Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

A modernist, a postmodernist, and a Lutheran walk into a bar.

The bartender asks the modernist, “What’ll you have?”

The modernist says, “First prove to me with rational certainty and scientific evidence that you can make me a good drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender then asks the postmodernist, “What’ll you have?”

The postmodernist says, “You have no right to impose your personal tastes on me! I’ll construct my own drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender asks the Lutheran, “What’ll you have?”

The Lutheran says, “Give me a beer.”

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... nto-a-bar/

[farjean2]

A Biblical quote seems relevant at this point in the discussion..... from Deuteronomy 12

"You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. "You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.

(Yahweh's not big on the whole religious tolerance thing)

[Mountaineer]

A Biblical quote seems relevant at this point in the discussion..... from Deuteronomy 12

"You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. "You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.

(Yahweh's not big on the whole religious tolerance thing)

Exactly. YHWH does not go for idol worship. I'm not so sure, however, that anyone is worshiping statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers; if so that is idolatry. There are many other false gods that are far more prevalent today than Confederate soldiers and the like.

Footnotes on Deuteronomy 12: 2– 4 Idolatrous worship would remain a constant temptation for God’s people (cf Is 57: 5– 7; Jer 2: 20). God gave the land for right worship. The defiling presence of idol worship was incompatible with the revelation of God’s holiness (cf Ac 19: 17– 20). 12: 3 pillars. 12: 4 in that way. Worship must be done in a way that is instituted by God’s Word. Luther: “All this He commands in order that in the worship of God the people may not be carried away by its own feeling, however holy and good, but may be governed by the Word; for if man does not live without the Word even with respect to the belly, how much less does he live without the Word in the work of God and in the spirit! God wants our conscience to be certain and sure that it is pleasing to Him. This cannot be done if the conscience is led by its own feeling, but only if it relies on the Word of God”.

The Lutheran Study Bible, Concordia Publishing House.

[farjean2]

Many of the rest of his commands were to show the futility of man being able to do them, and thus to help them see they needed to depend on Jesus alone.

Would you care to enlighten us all about how it is that you know what Jesus was thinking when he said things?

[farjean2]

A Biblical quote seems relevant at this point in the discussion..... from Deuteronomy 12

"You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. "You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.

(Yahweh's not big on the whole religious tolerance thing)

Exactly. YHWH does not go for idol worship. I'm not so sure, however, that anyone is worshiping statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers; if so that is idolatry. There are many other false gods that are far more prevalent today than Confederate soldiers and the like.

Footnotes on Deuteronomy 12: 2– 4 Idolatrous worship would remain a constant temptation for God’s people (cf Is 57: 5– 7; Jer 2: 20). God gave the land for right worship. The defiling presence of idol worship was incompatible with the revelation of God’s holiness (cf Ac 19: 17– 20). 12: 3 pillars. 12: 4 in that way. Worship must be done in a way that is instituted by God’s Word. Luther: “All this He commands in order that in the worship of God the people may not be carried away by its own feeling, however holy and good, but may be governed by the Word; for if man does not live without the Word even with respect to the belly, how much less does he live without the Word in the work of God and in the spirit! God wants our conscience to be certain and sure that it is pleasing to Him. This cannot be done if the conscience is led by its own feeling, but only if it relies on the Word of God”.

The Lutheran Study Bible, Concordia Publishing House.

The last time I visited Washington D.C. I was struck by the idolatry that was on display in all the monuments. And that's really something coming from an atheist.

When you go into the Lincoln memorial there is even a sign that says to keep quiet because it is a solemn place. Same thing at Arlington cemetery. There is a sign informing you that these are hallowed grounds. I thought that it was only God who could say what was hallowed grounds and didn't know the shedding of man's blood in war could make it so.

This might be one thing you and I finally agree on.

[Mountaineer]

Many of the rest of his commands were to show the futility of man being able to do them, and thus to help them see they needed to depend on Jesus alone.

Would you care to enlighten us all about how it is that you know what Jesus was thinking when he said things?

Sure. I study a lot and go to where the Word is faithfully preached.

Romans 10 (ESV)
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

Footnotes from TLSB on Romans 10: 17 hearing. NT meanings include the act of hearing, the ear, or the message heard. The message is the meaning here. “Although the work is done and the forgiveness of sins is secured by the cross [John 19: 30], it cannot come to us in any other way than through the Word” (LC V 31). “It is God’s will that His Word should be heard and that a person’s ears should not be closed (Psalm 95:8). With this Word the Holy Spirit is present and opens hearts, so that people (like Lydia in Acts 16: 14) pay attention to it and are converted only through the Holy Spirit’s grace and power, who alone does the work of converting a person” (FC Ep II 5). word of Christ. The spoken word of the Gospel— the content being Christ— is a means by which God creates faith. “Repentance consists of two parts. One part is contrition, that is, terrors striking the conscience through the knowledge of sin. The other part is faith, which is born of the Gospel or the Absolution and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven. It comforts the conscience and delivers it from terror. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruit of repentance” (AC XII 3– 6). 10: 18 have they not heard? With this rhetorical question, Paul replies to an implied objection: the Israelites rejected the Gospel because not all had heard. Paul dismisses this excuse with a quotation from Ps 19: 4. all the earth  .  .  . world. As God makes known His presence and power in all creation, so the Gospel has been widely preached in the inhabited world.

[farjean2]

A modernist, a postmodernist, and a Lutheran walk into a bar.

The bartender asks the modernist, “What’ll you have?”

The modernist says, “First prove to me with rational certainty and scientific evidence that you can make me a good drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender then asks the postmodernist, “What’ll you have?”

The postmodernist says, “You have no right to impose your personal tastes on me! I’ll construct my own drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender asks the Lutheran, “What’ll you have?”

The Lutheran says, “Give me a beer.”

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... nto-a-bar/

Well, that's something an atheist and a Lutheran can agree on.

But what a strange sounding word is "postmodernist". How is that even possible?

[farjean2]

Many of the rest of his commands were to show the futility of man being able to do them, and thus to help them see they needed to depend on Jesus alone.

Would you care to enlighten us all about how it is that you know what Jesus was thinking when he said things?

Sure. I study a lot and go to where the Word is faithfully preached.

Romans 10 (ESV)
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

Footnotes from TLSB on Romans 10: 17 hearing. NT meanings include the act of hearing, the ear, or the message heard. The message is the meaning here. “Although the work is done and the forgiveness of sins is secured by the cross [John 19: 30], it cannot come to us in any other way than through the Word” (LC V 31). “It is God’s will that His Word should be heard and that a person’s ears should not be closed (Psalm 95:8). With this Word the Holy Spirit is present and opens hearts, so that people (like Lydia in Acts 16: 14) pay attention to it and are converted only through the Holy Spirit’s grace and power, who alone does the work of converting a person” (FC Ep II 5). word of Christ. The spoken word of the Gospel— the content being Christ— is a means by which God creates faith. “Repentance consists of two parts. One part is contrition, that is, terrors striking the conscience through the knowledge of sin. The other part is faith, which is born of the Gospel or the Absolution and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven. It comforts the conscience and delivers it from terror. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruit of repentance” (AC XII 3– 6). 10: 18 have they not heard? With this rhetorical question, Paul replies to an implied objection: the Israelites rejected the Gospel because not all had heard. Paul dismisses this excuse with a quotation from Ps 19: 4. all the earth  .  .  . world. As God makes known His presence and power in all creation, so the Gospel has been widely preached in the inhabited world.

Well, that all sounds like sav lasav sav lasav, kav lakav kav lakav to me.

[Mountaineer]

A modernist, a postmodernist, and a Lutheran walk into a bar.

The bartender asks the modernist, “What’ll you have?”

The modernist says, “First prove to me with rational certainty and scientific evidence that you can make me a good drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender then asks the postmodernist, “What’ll you have?”

The postmodernist says, “You have no right to impose your personal tastes on me! I’ll construct my own drink.” The bartender throws him out.

The bartender asks the Lutheran, “What’ll you have?”

The Lutheran says, “Give me a beer.”

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... nto-a-bar/

Well, that's something an atheist and a Lutheran can agree on.

But what a strange sounding word is "postmodernist". How is that even possible?

That's at least two things we agree on.

Re. your postmodernist question: I am certainly no expert on this, but I've been told one way to look at our history is there are three major categories of thought (maybe it's philosophy, I can't remember for sure and I did not look it up):

premodern - basically a belief that God (or gods or spirits or demons or the like) is in control of events

modern - began with the age of the enlightenment, late 18th century, where science became very much in vogue - belief in truth and absolute right and wrong - things can be proven via science

postmodern - no absolute truths, truth is that which is true for me and that which is true for you and may be different - relativism - maybe a term would be truthiness instead of truth. Makes me think about how many times I hear the term "whatever" in response to a question or statement; I think that is a postmodern term.

[farjean2]

A Biblical quote seems relevant at this point in the discussion..... from Deuteronomy 12



(Yahweh's not big on the whole religious tolerance thing)

Exactly. YHWH does not go for idol worship. I'm not so sure, however, that anyone is worshiping statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers; if so that is idolatry. There are many other false gods that are far more prevalent today than Confederate soldiers and the like.

Footnotes on Deuteronomy 12: 2– 4 Idolatrous worship would remain a constant temptation for God’s people (cf Is 57: 5– 7; Jer 2: 20). God gave the land for right worship. The defiling presence of idol worship was incompatible with the revelation of God’s holiness (cf Ac 19: 17– 20). 12: 3 pillars. 12: 4 in that way. Worship must be done in a way that is instituted by God’s Word. Luther: “All this He commands in order that in the worship of God the people may not be carried away by its own feeling, however holy and good, but may be governed by the Word; for if man does not live without the Word even with respect to the belly, how much less does he live without the Word in the work of God and in the spirit! God wants our conscience to be certain and sure that it is pleasing to Him. This cannot be done if the conscience is led by its own feeling, but only if it relies on the Word of God”.

The Lutheran Study Bible, Concordia Publishing House.

The last time I visited Washington D.C. I was struck by the idolatry that was on display in all the monuments. And that's really something coming from an atheist.

When you go into the Lincoln memorial there is even a sign that says to keep quiet because it is a solemn place. Same thing at Arlington cemetery. There is a sign informing you that these are hallowed grounds. I thought that it was only God who could say what was hallowed grounds and didn't know the shedding of man's blood in war could make it so.

This might be one thing you and I finally agree on.

I see Xan moved this to the religion thread which is a shame because I thought it really was pertinent to the discussion at hand.

To expound on what I was saying above however, on one end of the mall in D.C. you have the Washington monument, on the other is the Lincoln Memorial, and somewhere in the middle was a fairly recent monument built for F.D.R. So there you have it all - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - everything a person needs provided for you by the U.S. government.

Pretty cool observation from an atheist, don't you think?

[l82start]

i moved the posts not xan (just so the wrong person isn't blamed...)

long text walls of quoting scripture are only relevant to the few readers who see scripture as relevant to anything and everything, i understand they are of interest and relevant to a few so i don't delete them.. if you want to have a religious discussion of a topic that is GREAT... just please use quote, copy and paste to have that aspect of the discussion over here where it can find its audience without killing the flow in the original thread...

thank you

[Mountaineer]

i moved the posts not xan (just so the wrong person isn't blamed...)

long text walls of quoting scripture are only relevant to the few readers who see scripture as relevant to anything and everything, i understand they are of interest and relevant to a few so i don't delete them.. if you want to have a religious discussion of a topic that is GREAT... just please use quote, copy and paste to have that aspect of the discussion over here where it can find its audience without killing the flow in the original thread...

thank you

I'll do my best. FWIW, it is a tough issue as to what thread things belong in. I struggled with where to put the Charlottesville info that farjean2 and I were discussing. If one views their god as that which gives meaning, identity and security and that in which they put their trust, it becomes very difficult to separate religion from most everything else. From my viewpoint, religion (matters of faith) and politics (matters of human relations) are inextricably related, but I also realize others do not see the synergism.

I'm guessing, however, in the context of this forum you equate religion with Christianity and do not view athiesism or self-assurance or faith in science as a religion no matter how "noisy" they get. I'd beg to differ but you are the moderator and I completely respect your power to define things the way you wish. Seriously. You have a tough job and I thank the moderators for what they contribute. Peace dude!

[farjean2]

i moved the posts not xan (just so the wrong person isn't blamed...)

long text walls of quoting scripture are only relevant to the few readers who see scripture as relevant to anything and everything, i understand they are of interest and relevant to a few so i don't delete them.. if you want to have a religious discussion of a topic that is GREAT... just please use quote, copy and paste to have that aspect of the discussion over here where it can find its audience without killing the flow in the original thread...

thank you

Sorry. I did go back and see that. I just thought Xan owned the board now and assumed he was the one who did it.

[l82start]

I'll do my best. FWIW, it is a tough issue as to what thread things belong in. I struggled with where to put the Charlottesville info that farjean2 and I were discussing. If one views their god as that which gives meaning, identity and security and that in which they put their trust, it becomes very difficult to separate religion from most everything else. From my viewpoint, religion (matters of faith) and politics (matters of human relations) are inextricably related, but I also realize others do not see the synergism.

I'm guessing, however, in the context of this forum you equate religion with Christianity and do not view athiesism or self-assurance or faith in science as a religion no matter how "noisy" they get. I'd beg to differ but you are the moderator and I completely respect your power to define things the way you wish. Seriously. You have a tough job and I thank the moderators for what they contribute. Peace dude!

it is a gray area and absolutely interrelated and a tough call to make, i prefer hands off moderation and move stuff around as rarely as i possibly can. i would use as a rule of thumb - if you feel compelled to quote scripture or your church catechisms (especially as a standalone response to a topic) it should be over here (Christian or any other), - if you can use your own words thoughts feelings to express your opinion i doubt it would ever hit my radar as needing to be moved..

[Xan]

i moved the posts not xan (just so the wrong person isn't blamed...)

long text walls of quoting scripture are only relevant to the few readers who see scripture as relevant to anything and everything, i understand they are of interest and relevant to a few so i don't delete them.. if you want to have a religious discussion of a topic that is GREAT... just please use quote, copy and paste to have that aspect of the discussion over here where it can find its audience without killing the flow in the original thread...

thank you

Sorry. I did go back and see that. I just thought Xan owned the board now and assumed he was the one who did it.

I'm hosting the place, but l82start and TennPaGa have been moderators for much longer than that. And they actually know what they're doing in terms of moderation: I do hosting and servers, but have never been much involved with an online forum before.

[Mountaineer]

I copied the post from the Charlottesville thread as my comments are getting into the religious understanding:

The vast, vast majority of those lifeless bodies were on the Southern side of the border. Why is that? Because the South fought a defensive war against an invading army. I suppose the invading army bears no responsibility; only Lee?

In no way was there a betrayal of the "country". The country as we now know it is what replaced the pre-war USA. Lee's country was Virginia. If Lee had been a traitor, then Davis certainly was, and yet (despite holding him illegally for years) the feds were never able to find a single charge to prosecute Davis (or anyone) with.

Would you (and this is a serious if hypothetical question, really, Desert) support Canada conquering the US in order to put a stop to abortions? And regardless of your answer, would you say that in the post-war now-part-of-Canada US, anybody who wanted to put up a statue memorializing either a great leader of the defense of the US or a memorial to those who died in her defense, is by definition supporting baby-murder, or at least baby-murderers?

Xan, Ok, I have pondered some, but am only going to try to answer the second part of your post, the hypothetical. I think it's a really well-posed hypothetical question that does relate pretty well to this topic. I'll have to come back to the first part, after I've studied more regarding the initiation of the Civil War.

Ok, Canada (in this hypothetical situation, having found a moral imperative to cease abortion in North America), decides to attach the United States in an effort to stop abortion in our country. Would I support Canada in such an effort? I think I have to say "yes," but only if I think they have some chance of prevailing. Obviously the Canada that exists today wouldn't have any chance, so I'll postulate a Canada of somewhat superior military capability, similar to the North vs. the South in the Civil War. So yes, I would be forced to support Canada in that invasion. And I would expect you and Mountaineer to join me.

And of course I would not be in favor of putting monuments of, say, general Schwarzkopf (may God rest his soul), up in town squares if he were leading the opposition. (I couldn't think of a more engaging general at the moment).

Very interesting thought experiment, Xan. I discussed this with my wife. We both came to the same conclusion - Canada invading the US with military force to stop abortion would be one more example of sinful humans trying to play God in an attempt to create heaven on earth. The operative phrase that comes to mind is, "It is finished" and all the ramifications of what that really means. Failing to rightly divide law and gospel combined with perhaps a misunderstanding of the purpose of the civil kingdom vs. the spiritual kingdom can lead to many unintended consequences, regardless of the purity of the intent to stop immoral acts. For what it's worth, I likely would have had a far different response 10 years ago. The Canada/US scenario and question is very insightful and intriguing - as for the statues, it does not make much difference to me; I'd go with whatever the lawful authorities decided to do and ignore those I did not personally like. If the lawful authorities decided to erect them, so be it. If the lawful authorities decided to take them down, so be it. If a mob that is not lawful did something to deface public or private property, I would hope the authorities would act according with the full force of the law. Statue control is not one of my vocations .

EDIT: It is probably obvious, but I think any real and lasting change on what it means to truly love our neighbor as ourself has to come from within, a change of heart and mind. Imposing the will of another (individual or nation) does not usually have lasting success; this is in the context of invasions, statues, and our US Civil War. For example, I doubt that Sherman's march to the sea did much to solve the real problem, it just drove the overt feelings underground - otherwise we would not still be fighting the Civil War via statues and flags over 150 years after the fact. As a side note, my wife and I visited Charleston, SC about 15 years ago. We both came away with a strong sense that the resentment of the North was still alive and well. I have never been to a location where the loyalty to the Southern cause was so overtly present - it hung in the air thickly.

Our Pastor preached on this topic of what divides us and the only real solution this past Sunday - A Zeal for All People. I hope you can spare a few minutes to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6K3DoO ... ploademail

[Mountaineer]

Nice post, Mountaineer.

On a similar note, do you think it was sinful to invade Iraq?

Of course it was sinful, we are by nature in rebellion toward God and almost everything we do is sinful. Only by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit whose job is to make Jesus known to us can we even imperfectly love our neighbor. But I doubt if that is what you are asking. Looking back from what I know today, I definitely would not support the invasion Iraq. At the time, I was more iffy due to the widespread report of WMDs from our allies and our internal US intelligence services, but came to the conclusion the middle east was not our sandbox. I did not, and still do not, see the huge manifestation of evil that, for example was evident with Hitler who did try to prevent the free exercise of religion - by evil abhorrent means such as extermination of Jews and the other so called deplorables to use Hillary's language. I'd probably put Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un closer to the Hitler category but do not have sufficient knowledge to do so for sure. [Are you next going to ask me if I would support a non-Canada military invasion of Planned Parenthood? Might be a way to work the bugs out of those F-35s without much risk. Just trying to bring a bit of levity to a heavy subject. ]

On a somewhat similar note, knowing what I know now, I probably would not have supported our colonial revolution against Britain - I would have been in the 4/5ths. I don't see taxation without representation as overtly evil and from what I've read, Britain was not trying to prevent the free exercise of religion or exterminating people in the colonies. My reading indicates about 1/5 of the people were for separation from Britain, 1/5 against, and 3/5 just wanted to live their lives in peace.

Back to the Civil War statue and flags: What disappoints me (but is not unexpected) is the way many politicians are going against the will of the majority of our citizens and bending to the will of the minority anarchists in the name of preserving peace. I view that as unprincipled and it likely will lead to bigger issues than we are at present dealing with. It reminds me of how Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler whereas Winston Churchill confronted the evil head on.

From a Christian point of view, the Scriptures are clear that things are going to continue to get worse and worse until the Last Day when Jesus returns in glory and merciful judgment to save those who believe His promises, and in wrathful judgment for those who don't. So, no matter what we flawed humans do, it's all good for those who believe. Lord have mercy. Repentance begins with me. I've enough things to repent for without trying to force or expect others to do so based on what I might say. Or, to extend the metaphor, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, it is easy to spend other people's money. Or perhaps, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

[farjean2]

Here's a nice writing from 1928, by DuBois:

Pure Bullshit. The Apostle Paul made it very clear that slaves are to submit to their masters and the book of Philemon where he sent a slave back to his master was often quoted for justifying the fugitive slave act. I know you are a Christian so how do you go about reconciling the Bible as the "authoritative word of God" on the subject to the point that you can condemn Mr. Lee for supporting slavery?

(From the Charlottesville thread.)

Chattel slavery as practiced in our country and others differs from that in New Testament days. Here's a very brief article on the topic:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

I'm sure slavery in New Testament days was wonderful. Never studied the subject but my guess would be it was every bit as brutal as American slavery and probably then some. Think gladiators.

My bigger point is that trying to get your morality from the Bible is nonsense and just a game people play.

[Greg]

I copied the post from the Charlottesville thread as my comments are getting into the religious understanding:

EDIT: It is probably obvious, but I think any real and lasting change on what it means to truly love our neighbor as ourself has to come from within, a change of heart and mind. Imposing the will of another (individual or nation) does not usually have lasting success; this is in the context of invasions, statues, and our US Civil War. For example, I doubt that Sherman's march to the sea did much to solve the real problem, it just drove the overt feelings underground - otherwise we would not still be fighting the Civil War via statues and flags over 150 years after the fact. As a side note, my wife and I visited Charleston, SC about 15 years ago. We both came away with a strong sense that the resentment of the North was still alive and well. I have never been to a location where the loyalty to the Southern cause was so overtly present - it hung in the air thickly.

I wonder whether us speaking so much about the federal level is actually beneficial for us. Based on Mountaineer's comment above, it seems you have to do the bottoms-up approach to provide lasting-staying power for positively affecting society. I would think it'd be more impactful to just live by the serenity prayer* and focus on your local area, determine what you have the power to positively change and focus on that. The rest of the world may go downhill but at least you can be salt and light in your own micro-community/micro-economy (family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers).

*Serenity Prayer
http://www.beliefnet.com/prayers/protes ... 1zCyGhX.99

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it;
trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will;
that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
and supremely happy with Him forever in the next.
Amen.

[farjean2]

quote="Greg"]
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it;
trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will;
that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
and supremely happy with Him forever in the next.
Amen.[/quote]

Always liked the serenity prayer when I was a believer though it seems a bit narcissistic now.

This one works better for me .....

[Mountaineer]

quote="Greg"]
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it;
trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will;
that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
and supremely happy with Him forever in the next.
Amen.

Always liked the serenity prayer when I was a believer though it seems a bit narcissistic now.

This one works better for me .....

[/quote]

Serenity Prayer - much wisdom there.

The last poster picture: I'd make it give me beer ... and give me scotch. Coffee and beer are just way too wimpy for when the times get tough if one is depending on oneself for the solution.

[farjean2]

The last poster picture: I'd make it give me beer ... and give me scotch. Coffee and beer are just way too wimpy for when the times get tough if one is depending on oneself for the solution.

Damn. You really needed beer in the morning and scotch later on before you found Jesus? Did you ever go to AA meetings?

Coffee and beer seem to work well for me.

[Mountaineer]

The last poster picture: I'd make it give me beer ... and give me scotch. Coffee and beer are just way too wimpy for when the times get tough if one is depending on oneself for the solution.

Damn. You really needed beer in the morning and scotch later on before you found Jesus? Did you ever go to AA meetings?

Coffee and beer seem to work well for me.

Well, truth be known, me too. I am just trying to get into extreme hyperbole in an attempt to fit into the discussion on some other threads. Ixnay on AA.

[Mountaineer]

And now we have murder in another situation by our northern neighbors. So much for personal desires and Hipocratic oaths of former times. Where does this fit in "Figuring Out Religion"? The religion of "me"?

https://ricochet.com/450781/oh-canada-w ... kill-thee/

Come Lord Jesus. Quickly.

[farjean2]

Damn. You really needed beer in the morning and scotch later on before you found Jesus? Did you ever go to AA meetings?

Coffee and beer seem to work well for me.

Well, truth be known, me too. I am just trying to get into extreme hyperbole in an attempt to fit into the discussion on some other threads. Ixnay on AA.

farjean, remember, Jesus didn't turn water into coffee.

According to the religion I grew up in (Quakers), it was only grape juice.