On Faith - A new leaf?

I've noticed a few trends in myself. 1. I'm in a rut. 2. I don't write about faith. 3. I focus on things that don't matter in the long run. 4. Writing helps.

So I'm going to write things on this blog. No promises. No delusions of grandeur, but I hope it helps me and others.
Here's my thought of the moment, which began as a joke:

Those who pray to God and those who pray to Allah are trying to connect with the same entity. They just think He has a different e-mail address. Other faiths try to connect with entirely different protocols, but I think the body of their message is very similar.

America is religiously tolerant

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/24religion.html?ex=1371960000&en=8eb65184ecce8ef8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Great study by Pew. It looks like Bill Maher and Ben Stein may be wasting their time trying to uncover our conflicts. Americans don't want to fight each other over religion, much less condemn one another.
I say we are destroying destructive religion, one step at a time. One in five atheists believes in God. That's positive. 70% of people who have a denomination believe that theirs is not the only path to salvation. Most everybody wants everyone else to be saved. Doesn't that make them better people? American values are independent of our religions, deeper, and, I would say, better.

What inquisition?

Apparently, the Catholic church downplayed to death count due to inquisition while they asked to be forgiven for it. http://after-words.org/grim/mtarchives/2004/06/Jun161425.shtml
According to skeptics, religious violence has led to many millions of murders, not just through Christians or inquisition, in the past millennium. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JAHPoliticsDeathToll.html
How then am I to reconcile the church's apology, the fact of the killings, Christians' destruction of sacrificial "pagan" beliefs around the world, skeptics' accusations about religion as a source of violence, and the assertions of other Christians I know personally that none of them would support such actions? How then, also, am I to handle the remains of my pagan heritage, destroyed as it were by evangelism? Should I claim the Catholic supplanters' faith, the older beliefs, both, or neither? Which path would gain me the richness of an established tradition which will live on for generations after me? Sometimes we cannot learn answers, only questions. The rest is up to us. I sure wish I had a narrative to guide me, but the clearest story in the Bible is actually composed of four viewpoints, and the ancient narratives of my culture appear to be lost.
I guess I should love each person, as Jesus would do. Then, I should judge their actions as closely as I can to how God would. It comes down to credibility, after all. We shall know them by their fruit, not what they say or what they believe. A Satanist who harms no one is a good person. A Christian who engineers the destruction of others is evil. My beliefs do not change. Like a skeptic, I say that I have a higher standard of morality than Christians. Knowing skeptics, I believe I am more truthful than they.

Atheism, the religion

Atheists may claim they have no religion, aren't religious, don't believe in God. The first two claims are called into question when atheists try to spread their beliefs in a manner very similar to some evangelical Christians. The "truth," available to you free. If you say this 'prayer,' your life will change for hte better.
Even if I believed that Jesus' story was a myth, and I've examined quite a bit of evidence against that, I still think following his teachings would do a lot more for individuals and societies than joining the "I don't believe in God" club.
http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/
I didn't watch their "critically acclaimed" documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." I did watch their trailer. They take the religious right, the most extreme among them such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and they don't mention any of the good done by Christians in the world. I don't like the religious right either, and I prayed for Jerry Falwell's sould because I worry what God thinks of him. I am a Christian and I don't believe in hating everyone for God, nor do I believe in a Rapture iwhtin the next 50 years.
Then they examine the "hero story" and imply that the Jesus myth is just like every other myth about virgin birth and resurrection and ascendance into Heaven. That's their opinion, since there is no strong proof. The Bible is printed more than any other book, and before printing it was copied or memorized more than any other book. It's a little harder to find copies of these supposed texts which Christians plagiarized. No one wanted to keep them, apparently. Maybe it's because the Bible offered them good news and a better life, something no other myth did.
A persecuted minority of Christians, formed from a bitter minority of Jews in the Roman Empire, probably didn't have the power to establish a religion that didn't work or wasn't original. there were plenty of religions at that time, even though there are many fewer now.
I looked up the "documentary" on Wikipedia. It didn't express opinions about the film so I'm not getting any from them. Let's just talk facts: everyone interviewed in the film, except one, has written something claiming Jesus is a myth. That's called card-stacking in the world of public relations. It's a sign of propaganda. The other one interviewed: a Christian accuses the documenter of misrepresenting himself, and walks out.
It's awful easy to make something look true when you only ask people who already believe it, and ignore those who believe differently. Please people, relieve yourselves of the 'Jesus is a myth' myth.

Separation of church and state and the unavoidable adherence of law to religion

Church-state separation is entirely possible and healthy. State-religion separation is definitively impossible and utterly unthinkable. Your laws are going to have to come from some belief system(s) and or philosophy. The laws in this country came from progressive Christians in the 18th century.
The laws today come from a number of faiths and philosophies that have asserted themselves into our laws over the years. Atheism is a religious philosophy, even if it is is not a religion per se. A number of culturally commonplace principles now shape our laws.
If the law favored no religion, as it definitely favored progressive Christian religions in the beginning, it would have an even smaller domain. the law must say something is wrong and something is right. Religions, if you try to include all of them, will disagree on virtually every topic. (This includes faiths within "world" religions" like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.)
If you want laws at all, you have to choose. There are some general things, like the violent and sexual crime, where virtually all religions agree in spirit. If you want to include all philosophies, you can at least have those laws. Beyond that, laws addressing worship and prayer will quickly offend someone. That's not including the possibility that someone will simply offend another by practicing a different faith.
Now which religion or philosophy should you favor or choose? That answer is hard to find, because the 11,000 religions of the world each claim to be THE ONE. How many are right? All, most, just one, or none? That belief is a meta-religion itself. And after you answer that question, do the ones you define as wrong or questionable deserve the right to believe anyway? Maybe they do, so long as they don't harm or offend anyone else.
The harm principle and the principle of offending others. That's contemporary social problems in a nutshell. Then you add in the further complications of who is a person who can be harmed, how they can be harmed and how to protect them from harm. Hence, America. The United States of America, since those in South and Central America are also Americans and may be offended that we claim to be the only nationality of the continents.

Sectarian violence - The dumbest interpretation of religion … ever

72 were martyred in the initial Sunni-Shia struggle. How do you elevate them for sacrificing themselves in conflict with the "enemy" and not hold it against the faction who killed them? How can you praise the death of your friends and not dwell upon the murderers? Christianity, in some sects, has found an answer.
Historically, there was enmity between Jews and Christians. The operative word is deicide. At some point, most Christians and eventually the Catholic church grew tired of scapegoating Jewish populations. They accepted that it was Christ's place to die, or else he could not be sacrificed to appease God for the sins of man. One death put an end to the need for killing. Maybe the Shia and Sunni should learn from that, and stop fighting over who killed Hussein way-back-when.
If you look at the geographic distribution of Muslims, Shia is obviously the unpopular opinion. They maintain majority in only a couple countries, Iran and Iraq, as well as numerous scattered communities. Shia Muslims are to Sunnis as Jews are to Christians: "We're related, but God favored us over you. Therefore, you don't deserve your rights."
That's the same story behind all supremacy. The people in control find an explanation for their supremacy, not in history, culture or chance, but in unfounded divine intervention. It must be the color of my skin or the way I vote or the way I pray or the fact that my genitals are on the outside that makes me better than you. I thank God every day for social scientists which disrupt these excuses for violence and hegemony.
Speaking of God, I do believe that when He sent His Son, the message was "care for the least of these." Scapegoating the minority groups is the exact opposite of his teachings. Christians, if you want to be better than the other 10,000 religions in the world, remember that.

How I think supernatural creatures gained identities

I think it was through writing, developed in Mesopotamia, that angels and demons, gods and goddesses became something. The animistic and shamanistic spirits were in many belief systems. It was through language that the identities of these spirits developed into tangible individuals. It was also through reading and writing that Persian angels and demons became Judeo-Christian angels and demons. Persian, or Zoroastrian, spirits probably had their roots in shamanistic or animistic cultures.
These cultures may have conceived such spirits, and their influence over man, to explain things and give them more control over their world. A world that was inexplicable without science, and people inexplicable without psychology.
Once, shamans or animists passed on their knowledge of the spirit world. With writing, shamans became prophets. It is indeed amazing that the Old and New Testament hang together as well as they do, being written by so many prophets and priests over so many centuries.

The origin, and fate, of demons

Did the angels and demons of Zoroastrianism, Persian religious magic, become our more modern concepts of such? Why does it seem Zoroastrianism is demonology light, Judeo-Christianity is demonology darker, and Satanism is demonology black? It's like Judeo-Christians worked so hard to personify evil, in its king the devil and in its finites applications through his minions, that old Zoroastrian eschatology became perverted, in effect creating Satanism.
I am also struck with the fact that my worldview is somewhat similar to Zoroastrianism, though I am nominally a Christian. Is it because of my background in comparative religion, and Zoroastrianism is a religion which can encompass all deities? Is it my holistic explanation for things, allowing polytheism (the myriad demons and angels and/or all your pagan gods) and monotheism (the one uncreated Ahura Mazda) at the same time?
Personally, I wish Christianity hadn't invented Satanism, as it often seems it did. Then again, atrocity is nothing new; the Christians did not invent that. Thankfully, most of the evil blood rites of previous religions have faded from memory. There are no Celts burning the bodies of their enemies, and no Mayans sacrificing prisoners to dark gods, I think. Satanists are just the kind of people who want that sort of control, objectifying other human beings. They are not a whole lot different from racial supremacists, slavers, chauvinists, and those who fund prostitution/pornography. These are all people who reduce others' humanity for their own pleasure and/or gain. Yes, these are the vampires who walk among us. They feed on the blood of others, be it physical or spiritual.
And yes Dan, religious zealots are vampires too. They want to consider some other people less than human based upon religion. Yes, they may not be doing so to fulfill their own selfish desires. I do not believe that evil has limits. Lawful evil? Please. Someone who is willing to brand millions of people Muslims, to justify taking their oil, or Jews, to justify taking their wealth, seems to have ulterior motives.
Well, I've come full circle. I used to believe religion was false, and now I'm beginning to again. I still believe that Jesus Christ offers us the best hope for a peaceful future, provided that people quit taking things out of context, stop planning for the Apocalypse, stop religious violence, and start treating each other like their sins are forgiven.
We must all personify God's love and desire to save each one of us. Each human being is valuable to God, and should be to each of us as well.
We're brought once again, through the above musings and through today's news of a woman found guilty of dismembering a lover with a chain saw, to the question: Why is is evil in the world? Who is responsible? If humans can't fix it, stop it, or remedy it, who do we turn to? The religions of the world seem to agree: evil is in the world because a higher power wants it to be here. They also agree that people are responsible, until they repent or are exorcised or perform the appropriate ritual, for the evil they commit. There seems to be agreement that the powers of evil are strong, but man has free will, and the powers of good are stronger. In that, there is hope. If your religion is an eschatological one, you can believe than one day evil will be finished. Until then, we must live here and do what we can to create a preview of that perfect world.

Devil worship in roleplaying games

I did a lot of reading today on Dungeons and Dragons and its alleged causal relationship to Satanism. I think the evidence is questionable, and probably pales in comparison to violence stemming from religious zealotry.
Now, I would offer up World of Darkness games as an alternative to D&D. It has a stronger focus on morality, and those who are immoral are punished. Albeit, they are punished in this life with no mention of a Judeo-Christian afterlife.
Faith is also a strong force in the game. Within the Hunters Hunted and Hunter the Reckoning, mortals have the power to reveal, fight, slow and destroy supernatural forces with faith. Also, the Huner scenarios seem rather benevolent, ie: the players are defending humans or themselves, fighting dark forces. I like that idea a bunch. So much, I want to lead hunter games and maybe never let my players be vampires or werewolves or even mages. The danger is this: is a player who believes themselves an invincible religious zealot, or a paradise-bound martyr, any better than a selfish sorceror? Maybe, but only when their goals are for the glory of God and the good of mankind.
Also present in HH is some simple magic. Mortal hunters have a few simple psychic and magical abilities. If you think magic is evil, then there is evil there. I don't think magic is inherently evil, though I think it has no power in the real world. In a world where magic were real, it's all about how you use it, and then about how you live with it after it's done.
However, in Masquerade, the Player's Guide, and beyond into the new WoD, vampire magic is all about blood rituals. Sacrificing this and making that. Vampire existence revolves around blood so this should come as no surprise. Still, no matter how many actions I can look at objectively, blood magic seems evil. It seems like Satanism to me. It seems like some ancient, scary pagan ritual. It certainly employs the magic worldview, that the caster can do things God would not do for them Himself. It also gives the character an opportunity to fuel his or her goals with the suffering, death and destruction of others. That's a very scary propositon, and one I hope to avoid delving into.
On a lighter note, I am utterly tired of the D&D bestiaries' focus on demons and hell. Lords of the levels of the underworld based on real demonology scare me. I suppose that's the point, but I really would rather work with some inexplicable or inconceivable horrors, even Lovecraft. Judeo-Christian demons have a stronger possibility, in my mind, of being real. That makes me quite hesitant to throw around their possibly real names during the wee hours of the morning.

Questioners of Christ

Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code), Gnostics old and new, James Cameron (who made Titanic and The Lost Tomb of Jesus), writers of "lost" gospels, some extreme feminists (happy to have Mary Magdalene as a church leader), possibly even Muslims (who claim Jesus was a real human prophet not the son of God), and many amateur historians who work with these questionable materials ...
They all point to the New Testament and say, "This book is a lie that proves my truth."
How can lie prove truth? An how can you use the Bible to support your "truth," if your revelation questions the central message of the Bible itself?
It's a good thing Dan Brown and James Cameron and others make a lot of money. They don't make much sense.

Which religion began the myth they all refer to?

Separating a solution into two problems: I combine the idea of Leviathan, beast of the Deep in Judaism; Tiamat, giant serpent whose body became the sea and sky in Sumerian myth; Elder Gods forecast to return and end humanity in Cthulhu; the endless cycle between Shiva and Vishnu in Hinduism; and the Midgaard Serpent forecast to return for Ragnarok in Norse myth into one comparative religious idea. I feel very gnostic when I say that deep down all of these are ways of expressing that people know what the Big Bang is, and that the resulting expansion of the universe is ultimately finite. Perhaps I just exemplified the failing point of comparative religion in believing that my Hindu science theory of calpas is the correct one, and all others just copies. I think these are also ways of remembering that life has ups and downs, bright days and dark days. I think it says, in my agnostic thinking, that what makes or breaks your day is often beyond your awareness or even comprehension.
Listening to heavy metal and reading mythology after taking Ginkgo Biloba is a mind-expanding experience.

To Those Who Take the Bible as the Perfect Word of God:
To accept your truth, I must deny everything I know. I must say that my accomplishments which make myself and others happy and which make the world a better place are worthless. I must become nothing to be anything to you. I cannot conceive of a transcendant love which would wish that loved ones are nothing. You are the anti-example of Christ's love.
Through doubting, questioning, and discovering great men of faith became more faithful and influenced Christians and others to this day. Why then should I deny my questions and simply accept things at face value?
The Bible is not the Word of God, unless I believe it is. There is no evidence that it is, neither does that matter to me in my faith. The Word is not the Truth. The Truth transcends the Word.
If I am to trust the Book and not the words of men, shut up. Everything you say must be a lesser version of the Truth if I believe you at that point.