The Fifth Horse(wo)man of Atheism has found Jesus

[RankStranger]

Greetings brothers and sisters in Christ.  And Infidels.

 

It's been all over the news lately (or at least all over my own algorithms).  

 

https://www.premierchristianity.com/apologetics/from-islam-to-atheism-to-christianity-the-unlikely-conversion-of-ayaan-hirsi-ali/16741.article

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/longtime-atheist-former-muslim-ayaan-hirsi-ali-reveals-now-christian

 

https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/

 

 

 

 

Any thoughts?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Any thoughts?

We already know some athiests have week minds against the fables contained in the bible. Prime example. @RankStranger

 

So what? 

[TABA]

I’ve seen a lot of coverage of  Ayaan’s conversion to Christianity.   I’ve been following her story for years and she became quite a hero to me and many others.  She reconverted from Islam and was fearless in denouncing radical Islam in particular.  She’s been subject to serious death threats, in much the same way as Salman Rushdie has been.  She has also been outspoken against the illiberal left in the West, including the types who condemn Christian theocracy but give a pass to the Muslim version.  
 

I still regard her very highly but I admit I am very disappointed by her conversion to Christianity.  As far as I can tell, she hasn’t concluded that Christianity is literally true, that she believes Jesus lives and is divine, or any of that.  Quite simply she believes that those who stand for liberal values, for individual freedom etc., cannot prevail without some kind of unifying cultural or tribal banner to rally around, and she has concluded that Christianity fits the bill.   

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TABA said:

I’ve seen a lot of coverage of  Ayaan’s conversion to Christianity.   I’ve been following her story for years and she became quite a hero to me and many others.  She reconverted from Islam and was fearless in denouncing radical Islam in particular.  She’s been subject to serious death threats, in much the same way as Salman Rushdie has been.  She has also been outspoken against the illiberal left in the West, including the types who condemn Christian theocracy but give a pass to the Muslim version.  
 

I still regard her very highly but I admit I am very disappointed by her conversion to Christianity.  As far as I can tell, she hasn’t concluded that Christianity is literally true, that she believes Jesus lives and is divine, or any of that.  Quite simply she believes that those who stand for liberal values, for individual freedom etc., cannot prevail without some kind of unifying cultural or tribal banner to rally around, and she has concluded that Christianity fits the bill.   

 

So, if the definition of a true Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the blood sacrifice who atones for their sins, then she isn't a Christian.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

So we're right back to Plato's Noble Lie?

[RankStranger]

My return to Christianity preceded hers by the better part of a year.  I have my own personal experience which isn't up for debate.  But even before hearing about Aayan Hirsi Ali's conversion, I'd been thinking along similar lines to what she describes.  

 

For me as a human (and IMO for us as a society), the current secular/atheist world view is not just lacking... it's culturally and spiritually desolate.

In my experience, to be a proper secular atheist, one has to essentially cut themselves off from their own cultural heritage.  As an X-Christian, I had disavowed the world view of essentially all my ancestors for a thousand years or so.  And of course church- a central institution of our society for centuries.  As an atheist, I was essentially claiming to be logically and/or morally superior to ALL who came before.  And that just isn't the case. 

 

Atheism doesn't exactly require- but typically leads to- a rejection of the sacred.  Even as a concept.  What can be sacred in a Godless world where we're all just self-interested chimps competing with other godless self-interested chimps?  Prior to praying to Jesus and meaning it last year, I had neither felt, nor acknowledged, nor understood the sacred... for 30+ years.  IMO that's a human need.

 

Atheism doesn't exactly require- but typically leads to- a rejection of collective ritual.  Including but not limited to gathering, singing, praying, worship, affirmations of shared values, etc.  All of which are in some form staples of most human societies for most of human history.  Atheism/secularism offers very little to replace these apparently basic human needs.  And IMO these are in fact needs. 

 

 

 

Religious piety- annoying as it can be at times- is also a human need IMO (some need it more than others).  Within Christianity that's no problem of course... it's part of the culture.  But in our Godless secular culture... well, people find other means to express their piety.  Means that IMO demonstrate the cultural/spiritual desolation of said Godless secular culture.

 

For example:  Vegans.  Now don't get me wrong- I don't care what people do or don't eat.  It's not my business.  But I think we've all encountered their preach piety, on the basis that meat is unnecessary cruelty.  Expressing their superior morality compared to... basically all humans who came before.  Sound familiar?  This sort of navel-gazing self-piety is IMO much the same impulse as Christian Piety, but with very little behind it in terms of culture, history, or shared values.  

 

Another example:  Wokeys.  Now don't get me wrong- we're all on board with not being racist and not hating the gays.  But it's been taken to silly pious extremes of language-policing, cancel-culture, weaponized bureaucracies, speech codes, mandatory statements of faith should one desire to work at a college (aka DEI statements).  See Sam Harris's comments on the wokeys if you need further examples.  A pious bunch for sure... grounding their piety in half-baked DEI 'values', supported by laughably poor 'scholarship' from the Grievance Industrial Complex.  Once again, claiming moral virtue above and beyond literally all who came before.  Dismissing vast swaths of our own culture and society as 'dead white men', and therefore illegitimate.  Dismissing nearly all of human history as 'the patriarchy'... and therefore sinful/illegitimate.

 

I find that a lot of people feel this need to be pious, and (more importantly) to display their piety as a form of social status.  Having rejected any shared Christian values... they simply jump to the next best offer.  Wokey-Piety.  Vegan Piety.  Maoist Piety.  All three are damn poor substitutes, and are as crazy as any Pentecostal you'd come across (apologies to any former/current Pentecostals).

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

We already know some athiests have week minds against the fables contained in the bible. Prime example. @RankStranger

 

So what? 

 

Yes, I've found that I'm too 'week' to stand alone and proclaim myself better/smarter than my ancestors, my family, and my cultural heritage.  Whatever in the Bible is provably true or untrue, there's truth there in spirit.  Feel free to sneer at that if you like- I've done the same and plenty of it.  But what you can't do is replace what you've walked away from. 

 

******************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

 

 

 

About 20 years ago I was discussing my lack of belief with a very intelligent, nominally-Christian friend.  He didn't go to church as an adult, but did go as a kid.  He said he couldn't be an Atheist because that leads to moral anarchy.  At the time I dismissed this because (1) I saw little rhyme or reason to Christian morality and (2) 'moral anarchy' didn't sound so bad compared to the fundamentalism I was raised with.  But now I think he had a point.  Our culture today is totally untethered to any sense of shared values.  The very concepts of logic and reason are under attack... dismissed as tools of white supremacy in certain highly influential circles.

 

IMO, all the crazy that you can point to within Christianity... it will all still be there even if you succeed in removing Christianity from the picture.  These very real human needs that are addressed by Christianity will simply find a different outlet with no grounding or respect for history, culture, the individual, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, TABA said:

I’ve seen a lot of coverage of  Ayaan’s conversion to Christianity.   I’ve been following her story for years and she became quite a hero to me and many others.  She reconverted from Islam and was fearless in denouncing radical Islam in particular.  She’s been subject to serious death threats, in much the same way as Salman Rushdie has been.  She has also been outspoken against the illiberal left in the West, including the types who condemn Christian theocracy but give a pass to the Muslim version.  
 

I still regard her very highly but I admit I am very disappointed by her conversion to Christianity.  As far as I can tell, she hasn’t concluded that Christianity is literally true, that she believes Jesus lives and is divine, or any of that.  Quite simply she believes that those who stand for liberal values, for individual freedom etc., cannot prevail without some kind of unifying cultural or tribal banner to rally around, and she has concluded that Christianity fits the bill.   

 

You only know what she's said publically.  You don't know her personal experience, and she's not under any obligation to share it.

 

I haven't gone into the details of my Personal Relationship with Jesus on this site, and I don't really plan to.  I know how it'll be received, and I'm not interested in having that discussion.

[RankStranger]

34 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So, if the definition of a true Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the blood sacrifice who atones for their sins, then she isn't a Christian.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

15 minutes ago, Krowb said:

So we're right back to Plato's Noble Lie?

 

No, we're right back at heathens speculating about someone's personal beliefs.

 

You don't know what you don't know.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

12 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

You don't know what you don't know.

 

This is true, and the honest position is "I don't know" and to refrain from taking a position.  You have chosen a side, just as has the Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Pre-Reform Catholic, Benedictine friars, Franciscan monks, etc . . . . 

 

All these options, many of which are mutually exclusive and promise hellfire and damnation or bad karma.  With so many opinions, and so little evidence, but for "personal experience" I don't see the point.

 

"Personal Experience" I can't fault because I haven't had it, but given how peculiarly inconsistent these experiences are, without one of my own, I don't grant them much weight to move the needle as to my position on the question.

[RankStranger]

15 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

This is true, and the honest position is "I don't know" and to refrain from taking a position.  You have chosen a side, just as has the Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Pre-Reform Catholic, Benedictine friars, Franciscan monks, etc . . . . 

 

All these options, many of which are mutually exclusive and promise hellfire and damnation or bad karma.  With so many opinions, and so little evidence, but for "personal experience" I don't see the point.

 

"Personal Experience" I can't fault because I haven't had it, but given how peculiarly inconsistent these experiences are, without one of my own, I don't grant them much weight to move the needle as to my position on the question.

 

We're kinda on the same page here.  I don't expect one single atheist (or the like) to find my personal experience compelling.  So I'm not bothering ya'll with it.

 

I do find it interesting that she's accepted by believers... and it's non-believers who question whether or not she's a Real Christian(TM).  Seems like a weird critique from people who I'm pretty sure don't believe there's any such thing as a Real Christian(TM).

 

 

[RankStranger]

I just ran across a C.S. Lewis quote that captures some of what I was saying:

 

Quote

Where men are forbidden to honor a king they honor millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead — even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served — deny it food and it will gobble poison.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

But what you can't do is replace what you've walked away from. 

You are mistaken, I have. I once stood for what I walked away from. Now I oppose it to make restitution for my mistake. 

 

And that is where you feel short in a full deconversion. You couldn't find new purpose without Christ. I did. And I'm happy doing what I'm doing. I hope I lead many souls away from the fold. 

 

DB

[RankStranger]

Hey man, do what you've got to do.  I've got a pretty good idea of what you will (and won't) find.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

 

No, we're right back at heathens speculating about someone's personal beliefs.

 

You don't know what you don't know.

 

2 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Hey man, do what you've got to do.  I've got a pretty good idea of what you will (and won't) find.

Seems like, applying your own standard here, you have no idea what anyone else may find.  You only have an idea of what you found; and even that seems half-formed and irrational by your own admission.  I agree none of us know; but that either leaves room for speculation or it doesn't.  

[RankStranger]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Seems like, applying your own standard here, you have no idea what anyone else may find.  You only have an idea of what you found; and even that seems half-formed and irrational by your own admission.  I agree none of us know; but that either leaves room for speculation or it doesn't.  

 

I know what DB won't find on this path.

 

He won't find sacred beliefs that he can share with friends and family.  He won't find any reason to (or any ability to) worship God... or probably anything.  He won't find respect for his own cultural heritage, and the beliefs of a thousand or so years of his ancestors.  He won't find communion, nor forgiveness.  

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

26 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I know what DB won't find on this path.

 

He won't find sacred beliefs that he can share with friends and family.  He won't find any reason to (or any ability to) worship God... or probably anything.  He won't find respect for his own cultural heritage, and the beliefs of a thousand or so years of his ancestors.  He won't find communion, nor forgiveness.  

 

 

No.  You do not know that.  You only think you know that you didn't find those things; and you want to project your own experience, or lack thereof, onto everyone else who disagrees or finds something different.  You are speculating and nothing more. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, RankStranger said:

In my experience, to be a proper secular atheist, one has to essentially cut themselves off from their own cultural heritage. 

In my experience, I am far more in touch with my cultural heritage than I ever was as a christian.  Having the freedom to embrace who I truly am, rather than recoil from myself as a filthy sinner, has in turn given me the freedom to fully embrace where, and who, I came from.  It's sad that 30 years of "atheism" didn't have the same impact on you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

As an X-Christian, I had disavowed the world view of essentially all my ancestors for a thousand years or so.  And of course church- a central institution of our society for centuries.  As an atheist, I was essentially claiming to be logically and/or morally superior to ALL who came before.  And that just isn't the case. 

This is really just an incredibly lame argument wrapped in deepity to sound more profound than it really is.  Our ancestors believed in all manner of fucknuttery over the centuries--geocentric universe, flat earth, slavery, divine right of kings, manifest destiny...--and had rituals and traditions to go along with it all.  But is that a good reason to continue with such beliefs, rituals, and traditions?  Or should reason and rationality allow for a better understanding, and a changed mind in consequence?

 

When we,  as individuals or as a society, find reason to diverge from such beliefs, rituals, and traditions, it isn't the mark of conceit or ego that allows us to embrace a new understanding.  Rather, it is simply the steady march of progress, for which our ancestors may well be proud of us. 

 

Imagine where the world would be today if the Romans had decided, "Our ancestors lived in caves; we're no better than they were."  They might never have given us... the aqueduct. 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

 

No, we're right back at heathens speculating about someone's personal beliefs.

 

You don't know what you don't know.

 

I disagree.

 

My comments were made on the basis of what I DO know about her beliefs, which are in the public arena.

 

On THAT basis she is not a true Christian.

 

If the definition of a true Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the blood sacrifice who atones for their sins.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

We're kinda on the same page here.  I don't expect one single atheist (or the like) to find my personal experience compelling.  So I'm not bothering ya'll with it.

 

Your personal experiences might be compelling to me if they were supported by objective evidence.

 

This is exactly the same line I took with aik and with all Christian apologists.

 

 

But I do find your argument flawed when you claim this...  'And IMO these are in fact needs.'

 

 

A human need doesn't generate an objective truth about the wider reality we inhabit.

 

It tells us nothing about why things happen and how they happen and leaves us none the wiser.

 

It only confirms that to satisfy our needs we will often embrace irrationality. 

 

 

6 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

I know what DB won't find on this path.

 

He won't find sacred beliefs that he can share with friends and family.  He won't find any reason to (or any ability to) worship God... or probably anything.  He won't find respect for his own cultural heritage, and the beliefs of a thousand or so years of his ancestors.  He won't find communion, nor forgiveness.  

 

 

 

Please tell us how you know these things, RS.

 

The last time I asked you this sort of question was when I asked you how you knew Jesus was god, in the Christianity vs. Paulianity thread.

 

You declined to answer that one.

 

Perhaps you'll answer the question this time?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

He won't find sacred beliefs that he can share with friends and family.  He won't find any reason to (or any ability to) worship God... or probably anything.  He won't find respect for his own cultural heritage, and the beliefs of a thousand or so years of his ancestors.  He won't find communion, nor forgiveness.  

I'm afraid sir you are terribly wrong and do not know my ancestry and what they were into. I joined masonry because my great grandfather was a Mason and I wanted to feel closer to an ancestor that I never knew. I found in masonry a different type of belief. And as you know I consider myself Agnostic/non-theist and hold to the belief of what I call The Grand Architect.  This is a masonic term. Before I post this lecture I want you to know that the lectures of freemasonry are not secret and therfore free for me to post anywhere I wish. This is a lecture sent to me by a fellow brother when I expressed concern about my deconversion from Chritianity. It is from the Scottish Rite branch of freemasonry. And if this isn't spiritual, sacred, and connects me with my ancestors. I don't know what is. If I want ritual I can just go to a masonic meeting and I have it. And it all links me to my ancestors. 

 

Toleration

holding that every other man has the same right to his opinion and faith that we have to ours; and liberality, holding that as no human being can with certainty say, in the clash and conflict of hostile faiths and creeds, what is truth, or that he is surely in possession of it, so every one should feel that it is quite possible that another equally honest and sincere with himself, and yet holding the contrary opinion, may himself be in possession of the truth, and that whatever one firmly and conscientiously believes, is truth, to him – these are the mortal enemies of that fanaticism which persecutes for opinion's sake, and initiates crusades against whatever it, in its imaginary holiness, deems to be contrary to the law of God or verity of dogma. And education, instruction, and enlightenment are the most certain means by which fanaticism and intolerance can be rendered powerless.

 

No true Mason scoffs at honest convictions and an ardent zeal in the cause of what one believes to be truth and justice. But he does absolutely deny the right of any man to assume the prerogative of Deity, and condemn another's faith and opinions as deserving to be punished because heretical. Nor does he approve the course of those who endanger the peace and quiet of great nations, and the best interest of their own race by indulging in a chimerical and visionary philanthropy – a luxury which chiefly consists in drawing their robes around them to avoid contact with their fellows, and proclaiming themselves holier than they.

 

Masonry has ever the most vivid remembrance of the terrible and artificial torments that were used to put down new forms of religion or extinguish the old. It sees with the eye of memory the ruthless extermination of all the people of all sexes and ages, because it was their misfortune not to know the God of the Hebrews, or to worship Him under the wrong name, by the savage troops of Moses and Joshua. It sees the thumb-screws and the racks, the whip, the gallows, and the stake, the victims of Diocletian and Alva, the miserable Covenanters, the Non-Conformists, Servetus burned, and the unoffending Quaker hung. It sees Cranmer hold his arm, now no longer erring, in the flame until the hand drops off in the consuming heat. It sees the persecutions of Peter and Paul, the martyrdom of Stephen, the trials of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and Irenæus; and then in turn the sufferings of the wretched Pagans under the Christian Emperors, as of the Papists in Ireland and under Elizabeth and the bloated Henry. The Roman Virgin naked before the hungry lions; young Margaret Graham tied to a stake at low-water mark, and there left to drown, singing hymns to God until the savage waters broke over her head; and all that in all ages have suffered by hunger and nakedness, peril and prison, the rack, the stake, and the sword, – it sees them all, and shudders at the long roll of human atrocities.

 

And it sees also the oppression still practised in the name of religion – men shot in a Christian jail in Christian Italy for reading the Christian Bible; in almost every Christian State, laws forbidding freedom of speech on matters relating to Christianity; and the gallows reaching its arm over the pulpit. The fires of Moloch in Syria, the harsh mutilations in the name of Astarte, Cybele, Jehovah; the barbarities of imperial Pagan Torturers; the still grosser torments which Roman-Gothic Christians in Italy and Spain heaped on their brother-men; the fiendish cruelties to which Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Ireland, America, have been witnesses, are none too powerful to warn man of the unspeakable evils which follow from mistakes and errors in the matter of religion, and especially from investing the God of Love with the cruel and vindictive passions of erring humanity, and making blood to have a sweet savor in his nostrils, and groans of agony to be delicious to his ears.

 

Man never had the right to usurp the unexercised prerogative of God, and condemn and punish another for his belief. Born in a Protestant land, we are of that faith. If we had opened our eyes to the light under the shadows of St. Peter's at Rome, we should have been devout Catholics; born in the Jewish quarter of Aleppo, we should have contemned Christ as an imposter; in Constantinople, we should have cried "Allah il Allah, God is great and Mahomet is his prophet!" Birth, place, and education give us our faith.

 

Few believe in any religion because they have examined the evidences of its authenticity, and made up a formal judgment, upon weighing the testimony. Not one man in ten thousand knows anything about the proofs of his faith. We believe what we are taught; and those are most fanatical who know least of the evidences on which their creed is based.

 

Facts and testimony are not, except in very rare instances, the ground-work of faith. It is an imperative law of God's Economy, unyielding and inflexible as Himself, that man shall accept without question the belief of those among whom he is born and reared; the faith so made a part of his nature resists all evidence to the contrary; and he will disbelieve even the evidence of his own senses, rather than yield up the religious belief which has grown up in him, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.

 

What is truth to me is not truth to another. The same arguments and evidences that convince one mind make no impression on another. This difference is in men at their birth. No man is entitled positively to assert that he is right, where other men, equally intelligent and equally well-informed, hold directly the opposite opinion. Each thinks it impossible for the other to be sincere, and each, as to that, is equally in error. "What is truth?" was a profound question, the most suggestive one ever put to man.

 

Many beliefs of former and present times seem incomprehensible. They startle us with a new glimpse into the human soul, that mysterious thing, more mysterious the more we note its workings. Here is a man superior to myself in intellect and learning; and yet he sincerely believes what seems to me too absurd to merit confutation; and I cannot conceive, and sincerely do not believe, that he is both sane and honest. And yet he is both. His reason is as perfect as mine, and he is as honest as I. The fancies of a lunatic are realities, to him. Our dreams are realities while they last, and, in the Past, no more unreal than what we have acted in our waking hours. No man can say that he hath as sure possession of the truth as of a chattel.

 

When men entertain opinions diametrically opposed to each other, and each is honest, who shall decide which hath the Truth; and how can either say with certainty that he hath it? We know not what is the truth. That we ourselves believe and feel absolutely certain that our own belief is true, is in reality not the slightest proof of the fact, seem it never so certain and incapable of doubt to us.

 

No man is responsible for the rightness of his faith; but only for the uprightness of it. Therefore no man hath or ever had a right to persecute another for his belief; for there cannot be two antagonistic rights; and if one can persecute another, because he himself is satisfied that the belief of that other is erroneous, the other has, for the same reason, equally as certain a right to persecute him. The truth comes to us tinged and colored with our prejudices and our preconceptions, which are as old as ourselves, and strong with a divine force. It comes to us as the image of a rod comes to us through the water, bent and distorted. An argument sinks into and convinces the mind of one man, while from that of another it rebounds like a ball of ivory dropped on marble. It is no merit in a man to have a particular faith, excellent and sound and philosophic as it may be, when he imbibed it with his mother's milk. It is no more a merit than his prejudices and his passions.

 

The sincere Moslem has as much right to persecute us, as we to persecute him; and therefore Masonry wisely requires no more than a belief in One Great All-Powerful Deity, the Father and Preserver of the Universe. Therefore it is she who teaches her votaries that toleration is one of the chief duties of every good Mason, a component part of that charity without which we are mere hollow images of true Masons, mere sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. No evil hath so afflicted the world as intolerance of religious opinion.

 

The human beings it has slain in various ways, if once and together brought to life, would make a nation of people; left to live and increase, would have doubled the population of the civilized portion of the globe; among which civilized portion it chiefly is that religious wars are waged. The treasure and the human labor thus lost would have made the earth a garden, in which, but for his evil passions, man might now be as happy as in Eden. No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own private property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical; and assert the right to persecute, if we would; and claim our toleration of it as a merit.

 

The Mason's creed goes further than that. No man, it holds, has any right in any way to interfere with the religious belief of another. It holds that each man is absolutely sovereign as to his own belief, and that belief is a matter absolutely foreign to all who do not entertain the same belief; and that, if there were any right of persecution at all, it would in all cases be a mutual right; because one party has the same right as the other to sit as judge in his own case; and God is the only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them. To that great Judge, Masonry refers the matter; and opening wide its portals, it invites to enter there and live in peace and harmony, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Jew. the Moslem; every man who will lead a truly virtuous and moral life, love his brethren, minister to the sick and distressed, and believe in the ONE, All-Powerful, All-Wise, everywhere-Present GOD, Architect, Creator, and Preserver of all things, by whose universal law of Harmony ever rolls on this universe, the great, vast, infinite circle of successive Death and Life: – to whose INEFFABLE NAME let all true Masons pay profoundest homage! for whose thousand blessings poured upon us, let us feel the sincerest gratitude, now, henceforth, and forever!

 

We may well be tolerant of each other's creed; for in every faith there are excellent moral precepts. Far in the South of Asia, Zoroaster taught this doctrine: "On commencing a journey, the Faithful should turn his thoughts toward Ormuzd, and confess him, in the purity of his heart, to be King of the World; he should love him, do him homage, and serve him. He must be upright and charitable, despise the pleasures of the body, and avoid pride and haughtiness, and vice in all its forms, and especially falsehood, one of the basest sins of which man can be guilty. He must forget injuries and not avenge himself. He must honor the memory of his parents and relatives. At night, before retiring to sleep, he should rigorously examine his conscience, and repent of the faults which weakness or ill-fortune had caused him to commit." He was required to pray for strength to persevere in the Good, and to obtain forgiveness for his errors. It was his duty to confess his faults to a Magus, or to a layman renowned for his virtues, or to the Sun. Fasting and maceration were prohibited; and, on the contrary, it was his duty suitably to nourish the body and to maintain its vigor, that his soul might be strong to resist the Genius of Darkness; that he might more attentively read the Divine Word, and have more courage to perform noble deeds.

 

I hope you enjoyed this masonic lecture. And when you first re-converted I supported your decision, if you remember. And I will still say that I am glad you have found your happiness and your peace in this construct of faith you have created. But don't assume that because you couldn't find the things I quoted that others weren't able to. As you can see. I have found sacred beliefs that have been around for thousands of years. As the oldest fraternity in existence we trace our roots back pretty far.... but I can't tell you that... sorry. And there are things I can share with my friends and family. As you can see. I just shared this with my friends here for the purposes of this forum. And as far as "forgiveness"? I don't believe in your Bible or its sin? The only forgiveness I need is from those I've wronged if the can forgive me. If not then atleast I tried. And myself. And that is the most important. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dark Bishop

[walterpthefirst]

"In my experience, to be a proper secular atheist, one has to essentially cut themselves off from their own cultural heritage."

 

 

 My cultural heritage is one of over a thousand years of Christian belief in England.  So I am surrounded by cathedrals, churches and chapels, I see and hear art inspired by the Judeo-Christian traditions of my forefathers and the laws of my land were largely based upon the ethical principles outlined in the bible.

 

But do I really need to cut myself off from listening, seeing and experiencing all of these things to be a proper secular atheist?

 

Or do I simply need to acknowledge that my forefathers simply didn't have such an accurate understanding of reality as we do today?

 

That they were doing what they thought was right, but they had insufficient understanding to realize that they were in fact, wrong.

 

So, if they created things of great beauty and deep meaning in their lack of understanding, do I really need to cut myself off from their efforts?

 

I can find great beauty and deep meaning in their efforts while not embracing their beliefs.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

12 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I'm afraid sir you are terribly wrong and do not know my ancestry and what they were into. I joined masonry because my great grandfather was a Mason and I wanted to feel closer to an ancestor that I never knew. I found in masonry a different type of belief. And as you know I consider myself Agnostic/non-theist and hold to the belief of what I call The Grand Architect.  This is a masonic term. Before I post this lecture I want you to know that the lectures of freemasonry are not secret and therfore free for me to post anywhere I wish. This is a lecture sent to me by a fellow brother when I expressed concern about my deconversion from Chritianity. It is from the Scottish Rite branch of freemasonry. And if this isn't spiritual, sacred, and connects me with my ancestors. I don't know what is. If I want ritual I can just go to a masonic meeting and I have it. And it all links me to my ancestors. 

 

Toleration

holding that every other man has the same right to his opinion and faith that we have to ours; and liberality, holding that as no human being can with certainty say, in the clash and conflict of hostile faiths and creeds, what is truth, or that he is surely in possession of it, so every one should feel that it is quite possible that another equally honest and sincere with himself, and yet holding the contrary opinion, may himself be in possession of the truth, and that whatever one firmly and conscientiously believes, is truth, to him – these are the mortal enemies of that fanaticism which persecutes for opinion's sake, and initiates crusades against whatever it, in its imaginary holiness, deems to be contrary to the law of God or verity of dogma. And education, instruction, and enlightenment are the most certain means by which fanaticism and intolerance can be rendered powerless.

 

No true Mason scoffs at honest convictions and an ardent zeal in the cause of what one believes to be truth and justice. But he does absolutely deny the right of any man to assume the prerogative of Deity, and condemn another's faith and opinions as deserving to be punished because heretical. Nor does he approve the course of those who endanger the peace and quiet of great nations, and the best interest of their own race by indulging in a chimerical and visionary philanthropy – a luxury which chiefly consists in drawing their robes around them to avoid contact with their fellows, and proclaiming themselves holier than they.

 

Masonry has ever the most vivid remembrance of the terrible and artificial torments that were used to put down new forms of religion or extinguish the old. It sees with the eye of memory the ruthless extermination of all the people of all sexes and ages, because it was their misfortune not to know the God of the Hebrews, or to worship Him under the wrong name, by the savage troops of Moses and Joshua. It sees the thumb-screws and the racks, the whip, the gallows, and the stake, the victims of Diocletian and Alva, the miserable Covenanters, the Non-Conformists, Servetus burned, and the unoffending Quaker hung. It sees Cranmer hold his arm, now no longer erring, in the flame until the hand drops off in the consuming heat. It sees the persecutions of Peter and Paul, the martyrdom of Stephen, the trials of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and Irenæus; and then in turn the sufferings of the wretched Pagans under the Christian Emperors, as of the Papists in Ireland and under Elizabeth and the bloated Henry. The Roman Virgin naked before the hungry lions; young Margaret Graham tied to a stake at low-water mark, and there left to drown, singing hymns to God until the savage waters broke over her head; and all that in all ages have suffered by hunger and nakedness, peril and prison, the rack, the stake, and the sword, – it sees them all, and shudders at the long roll of human atrocities.

 

And it sees also the oppression still practised in the name of religion – men shot in a Christian jail in Christian Italy for reading the Christian Bible; in almost every Christian State, laws forbidding freedom of speech on matters relating to Christianity; and the gallows reaching its arm over the pulpit. The fires of Moloch in Syria, the harsh mutilations in the name of Astarte, Cybele, Jehovah; the barbarities of imperial Pagan Torturers; the still grosser torments which Roman-Gothic Christians in Italy and Spain heaped on their brother-men; the fiendish cruelties to which Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Ireland, America, have been witnesses, are none too powerful to warn man of the unspeakable evils which follow from mistakes and errors in the matter of religion, and especially from investing the God of Love with the cruel and vindictive passions of erring humanity, and making blood to have a sweet savor in his nostrils, and groans of agony to be delicious to his ears.

 

Man never had the right to usurp the unexercised prerogative of God, and condemn and punish another for his belief. Born in a Protestant land, we are of that faith. If we had opened our eyes to the light under the shadows of St. Peter's at Rome, we should have been devout Catholics; born in the Jewish quarter of Aleppo, we should have contemned Christ as an imposter; in Constantinople, we should have cried "Allah il Allah, God is great and Mahomet is his prophet!" Birth, place, and education give us our faith.

 

Few believe in any religion because they have examined the evidences of its authenticity, and made up a formal judgment, upon weighing the testimony. Not one man in ten thousand knows anything about the proofs of his faith. We believe what we are taught; and those are most fanatical who know least of the evidences on which their creed is based.

 

Facts and testimony are not, except in very rare instances, the ground-work of faith. It is an imperative law of God's Economy, unyielding and inflexible as Himself, that man shall accept without question the belief of those among whom he is born and reared; the faith so made a part of his nature resists all evidence to the contrary; and he will disbelieve even the evidence of his own senses, rather than yield up the religious belief which has grown up in him, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.

 

What is truth to me is not truth to another. The same arguments and evidences that convince one mind make no impression on another. This difference is in men at their birth. No man is entitled positively to assert that he is right, where other men, equally intelligent and equally well-informed, hold directly the opposite opinion. Each thinks it impossible for the other to be sincere, and each, as to that, is equally in error. "What is truth?" was a profound question, the most suggestive one ever put to man.

 

Many beliefs of former and present times seem incomprehensible. They startle us with a new glimpse into the human soul, that mysterious thing, more mysterious the more we note its workings. Here is a man superior to myself in intellect and learning; and yet he sincerely believes what seems to me too absurd to merit confutation; and I cannot conceive, and sincerely do not believe, that he is both sane and honest. And yet he is both. His reason is as perfect as mine, and he is as honest as I. The fancies of a lunatic are realities, to him. Our dreams are realities while they last, and, in the Past, no more unreal than what we have acted in our waking hours. No man can say that he hath as sure possession of the truth as of a chattel.

 

When men entertain opinions diametrically opposed to each other, and each is honest, who shall decide which hath the Truth; and how can either say with certainty that he hath it? We know not what is the truth. That we ourselves believe and feel absolutely certain that our own belief is true, is in reality not the slightest proof of the fact, seem it never so certain and incapable of doubt to us.

 

No man is responsible for the rightness of his faith; but only for the uprightness of it. Therefore no man hath or ever had a right to persecute another for his belief; for there cannot be two antagonistic rights; and if one can persecute another, because he himself is satisfied that the belief of that other is erroneous, the other has, for the same reason, equally as certain a right to persecute him. The truth comes to us tinged and colored with our prejudices and our preconceptions, which are as old as ourselves, and strong with a divine force. It comes to us as the image of a rod comes to us through the water, bent and distorted. An argument sinks into and convinces the mind of one man, while from that of another it rebounds like a ball of ivory dropped on marble. It is no merit in a man to have a particular faith, excellent and sound and philosophic as it may be, when he imbibed it with his mother's milk. It is no more a merit than his prejudices and his passions.

 

The sincere Moslem has as much right to persecute us, as we to persecute him; and therefore Masonry wisely requires no more than a belief in One Great All-Powerful Deity, the Father and Preserver of the Universe. Therefore it is she who teaches her votaries that toleration is one of the chief duties of every good Mason, a component part of that charity without which we are mere hollow images of true Masons, mere sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. No evil hath so afflicted the world as intolerance of religious opinion.

 

The human beings it has slain in various ways, if once and together brought to life, would make a nation of people; left to live and increase, would have doubled the population of the civilized portion of the globe; among which civilized portion it chiefly is that religious wars are waged. The treasure and the human labor thus lost would have made the earth a garden, in which, but for his evil passions, man might now be as happy as in Eden. No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own private property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical; and assert the right to persecute, if we would; and claim our toleration of it as a merit.

 

The Mason's creed goes further than that. No man, it holds, has any right in any way to interfere with the religious belief of another. It holds that each man is absolutely sovereign as to his own belief, and that belief is a matter absolutely foreign to all who do not entertain the same belief; and that, if there were any right of persecution at all, it would in all cases be a mutual right; because one party has the same right as the other to sit as judge in his own case; and God is the only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them. To that great Judge, Masonry refers the matter; and opening wide its portals, it invites to enter there and live in peace and harmony, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Jew. the Moslem; every man who will lead a truly virtuous and moral life, love his brethren, minister to the sick and distressed, and believe in the ONE, All-Powerful, All-Wise, everywhere-Present GOD, Architect, Creator, and Preserver of all things, by whose universal law of Harmony ever rolls on this universe, the great, vast, infinite circle of successive Death and Life: – to whose INEFFABLE NAME let all true Masons pay profoundest homage! for whose thousand blessings poured upon us, let us feel the sincerest gratitude, now, henceforth, and forever!

 

We may well be tolerant of each other's creed; for in every faith there are excellent moral precepts. Far in the South of Asia, Zoroaster taught this doctrine: "On commencing a journey, the Faithful should turn his thoughts toward Ormuzd, and confess him, in the purity of his heart, to be King of the World; he should love him, do him homage, and serve him. He must be upright and charitable, despise the pleasures of the body, and avoid pride and haughtiness, and vice in all its forms, and especially falsehood, one of the basest sins of which man can be guilty. He must forget injuries and not avenge himself. He must honor the memory of his parents and relatives. At night, before retiring to sleep, he should rigorously examine his conscience, and repent of the faults which weakness or ill-fortune had caused him to commit." He was required to pray for strength to persevere in the Good, and to obtain forgiveness for his errors. It was his duty to confess his faults to a Magus, or to a layman renowned for his virtues, or to the Sun. Fasting and maceration were prohibited; and, on the contrary, it was his duty suitably to nourish the body and to maintain its vigor, that his soul might be strong to resist the Genius of Darkness; that he might more attentively read the Divine Word, and have more courage to perform noble deeds.

 

I hope you enjoyed this masonic lecture. And when you first re-converted I supported your decision, if you remember. And I will still say that I am glad you have found your happiness and your peace in this construct of faith you have created. But don't assume that because you couldn't find the things I quoted that others weren't able to. As you can see. I have found sacred beliefs that have been around for thousands of years. As the oldest fraternity in existence we trace our roots back pretty far.... but I can't tell you that... sorry. And there are things I can share with my friends and family. As you can see. I just shared this with my friends here for the purposes of this forum. And as far as "forgiveness"? I don't believe in your Bible or its sin? The only forgiveness I need is from those I've wronged if the can forgive me. If not then atleast I tried. And myself. And that is the most important. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dark Bishop

 

I gotta say, you sir have won X-Christian of the day.  I assumed way too much and you're right... I know jack shit about what you will or won't find on your journey.

 

I'm impressed with the mason stuff.  Good read.

[RankStranger]

 

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

"In my experience, to be a proper secular atheist, one has to essentially cut themselves off from their own cultural heritage."

 

 

 My cultural heritage is one of over a thousand years of Christian belief in England.  So I am surrounded by cathedrals, churches and chapels, I see and hear art inspired by the Judeo-Christian traditions of my forefathers and the laws of my land were largely based upon the ethical principles outlined in the bible.

 

But do I really need to cut myself off from listening, seeing and experiencing all of these things to be a proper secular atheist?

 

Or do I simply need to acknowledge that my forefathers simply didn't have such an accurate understanding of reality as we do today?

 

That they were doing what they thought was right, but they had insufficient understanding to realize that they were in fact, wrong.

 

So, if they created things of great beauty and deep meaning in their lack of understanding, do I really need to cut myself off from their efforts?

 

I can find great beauty and deep meaning in their efforts while not embracing their beliefs.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

You're definitely more intelligent than all who came before