Religulous - Bill Maher

I looked forward to this movie for many reasons, one of them being that I am in many ways, anti-religion. Not saying I don't believe, or do believe, in one thing over another, and to a point, never feel the desire to state my religous views, and nor does Maher, only that he questions organized religion. Fine, so do I. Except here, Maher can't help reveal his one true object of worship...himself. He comes across just as smug and self-serving as the religions he attempts to scewer. Instead of a real expose of the world's religions (their differences, their similarities, their doctrines) we get Bill Maher's constant insistance that he's smarter than everyone he interviews.

As a documentary, it fails. This film doesn't make anyone any smarter, in that most religious people familiar with Maher are going to avoid this film like the plague. For those of us who find this topic fascinating, it spins its wheels. Much of what's in this film can be discovered on the web, so as a form of entertainment, its somewhat redundant to those of us who've yahooed or googled this stuff years ago. He touches upon the tenants of a few religions, but only long enough for a sound bite. Everything sounds like a setup for a punchline. But even as a comedy it fails, because some of his vitriol is misplaced, and you wind feeling sorry for some of his interviewees. He does bring up some interesting points, but not enough of them. There's a few chuckle worthy moments, but Maher seems to want to make his subjects look awkward, and this comedic device fizzles after the first few times we see it. As a monument to Bill Maher's disdain for all things not Bill Maher, I suppose it works, provided you don't get his cable show, because that too, will make this film redundant.

If you are unaware of who Maher is, and you're curious about other religions or have your own doubts about religion, this movie might work for you, provided you like your info with a generous helping of sarcasm. But in saying that, its doubtful you'll find much reason to change your mind if you are religious, and if you are religious, you already got the memo to boycott this movie anyway, so the info contained therein is inconsequential.

FWIW: if he seems to reserve most of his venom for Christianity, take it with a grain of salt - he obviously got the Rushdie memo. :smilewinkgrin:

I suppose it depends on your view of Maher - I like him because well he agrees with me most of the time which probably makes him one of the smartest people in the room :)

Religion is about as fascinating to me as road kill. Well maybe not religion but the people who still believe in the sheer nonsense. I have not seen this film yet but I suspect it will be an attack on defenseless wits. Roger Ebert is a Catholic and he liked Religulous http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...810020306/1023

If you want informative debate on religion from an Athiest see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU the fact that anyone believes in a sky God that listens to your prayers is equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy or being abducted by aliens - even though theologans like to create various sometimes well articulated red herrings and straw men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I suppose it depends on your view of Maher - I like him because well he agrees with me most of the time which probably makes him one of the smartest people in the room :)

Religion is about as fascinating to me as road kill. Well maybe not religion but the people who still believe in the sheer nonsense. I have not seen this film yet but I suspect it will be an attack on defenseless wits. Roger Ebert is a Catholic and he liked Religulous http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...810020306/1023

If you want informative debate on religion from an Athiest see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU the fact that anyone believes in a sky God that listens to your prayers is equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy or being abducted by aliens - even though theologans like to create various sometimes well articulated red herrings and straw men.

---

UNLEASH THE ATHIESTS!!!

I love that line, courtesy of our good friend Trollgirl/Laz.

I'm curious to see Religulous. We'll probably rent it at some point, but I never expect much from movies like this. Bill Mahar is about as capable as presenting a documentary as Micheal Moore is. Still, I'm curious as to what this movie has to say.

RGA, I really want to watch that You Tube vid. But at 37 minutes it's not something that I can do at work. I'll have to try to find a half hour to put aside at home for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

...

As a documentary, it fails. This film doesn't make anyone any smarter, in that most religious people familiar with Maher are going to avoid this film like the plague. For those of us who find this topic fascinating, it spins its wheels. Much of what's in this film can be discovered on the web, so as a form of entertainment, its somewhat redundant to those of us who've yahooed or googled this stuff years ago. He touches upon the tenants of a few religions, but only long enough for a sound bite. Everything sounds like a setup for a punchline. But even as a comedy it fails, because some of his vitriol is misplaced, and you wind feeling sorry for some of his interviewees. He does bring up some interesting points, but not enough of them. There's a few chuckle worthy moments, but Maher seems to want to make his subjects look awkward, and this comedic device fizzles after the first few times we see it. As a monument to Bill Maher's disdain for all things not Bill Maher, I suppose it works, provided you don't get his cable show, because that too, will make this film redundant.
...

FWIW: if he seems to reserve most of his venom for Christianity, take it with a grain of salt - he obviously got the Rushdie memo. :smilewinkgrin:

---

3LB, great review. Thanks to it, I'll drop Religulous down a few positions on my Zip.ca list. Nevertheless anything that makes fun of religion can't be all bad. Sarcasms works for me too in this context.

Reglion might be acceptable as a personal delusion, but when it comes to politics it is a great deal of what's wrong with the world.

What a shame… When this movie came out, I really thought that Maher had really, actually located the pulse to this oh so sensitive matter and had proceeded to address it head on. Too bad that Maher had to, instead, use the movie as a platform for his grandstanding and preening; too bad that serious-minded people of deep feeling and great intellect were reduced to objects of ridicule and derision; too bad that movie watchers will laugh the occasional uncomfortable laugh of the smug and not be provoked to actually think….

I, like you all, am not a religious person and prefer to take a spiritual path that proceeds from neither ritual nor creed; but that does not prevent me from having great respect for truly intelligent and well-meaning persons who have taken up a lifestyle that espouses such things. I’ll not lie and say that I am wholly tolerant and that I never make jokes regarding things religious, but I am cognizant of the fact that good-natured kidding and ridicule are two different things. (It sounds as though) in this movie, Maher’s usual well-liked kidding banter slipped, betraying his intent to foist his own agenda—his own religion if you prefer. Pity.

We can say all we want about religious intolerance and the history of bloodshed and violence perpetrated “in the name of God”, but I think such dialog misses the point that religion is simply a codified way of expressing one’s beliefs with people who share a similar point of view. While religion has become a very organized thing in and of itself, working its way into the fabric of our lives with intrusive urgency, I would like to propose that religious things, in true form and essence, could be distilled to matters of faith, not zeal.

Some years ago, I was listening to a Bishop, who told the story of St. Thomas. While the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are held up as the true accounts of Christ and His legacy, the story of St. Thomas is worth considering. Thomas' account is noteworthy not because he believed in Jesus and that He had ascended to God, but because he (Thomas) asked for proof that He did so. If you are He, Thomas said, show me your wounds.

In this, Thomas embodied a deeper faith than that that embraces tenets and credos full on. The story of Thomas shows that faith and religion are, in fact, intellectual and emanate from considered and intense searching. I suspect that any religion in its true form, without all the trappings of the "Divine" can be distilled to these fundamental "Human" beginnings. To mock these things without considered commentary on their own, considerable merit, is condescending and insulting not only to upholders of faith, but to even those of us who view such things with wary—and maybe humorous—skepticism and disdain.

Both Maher and Michael Moore are narcissistic, but Moore plays dumb a lot to lure the interviewee into saying something stupid, or at least more than they wanted to say, while Maher is confrontational and can't wait to jump on something someone says. Moore will let people talk themselves into a corner where Mahler immediately puts people on the defensive. Its harder to feel sorry for the people in a Michael Moore interview.

3LB, good analysis on the Maher-Moore differences. Never thought of it that way. I happen to like any movie/show that brings a good deal of humor, and both Maher and Moore do that in spades. Maher's sparring with Coulter is priceless and so is Moore's clip of Bush talking about Terrorism before taking that swing. Different styles but good laughs.

I had a lot of hopes for Religulous, even if I'm still having trouble pronouncing it. I'll still rent it, though, but I think W is going to come first. Josh Brolin is supposed to be great in it and he was pretty good in NCFOM, so it can't be that bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Reglion might be acceptable as a personal delusion, but when it comes to politics it is a great deal of what's wrong with the world.

---

Amen, hallelujah! Feanor sums up my exact fealings in one succinct but profound statement.

RR6 (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)

I have no reservations about seeing that religion and politics are very possibly opposite sides of the same coin...I just think that sometimes people knock other folks' faith without giving credit to the person for their rationale for doing so. Even if it is miguided, backasswards and amoral!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auricauricle

I would like to propose that religious things, in true form and essence, could be distilled to matters of faith, not zeal.

---

That'd be great if you could swing it...but you'd have to kill a whole lot of people first...

just kidding of course, but there is a reason religion isn't perfect...its run by greedy control freaks.

Hey if you wanna get rich, there are few better ways to do it. Just ask Jim Baker, Tammy Faye, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Jim Jones and Osama Bin Laden all about it....

Wait a dern minute....Did I say Osama Bi....? What's wrong with me??

RGA, I really want to watch that You Tube vid. But at 37 minutes it's not something that I can do at work. I'll have to try to find a half hour to put aside at home for it.

Part two is an 1 hour and 10 minutes. It's well worth watching especially when the Liberty University folks start asking questions. The bit where that university is revealed to have 3000 year old dinosaur bones and Dawkins' reply is rather hilarious.

Thing I wanna know is, is it possible to come up with a religion without the prophet? Can we come up with a way of oraganizing ourselves around a body of faith without a human or other vehicle? Oh, that's spirituality. Never mind....

Faith is the whole problem in a nutshell. There is no proof at all of the major writings and dogma of any religion. One is told to accept all on faith. That in itself disproves the basis of Christianity and all other religions.

Could you imagine if we were asked to accept all scientific discoveries as a matter of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadRunner6

Could you imagine if we were asked to accept all scientific discoveries as a matter of faith.

---

...isn't that what intelligent design is all about? Or was it the primary mover? No wait, was it that than which nothing greater can be thought? ...I don't know what to believe anymore.

You may all worship me.

Yeah but don't you worship cats? That would put us pretty low on the hierarchy.

I often watch Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO for the political analysis and "new rules" is a funny bit, but I've often turned the channel when he starts his anti-religion rants because they're full of hatred. I think he can make the same points in a more civil manner. When he goes into his anti-religious rants, he's as zealous as those he criticizes. He seems to take it personally rather than methodically exposing idiocy, hypocrisy, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightflier

Yeah but don't you worship cats? That would put us pretty low on the hierarchy.

---

I also worship ferrets and guinea pigs. :out:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auricauricle

Thing I wanna know is, is it possible to come up with a religion without the prophet? Can we come up with a way of oraganizing ourselves around a body of faith without a human or other vehicle? Oh, that's spirituality. Never mind....

---

Faith? The only thing I believe in is skepticism. :prrr:

Heh heh heh....You wanna toga with that, Socrates?

If you're an atheist then it's sometimes not to be argumentative because you are discussing with people who may be bright but have decided to compartmentalize their brain on the matter. And then it is said we must be more respectful of their faith. But their faith is dangerous whether they know it or not.

There are good people and bad people of any religion or non religion. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.

Usually their arguments turn into red herrings like Stalin was an atheist or that atheists ar too mean to religious people. A defense of that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huEMV...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

If you're an atheist then it's sometimes not to be argumentative because you are discussing with people who may be bright but have decided to compartmentalize their brain on the matter. And then it is said we must be more respectful of their faith. But their faith is dangerous whether they know it or not.
...

---

... is that religous faith seems so obviously ridiculous: unsupported by evidence, dogmatic, delusional, intolerant, hypocritical, and often self-contradictory. How do you have patience with this? How do you not mock it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

... is that religous faith seems so obviously ridiculous: unsupported by evidence, dogmatic, delusional, intolerant, hypocritical, and often self-contradictory. How do you have patience with this? How do you not mock it?

---

Very well said.

Even science has its limitations. While every religion has an origin story or a Genesis if you will, science's origin story is no less a leap of faith, based on study and what few facts we have, but faith nonetheless. Genesis suggests a higher being spoke and "it was so" regarding creation, science gives us the Big Bang Theory, which also suggests 'something from nothing'. Evolution works on many levels explaining the origins of things, until you explain just how perfectly simple cells that could reproduce independantly of anything decided to 'become' male and female, for some reason, and still evolve at the same rate so as to propigate the wide variety of sepcies we have now, perfectly. Science wants us to believe in both 'random' and 'selection' with regards to life. It could make sense, but it is at times, convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

There are good people and bad people of any religion or non religion. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.

---

Why as an atheist do you feel that you must "confront" people that have religious faith? If you don't want to belive then don't.

I'm religious, go to church. I am not however preachy, or attempt to convert those that belive other paths, or that don't belive at all.

But to say that "religion" is the reason that good people do bad things? Well that's just ignorant and no more of a red herring than arguements that the religious make about atheists.

Bad people do bad things. Good people do bad things. Have bad things been done in the name of religion? Sure. Have good things been done in the name of religion? Sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

Even science has its limitations. While every religion has an origin story or a Genesis if you will, science's origin story is no less a leap of faith, based on study and what few facts we have, but faith nonetheless. Genesis suggests a higher being spoke and "it was so" regarding creation, science gives us the Big Bang Theory, which also suggests 'something from nothing'. ...

---

No. Science -- as practiced by good scientists -- is the antithesis of faith. You develop a thesis based on observed, documented, and measured phenomenon. Then you try to destroy that theory through objective and controlled experimentations. This is most unlike religious faith in general.

(In the past much more than today apparently, it was common of various theological schools to debate -- in an armchair sort of way -- various theological hypotheses, usually constrained by very rigid "givens" about the character of God, etc. Even this narrow, scholastic questioning is clearly abandoned by e.g. by Fundamentalists who seem to prefer the pronouncements of self-proclaimed authorities.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

...
Evolution works on many levels explaining the origins of things, until you explain just how perfectly simple cells that could reproduce independantly of anything decided to 'become' male and female, for some reason, and still evolve at the same rate so as to propigate the wide variety of sepcies we have now, perfectly. Science wants us to believe in both 'random' and 'selection' with regards to life. It could make sense, but it is at times, convenient.

---

Evolution requires random change, disproportionate survival of some of those changes, and propogation of the surviving changes through some mechanism, not necessarily biological.

Again, good science doesn't want us to believe anything. It proposes hypotheses or theories and wants us to pick holes in them. The strong theories survive and the weak perish: thus theories evolve and propogate.

I too am a man of faith like GroundBeef, and not by any means a prostelatizer. I was raised a Roman Catholic, but left the church in my late teens, and remained at first agnostic, then full-fledged atheistic until a little over 3 years ago when I joined the Lutheran Church. I chose the Lutheran faith because I admired Luther's intentions which were not to create a church of his own, but to reform a truly corrupt Catholic Church at the time. To me, the Lutheran faith is very much "Catholic Lite."

I still don't accept many church teachings, and flatly refuse to believe in creationism, as some in my faith would have me do. I also detest and despise Bill Maher and every hair on his body, and thus have no interest whatsoever in seeing "Religulous." May I suggest a more literate film condemning many anti-semitic actions of the Catholic Church, and the invasion of ultra right-wing evangelical "mega-churches' into our military, and that is "Constantine's Sword."

While debate is certainly something many people feel is a worthwhile pursuit, especially in the US where this has grown out of our own revolutionary war and subsequent constitution, we shouldn't forget that for many people that isn't the case. In many faiths, debate, questioning, or even depicting god and religion is blasphemous. In Islam, questioning god and faith is completely unacceptable, it is a religion of complete submission to the will of god. Confucianism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism have many of the same underlying themes and consider life as a period of acceptance and submission. This is a large part of the misunderstanding between East and West. We should also not forget that Western Christianity is not the belief of the vast majority of the world, that it is actually in decline, and that the fastest growing faith is Islam. Maybe we should step back and realize that our way is not the only way, even if it seems so logically better to us.

Ironically, submission is also well ingrained in the Christian faith. Not only is this what today's fundamentalists, literalists, and evangelists believe very strongly in, but it is the foundation with which the Catholic church sought to suppress protestantism and related populist movements throughout its checkered history. Even here in our own brief 200 year American-Western history, we've struggled with this dichotomy which is in essence a refutation of most of our cultural values related to individualism, wealth-building, and independence. At the risk of too much hyperbole, one could even argue that this is at the crux of a fundamental debate we have had in our whole 8000 years of human civilization. Faith is submission. It can't be measured or explained in scientific terms. It just is. More importantly it isn't going away. Many people believe it is ingrained into our genetic make-up, and maybe there is a reason for that too.

One theory that is ironically in line with most popular religions as well as evolution, holds that the big bang is one of many, perhaps an infinite number of bangs, a universe endlessly expanding and contracting, if you will. The idea is that before the last bang, there was a civilization much like ours that had discovered that it would also be destroyed at some point. Before this could happen, they designed something imprinted at the molecular level that would survive the almost infinite contraction of the bang and eventually engender a new form of life on the other side. We may be just one of an infinite number of civilizations that one day will have to design the same imprint to 'survive' the inevitable bang and give something lasting to the next civilization. Maybe those who came before us are what we refer to unknowingly, as 'god,' and they called their progenitors 'god.' In this light it no longer matters how far back this goes and we may be better off just accepting it; that is, submitting to it. Perhaps Thomas Acquinas' attempt to define, categorize, and measure the primary mover was futile. After all, the only thing that can pass through this bang, "the eye of the needle" so to speak, is something we currently do not have the capacity to understand, and in fact may not need to be understood to actually pass through. At least until Neo can find a way to survive along with the Matrix, LOL.

In all seriousness, if this is indeed how the pieces fit together, then faith may be the most precious vestigial trace of who we are and what we need to do in this life. Maybe the place to start is with some compassion for others, animals, plants, and this fragile little rock we call Earth. Considering how much we do know about genetic imprinting and considering how many years it took us to get here, we may actually be pretty close to that next bang.

emaidel, with nothing but respect for your decision to return to the church, do you mind if I ask…was there a specific incident in your life that led you back? You needn’t go into details if there was.

I was raised in a somewhat religious household but came to my own atheist conclusions at a very young age. I have known many people who have once believed in religion and later denounced it. But I have met few atheists who have turned to religion. And those few that I have met had a tragedy or situation in their lives that they were trying to make sense of. Somehow it seemed that believing in god and some “higher purpose” made otherwise random tragedies more sensible.

If you ask me, and apparently you do since I am still allowed to post here, the difference between faith and science is a matter that pertains to methodology. As Feaner correctly asserted, Science uses observable and tactile (empirical) data to draw inferences about phenomena. Faith, on the other hand, is born from considered appraisal of the metaphysical which includes one’s appreciation of the Transcendant. Although many religious people have experienced and experience these things by way of their sense organs, their interpretation includes supposition of notions that cannot be quantified or operationally described. Critics of science assert that even that knowledge base is fraught with uncertainty and involves just as many “useful fictions”, but for the sake of this discussion I hope to simplify things to the sensory and the extrasensory, the physical and the metaphysical.

Our literature and folklore describe man’s search for knowledge in many fables and parables. Of all things that make us human, I think that the quest for knowledge is fundamental to the human experience. I am a sentimentalist, and although I am a man of science, I am also a man who wonders about things. I have not infrequently walked outside to peer out and into the starry night and put aside the knowledge of books that has told me of the swirling gases and dust. I have also gazed at these beautiful objects with awe and wonder. Does this make me less than a scientist?

I reckon that early man must have felt this sense of wonder too, when he ventured out of his cave and saw the sun rise. This is the sentimentalist in me talking, I know that, but I get some notion that some glorious thing stirred deep within that cave-man’s soul that told him that his little life was only part of a bigger Something. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur Clarke describes the stirring of Moon Watcher, sentinel of the hominid clan whose senses picked up on this Something. In the novel and movie, this Something led him to the monolith, and so to the moon and Jupiter and Beyond….

Yet Man just couldn’t be satisfied with his sentiment, for as a rational and reasoning creature, Man knew there had to be More out there than monoliths and strange music. We are sensual creatures and are endowed with organs that allow us to appraise the world not only in emotional terms but also in languages informed by smell, sight, touch, hearing and taste. As we became aware of our facility to use these faculties, our metaphors were enriched. As these metaphors became similes and as similes became knowledge, we learned to question ourselves.

It has been noted that the birth of science heralded the Birth of Man, and so the separation of Man and God. In our Holy Books, the Birth of Reason is described just as sadly. In the Bible, the rift is described in the story (or account) of Adam and Eve, who turned their backs to unquestioning faith as they faced audacious self-affirmation. The serpent is described as a loathesome creature whose guile lured Eve towards the tree of knowledge. While the bite of the apple may be described as a fall from grace, it marked Man’s awakening (remember how Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened?) and break from blissful ignorance into the tortured path of knowledge and, eventually, wisdom. So was that serpent so loathesome, or was it an agent of the Divine? Who knows....?

We can spend a lot of time, here and elsewhere, discussing these things and more, but I think it is important to remember that science and religion are, in fact, different sides of the same coin. Both bodies of work may differ in language, machinery and metaphor, but when it comes down to it both are concerned with the same thing, which is figuring out who we are and where we’re all going. Everything else is, as a friend of mine used to say, just window dressing.

I like to think there’s a way that religion and science can be reconciled, but I haven’t figured it out yet. Both religion and science embody great believers and fervent upholders of the faith. This faith, whether in an Almighty God that sees all, knows all and loves all or in Rationality that registers all, measures all and knows a little more, seems to pretty much cover the same territory. As far as the bloodshed and the prejudice and the pain, it’s all just pride.

Just a few thoughts from an old fool, Oh Best Beloved…..

The only thing I'm sure of when it comes to religion is that no one has the answer. The Bible is a good book and a marvelous, philosophical guide, but the version we have is a highly edited, agendized version of the original text. To take it literally is foolhardy and to a degree, irresponsible. The Bible is often referenced for things that aren't even in the book. Hell is mentioned seldomly, and rare is any references to homosexuallity, yet many christians are sure that homosexuals are hell bound, and so is anyone else who doesn't follow strict dogma.








If anyone thinks I'm stirring the pot by posting disparaging things about both sides...I am:D

Disparage away, heathen! I like a spicy stew!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auricauricle

Disparage away, heathen! I like a spicy stew!

---

I just hope the thread isn't yanked like so many others.

The movie, for me, wasn't all I hoped it would be, but I wouldn't suggeste others not watch it. Too much time was spent on christianity while other religions were barely touched. There was some food for thought though, like some of the unspoken tenants of Mormonism and Scientology.

Maher did make some funny comments about certain aspects of prophetizing, in which God bestows knowledge to one individual. "If the message was so important, why not impart it to everyone? Why just one guy?" Especially since we (humanity) have such a history bad treatment towards prophets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

I just hope the thread isn't yanked like so many others.

---

Which means ya gotta give me a kick under the table when I start up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

emaidel, with nothing but respect for your decision to return to the church, do you mind if I ask…was there a specific incident in your life that led you back? You needn’t go into details if there was.

.

---

I am a compulsive gambler. I became addicted to gambling while living in Colorado, being retired, and having a bunch of casinos only an hour's drive from my house. Upon realizing my addiction, and the mess it caused, I joined Gamblers Anonymous. Part of the GA program (which is based on the highly successful AA program) is a belief in a "Higher Power."

At first I thought the program couldn't work for me, as I didn't believe in any such thing, but then realized that a Higher Power could be more than just God, or a god, but even the members of the various rooms I attended meetings in. Then I met my new nextdoor neighbor who was a Lutheran minister. Not only was this person a "man of God," but one of the nicest, smartest and funniest people I'd ever met in my life. After spending time with him, and attending a few services he conducted, I joined the Lutheran Church.

So, in a way, you could say that a gambling addiction brought me back to the fold. At least something good came out of such reckless and irresponsible behavior. It also helped that the person who lead the path back to a church was such an intelligent man, and not one who merely quotes scripture and believes that "if the Bible says it's so, then it is so," a concept I still bitterly disagree with.

I think that is the take-home in all of this, em. When you get down to the fundamentals, religion, philosophy, spirituality, psychology and all distill to that essential Search for Meaning. Unfortunately, many of us--myself included--have to take a pretty hard road to come to that realization. If we have sufficient opportunity to reflect, on the other hand, we can rebuild ourlives into something richer and healthier. Like I was saying about Thomas: Faith is not a matter of crossing your fingers and agreeing to believe in the supernatural. It is a commitment, involving lots and lots of soul searching and mental effort to believe in something richer, deeper....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emaidel

I am a compulsive gambler...

---

Thanks for sharing that. I'm glad that you were able to bring your addiction into focus and overcome it. I have cousin who had a similar experience (return to religion and spirituality) when she joined AA.

While I, personally, believe that the only high power is the power that comes from within. I'm glad when I hear of people using their religious beliefs to better their own lives and the lives of others. Those are important values and the motivation for holding those values dear shouldn't matter.

nec dubitamus multa esse quae et nos praeterierint; homines enim sumus et occupati officiis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

nec dubitamus multa esse quae et nos praeterierint; homines enim sumus et occupati officiis.

---

There he goes, speaking in tongues again.