Spiritual Secrets

Manya Brachear writes as The Seeker for the Chicago Tribune.

She recently posted about Frank Warren and his popular blog PostSecret.

These were some of the confessions people had about their spirituality:

MathGod

“I became Muslim because I liked the way I looked in a headscarf.”

“I stole Christian music.”

“I’m an editor for a large online atheist newsletter — and I believe in God.”

“I hate when people tell me that Jesus answers prayers because he didn’t answer mine when I was praying for the life of my child.”

“My dad is a Catholic priest. I have been his secret for 21 years.”

“When I was a child, I thought that Phil Donahue was actually God. They both were old white men with white hair. They both seemed to live somewhere up in the sky.”

“I like to go to church to see what other women are wearing.”

Noose



[tags]atheist, atheism, religion, faith, Christian, confession[/tags]

  • CJ

    The Bad Astronomer posted this one the other week, which is just brilliant:

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/10/01/medium-liar/

  • http://humaniststudies.org HumanistPR

    “I’m an editor for a large online atheist newsletter — and I believe in God.”

    I’m not a big fan of conspiracies, but I wonder if that one is legit. It certainly could be. You don’t have to be an atheist to edit an atheist newsletter…especially if you’re a paid employee of the organization that produces it.

    But, that’s also a great way for an anonymous believer to poke holes in atheism in subtle way.

    Of course, the same holds true for the other side.

    “I like to go to church to see what other women are wearing.”

    “I became Muslim because I liked the way I looked in a headscarf.”

    Those could have been posted by atheists trying to poke holes in religious faith.

  • Mriana

    I don’t know if they are trying to poke holes in anything, HumanistPR. It maybe that the editor gets along with atheists, wants the job, does it well, but s/he still believes and doesn’t want to make waves. Who knows.

    What I find funny, is my so called Buddhist son. He doesn’t believe in God, yet, even though all his life I’ve told him the stories in the Bible were just stories, he believes in an historical Jesus. :roll: Go figure. He tried to convince me why there a historical Jesus as though he forgets I’ve been studying this longer than he is old.

    Mind you, this so called Buddhist got mad at me for refuting what he said with knowledge he doesn’t have. After a small hissy fit out of him, I said, “Have you thought that I don’t want to believe based on what I’ve learned and know?” He said, “You don’t have to believe, just consider the possibility.” ROFLMBO! I think he forgets that I already have. Is he sure he’s Buddhist? I wonder if I should challenge him on that thought?

    Now that is an alterior motive- from my son, the so called Buddhist. I would think anyone who pushed considering anything by way of religion, when it more than likely has already been considered, probably would not be working with atheists for very long. So, the guy must be doing something right- more than one thing right, esp if he’s been there a few years.

  • Trader Tom

    This amazing…people who seem to want TRUTH….DIRECTION….hey, stand in line ok? All one has to do is to OBSERVE. Observe life. Life is a string of experiences that lead to non-life. There is no mystery in this but there is in why this exists. THAT is the only mystery.

  • Pingback: Friendly Atheist » My Best Friend…

  • http://liberalfaith.blogspot.com/ Steve Caldwell

    Mriana wrote:

    “What I find funny, is my so called Buddhist son. He doesn’t believe in God, yet, even though all his life I’ve told him the stories in the Bible were just stories, he believes in an historical Jesus.”

    Folks who study the “historical Jesus” and try to separate this person from the “Christ of Faith” (who is defined through religious dogma) is an intellectual pursuit that is compatible with reason.

    One of the leading 18th Century figures of the Enlightenment did this. Thomas Jefferson sat down with a Bible, glue, and scissors. His editing of the Jesus stories removed Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.

    The modern-day intellectual heirs of Jefferson’s work is the Jesus Seminar. Their methods are described as follows on Wikipedia:

    The scholars attending attempt to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus. They try to ask who he was, what he did, what he said, and what his sayings meant using all the evidence and available tools. Their reconstruction is based on social anthropology, history and textual analysis. The key feature is the rejection of apocalyptic eschatology. They use cross-cultural anthropological studies to set the general background, narrow in on the history and society of first-century Palestine, and use textual analysis (along with more anthropology and history) to focus on Jesus himself. They use a combination of primary sources, secondary sources, and archaeological evidence. Their methodology, which was developed by a team of scholars (who expounded papers for the review of other Fellows and published many in Forum) and is explained in The Five Gospels (the four canonical gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas), involves canvassing the records of the first four centuries for traditions about Jesus and sifting them by criteria such as multiple attestation, distinctiveness, and orality.

    Yes — many of the stories in the Bible are just stories that were made up.

    But there are some scholars who are trying to glean the few threads of historical truth from the centuries of church dogma. These would be the words attributed to Jesus that sound different from the prevailing “wisdom” of the culture. These would be words that would have survived oral transmission from the year 30 CE to the year 50 CE or so.

    This sort of work is a multi-disciplinary approach that uses history, textual analysis, and anthropology.

    The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the “five gospels” (the four traditional ones plus the gospel of Thomas) attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself.

    The Gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic.

    Given the prevalence of Christianity in North American culture, it’s important to know about this.

  • Mriana

    The Seminar concluded that of the various statements in the “five gospels” (the four traditional ones plus the gospel of Thomas) attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself.

    I know and the more I study these scholars’ work, the less I believe, but they are honest and tell it as it really is. There is no question as to what is wrong with this picture. If one seeks the truth, these people are a very good place to start, IMO.

    Of course, the religious extremist won’t believe this and I find it sad.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X