Religion

In the past, I have deferred to someone's faith when it is described as a belief in something that cannot be proved. That was a mistake. And, of course, to claim that I "know" would place me in the same presumptuous position of many of the religious people with whom I disagree.

However, I find inherently suspect a belief in something that cannot be rationally supported.

If a person who believes, for example, in the god of the Christian Bible does so based upon faith (belief in something that cannot be rationally supported), I have trouble not placing that person in one of three categories (which categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive):

1. Stupid (low IQ);

2. Ignorant (uneducated); or

3. Crazy (delusional).

While these categories may seem a bit coarse (and pardon the crude vernacular labels), my experience (be it necessarily anecdotal) provides some support. Of course, these categories reveal my own prejudices, and might be used by the religious in an attempt to explain atheism (used in the classical sense).

Thus, I am revisiting my usual position that I "respect" a person who professes faith as the cornerstone of the person's religion. It is just not enough for me. I am setting up the following to guide my further thought: "Why should I respect a person's belief in something that cannot be rationally supported?"

Perhaps my use of "respect" over the years has been the wrong word. Perhaps "acknowledge" would be more appropriate. While not at the end of this inquiry, at this juncture, I do not "respect" a person who relies upon faith as the basis of the person's religion. I "acknowledge" that the person has chosen to abandon reason, but I cannot "respect" that abandonment. While this word quibbling may be wasted time, I think not, at least not for me.

As noted above, more analysis and thought are required on this subject.

Also, could I respect the person but not the basis of that person's religious belief (faith)? Should I acknowledge any person's right to profess faith in lieu of thought? And, if I acknowledge the right, must I not "respect" the person's choice to abandon rational thought? My problem here is that some people apparently allow faith to guide their lives. So what, some ask? They say it is none of my business. But it is.

These people, who have abandoned a rational basis for their religion, among other things that affect me, vote. Should I not be concerned that someone who believes in the Christian Bible as the literal word of God is participating in process that directly affects my life?

_______________

Dear Folks: I understand the fun of taking potshots at people and networks, such as Fox News, with which we disagree. It is even more enjoyable when we take those shots together, thus reinforcing our own beliefs, prejudices, and views. Piling on is great recreation.

However, I believe that we are wasting our efforts. Polls, Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, make no difference. We are discussing veneer and fluff. We are not taking a deeper dive into the underlying differences that separate us.

I have shared this with Vince before, but wanted to share it with you:

I have attempted since the threat by the Republicans to default on the debt obligations of the United States (fiscal cliff) to understand the thought process underlying such a threat. I thought that this extreme threat would make a representative case study.

I posited various hypotheses, but non worked, at least not entirely. I had to adjust my research. I did and cannot explain what is happening other than with respect to Christian religious concepts. In particular, the Apocalypse.

I believe there is a reason behind human actions. I know this may sound a bit extreme, but the Apocalypse as set forth in the Christian Bible has emerged as the best underpinning for positions that otherwise have no rational explanation.

Before you quickly reply to this post, do some research and give it some thought. I have -- for many months.

_______________

My argument in a nutshell is that the apocalyptic theology that developed in the 1880s and 1890s led radical evangelicals to the conclusion that all nations are going to concede their power in the End Times to a totalitarian political leader who is going to be the Antichrist. If you believe you’re living in the last days and you believe you’re moving towards that event, you’re going to be very suspicious and skeptical of anything that seems to undermine individual rights and individual liberties, and anything that is going to give more power to the state.

_______________

In his 2010 book “Storm Warning,” Graham said that the hard financial times and difficulties people faced represented a “depression” in economics and within the human spirit. “I see this unfolding phenomenon as one of the many storm clouds hovering over a lost and dying world,” he wrote. Since Scripture warns of natural disasters and wars at the verge of the Apocalypse, the current situation calls for “urgency to prepare for the storms to come.”

_______________

Valerie: While I agree that we may be experiencing the externalization of the inner apocalyptic struggle, I do not know if it is an attempt to accelerate or postpone the final event.

Radical evangelicals apparently believe that all nations will concede their power in the "End Times" to a totalitarian political leader who will be the Antichrist.

This appears to be why they oppose any centralization of government (including Obamacare). However, what happens next is what they apparently want -- the rapture, the return of Christ, and the defeat of the Antichrist. Thus, my research continues.

_______________

He’s gone away, he’s coming back, he’s coming back soon, and he’s going to ask what you’ve done with your talents. Jesus ended the parable by instructing the disciples to “occupy” until I come. And that’s what fundamentalists and evangelicals have done.

That means that, far more than many other Christians, they believe they have a responsibility to act as vehemently, as radically, as urgently as possible.

_______________

Jesus has gone away, but he is coming back, and he is coming back soon. When he returns, he will ask: "What you’ve done with your talents?" Jesus ended the parable by instructing the disciples to “occupy” until I return. And that appears to be what fundamentalists and evangelicals have done.

That means that, far more than many other Christians, they believe they have a responsibility to act as vehemently, as radically, as urgently as possible. They must not waste their talents.