Suda

George, your son is in my thoughts and prayers. Suda

I'll be at the airport in less than 12 hours. Woo Hoo! The Q is almost here. Suda

Sorry. When I'm tardy like this, anyone should feel free to jump in and take my place. Now for a movie, ummmmmmmmmm . . . 4 pictures. Hope it's not a repeat! Suda

Glad you are all safe. Suda

Have a grand day. Here's some cute critters to help you celebrate. (You'll probably see enough ghosts and goblins without my help!) When it comes to getting older, we're all in the same boat! Happy Birthday Happy Day! Suda

Jeaniam, Joy and blessings to you on your birthday! Shepherd of my heart, lead me to pastures of peace and plenty, that I might be refreshed and strengthened for this journey of life. Grant me the wisdom to follow as You lead me beside still waters of grace and goodness. Fill my heart with a yearning to live abundantly and joyously through You, with You and in You. Amen. Have a wonderful birthday. Don't let the ghosts and goblins get you! (Just give them some candy and they'll probably go away). Suda

Happy Birthday! To celebrate, why not swig down some hard liquor versus wine or beer? Here's a card to cheer you on in that direction! Got Lime? Celebrate like the cold-blooded party animal you are! Happy Birthday! May your birthday be as fun as a day in Margaritaville! Suda

Garth, I would think they should be thrown into the mix. That was what I was getting at in my first post on this thread. I can follow your logic in the following statement, and your answer seems very reasonable to me. Well, when you stop and realize that believing both concepts are based on faith, why would one concept naturally be more expected to be believed in than the other, other than social expectation and peer pressure to believe so? There is proof for neither Jesus Christ rising from the dead, nor the existance of Santa Claus. If a poll was taken of adults - as large a sample size as needed - from adults not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment. and they were asked: "If you celebrate Santa Claus in your home, who is the deliverer of the gifts from Santa under the tree. (A) you or someone else you know, including a charitable organization, or (B) a man in a red suit arrives on my roof via a sleigh driven by reindeer, enters my dwelling, and leaves the presents." What % do you honestly believe would answer (B)? Of the adults you know that celebrate Santa in their homes, in discussions with them on the subject, how many have told you (A) is the case? how many say (B) is the case? From the adults I know 100% would answer (A). I feel comfortable extrapolating that to the world at large. Given that, I think it can be verified that there is no Santa, even to Virginia (if she is still alive today). Suda

Chas, Sure miss seeing you! Hope your day was awesome in every way! Let me be brief... Have the birthday of your dreams! XOXOXOXOXO, Suda P.S. What are your guys gonna be for Halloween?

I understand this, George. It goes back to my first "bottom line". I think those that did/do experience a personal relationship with God and/or Jesus Christ, feel that this is "proof enough" to them that they exist, and why it would take something cataclysmic to sway their belief. For those who never experienced anything along these lines, I can see why they could easily walk away. A previous post of mine tells one of the miracles I experienced early in my twi days. I had experienced quite a few before then, also, and still experience them today. It is easy for me to see why we ended up at different places. That makes me think no less (nor anymore) of you. Still value you for the person you are. Suda

Thanks, Paw. Your efforts are always appreciated greatly. Suda

Garth, This question is asked honestly. Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Santa Claus? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists? Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Jesus Christ that they have accepted as their personal Lord and Savior? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists? Suda

Thanks for the headsup, WordWolf. Appreciate it. Someone to Watch Over Me Mimi Rogers The Mirror Has Two Faces

Belle, Here's wishing all your birthday dreams come true! Every little girl wants a pony for her birthday, but things change when we get older. Now we want a stud. Happy Birthday! Suda

Thanks for posting the tune. Nice one! Don't recollect ever hearing it before. Suda

Thanks for the input, Belle and Bramble. Suda

Fan Tazmanian Devil ? (Will have to confer with my cartoon expert, my son) Golfer, swing, or Tom's hint Fore Just a wild guess "Fantastic Four" Suda (never heard of such a title, but that's nothing new!)

Oakspear, I have, but have been left swimming in a pool of confusion. My s.o.p. is to go to the source first. It that is unfruitful, I seek input elsewhere. Suda P. S. Edited to correct a typo.

Good job, Ca dreaming and Tom! And yep, it's Maya Angelou - just couldn't place her. Suda

dmiller, Praying for your dad, you, and all your family. So glad that you are with them in this time of concern and need. Suda

My last question regarding atheists routinely attending church is this, how widespread is this phenomena? This question arose from reading posts such as the following. In the thread “Sharon’s Stroke is God’s Wrath” in the Doctrinal Forum, I found these posts and added bold print to them. If it is widespread, what are the motivations? I have cited above what some of them may be: a love for the music, a vehicle for community service, a place for social interaction or fellowship. But as these “needs” could be easily met outside of a religious organization, what is the motivation for satisfying them through church? Some people may ask, ‘Suda, why are you putting so much time and effort into this? Don’t you have a life outside of GSC?’ My answer might follow this analogy of earthquakes and houses. Twi and post-twi journeys to many of us were like living through an earthquake. After the dust had settled, those houses that had not been utterly destroyed, were shaken and in disarray, but now located on an altered, yet somewhat stable, ground. Some came to the decision that salvaging their house wasn’t worth the trouble, so they packed up their families and what belongings they could salvage and found a new place to dwell. Others, like me, decided to tackle the arduous task of putting things back in order, piece by piece, as slowly as necessary, and as surely as they could. They believed it was well worth the effort to mend it and make the best of it, with hope that the house, once retrofitted, could be even better than before the earthquake. They loved their house and would do all within their power not to lose it. And as we all know, GSC is a forum which has helped most of us regain some sense of peace and stability in those areas that were shattered by the earthquake of twi and it’s influences. So sometimes posting here in a quest to find new information is a vital part of our lives outside of cyberworld. Suda (glad the earthquake is over, and hoping the after-shocks are, too)

The following posts appear to contradict one another. Both appear in the thread “What Could Make You Believe.” The different colored font is supplied by me. Let’s talk honestly about the Tooth Fairy for a moment. I am certain that I replaced the teeth under my children’s pillows with a dime I took from my wallet and shined to a sheen. (Yeah, I'm a cheap tooth fairy. Reading The Berstain Bears books led my children to expect a shiny new dime, and I did not disappoint them). I know that the Tooth Fairy is just a story and have no problem extrapolating that fact to society at large. I know of no adult (who does not suffer from some sort of mental impairment) that believes there is a Tooth Fairy. I can state confidently that there is no Tooth Fairy. Now the question of whether or not Jesus is Lord depends upon your belief. The existence of God and/or Jesus Christ cannot be proven nor dis-proven scientifically. I believe an experiment following the scientific method would prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist, but is the child’s parent/guardian/another person. So to equate an unknown reality with a known reality, is to say the reality of Jesus as Lord = the reality of the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the atheist to infers both to be false as a “matter of fact”. In doing so, it indicates the atheist is unwilling to accept that he/she could be wrong, and thus is exhibiting, in his/her own words, intellectual dishonesty. I’m pretty sure I saw the same type “argument” presented in one of the links provided by Oakspear, and found it to be without logic there, also, because possibly untrue does not equal untrue. The above exchanges might also be seen as bravado. Sometimes when people are uncertain, they mask their insecurity with bravado. Sometimes it also is used to “bully” others into silence by making oneself unapproachable on the subject. It could be that some of the posts here at GSC that come across as being mean, bitter, venomous, degrading, or belittling are actually just bravado. Soul searching can be uncomfortable and make one feel confused, uncertain, and vulnerable. Thus they would be quite defensive when pressed on the subject, and might respond emotionally versus logically. Questions could be seen as “goads” versus an honest request for information to understand the other’s point of view more fully. The following post might allude to such. From the About the Way Forum, in the thread “New Way Corps”, with bolding applied by me: Very important to note that the poster stated “as long as you aren't disparaging”. I find many of the former to quotes to be just that, disparaging. The advice seems to be ‘Rather than drive a wedge between you and your parents, just refuse to communicate in any meaningful way’. IMO, such a refusal invites speculation, which leaves the other person still swimming in a pool of doubt. If one will not answer questions posed by another, where does the “another” person get answers to their questions? They may ask others in the same pool in order to gain clarification. That will help tremendously, but still leaves the thoughts of the “silent party” unknown to them. I sincerely hope that my questions here are not seen as goading, but what they are meant to be, honest questions wanting to understand to the best of my ability why an atheist would choose to be an active member of a church and, further, why would they assume a leadership role as a Sunday School teacheer. My questions and comments above reflect a myriad of perceptions, all of which may be false. I am eager to hear the “rest of story” and have my perceptions proven to be false so I can dismiss them from my thinking. I appreciate the responses from everyone. They are very beneficial to my understanding. Suda (still endeavoring to understand the journey)

This quote is from the Open ForumThread “I Went to a Unitarian church this Morning” (bolding supplied by me). Would seem one “requirement” of the atheist's chosen church is to have little dogma that its members must profess. I know when I was searching for a “family church home” post-twi, that was a requirement so that my conscience would be clear. I would not have to pretend to believe something I did not believe in my heart. But with changes in beliefs concerning God and those who believe in Him, does this poster now find it necessary to pretend adherence to dogma? Is that what is meant by “ I try to fit in as best I can.”? That statement might indicate a knowing that you are not a good fit, but you do your best to blend in and be accepted as “one of them”. This begs the question, at church, is there a need be a “closet” atheist? If one is confident and at ease with his/her beliefs, why would he/she feel a need to hide them rather than share them? Is “fitting in with the crowd” more important than being true to one’s self? How does being closeted bring one personal happiness and contentment? In all the Sunday School classes I have attended in many different churches, it has been customary for the teacher of the lesson to present at least one scripture reading from the Bible as the basis for the lesson. If an atheist believes the Bible to be myths and fables, is the scripture lesson presented like one of Aesops’s Fables that is not a true story, but teaches a worthy moral lesson? Do they emphasize that personal happiness and contentment are paramount? Or do they emphasize “Be kind to your fellow man. Do for others as you would have them do for you.” Is there a relationship between how one treats others and one’s personal attainment of personal happiness and contentment? Or can you have one without the other? The former concept appears on the surface to be “self-centered” while the latter is “other-centered”, and could be contradictory, if they are not serving the same end. To me, teaching a Sunday School class goes beyond attendance to enjoy music and the fellowship of people. Teachers accept and place themselves in a role of leadership. It seems contradictory to lead people in a direction one does not believe. In fact, it would seem that the opportunity to teach would an perfect opportunity to present them with information to help them “see the light of their ignorance”. Of course, that would likely be the end of such opportunities. To step from a role of attendee to teacher could indicate that one wishes to be seen as “one of them” and furthers that desire by donning a cloak of respectability that is inherent in leadership positions. This idea might be alluded to in the following post from the “About The Way” forum in the thread entitled “Did the Way make you hard core scripture and verse?” Again, the bolding is mine. Could it be a reflection that in some communities, church is the socially accepted place to be on Sunday morning? If that is what is expected of one, it is important to been seen there in order to preserve or enhance one’s reputation in the community? Just seems to me like living a double life. A flip side of that in a religious sense would be “plural” families, those that practice polygamy. Their push to decriminalize polygamy stems from the fact that they despise having to “live a lie” but feel forced to do so in order to protect the hubands and the family welfare. I understand in the secular world the need for some to live a double life such as secret agents, spies, plainclothes police. On the whole, society accepts these as “a dirty job, but someone has to do them” in order to protect our communities and nation. But when the line is crossed to being a double-agent or a dirty cop, there is public outcry and moral outrage because the motivation has moved to self interest rather than the community good. On a federal level, I think it is considered treason and punishable by death. On a state or municipal level, the penalty is not that great, but the “dirty” person’s reputation is ruined and they are banned from wearing the badge there in the future. And wasn’t it donning a cloak of respectability that has made vpw so despised? Wasn’t he seen as a “double agent” of sorts? Had he been open, upfront, and honest about his “underbelly” motives, he would not have been able to entrap innocent people, and decimate their lives. I fully understand that if someone is an atheist, closeted or open, it does not mean they commit atrocities against people. Some may, most would never. And doesn’t the Universal Unitarian Church provide a place of worship for people of faith as well as non-faith? It is my understanding that their belief is there may be a God or gods. Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, etc. are all accepted. And they provide sub-groups, maybe even Sunday School formats, for these small groups to fellowship together. Would that not be a more comfortable place for an atheist to worship than a traditional church? Of course, it’s true that many traditional Christians look down upon the Unitarians, and don’t consider them to be real Christians. So fellowshipping there may not allow one to don a “cloak of respectability”. This quote is from the Doctrinal Thread “Assume for a Moment there is no God” with the bolding supplied by me. This seems to say that depending upon the situation we find ourselves in, we “go along to get along”. Sometimes it’s best to “bite our tongue” to protect the feelings of others and to preserve our relationship. That I can agree with totally. But it is a stretch for me to understand why one would deliberately place themselves in a position to have to do such for the long-term by being an active member of a church. Why, if when away from the church, that persson feels free to be quite vocal in their disdain for the tenets of it’s belief as well as how foolish most of the attendees at said church are for being “duped” by said tenets? It is comforting to know that these posters feel the need to protect their elderly and/or infirm parent’s from heartbreak. Are there additional “significant others” in their lives to whose hearts may also be broken when they are informed of the new belief system? If the face-to-face communications with them are as vocal as the written communication in the condemnation of both their religion as well as them for continuing to hold onto to their personal faiths, it might do a lot more damage than just breaking their hearts. (Such communication does not follow the advice given above, as exhibted by a number of their posts: "I don't know why most agnostics and atheists think its so important to be so vocal and belittle those of faith. Like, THAT really helps "the cause".") It could bruise them so extensively that healing will be a long and arduous path for them. And is a choice made to keep parent’s in the dark, while revealing one’s true self to the rest of the significant others? And if so, doesn’t that place an added and unwanted burden on them, to have to deal with the heartbreak in silence? But, I guess, since statistically speaking, the others (family - nuclear and/or extended-, and friends, for instance) may be expected to outlive him/her but the parent’s are not, he/she can keep a lid on his/her beliefs as long as they are alive, but can’t do so forever. It might provide some relief to an atheist to let the “cat out the bag” to some of the significant people in his/her life realizing that there’s never a good time for disappointing, shocking news. Suda (confused and hoping for enlightment)

The following posts may reflect other motivations for an atheist to attend a church. The bolding is supplied by me. From the “Bowtwi Makes it Through A Church Service” thread: From “Sharon’s Stroke is God’s Wrath” in the Doctrinal Forum These posts appear to downplay the religious reasons people attend church, and focus on the other benefits provided by a “church home”. Church is a gathering place for people in the community, and a place to enjoy their fellowship. But aren’t there other gathering places not associated with a religious organization, such as The Lion’s Club, The Jaycee’s, The Toastmaster’s, The Kiwanis Club, The Elks Lodge, to name a few, that would provide the same type of social interaction (fellowship) that can be found at church? Many of the those organizations also focus on community service. The Lion’s Club serves the blind. Other organizations devoted to service are Special Olympics, The United Way, delivering Meals on Wheels through the food bank rather than a church. There are endless groups who need community service volunteers that do not require participation in a religious organization. Do people attend church to perform good works? Do they come on Sunday so they can deliver Meals on Wheels? Then who delivers Monday through Saturday? I believe that the good works are a product of their religious beliefs, and their gathering at church is for worship and fellowship with those of common beliefs, NOT to perform good works, although many will do such while there by teaching Sunday School, serving communion, etc. Although it could be argued that some only attend when they are scheduled to perform a particular good work, and refrain from going at other times. Suda (who thinks church is religious, not secular)

Thanks to a lot of help from my friends, I have “come to grips” with one of my big questions concerning the journey to atheism from Christianity. Many thanks to all for your helpfulness! Part of my “research” included reading previous doctrine-related threads and reading posts by those who are atheist/agnostic/non-theists. I rediscovered some posts that had “rung my bell” previously and strike me as apparent contradictions. I welcome input. I hope that by reading “the rest of the story” my perceptions of contradictions can be proven false, also. My questions are not meant to be personal attacks, accusations, or anything of the sort. They are sincere and honest solicitations for information. I would love to be able to peacefully put these questions to rest in my mind. From the thread “What Would Make You Believe”, with my emphasis added by a bolded lettering in a different color. Same atheist/agnostic different thread, “Assume for a Moment there is no God”. >We see one possible motivation stated above, the music. When I think of “church music”, two basic types come to mind. My favorite is to “good ole time” gospel music. It reminds me a lot of secular Country music. The other is the more “classical” type. Guess it’s secular counterpart would be closer to opera. My question, aren’t both these genres of music (with or without direct or indirect religious references) available for a person's listening pleasure in live concerts, on TV specials, on the music stations on cable tv, on the radio, or in CD format? If so, is it necessary to attend church to enjoy this music? Here are my main questions: Is it common practice for an atheist to attend a church, or mosque, or temple, or any other place of worship on a routine basis? If so, what is the motivation or reasoning? Suda (hoping for clarification from my fellow posters that are atheists as well as any that are not)