Jersey Girl wrote:JAK wrote:Bond...James Bond wrote:God takes the responsibility of finding meaning from theists. Atheists have to work a bit harder, but through their work can perhaps have more personal growth than people who are raised in a belief system and never leave that comfort zone.
In fact, the opposite is the case.
Theists rely on the doctrine and dogma ready-made by the myth-makers who invented the myths.
God is an invention preceded by the invention of the gods. It’s the various pundits for God who have “to work a bit harder.” Actually, they have to work much harder. There is a great deal of competition for God.
The “comfort zone” only works so long as one maintains blind faith. If one dares to think, to challenge, to question, the “comfort zone” is soon unsatisfactory.
Further, today, most people want rational thought. We want it in our doctors. We want it in the person who repairs our car. We don’t want a mechanic to whom we have taken our car to say: God only knows to the problem we have presented for the mechanic to solve.
God myths (and there are many) are irrelevant.
JAK
I honestly don't want to get bogged down in lengthy discussion here (got a few irons in the real life fire) but, while I understand your (bolded by me) remark regarding dogma and doctrine, I would have to say that speaking only for myself (rough around the edges and oftimes irreverant theist) that I don't think I rely on dogma (doctrine maybe) to find meaning in my life.
Feel free to make inquiry regarding that last, don't ask me to post a prayer. ;-) (Inside joke folks, you had to be there and just be glad that you weren't)
JAK, I won't be replying here right away should you choose to continue with me.
Jersey Girl
------------------
I understand your point. You may not rely directly on doctrine and dogma. I use the term theist in the more formal way as it is applied to the doctrine makers of denominations, sects, or cults.
Those theists are the ones who make up the myths. The followers do not make the myths. In that regard, we have official positions of those demoninations, etc., and we have the individuals who subscribe strongly or weakly to those official positions.
It’s quite possible that individuals who are even casual participants don’t give much thought real academic, philosophical thought to the hard positions of the theists.
That is no criticism of casual participants as it might appear. It is just that they are not the doctrine makers for a religious organization.
For example, some Protestant denominations today are really struggling with the issue of homosexuality. They are re-writing their doctrine or confirming their old position. These are the theists to which I intend reference, not to those who simply follow (cafeteria style) some doctrine. Those people do not make the rules of doctrine.
The Episcopal Church is in a current struggle about how to define itself with regard to this very issue. When Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual priest was installed as biship, there was great consternation (which continues) with regard to what the official church doctrine should be. There is a great threat of a division in that Protestant denomination over this single issue. What does God say about homosexuality?
Hence, we have a great division in the Episcopal Church between the liberals and the conservatives. See this article.
While both sides are theistic, they do NOT agree on God’s position.
I’ll assume you’re not Episcopal as a participant here. (That could be incorrect). But, the theist’s debate in that one church is most dramatic and threatens to produce yet another fracture in the Protestant plethora of options with regard to God’s position.
While they all assume God, they don’t agree on God. That is the history of the fracturing of the Christian religion from 1517 (the Protestant Reformation).
Some Episcopalians are sufficiently laid back as to say: Who knows?, Who cares?
There are a number of Episcopalians who are quite agnostic below the surface. They enjoy the level of the Episcopal Church. They have much in common with other Episcopalians. They tend to gravitate toward culture, music, art, and architecture. As a result, their perspective is more inclusive of people in similar positions than inclusive of their own religious doctrines.
For example: After great musical concerts, they have a reception serving wine and cheese. We would not likely find that at a Bible Baptist church. You also would be unlikely to find a fine arts musical program at a Bible Baptist church with harpsichord, pipe organ, and orchestra.
In any case the doctrine makers are the theists in control of God images, not the general membership of a religious organization.
Let me add, none of this disagrees with what you stated in that you don’t rely on doctrine or dogma. It might suggest that you are a soft theist.
The problem the Episcopal Church has with Gene Robinson is that he has been an excellent churchman. He demonstrates kindness. He has never been accused of any impropriety with church members or the youth. But, he has come out as it were and is open about his life-long relationship with another person who happens to be of the same sex that he is.
That presents a problem for the doctrine makers in the Episcopal Church. The liberals what him accepted as bishop as a result of his historic leadership prior to general knowledge that he was homosexual. The conservatives want him out as bishop and out as priest as well.
You may recall, Jersey Girl, the Episcopal Church had a great debate about women priests some years ago. That church now has women priests. But it was not easy. God says was employed by the myth-makers in the Episcopal Church to argue that no woman should be a priest.
Of course in the Roman Catholic Church, no women are priests. The RCC prohibits it. God prohibits it from the RCC mythmakers.
Again, I emphasize all this analysis is not any disagreement with your statement. It’s just extended consideration of dissection of religious perspective.
JAK