesn't matter that it was one of His persons that He let be crucified, but the principle that this had to be the way. Is any salvation paid by the life of an innocent worth it? But since he was resurrected, then we must ask whether the immense suffering of an innocent...is that sort of means ever justified by the end?

--- I can't believe in any conception of God that I can understand. That could be the definition of negative theology which is what you say you practice.
O- I know what I practice, but just like I can defend Christian orthodoxy, which I don't believe, I can also attack negative theology, because, at the end of the day, it is MY CHOICE. If I hold this belief it is not because it is the only tenable belief or the only belief that stands up to scrutinity. Not at all. Rather it is a conscious choice one has to make. In Franz kafka's "The Trial" there is one scene where the protagonist sits in a Church waiting for someone. Eventually he gets up, tired of waiting, and begins to walk out, but before he makes it out he hears his name loudly. He pauses for a second and realizes that he might as well pretend he didn't hear or walk out regardless. Let me use the text:
"At the moment he was still free: he could walk on and leave through one of the three small dark wooden doors not far from him. That would mean he hadn't understood or that he had understood but couldn't be bothered to respond. But if he turned around he was caught, for then he would have confessed that he understood quite well, that he really was the person being named, and that he was prepared to obey."
This could be a metaphor of the jewish community confronting the Catholics, but you can use it even in our collective dilema.

Negative theology has many levels. It can be the basis of agnosticism or an ingredient of orthodoxy, as it was, at least for a time, for Augustine. But in itself it is the stance one takes, that one chooses, that determines the scope of our negativity and not a necessity in itself, as it is illogical to think of what is not only.

Adolf Hitler was a devout Christian. He refers to such heavily in his diaries and speeches. Much like the Christians did when they had their crusade. Both were holy wars (Technically), the difference is, Hitler almost succeeded where the entirety of the church failed.

[felix dakat]

Those are wants, not beliefs.

True that. But if you read the whole thread, you see that that question came in response to my statement that I still have religious feelings.
I don't have a dogmatic creed that I unequivocally believe.

:-k Let me figure this out:
If you understand it then you don't believe it.
If you don't understand it then you might believe it.

Believing is a term with multiple meanings and applications. It may mean mental assent to a proposition. I believe this or I believe that proposition. Believing in someone is not that. It is a matter of trust and a sense of connection to that person, or value or whatever. I still have that with God. What I have concerning God are the symbols of God not literal, factual propositional statements that I can assent to. To me God is ultimate reality itself. Real or imagined I experience a sense of connectedness to that ground from time to time. Some of my deepest experiences of this have come from Christian prayer and Zen Buddhist meditation. That is God to me. It is not something that I understand. My lack of certainty about it coupled with the golden rule, prompts me to extend the benefit of doubt to believers and unbelievers of other persuasions. I support democracy and freedom of religion because I do not believe that any of us can be sure that we are in possession of the ultimate answers. So, yeah it is possible to beleive in someone or something you don't understand. I am coming to doubt that intellectual understanding of God is possible in this life. But I go on seeking because of what Paul Tillich called my "ultimate concern." What is possible is to participate in God who is symbolized as life. Understand? No? No problem.

[felix dakat]

With 10 votes in the opinions are 50/50. I admit I am surprised. I did not think that even five would share my accuser's opinion. Maybe the feedback will do me good. Whatever that is.

[felix dakat]

--- I want to be a Christian in my heart.
O- What exactly does that mean? Falwell was a christian. Is that what you want to be in your heart?

--- I want to be like Jesus in my heart.
O- And believe in a God that requires a human sacrifice to save us. Doesn't matter that it was one of His persons that He let be crucified, but the principle that this had to be the way. Is any salvation paid by the life of an innocent worth it? But since he was resurrected, then we must ask whether the immense suffering of an innocent...is that sort of means ever justified by the end?

Omar--
To me the essence of being a Christian is the same as the essence of being like Jesus: Empathy and compassion toward all particularly those who are suffering. It is love that issues from faith in a heart of love at the center of the universe. Jesus had tons of it, if not an infinite supply. Whatever else Jesus may or may not have been he fulfilled the ideal of the bodhisatva.

Negative theology has many levels.

No doubt mine is on a lower level. Lately my mysticism has given place to skepticism. But these kinds of changes are dynamic and can change with significant life events or depth experiences. I try to stay open. Intellectual foreclosure = spiritual death.

[phyllo]

Understand? No? No problem.

I understand. Thanks for the explanation.