Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are Christian theologians who say that because of their having different intent Christianity could live quite accommodatingly along side forms of Buddhism and Hindu thought.

And there are, equally, Christian theologians (and their Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and whatever else) who would maintain that any deviation from a particular path is heresy and cannot be abided. Unfortunately, given the lack of any reliable information, all those opinions are equally (in)valid.

Christianity I suppose can accommodate much of what is proposed theologically by Judaism and Islam......but of course Christianity has what the other two deny....added Christ....does rejecting the Christ proposition amount to a broader understanding, that God has delivered his word to humanity more organically in the person of Jesus?

Of course, that's a subjective interpretation - other paths might suggest that Christianity has polluted the idea of the divine by claiming that God sullied itself by manifesting as human, that man was made in God's image and not vice versa. You see Jesus as something 'added' to the whole to make it more, others see it as a stain.

....and of course Christianity has a more pessimistic view of humanity suggesting man needs God to reach God which, is only a bad addition in the eyes of the individual and collective egos which want to reach God by individual merit.

It does particularly jar for those of us who view individual liberty, responsibility and capacity as something to be both proud and wary of, yes. One of the reasons, in the modern world, that Christianity is slowly dying out, because it's fundamentally at odds with the idea of personal liberty, rights, freedoms and the like.

It is the denial of Christ where, I move a Christian disagrees with anyone.

Kind of by definition, I'd say.

Not, as I keep observing atheists accusing Christians of, a flat Dawkinsian dismissal of their deities, where the likes of Dawkins comes out with stuff like ''as an atheist I just reject one more god than you''.

Not really. Most of the Hindu deities are supposed to have incarnations that manifest on Earth, the myths of the Greek gods have terrestrial manifestations. As a Christian you accept one story of a deity manifesting, but dismiss all of the others - you do really reject one fewer god than the atheists do, it's a simple matter of maths. You like to think that there's something qualitatively different about the Jesus/God concept, but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate what that might be.

That limp playing to the gallery just betrays an ignorance of Christians and religion in general.

That depiction just demonstrates special pleading. Christianity isn't manifestly different, isn't qualitatively separate, it's just another variant of accepting supernatural claims - the specific  claims might differ, but the nature of them doesn't particularly.

O.

I think you are largely mistaking 'theologian' for 'literal interpreter of scripture'

People wanting to keep God out there and man on earth are I would move less broad in outlook in a very real sense since it definitionally ends theological activity and denies experience by relegating religion to a merely intellectual exercise.

You are stating that polluting is the opposite of addition that is wrong.

You are kind of reinventing religious bogeymen here and then casting them as the sole representatives of any religion.

In other words your post is an elaborate editing job to maintain an antitheist caricature of religion as typified by your outburst here.

 ''One of the reasons, in the modern world, that Christianity is slowly dying out, because it's fundamentally at odds with the idea of personal liberty, rights, freedoms and the like.''

Some of us think that is largely paranoid spin based on the reductionist bias you display in reducing religion to just variants of accepting supernaturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really. Most of the Hindu deities are supposed to have incarnations that manifest on Earth, the myths of the Greek gods have terrestrial manifestations. As a Christian you accept one story of a deity manifesting, but dismiss all of the others - you do really reject one fewer god than the atheists do, it's a simple matter of maths. You like to think that there's something qualitatively different about the Jesus/God concept, but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate what that might be.

You are doing it again. We do not simply dismiss monotheistic religions and look at pantheons as an expression of the search of the divine and even being touched by the divine rather than the knuckle dragging ignorant dismissal of the antitheists.

I have been rather entertained by the faux sympathy for other religions from antitheists.

New atheists?....Because there is a sell by date on unanswered questions? No New atheists because you have to give those who are not only against Christian fundamentalism but want it to be the only type of Christianity.

[torridon]

and in the mind of a devout muslim, you are an unbeliever still, just like me. You are not reconciled yet to seeking a broader understanding that encompasses the diversity of religious and human experience.

But seeking a broader understanding that encompasses the diversity of religious and human experience will not lead you to the truth.  The existence of alternative belief systems should not distract you from seeking out the truth behind our existence.  There is only one truth and we only have one lifetime to find it.

Well unsurprisingly I suppose that all looks completely wrong to me.  It is by actively seeking deeper and broader understanding of the range of human experience that we can approach whatever truth there is to be learned.  That means looking beyond the beliefs of our native culture and of our upbringing; it means taking due account of findings from research; it means avoiding commitment to any proscriptive belief system, such things narrow the mind rather than broaden it.

And if there is some grand single divine truth underlying our existence along the lines that you believe in, then there is no hurry, as in your belief system, this life is but an insignificant blink of an eye and our resurrected selves will find out the truth anyhow in the eternal afterlife. So resist the temptation to frighten people into your way of thinking Alan, its not a reputable strategy to needlessly play on peoples hopes and fears in that way.

[Outrider]

I think you are largely mistaking 'theologian' for 'literal interpreter of scripture'

That's OK, I think you're largely mistaking 'theologian' for 'someone with something useful to say'.

People wanting to keep God out there and man on earth are I would move less broad in outlook in a very real sense since it definitionally ends theological activity and denies experience by relegating religion to a merely intellectual exercise.

Does theology have an aversion to punctuation? What did that even mean? People don't want to 'keep God out there'. Religious people think god is here already, atheists don't try to 'keep gods' anywhere because gods aren't real. Some atheists want to abolish religion - your constantly berated 'anti-theists' - but in the majority we just want you to keep your delusions to yourself; to not undermine education, science policy, ethical laws and the like with your nonsense.

You are stating that polluting is the opposite of addition that is wrong.

No, I'm stating that addition isn't automatically beneficial, as  the term 'pollution' makes clear.

You are kind of reinventing religious bogeymen here and then casting them as the sole representatives of any religion.

No, I'm pointing out that in the absence of any adequate means of choosing a 'right' interpretation between different interpretations of different cults of different sects of different religions, any time we accept the validity of any of the concepts we open the door to all the nonsense.

In other words your post is an elaborate editing job to maintain an antitheist caricature of religion as typified by your outburst here.

I don't need to caricature religion, you have enough whack-jobs out there doing it from the inside.

''One of the reasons, in the modern world, that Christianity is slowly dying out, because it's fundamentally at odds with the idea of personal liberty, rights, freedoms and the like.''

Some of us think that is largely paranoid spin based on the reductionist bias you display in reducing religion to just variants of accepting supernaturalism.

Yes, but you believe in an extra-universal super-fairy, so why would I consider your viewpoint with any real merit. If you raise an actual point, of course, I'll deal with the idea on its own merits, but if you're trying 'some of us disagree' as an argument, well big surprise there. You could try to justify the idea that there's something wrong with an individualist viewpoint, but you've not, you've just done your usual waffle of trying to decry people who focus on reality at the expense of myth.

O.

[Outrider]

You are doing it again. We do not simply dismiss monotheistic religions and look at pantheons as an expression of the search of the divine and even being touched by the divine rather than the knuckle dragging ignorant dismissal of the antitheists.

Some of you, some of you don't. But for each of the fairy-tales that you dismiss, and for each of the fairy-tales that you think are mistaken understandings of the 'universal truth' there is exactly as much justification: none.

I have been rather entertained by the faux sympathy for other religions from antitheists.

I believe in equality - I want all of your nonsense to be equally disregarded, so your special pleading for your particular interpretation of the Big Boy's Book of Jewish Bedtime Stories doesn't sit well.

New atheists?....Because there is a sell by date on unanswered questions? No New atheists because you have to give those who are not only against Christian fundamentalism but want it to be the only type of Christianity.

I have to give them what? You are, literally, talking nonsense - that sentence does not make sense. There is nothing new in atheism, there is just a realisation that we don't have to shut up and stay in our box. It's not as though you've lost any evidence for God down the back of the sofa - the Emperor has never had any clothes, we're just no longer afraid to say it.

O.

[Leonard James]

Bravo to all your posts, Outrider! I envy you your ability to cut straight through the humbug and lack of perception that characterises the posts of theists, and show them why they are deluded.

Thank you! 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

There is nothing new in atheism, there is just a realisation that we don't have to shut up and stay in our box. It's not as though you've lost any evidence for God down the back of the sofa - the Emperor has never had any clothes, we're just no longer afraid to say it.

I think it is brilliant that your are now more outspoken but you are not engaging, you are not exploring, all you are doing is simply dismissing.

There are no gods, end of story.

What you are doing is dismissing billions of human thought on what makes a human being, arrogant or what!!

You ask for evidence, do you reject that man can fly or that we can replace a human heart, you call this man's evolution, I call this breathtaking, man's attempt to replicate God.

Atheism, not a stance, not a world view, not something you can understand, just bugger it, shit happens.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Outrider,

There is nothing new in atheism, there is just a realisation that we don't have to shut up and stay in our box. It's not as though you've lost any evidence for God down the back of the sofa - the Emperor has never had any clothes, we're just no longer afraid to say it.

I think it is brilliant that your are now more outspoken but you are not engaging, you are not exploring, all you are doing is simply dismissing.

There are no gods, end of story.

What you are doing is dismissing billions of human thought on what makes a human being, arrogant or what!!

You ask for evidence, do you reject that man can fly or that we can replace a human heart, you call this man's evolution, I call this breathtaking, man's attempt to replicate God.

Atheism, not a stance, not a world view, not something you can understand, just bugger it, shit happens.

Gonnagle.

He's a bit of a Jesus Myth sympathiser so he's a fine one to talk about the emperors new clothes.

[Outrider]

I think it is brilliant that your are now more outspoken but you are not engaging, you are not exploring, all you are doing is simply dismissing.

Part of that, Gonners, is about 'knowing the enemy' - Vlad's an experienced hand at making the pretence of engagement whilst just sniping from the side-lines.

There are no gods, end of story.

That's my take on it - when you get people who, like yourself, are curious, but fall on the side of belief, I try to match that. When you get the express certainty and derisive dismissiveness of Vald, you get a response to match.

What you are doing is dismissing billions of human thought on what makes a human being, arrogant or what!!

No, I'm dismissing Vlad's take on it. Anyone who fixedly declares Christianity to be the way is dismissing billions of humans' thoughts on what makes us humans.

You ask for evidence, do you reject that man can fly or that we can replace a human heart, you call this man's evolution, I call this breathtaking, man's attempt to replicate God.

I don't actually call that evolution, I call that the advances through scientific endeavour, but I take your point. You see human activity as a kind of extension of something divine, though you'd accept that we don't know enough to try to classify that 'divinity' too much.

I see that capacity for something marvellous, something extraordinary, I just don't see a need to ascribe that to something outside of humanity, we're incredible beings in our own right. You're a believer, faithful, and I have absolutely no problem with faith in and of itself. My problem is with religion, people who take that 'wow we're incredible' and say 'and I know why, so you must...'

Atheism, not a stance, not a world view, not something you can understand, just bugger it, shit happens.

No. Atheism - we're responsible, not some distant sky-fairy. It's down to us to make of this either what we will, or to look up, think bigger and make of this what we can.

O.

[Outrider]

He's a bit of a Jesus Myth sympathiser so he's a fine one to talk about the emperors new clothes.

There's a 'Jesus Myth' - Jesus never existed, it's all made up. Then there's the Jesus myth, all the bits of the story about magic - raising the dead, walking on water, transmutation of water into wine, spontaneous creation of fish and bread, that sort of nonsense.

Yes, it seems likely that there was someone on whom the myth was hung, and perhaps some of the lessons that are written into the New Testament actually come from him, who knows. As with anything, the arguments are more important than the person that makes them - if the lessons are worthwhile they'll stand up without the trappings of sorcery surrounding them.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He's a bit of a Jesus Myth sympathiser so he's a fine one to talk about the emperors new clothes.

There's a 'Jesus Myth' - Jesus never existed, it's all made up. Then there's the Jesus myth, all the bits of the story about magic - raising the dead, walking on water, transmutation of water into wine, spontaneous creation of fish and bread, that sort of nonsense.

Yep..................We are dealing with the 40% who believe the 'Jesus Myth'.

[Outrider]

He's a bit of a Jesus Myth sympathiser so he's a fine one to talk about the emperors new clothes.

There's a 'Jesus Myth' - Jesus never existed, it's all made up. Then there's the Jesus myth, all the bits of the story about magic - raising the dead, walking on water, transmutation of water into wine, spontaneous creation of fish and bread, that sort of nonsense.

Yep..................We are dealing with the 40% who believe the 'Jesus Myth'.

Did you 'intuit' that from the article, because there isn't enough information in there to know if anyone explained in any detail what was meant.

Was Jesus a real figure? Probably yes, and no. The Jesus of the New Testament never existed, magic isn't real. Some itinerant philosopher/teacher probably existed, around whom the myth is based.

Does the question make clear which of those they mean? Not that I can see from the article.

Is it important that people realise there's probably someone real underneath the layers of myth? Not really, it's an interesting curio, but it's only trivially important because we've not given up on the stupidity of formal religion yet.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

is about 'knowing the enemy'

Vlad the enemy well I suppose on this forum, but I think our Vlad has bigger fish to fry.

No, I'm dismissing Vlad's take on it. Anyone who fixedly declares Christianity to be the way is dismissing billions of humans' thoughts on what makes us humans.

On that we agree

I see that capacity for something marvellous, something extraordinary, I just don't see a need to ascribe that to something outside of humanity, we're incredible beings in our own right.

Special, maybe

not some distant sky-fairy.

And then you fall down, why belittle God with that expression, sorry old chum but this what I mean by failure to engage, and you dismiss God as some sky fairy.

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

There are Christian theologians who say that because of their having different intent Christianity could live quite accommodatingly along side forms of Buddhism and Hindu thought.

Christianity I suppose can accommodate much of what is proposed theologically by Judaism and Islam......but of course Christianity has what the other two deny....added Christ....does rejecting the Christ proposition amount to a broader understanding, that God has delivered his word to humanity more organically in the person of Jesus?....and of course Christianity has a more pessimistic view of humanity suggesting man needs God to reach God which, is only a bad addition in the eyes of the individual and collective egos which want to reach God by individual merit.

yes, the divinity of Christ is the core stumbling block to inter faith dialogue between muslims and christians. I think it is a hurdle neither side can overcome.  This is an example of how beliefs can reinforce trust and community within groups but at the expense of greater distance between rival groups.  Faith is the enemy of broader understanding, it narrows our vision and by compartmentalising us, it ultimately divides us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are Christian theologians who say that because of their having different intent Christianity could live quite accommodatingly along side forms of Buddhism and Hindu thought.

Christianity I suppose can accommodate much of what is proposed theologically by Judaism and Islam......but of course Christianity has what the other two deny....added Christ....does rejecting the Christ proposition amount to a broader understanding, that God has delivered his word to humanity more organically in the person of Jesus?....and of course Christianity has a more pessimistic view of humanity suggesting man needs God to reach God which, is only a bad addition in the eyes of the individual and collective egos which want to reach God by individual merit.

yes, the divinity of Christ is the core stumbling block to inter faith dialogue between muslims and christians. I think it is a hurdle neither side can overcome.  This is an example of how beliefs can reinforce trust and community within groups but at the expense of greater distance between rival groups.  Faith is the enemy of broader understanding, in narrows our vision and by compartmentalising us, it ultimately divides us.

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

[torridon]

There are Christian theologians who say that because of their having different intent Christianity could live quite accommodatingly along side forms of Buddhism and Hindu thought.

Christianity I suppose can accommodate much of what is proposed theologically by Judaism and Islam......but of course Christianity has what the other two deny....added Christ....does rejecting the Christ proposition amount to a broader understanding, that God has delivered his word to humanity more organically in the person of Jesus?....and of course Christianity has a more pessimistic view of humanity suggesting man needs God to reach God which, is only a bad addition in the eyes of the individual and collective egos which want to reach God by individual merit.

yes, the divinity of Christ is the core stumbling block to inter faith dialogue between muslims and christians. I think it is a hurdle neither side can overcome.  This is an example of how beliefs can reinforce trust and community within groups but at the expense of greater distance between rival groups.  Faith is the enemy of broader understanding, in narrows our vision and by compartmentalising us, it ultimately divides us.

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

I get that, we are born of tribalism, we can so easily slip into an us/them mentality.  Recognising that I try to distance myself from party political affiliations, I don't support football teams, I avoid nationalistic tendencies, I don't follow a faith. I recognise the temptation to get into bed with a larger group; trying to keep an independent mind is in some ways harder work with less tangible rewards.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are Christian theologians who say that because of their having different intent Christianity could live quite accommodatingly along side forms of Buddhism and Hindu thought.

Christianity I suppose can accommodate much of what is proposed theologically by Judaism and Islam......but of course Christianity has what the other two deny....added Christ....does rejecting the Christ proposition amount to a broader understanding, that God has delivered his word to humanity more organically in the person of Jesus?....and of course Christianity has a more pessimistic view of humanity suggesting man needs God to reach God which, is only a bad addition in the eyes of the individual and collective egos which want to reach God by individual merit.

yes, the divinity of Christ is the core stumbling block to inter faith dialogue between muslims and christians. I think it is a hurdle neither side can overcome.  This is an example of how beliefs can reinforce trust and community within groups but at the expense of greater distance between rival groups.  Faith is the enemy of broader understanding, in narrows our vision and by compartmentalising us, it ultimately divides us.

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

I get that, we are born of tribalism, we can so easily slip into an us/them mentality.  Recognising that I try to distance myself from party political affiliations, I don't support football teams, I avoid nationalistic tendencies, I don't follow a faith. I recognise the temptation to get into bed with a larger group; trying to keep an independent mind is in some ways harder work with less tangible rewards.

Good Morning

Isn't there a danger of  exaggerating the potential for bad in all of these and in the end floating through the world as some kind of self righteous oddbod?

[Outrider]

not some distant sky-fairy.

And then you fall down, why belittle God with that expression, sorry old chum but this what I mean by failure to engage, and you dismiss God as some sky fairy.

Which God? See, this is the issue we have - there are a thousand different concepts of deities, no two quite alike, and too many people claim to have 'the' way.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, Gonners, but your concept seems to be 'there's something, I'm not sure what, and when we connect with it amazing things can happen'. I can't 'attack' that, not only is that not a bad concept by nature, but it's not parodiable by the 'sky fairy' idea.

The classic Christian omnipotent, omniscient creator hate/love figure - that's just a nonsense. It takes a colossal amount of cognitive dissonance to look at reality as we understand it and still hold to that fairy-tale, and it's the level of nonsense that merits calling it a fairy tale.

I don't throw away the better moral lessons of the New Testament, but at the same time I don't think that their validity is because they're Biblical or because Jesus delivering them makes them special.

Just as when two different believers tell us about their god(s) so we are getting two different ideas, so when we criticise back not every caricature applies to every characterisation. The non-proscriptive 'something' concept of divinity as an aspiration is difficult to argue against, partly because there's no good reason to and partly because it doesn't pretend to make very many solid claims that can be contested.

By contrast, formal religious certainty can be unravelled, and needs to be because it's dangerous - firstly because it puts authority and power into a god that is very, scarily made in mans (worst) image, and because that degree of unsubstantiated certainty has no limitations imposed on it by reality.

O.

[Outrider]

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

Perhaps, but there are common grounds, space to negotiate and accomodate in most of them. The totalitarian nature of religion (and, to an extent, to sporting rivalries) is such that there is no room for accomodation in too many instances.

There are religious secularists, and there are religious groups that will accomodate other concepts in a 'live and let live' approach, but the potential for 'we are the only way' is manifest.

O.

[torridon]

yes, the divinity of Christ is the core stumbling block to inter faith dialogue between muslims and christians. I think it is a hurdle neither side can overcome.  This is an example of how beliefs can reinforce trust and community within groups but at the expense of greater distance between rival groups.  Faith is the enemy of broader understanding, in narrows our vision and by compartmentalising us, it ultimately divides us.

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

I get that, we are born of tribalism, we can so easily slip into an us/them mentality.  Recognising that I try to distance myself from party political affiliations, I don't support football teams, I avoid nationalistic tendencies, I don't follow a faith. I recognise the temptation to get into bed with a larger group; trying to keep an independent mind is in some ways harder work with less tangible rewards.

Good Morning

Isn't there a danger of  exaggerating the potential for bad in all of these and in the end floating through the world as some kind of self righteous oddbod?

Probably.

On the other hand there are precedents for the value in being an outsider.  Jesus was an outsider, in the context of his life.  Einstein was an outsider; had he been a regular german scientist with a tenured professorship he might never have made his great leaps of insight.  Of course mavericks and outsiders get sneered at by people in the in-crowd, that comes with the territory, but that might be jealousy speaking.

[Rhiannon]

I appreciate what you are saying, Torridon. I think paganism attracts many because we are still outsiders - I couldn't bring myself to tell the nice girl on the Tescos check-out that I'm pagan last week. I've found that belonging to a group doesn't work for me so even Wicca (capital or small w) feels too restrictive - perhaps I will always be an outsider just because I'm made that way. Maybe paganism will always belong at the margins? I don't know. I'm old enough now not to think being an outsider is cool by default - there is safety in numbers - but at the same time I know the value of having to figure stuff out for myself, as well as the pitfalls.

Football is interesting - I do support a club but I don't therefore dislike other clubs because of local rivalry. I only dislike Chelsea - passionately - but that is because of the kinds of behaviour they apparently find acceptable, on and off the pitch.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

yes, the divinity of Christ is the core stumbling block to inter faith dialogue between muslims and christians. I think it is a hurdle neither side can overcome.  This is an example of how beliefs can reinforce trust and community within groups but at the expense of greater distance between rival groups.  Faith is the enemy of broader understanding, in narrows our vision and by compartmentalising us, it ultimately divides us.

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

I get that, we are born of tribalism, we can so easily slip into an us/them mentality.  Recognising that I try to distance myself from party political affiliations, I don't support football teams, I avoid nationalistic tendencies, I don't follow a faith. I recognise the temptation to get into bed with a larger group; trying to keep an independent mind is in some ways harder work with less tangible rewards.

Good Morning

Isn't there a danger of  exaggerating the potential for bad in all of these and in the end floating through the world as some kind of self righteous oddbod?

Probably.

On the other hand there are precedents for the value in being an outsider.  Jesus was an outsider, in the context of his life.  Einstein was an outsider; had he been a regular german scientist with a tenured professorship he might never have made his great leaps of insight.  Of course mavericks and outsiders get sneered at by people in the in-crowd, that comes with the territory, but that might be jealousy speaking.

I think you are a valued and highly respected member of the Religion Ethics community for your exemplary decency.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I appreciate what you are saying, Torridon. I think paganism attracts many because we are still outsiders - I couldn't bring myself to tell the nice girl on the Tescos check-out that I'm pagan last week. I've found that belonging to a group doesn't work for me so even Wicca (capital or small w) feels too restrictive - perhaps I will always be an outsider just because I'm made that way. Maybe paganism will always belong at the margins? I don't know. I'm old enough now not to think being an outsider is cool by default - there is safety in numbers - but at the same time I know the value of having to figure stuff out for myself, as well as the pitfalls.

Football is interesting - I do support a club but I don't therefore dislike other clubs because of local rivalry. I only dislike Chelsea - passionately - but that is because of the kinds of behaviour they apparently find acceptable, on and off the pitch.

I think a fair few of us aren't joiners.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

Perhaps, but there are common grounds, space to negotiate and accomodate in most of them. The totalitarian nature of religion (and, to an extent, to sporting rivalries) is such that there is no room for accomodation in too many instances.

Totalitarian? The big totalitarian outfits have had an atheist vibe I think.

[Rhiannon]

yes, the divinity of Christ is the core stumbling block to inter faith dialogue between muslims and christians. I think it is a hurdle neither side can overcome.  This is an example of how beliefs can reinforce trust and community within groups but at the expense of greater distance between rival groups.  Faith is the enemy of broader understanding, in narrows our vision and by compartmentalising us, it ultimately divides us.

However the truth is secular humanist and religious are rival groups. As are Spurs Vs Arsenal, As are the Libertarian, Social Darwinian wings of Secular Humanism and Marxist, Cooperative wings of Secular Humanism, As are SH'r sunday assembly people and Skeptical Caberet people.

I get that, we are born of tribalism, we can so easily slip into an us/them mentality.  Recognising that I try to distance myself from party political affiliations, I don't support football teams, I avoid nationalistic tendencies, I don't follow a faith. I recognise the temptation to get into bed with a larger group; trying to keep an independent mind is in some ways harder work with less tangible rewards.

Good Morning

Isn't there a danger of  exaggerating the potential for bad in all of these and in the end floating through the world as some kind of self righteous oddbod?

Probably.

On the other hand there are precedents for the value in being an outsider.  Jesus was an outsider, in the context of his life.  Einstein was an outsider; had he been a regular german scientist with a tenured professorship he might never have made his great leaps of insight.  Of course mavericks and outsiders get sneered at by people in the in-crowd, that comes with the territory, but that might be jealousy speaking.

I think you are a valued and highly respected member of the Religion Ethics community for your exemplary decency.

Agreed.