Pope Francis and a Eucharistic Miracle

[MediumTex]

Maybe my thinking is totally inaccurate but my perception is that the wise Jews get out of the religion business early on. Jesus is of course an exception because religion is what there was back then. 'Know your meme" hadn't been invented yet. I'm only speaking of modern Jews and Christians.

Are suggesting that if career paths such as "web page designer" or "singer songwriter" had been available back then, things might have turned out differently?

[Pointedstick]

Once upon a time, the smartest Jews in the village became rabbis, and rabbis were encouraged to have lots of children, breeding more smart Jews, or so the story goes. But, the age of wise Talmudic scholars is over. Smart Jews are now into physics, dentistry, and directing The Empire Strikes Back.

So, we have Jewish kids growing up with barely religious parents and we have a large pool of secular idols from which to draw inspiration: novelists & Hollywood writers, comedians and actors, fashion designers, scientists and chessmasters. What about religious Jews?

This strikes me as highly insightful and totally meshes with my experience as well.

[dualstow]

Maybe my thinking is totally inaccurate but my perception is that the wise Jews get out of the religion business early on. Jesus is of course an exception because religion is what there was back then. 'Know your meme" hadn't been invented yet. I'm only speaking of modern Jews and Christians.

Are suggesting that if career paths such as "web page designer" or "singer songwriter" had been available back then, things might have turned out differently?

No, there would have had to be an overwhelming amount of those jobs, utterly dwarfing the Temple positions. Let's say carpentry was already the web-page design of that age. So they had the Nazarene and we have Neo.

Besides, in that oppressive environment, with the Romans breathing down their necks, the earth was ripe for some anti-establishment figures. There and then, religion was the end-all be-all.

[murphy_p_t]

It's almost like they inoculated me against true belief Pasteur style with this "weakened belief".

I couldn't help noting the irony of this statement in light of the following:

A young man entered the coach of a train in a small university town in France. The ink was scarcely dry on his newly acquired diploma.

As the train sped off for Paris, he took his seat in the rear of the coach near an elderly gentleman who seemed to be dozing. As the train suddenly lurched, a string of rosary beads fell from his hand. The young man picked up the rosary and handed it to the elderly gentleman with the remark, "I presume you are praying, sir?"

"You are right. I was praying."

"I am surprised," said the young fellow, "that in this day and age there is someone who is still so benighted and superstitious. Our professors at the university do not believe in such things," and he proceeded to "enlighten" his elderly fellow-passenger.

The old man expressed surprise and amazement.

"Yes," continued the young man, "today enlightened people don't believe in such nonsense."

"You don't say!" replied the old man.

"Yes, sir, and if you wish, I can send you some illuminating books."

"Very well," said the old man, preparing to leave as the train came to a stop. "You may send them to this address." He handed the young man a card, which read:

    Louis Pasteur
    Director of the Institute of Scientific Research
    Paris

[Ad Orientem]

It's almost like they inoculated me against true belief Pasteur style with this "weakened belief".

I couldn't help noting the irony of this statement in light of the following:

A young man entered the coach of a train in a small university town in France. The ink was scarcely dry on his newly acquired diploma.

As the train sped off for Paris, he took his seat in the rear of the coach near an elderly gentleman who seemed to be dozing. As the train suddenly lurched, a string of rosary beads fell from his hand. The young man picked up the rosary and handed it to the elderly gentleman with the remark, "I presume you are praying, sir?"

"You are right. I was praying."

"I am surprised," said the young fellow, "that in this day and age there is someone who is still so benighted and superstitious. Our professors at the university do not believe in such things," and he proceeded to "enlighten" his elderly fellow-passenger.

The old man expressed surprise and amazement.

"Yes," continued the young man, "today enlightened people don't believe in such nonsense."

"You don't say!" replied the old man.

"Yes, sir, and if you wish, I can send you some illuminating books."

"Very well," said the old man, preparing to leave as the train came to a stop. "You may send them to this address." He handed the young man a card, which read:

    Louis Pasteur
    Director of the Institute of Scientific Research
    Paris

+1

[Jan Van]

So what's the message of that story, "you're never too old to learn"? or what?

[Ad Orientem]

The moral of the story is that Pasteur is not someone you should cite for unbelief.

[dualstow]

The story looks like an apocryphal e-mail forward, but like many scientists Pasteur's faith was intact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pas ... irituality

I can see why my comment looks ironic, but I was of course referring to my parents' not-so-intact belief. I would never suggest that there aren't scientists of faith. Paul Davies is one of my favorite contemporary examples. I've been to his lectures.
Isaac Newton was deeply religious, but I often cite gravity as an example of an experience  you can replicate vs belief. I don't see a conflict therein.

[MediumTex]

IMHO, the test of religion should be whether it makes you feel better, not whether it is "true."

The sad thing about some religions such as Catholicism is that many of its adherents fully believe that it is true, and yet it makes them feel mostly bad.  That's really a shame.

If religion gave Mr. Pasteur's life a sense of wholeness, then I would have said by all means do the rosary thing and anything else that helped relax his mind in a way that allowed it to function at a high level in other areas.

Look at C.S. Lewis.  His colleagues must have thought he had lost his mind when he embraced religion, but it seemed to make him really happy, and if it made him happy and no one got hurt who cares?

[dualstow]

Posted by: MediumTex
IMHO, the test of religion should be whether it makes you feel better, not whether it is "true."
...
Look at C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis is another great example of a brilliant mind that had room for religious belief. I loved reading his space trilogy when I was younger, and that even includes a plot point in which believers are immune to a certain power that pretty much renders skeptics unconscious.

I feel the same way about him as I do George Harrison. He's creating great art, and I don't care if he's inspired by God or the devil. Whatever the muse, it works.

The ultimate religious (applied) scientists, which I may have mentioned before, were the cathedral builders of Europe.

[murphy_p_t]

IMHO, the test of religion should be whether it makes you feel better, not whether it is "true."

I suppose that's a reasonable conclusion to reach if you can prove every religion is a purely man-made mental crutch.

[Jan Van]

I suppose that's a reasonable conclusion to reach if you can prove every religion is a purely man-made mental crutch.

If they're not, which one isn't (or which ones aren't)?

[dualstow]

Interesting story, Desert.

When you felt that belief in God surging through you, was there any period of time during which you thought might be a believer in God who does not belong to or accept any particular organized religion? If not, do you think you went straight to Christianity because of your upbringing, because of Pascal, or some other reason?

[notsheigetz]

IMHO, the test of religion should be whether it makes you feel better, not whether it is "true."

I didn't choose this path to gain a more comfy life, or to add a religious decoration to my life's living room.  I'm a Christian because I believe the Bible is true.

I sometimes wish that I could get back to the simple faith I once had because it did make me feel better. I would venture to say that I once got more pleasure out of reading the Bible than I now do from drinking a glass or two of wine. I'm not talking about all the tedious laws in the book of Leviticus but the characters and stories, along with their hidden meanings. Tickled me death sometimes. I never read Greek and Hebrew like Desert's dad but I did look the words up in the original languages to get the best possible sense of them. All in all, I would say I read the Bible at least 100 times in various translations through the years and parts of it many more.

I think I still believe that the Bible is inspired and in some instances a faithful recording of historical events. I don't believe the world was created in 6 days, that God destroyed all the inhabitants of earth with a flood, or that 6 million people marched through the desert for 40 years and left no trace of their existence. I also don't believe that God ordered the Israelites to commit genocide against the inhabits of the promised land because of their wickedness. I have read many justifications for this in so-called Christian apologetics but I have never been able to buy into any of them. I think it is much more likely that many times what you are reading in the Bible are simply human interpretations of what are perceived to be acts of God.

Like Desert, I could not, and cannot stomach Christian warmongers and that was also a big factor in my falling away.

I think the major turning point for me was when I was on a Christian forum discussing the doctrine of eternal torment. I was accused of being a heretic for questioning it (even though I do not think the Bible supports this doctrine at all). That discussion turned into a debate among the non-heretics about whether aborted babies go to hell or not. If you follow the doctrine all the way through to its logical conclusion I think you have to pretty much accept that they do and that seemed to be the consensus of opinion among the believers although quite a few struggled hard to find reasons to spare them. I thought to myself that I don't belong here among these people and I think that is the point where I left for good.

[murphy_p_t]

notsheigetz...thank you for for latest, candid comments.

From what you describe, it sounds like you discussion partners are in the protestant/Calvinist/baptist/fundamentalist/reformed camp(s)?

I only ask because the input you received doesn't seem to reflect historical, orthodox christian belief.

[MediumTex]

Thanks very much for sharing that, Desert.

Yes, a really great account of his religious experience.

Thanks for posting.

It's a shame that it bothers some people to hear a person talk about a personal journey that has obviously been so fulfilling.

[dualstow]

Bothers whom?

[MediumTex]

IMHO, the test of religion should be whether it makes you feel better, not whether it is "true."

I suppose that's a reasonable conclusion to reach if you can prove every religion is a purely man-made mental crutch.

I can't prove or disprove anything that involves the supernatural.  If it could be proven it wouldn't be supernatural.

The thing is, though, from a logical perspective if you have several different religious belief systems with beliefs that are not compatible with one another (or are at least apparently incompatible based on the way some believers like to kill people of other religions) they can't all be right (or if they could all be right it would suggest a God of great tolerance for different expressions of faith).

If God is okay with the terrorist who blows people up, the cannibal who snacks on people from the next village, and the tribe that throws virgins into volcanoes, then I would say surely he would be okay with a person who looks out the window and marvels at the beauty and mystery of the world without feeling the need to explain exactly how it got to be that way.

[MediumTex]

Bothers whom?

Apparently some of the people he knows outside this forum.

(Apologies if you thought i was referring to someone here.)

[Kshartle]

The thing is, though, from a logical perspective if you have several different religious belief systems with beliefs that are not compatible with one another (or are at least apparently incompatible based on the way some believers like to kill people of other religions) they can't all be right (or if they could all be right it would suggest a God of great tolerance for different expressions of faith).

If God is okay with the terrorist who blows people up, the cannibal who snacks on people from the next village, and the tribe that throws virgins into volcanoes, then I would say surely he would be okay with a person who looks out the window and marvels at the beauty and mystery of the world without feeling the need to explain exactly how it got to be that way.

This is excellent logic. Consistency is preferable to inconsitency. If the opposite were true, you have to argue that it is preferable to consistenly apply the principle that inconsitency is preferable. It's a self-detonating argument.

Can God be inconsistent? If he can, then he certainly can't be perfect, and then he wouldn't be God and worthy of worship or love, he'd just be a guy a with a gun to your head, or a flaming pit or whatever.

Reminds me of a scene in "The Kingdom of Heaven". The Christians are walled up in Jerusalem surrounded by Saladin's forces. They have hundreds of dead bodies they need to burn or they will all die of disese. The Bishop tries to stop them saying the souls will go to Hell. The leader of the Army says God will understand, and if he does not then he is not God, and we need not worry anyway. Bam, beasted by some God-logic.

[dualstow]

Bothers whom?

Apparently some of the people he knows outside this forum.
(Apologies if you thought i was referring to someone here.)

I was afraid you meant me. (whew) 

I tend to divide Christians into two broad categories: those that live and let live, and those who want non-Christians to become Christians. The latter category in my own circle is quite small, mostly a couple of  Jewish-born distant relatives who took drugs in the sixties and are now born again. The former category are fine, in fact better than "proselytizing" atheists in my book.

In short, if someone feels the presence of God and can't help but run with it, I think that's cool. I'm actually envious.

[Kshartle]

Bothers whom?

Apparently some of the people he knows outside this forum.
(Apologies if you thought i was referring to someone here.)

I was afraid you meant me. (whew) 

I tend to divide Christians into two broad categories: those that live and let live, and those who want non-Christians to become Christians. The latter category in my own circle is quite small, mostly a couple of  Jewish-born distant relatives who took drugs in the sixties and are now born again. The former category are fine, in fact better than "proselytizing" atheists in my book.

In short, if someone feels the presence of God and can't help but run with it, I think that's cool. I'm actually envious.

Can they really be Christians if they don't prosletize? I mean, if you thought I was doing something that would ultimately lead to me buring in Hell for eternity, and not point that out or try to engage me on it, what does that say about you and your beliefs? Do you even care about other people, or God or anything if that's the case?

It might be more pleasant to be around non-proselytizing folks, but what do you think that says about them as a person?

I hope no one takes offense to that. Everyone has their own reasons for what they do or don't do. I have my opinion but I think it's worth considering and I be interested to hear anyone's (Christian, Muslim, Athiest, etc.) opinion and thought process.

[dualstow]

...

Can they really be Christians if they don't prosletize? I mean, if you thought I was doing something that would ultimately lead to me buring in Hell for eternity, and not point that out or try to engage me on it, what does that say about you and your beliefs? Do you even care about other people, or God or anything if that's the case?

My answer to that is that Christians get slammed either way. If they proselytize, they're annoying and pushy. If they don't proselytize, they must not care about the nonbelievers around them OR they don't truly believe. It's hard enough to take care of yourself.

I had the same question in my twenties. In my early forties now, I'm trying to give them a break on this. 

[Jan Van]

Can they really be Christians if they don't prosletize?

Interesting question. Can they? Does the bible command you to do that? And then if people don't, does that mean they are bad or fake or inferior Christians?

[Kshartle]

Can they really be Christians if they don't prosletize?

Interesting question. Can they? Does the bible command you to do that? And then if people don't, does that mean they are bad or fake or inferior Christians?

Hey that was my question you're re-asking!

I think Jesus is quite clear about the command as well as Paul and others although I don't have the quotes in front of me or the liberty to search at the moment.