Originally posted by twhiteheadTrue. 'Believe' is the wrong word. When Klaas Hendrikse says that "...God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience." , he isn't saying that he 'believes' in human experience, but that he is looking at human experience in a very different way. It is to treat the interactions between humans as a potential for 'holiness', which, I think, is at the heart of what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 25:31-46.
And I suspect that 'believe in' would be the wrong phrase. Many people have redefined 'God' to be some sort of description of the universe, but unless certain assertions are made about how the universe is or works, no belief is required. I believe Einstein was one of those atheists who in refusing to part with the word 'God' only served to cause confusion ...[text shortened]... tempt to avoid declaring himself atheist, which brings with it significant discrimination.
Originally posted by PalynkaConfuse others? Or help them reach a new and perhaps richer understanding?
Language being what it is, people can define words to mean whatever they want. Just that communication might be impaired. In this case, defining God in non-theistic terms will only serve to confuse others. Like I said, sand in people's eyes.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThis only goes to show, you can claim the name but reject God, nothing more.
I found this little gem on the BBC website -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362
For those 'religionists' who claim that atheism is the new religion, you could just be right.
It is part of the mainstream Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN), and the service is conventional enough, with hymns, readings from the Bible, an ...[text shortened]... r does Klaas Hendrikse believe that God exists at all as a supernatural thing.
Kelly
Originally posted by PalynkaFor lack of a better word that will resonate sufficiently with a western audience.
Confuse others. For the reasons I stated. Hope this helps.
Eastern religions manage to find holiness without God concepts. Why are you so fixed on using the word "God"?
Edit: And because a transition into a different understanding of a familiar word may be more efficacious than offering a complete sundering of ties to it.
Originally posted by PalynkaReligion is in the business of competing for adherents. People aren't going to adopt one that doesn't resonate with them. Stripping away obsolescent theistic notions may impede the clarity of simple word definitions, but I hardly think that is a primary concern.
Well, you already admitted as such. The point is ability to resonate, rather than clarity.
Originally posted by rwingettAmusing that you see conversion as the primary concern (of nominal adherents, because apparently you don't trust them to handle the unfiltered "truth" ), rather than clarity of religious views.
Religion is in the business of competing for adherents. People aren't going to adopt one that doesn't resonate with them. Stripping away obsolescent theistic notions may impede the clarity of simple word definitions, but I hardly think that is a primary concern.
The old-school leftism is strong with this one.
Originally posted by PalynkaAs long as they do not claim to be factually true, I have no interest in the 'truth' of religious views. I am concerned solely with their utility. A religion that contradicts scientific knowledge has increasingly less and less utility. One that adapts itself to new scientific knowledge may maintain great utility indefinitely. By giving the bible a metaphorical interpretation, Mr. Hendrikse avoids going head-to-head against scientific knowledge.
Amusing that you see conversion as the primary concern (of nominal adherents, because apparently you don't trust them to handle the unfiltered "truth" ), rather than clarity of religious views.
The old-school leftism is strong with this one.
Originally posted by rwingettThat the truth was of no concern to you was obvious. I just wanted you to spell it out.
As long as they do not claim to be factually true, I have no interest in the 'truth' of religious views. I am concerned solely with their utility. A religion that contradicts scientific knowledge has increasingly less and less utility. One that adapts itself to new scientific knowledge may maintain great utility indefinitely. By giving the bible a metaphorical interpretation, Mr. Hendrikse avoids going head-to-head against scientific knowledge.
Thanks.
Originally posted by PalynkaJust after WWI, anthropologist Ruth Benedict controversially wrote in 'The Chrysanthemum and the Sword' that Japan, at least, is a shame-based culture in contrast to the West's guilt-based Christian culture. Some people think this difference was overstated then, and is more so now, but the concept is that a shame-based culture relies on emotions related to the esteem with which people are held by their fellows, whereas the guilt-based culture relies on pangs of conscience before a supreme moral being -- God. It makes sense that a culture that looks to social approval and "face" as a moral motivator has less need for belief in God. We hear this all the time from some Christians, who wonder why anyone would be moral without God. I guess those Christians wouldn't be, and there is a deep knowledge of that fact in our society.
Confuse others. For the reasons I stated. Hope this helps.
Eastern religions manage to find holiness without God concepts. Why are you so fixed on using the word "God"?
Originally posted by JS357That makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure if I understand where you want to go with this, though. We're talking about people who have rejected the notion of a supreme moral being, still calling something "God".
Just after WWI, anthropologist Ruth Benedict controversially wrote in 'The Chrysanthemum and the Sword' that Japan, at least, is a shame-based culture in contrast to the West's guilt-based Christian culture. Some people think this difference was overstated then, and is more so now, but the concept is that a shame-based culture relies on emotions related to the ...[text shortened]... s those Christians wouldn't be, and there is a deep knowledge of that fact in our society.