Opinion and Religion

[Dacian_Irish]

I believe that you can believe in evolution and still have faith. Even if their is evolution who said God did not guide it or plan it.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

I tend to think that science and religion have a lot more in common than people imagine. You can't prove that god exists, but neither is anything really proven true in science. You can prove that a theory is most likely true, but never completely true. In science things can only be disproved, even something such as gravity. We know from thousands of years of experience and observation that when you drop a ball it will fall back to the earth. But all it would take is if just once you dropped a ball and it flew straight up the theory of gravity would be proven wrong. Newton's theory of gravity was improved upon by Einstein's relativity, which may very well be replaced someday too by an even better theory.

Science is constantly evolving and getting closer to explaining how the universe works. But science still has no answer to "why" behind the way it works. In fact science probably will never give us the answer to that question. That I think is what religion essentially is.

Religion is not science because it can't be proven wrong, you can't prove there is no God. I think science explains the universe, but religion explains that elusive "why." Personally I find that believing in a god is a lot simpler, and more sensible, than believing in chance and chaos. The more I learn about science the more I am amazed with the universe, and the more it convinces me that there must be a God.

Nice.

On the positive side - true "scientists" might exist.

On the negative side - I have met too many flakes that steal government money while they pretend to be "scientists."

 

[Quinntastic]

One more question.

Why is there a moral standard set in every civilization?

This is a very interesting question! From a Hobbesian point of view (Thomas Hobbes), he would argue that there is no such thing as a "moral standard". He would argue that the reason people don't kill other people and the reason people act according to the moral standard is for self-preservation. In understanding that "Oh, I want to kill that person because he is a threat to me. However, if I kill him, I know that his "clan" will avenge my death/I will spend life in prison/I will be gang raped in prison. It's not worth it, I'll just move on". And that people fear the consequences or the possibility of their own death worse than they actually want to be upstanding citizens and just do the right thing. However, that's just from a Hobbesian standpoint. I happen to agree with this standpoint for the most part.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

 

[MDewFiend]

Well I never thought I would come back from my weekend off and find this thread as...as...friendly as it has been. Minus a few lil squabbles, it was about as close to an open discussion as one could want on such a touchy subject. Hurray for us all. Well since it took my whole half hour to read the rest of the posts since I was last on ( I blame jason for using big words that I have to stop and use the dictionary to figure out =) j/j man, chill out). I will have to wait another day to reply.


jn

 

[Jason Pham]

This is a very interesting question! From a Hobbesian point of view (Thomas Hobbes), he would argue that there is no such thing as a "moral standard". He would argue that the reason people don't kill other people and the reason people act according to the moral standard is for self-preservation. In understanding that "Oh, I want to kill that person because he is a threat to me. However, if I kill him, I know that his "clan" will avenge my death/I will spend life in prison/I will be gang raped in prison. It's not worth it, I'll just move on". And that people fear the consequences or the possibility of their own death worse than they actually want to be upstanding citizens and just do the right thing. However, that's just from a Hobbesian standpoint. I happen to agree with this standpoint for the most part.

To be sure, Hobbes disagrees with other thinkers on the foundation of morality, but Hobbes does not believe that no standard of morality exists.

In fact, he refers to morality throughout the Leviathan and De Cive and that this standard is concerned with the promotion of peace and harmony between coexisting persons, not causing other harm, and, moreover, helping others.

The natural law tradition holds that reason endorses morality. In other words, it is rational to abide by the natural law, that which is called morality. Furthermore, natural law holds that all rational persons (ode to our sociopath conversation last week) knows what kinds of actions morality prohibits, allows, requires, discourages, and encourages. Even religious thinkers in this tradition, such as Aquinas, hold this view, that morality is known to all those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment (i.e. all rationally able persons), whether or not they accept or even know of the revelations of Christianity.

Hobbes, in the natural law tradition, accepts all the standard moral virtues as he expounds in Leviathan. His sole complaint is that those who articulate moral philosophy (namely an attack on religious foundations of morality), despite agreeing on many of the same core virtues and vices, are unable to, as he sees it, place their value as a means to "peaceable, sociable, comfortable living," but rather as a passion, or a spirited emotion.

The difference among those philosophers who hold that there is a universal morality, a tradition to which Hobbes belongs, is about the foundations of morality, not its content.

Of course, this says nothing to his assertion that its foundation is merely self-interest. My purpose was just to assert that Hobbes believes that, in modern society, there is a universal standard of morality, whether or not is is just a social convention. Can we, just on this point, agree ?

 

[Jason Pham]

Preface: I know I didn't say anything in my last post except for Hobbes actually thinks. And since that isn't fun for anyone in debate and discussion, I'll put forward my own argument.

In international relations, in economics, and in other fields wherein self-interested entities engage in transactions with each other, we can see these entities make choices. Namely, these choices are to cooperate or to not cooperate. Over repeated interaction and with all other variables equal, it is typically the greatest benefit of all engaged entities to cooperate since this works greatest to the advantage of all those involved. In these fields, there is a dynamic code of conduct, derived from the self-interest of engaging entities, in order to best achieve their interests. In short, in social fields, we can see a standard of behavior which guides entity behavior.

Given that humans too are in a social field of interaction, interests, and the option of cooperation or non-cooperation, so too does it follow that there is a standard of behavior among persons which guides their behavior in order to achieve self-interest. On this, I don't think you and I disagree.

On the origin of this guide, however, we might have our qualms. Hobbes defines the origin of this guide as a social convention rooted in self-preservation. I agree that this guide is wholly concerned with self-preservation, and I will admit freely that social conventions hold great influence over this guide, but I argue that it's origin are abstract, similar to mathematical objects, and thus nuance the argument from merely physiological self-preservation to both physiological and spiritual well-being.

By spiritual well-being, I mean by attending to the desires and necessities of the human soul, which I defined last week as that which makes the form of human distinct from the form of animal. There are things considered to be goods unrelated to physiological well-being, such as art and music. These goods are reflective of certain desires of the human soul. By being virtuous, avoiding vices, and abiding by morality, therefore, we are attending to our self-interest which is inextricably related to the well-being of the soul.

And since we are concerned with the soul, by this standard, and since the soul is independent of humans in origin, our guide to its health cannot be a human convention.

 

[Quinntastic]

I'm going to just say I agree to disagree and be done with this going around and around.

 

[Jason Pham]

Very well. I'm sorry you've resigned from this otherwise interesting debate. I know some believe that politics and religion, among other things, are endless debates, but imagine what our Constitution would have looked like without the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. In this case, there truly was great value to be found at the end of discussion. What is more, there is value in the deliberation often equal to or exceeding the value of the end itself and, like I said before, I find this particular conversation thoroughly interesting and worthwhile. In any case, it's been fun.

On another note, I know I promised a short (read: not really that short because I'm terribly long winded) summary on the philosophical foundations for the existence of a supreme being so y'all can "look forward" to that whole shpiel.

 

[Junkhead]

I didn't go to church yesterday. That is all.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

I did. She didn't show up.

Pham, you might want to record what you have written. Good stuff.

 

[Quinntastic]

Very well. I'm sorry you've resigned from this otherwise interesting debate. I know some believe that politics and religion, among other things, are endless debates, but imagine what our Constitution would have looked like without the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. In this case, there truly was great value to be found at the end of discussion. What is more, there is value in the deliberation often equal to or exceeding the value of the end itself and, like I said before, I find this particular conversation thoroughly interesting and worthwhile. In any case, it's been fun.

On another note, I know I promised a short (read: not really that short because I'm terribly long winded) summary on the philosophical foundations for the existence of a supreme being so y'all can "look forward" to that whole shpiel.

There just comes a point to where the debate is no longer interesting to me. I know there is nothing I could say to sway your mind one way and you (should) know there us nothing you could say to change mine - after that it becomes pointless (to me). I guess this brings me full circle on this debate to where it began -- if everyone kept their personal religious opinions to themselves and didn't try to convert or "save" other people (in the religious or non religious directions) I, personally think this world would be a lot more safe and peaceful...

 

[Jason Pham]

There just comes a point to where the debate is no longer interesting to me. I know there is nothing I could say to sway your mind one way and you (should) know there us nothing you could say to change mine - after that it becomes pointless (to me). I guess this brings me full circle on this debate to where it began -- if everyone kept their personal religious opinions to themselves and didn't try to convert or "save" other people (in the religious or non religious directions) I, personally think this world would be a lot more safe and peaceful...

Changing the position of your opposition is but one of the many potential benefits of debate. The free flow of conversation supports a free marketplace of ideas. This market, as in economics, allows for the most useful and the most true of ideas to prevail. Debate, then, serves to promote better ideas, not only between those directly involved in the discussion (i.e. you and I), but for those with indirect contact to the discussion as well (i.e. the 900+ views to this thread).

But in any case, different smokes for different blokes. Uninteresting to you, the reps you and I have both received from our debate, I'm sure, are a testament to its value to others.

Can you explain, though, how religiously-charged discussion leads to a world contrary to 'safeness' and 'peace' ?

Has religion been used as rhetoric for war in history ? Yes. Has it been influential in causing war ? Yes. But no more than global democratization or oil is used as rhetoric and influential for war in the contemporary. Any student of international relations will tell you that despite the varying purported reasons for and influences in causing conflict, these reasons (including religion) are contributive but never sufficient. The sufficient and necessary cause for war is security and power in the absence of an international arbiter. Religion, then, cannot be pinned as sufficient cause for international conflict.

 

[Quinntastic]

Oh no you aren't pulling me back into this one lol. I will say though that religion charged DISCUSSION I have no problem with, it's one person pushing their religion/non-religion onto others and not even accepting that there is another acceptable way to think than their own that we get into trouble (Al-Quaeda, ethnic cleansing, etc) IMHO

 

[Jason Pham]

Oh no you aren't pulling me back into this one lol. I will say though that religion charged DISCUSSION I have no problem with, it's one person pushing their religion/non-religion onto others and not even accepting that there is another acceptable way to think than their own that we get into trouble (Al-Quaeda, ethnic cleansing, etc) IMHO

Almost had you. But you seriously keep pushing at my buttons. You can't talk to a Notre Dame man about religion, who used to be a philosophy major no less, and not get into a drawn out debate. And now, you've asserted ideas about international conflict to a student one course and one thesis away from completing his political science major with an international relations focus. What's even worse (this is just way too good, you just can't make it up), I dropped my philosophy second major to pursue international peace studies, a part of which being largely focused on the religious, ethnic, etc. influences in conflict.

At least though, arguing about the causes of conflict leads to an end whose value is less controversial. In any case, I'll respect your decision not to get into it again if that's what you've chosen.

For my part though, I will continue to articulate my thoughts where they seem useful. So I will say that religion is as much of a cause of terrorism as liberalism (Kantian liberalism, not Hilary liberalism) is a cause of American imperialism. That is to say that these certainly are functions of conflict in the modern world, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient. Terrorism has functioned without religious rhetoric just as war and imperialism has existed before the operative to spread democracies globally.

Nationalism, poverty, dehumanization, and class warfare in addition to religion have been identified as influences in terrorism just as nationalism, economic advantage, and destiny in addition to religion have been identified as influences in war. But because it could be any one of these influences and not the others, or even none of these influences at all, there must be another reason for conflict.

The root cause for conflict is self-interest which translates to security on the international level. The rest is merely rhetoric used to justify and reasons used to influence otherwise security driven conflict.

 

[Sureal]

Oh no you aren't pulling me back into this one lol. I will say though that religion charged DISCUSSION I have no problem with, it's one person pushing their religion/non-religion onto others and not even accepting that there is another acceptable way to think than their own that we get into trouble (Al-Quaeda, ethnic cleansing, etc) IMHO

I understand the last part of your statement yet I'd have to differ in a way.

There is nothing wrong with defending a faith. When you search for truth then you do come to a conclusion that this truth transcends a superficial type of belief. You know without a shadow of a doubt that the truth that is found is immutable thus all avenues of truth must be found through that one undeniable foundation.

If this is not so then I pose the question:
What is faith based on?

Is it based on a system created by men? If this is so then that system can have additions and subtractions to better suit a person's desire.

Or is it based on a personal experience that becomes undeniable to that person? If that is true then there is no room for anything else. There is no additions or subtractions but just the truth of that personal experience.

The last part of your statement where it talks about atrocities leads to another question:

Are spiritual truths subjective?

 

[NDOM]

It was only a matter of time before someone started a thread on religion. My religion is and always will be flyfishing. What more could I ask for?

 

[goldandblue]

I believe in God 100% because of personal experience. What I do feel is that Religion has been perverted by men to parallel their own agendas. IMO there was never meant to be more than one religion, that being the body of believers in Christ.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Okay I know I am playing with fire here, but I really don't wnat to see a heated religous debate. It's the offseason and I just figured why not ask an honest question and see how many adults are in the room??


So, interesting vid here... First off, I am a Christian, I do in fact feel that Christianity has been assaulted over the past ten years, never more than right now with threats from Governement to take tax exempt status from Churches and force closures of Catholic Hospitals and such... BUT here is one aspect of faith, in regards to the average theologian, that has always bothered me and I believe it goes a long way towards stimulating at least some of the backlash that a lot of Christians feel and complain about today...


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eaObvOYaTSA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eaObvOYaTSA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


In the vid he states the importance of understanding that a belief, ANY belief is an opinion and should not be confused with truth... then he turns around and states his opinion is truth. I see this a lot and it drives me nuts, how do we Christians justify this attitude? I have an in law who bases much of what he does on the Bible and refers to it as "The Truth," he is extremely preachy and obviously has a "let me teach you to help you" 'thing' going on. Yet when you just try to simply bring about an understanding of other peoples views he gets angry. Then i visit a video like this and some of the responses kill me, am I the only person of faith who sees how this comes off??

Anyway, I am just curious how many others out there feel or have felt the same thing. Do Christians, at times, give themselves a bad name with a sometimes hypocritical stance on the idea of truth and other peoples views??

I think it all boils down to faith. Either got it or ya don't.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Quinntastic said it very well before and I agree that the major problem I have with most religions is the belief that they are the only "correct" religion. Who is to say that a child raised in the bush in Australia to follow Aborigine customs and exposed to nothing else is not going to be "saved"? That is not up to me. It is also not up to the "men" who govern most religions currently.

If there is love in someone's heart and they display that love by being good to people, then will God, any god, forsake that person? If so, then what is the purpose of our lives? Christians believe theirs is the one, true God. They also believe that God is loving, forgiving, and just, but if you don't believe in "our" God, then you are f'ed?!? Doesn't make sense to me.

Especially given the state of our world and the direction things appear to be going, we need things like love and brotherhood and community more than ever. I don't care if you are Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist. If you are compassionate, with love in your heart and you are kind to others, than that is what is most important.

My walk with God has been a difficult one at times and it continues to be even now as I grow older and, hopefully, wiser. I question the basis of most religions and I do pull from different places to suit my own belief system. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I try to live my life being as good to as many people as I can. I don't feel my faith is bolstered in a church all the time. I go to mass once in a while, but mostly because it makes my mom happy when I do and I am glad to do that for her because I know it is important to her. However, I can feel closer to God at the beach or looking at the stars than I do in a man-made structure listening to other men preach about the scripture. Just my personal belief. God, to me, is in people and nature, not in buildings.

Sorry for the tangent and ramblings. I am at work and not writing cohesively.

 

[Jason Pham]

Quinntastic said it very well before and I agree that the major problem I have with most religions is the belief that they are the only "correct" religion. Who is to say that a child raised in the bush in Australia to follow Aborigine customs and exposed to nothing else is not going to be "saved"? That is not up to me. It is also not up to the "men" who govern most religions currently.

If there is love in someone's heart and they display that love by being good to people, then will God, any god, forsake that person? If so, then what is the purpose of our lives? Christians believe theirs is the one, true God. They also believe that God is loving, forgiving, and just, but if you don't believe in "our" God, then you are f'ed?!? Doesn't make sense to me.

Especially given the state of our world and the direction things appear to be going, we need things like love and brotherhood and community more than ever. I don't care if you are Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist. If you are compassionate, with love in your heart and you are kind to others, than that is what is most important.

My walk with God has been a difficult one at times and it continues to be even now as I grow older and, hopefully, wiser. I question the basis of most religions and I do pull from different places to suit my own belief system. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I try to live my life being as good to as many people as I can. I don't feel my faith is bolstered in a church all the time. I go to mass once in a while, but mostly because it makes my mom happy when I do and I am glad to do that for her because I know it is important to her. However, I can feel closer to God at the beach or looking at the stars than I do in a man-made structure listening to other men preach about the scripture. Just my personal belief. God, to me, is in people and nature, not in buildings.

Sorry for the tangent and ramblings. I am at work and not writing cohesively.

Would it surprise you that my beliefs, as a devout Catholic, are almost exactly yours ? I think misunderstanding what the Church is, as perpetuated by church-goers who are, admittedly or not, ignorant with regard to what the Church actually teaches, is what drives many people away from religion and towards looking at religion from a perspective that it is too confining, too orthodox.

But it would be a major mistake to dismiss the religious by generalizing the uneducated suppositions of some of its adherents to the Church as a whole. People often have this idea about what Christianity is and push this perception onto how they approach or think about the religious. They are often surprised to find out how like them in thought, or at least reasonable, the Church can be.

I can speak only from the perspective of the Catholic Church, but regarding people of other religious backgrounds like the Aboriginal child, the Church believes that being part of the Church helps with engendering a sincere and loving heart but this function is certainly not exclusive to those who belong to the Church. The Catholic teaching is this: The Church is the "mother" of our salvation, but she is not the "author" of it. It is not the position of the Church to grant to some and withhold from others salvation. That is, as we believe it, what God does. We believe that those with a sincere and loving heart, those who abide truly to their conscience can be given a place in heaven. In short, just because you're not Catholic does not mean you're effed.

As for your pulling ideas from other religious backgrounds, this is not surprising or unexpected. Catholics believe that most religions are based upon the sincere search for truth, goodness, and love. We certainly think that we have a great volume of answers for the consumption of the believer but that does not mean that ours do not coincide with many of the beliefs of other traditions.

C.S. Lewis, who wasn't Catholic, but is very well regarded in the Catholic tradition, says in one of his books that a man ought not to be chided for choosing not to go to Church if he does so with a sincere and loving conscious. In fact, outside of the Notre Dame "bubble," I begin to see more and more how apathetic and detached people can be at mass. Surely you, who finds God in other ways, have something they might not have, and that is certainly the point.

Finally, Catholics believe that the body of the Church is the people with Christ at its head. Therefore, we find God in all creation but more poignantly in those around us, not unlike what you have said.

Anyway, I don't mean to say that what you believe is what the Church already teaches. My purpose was to demonstrate that you aren't necessarily at odds with the Church as you might think.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Would it surprise you that my beliefs, as a devout Catholic, are almost exactly yours ? I think misunderstanding what the Church is, as perpetuated by church-goers who are, admittedly or not, ignorant with regard to what the Church actually teaches, is what drives many people away from religion and towards looking at religion from a perspective that it is too confining, too orthodox.

But it would be a major mistake to dismiss the religious by generalizing the uneducated suppositions of some of its adherents to the Church as a whole. People often have this idea about what Christianity is and push this perception onto how they approach or think about the religious. They are often surprised to find out how like them in thought, or at least reasonable, the Church can be.

I can speak only from the perspective of the Catholic Church, but regarding people of other religious backgrounds like the Aboriginal child, the Church believes that being part of the Church helps with engendering a sincere and loving heart but this function is certainly not exclusive to those who belong to the Church. The Catholic teaching is this: The Church is the "mother" of our salvation, but she is not the "author" of it. It is not the position of the Church to grant to some and withhold from others salvation. That is, as we believe it, what God does. We believe that those with a sincere and loving heart, those who abide truly to their conscience can be given a place in heaven. In short, just because you're not Catholic does not mean you're effed.

As for your pulling ideas from other religious backgrounds, this is not surprising or unexpected. Catholics believe that most religions are based upon the sincere search for truth, goodness, and love. We certainly think that we have a great volume of answers for the consumption of the believer but that does not mean that ours do not coincide with many of the beliefs of other traditions.

C.S. Lewis, who wasn't Catholic, but is very well regarded in the Catholic tradition, says in one of his books that a man ought not to be chided for choosing not to go to Church if he does so with a sincere and loving conscious. In fact, outside of the Notre Dame "bubble," I begin to see more and more how apathetic and detached people can be at mass. Surely you, who finds God in other ways, have something they might not have, and that is certainly the point.

Finally, Catholics believe that the body of the Church is the people with Christ at its head. Therefore, we find God in all creation but more poignantly in those around us, not unlike what you have said.

Anyway, I don't mean to say that what you believe is what the Church already teaches. My purpose was to demonstrate that you aren't necessarily at odds with the Church as you might think.

Wow, man, great post. You are on an intellectual level well beyond where I am. Your point about CS Lewis is excellent. I believe your reference was from his book, "Mere Christianity" which is one of my all time favorites.

My post was only partially about Catholicism in regard to the fixation on the buildings as being the holy places and focus of ceremonies. I wanted to be married outside, but I also wanted my marriage recognized in the church while at the same time having the ceremony performed by a priest (actually a bishop) who is a close friend of my family. Unfortunately, given the restrictions of the church, I wasn't able to have our friend perform the ceremony outside and off church grounds. Just a small point.

I agree with so much of your post. Another book you may find interesting is by an author and Vietnamese Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh called "Living Buddha, Living Christ". It is written from the perspective of what the two would think of each other teachings if they were to meet. Really powerful to read and see how the two practices are intertwined in their beliefs. Great read. Anything by Thich Nhat Hanh is awesome, in my opinion. "Peace is Every Step" is another book that is very dog-eared on my shelf.

Anyhow, awesome post, once again! I really appreciate your views and points.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Quinntastic said it very well before and I agree that the major problem I have with most religions is the belief that they are the only "correct" religion. Who is to say that a child raised in the bush in Australia to follow Aborigine customs and exposed to nothing else is not going to be "saved"? That is not up to me.

However, I can feel closer to God at the beach or looking at the stars than I do in a man-made structure listening to other men preach about the scripture. Just my personal belief. God, to me, is in people and nature, not in buildings.

Tried to rep you dude, but it wouldn't let me. Also JPham, great post.

I teach in a Catholic school, and feel a very close relationship to God. However, you guys elequently put it into words that I can't. Very intelligent posts. Personally, I feel very close to God when I go to church, but I see what you are saying GOIRISH. Soemtimes after I coach a game, win or lose, I feel God's presence strongly in me. Doesn't matter where we pray, or how we pray, or whom we pray to, as long as you are happy with your faith.

Can't stand it when Catholics or other religions act like they are they are THE religion. I'm lucky to work at a school with a principal (a nun) who encourages us to teach students about the religions around the world, and i do just that. I'd write more but it's already been said in this thread waaaayyyy better than I can possibly say it...

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

Tried to rep you dude, but it wouldn't let me. Also JPham, great post.

I teach in a Catholic school, and feel a very close relationship to God. However, you guys elequently put it into words that I can't. Very intelligent posts. Personally, I feel very close to God when I go to church, but I see what you are saying GOIRISH. Soemtimes after I coach a game, win or lose, I feel God's presence strongly in me. Doesn't matter where we pray, or how we pray, or whom we pray to, as long as you are happy with your faith.

Can't stand it when Catholics or other religions act like they are they are THE religion. I'm lucky to work at a school with a principal (a nun) who encourages us to teach students about the religions around the world, and i do just that. I'd write more but it's already been said in this thread waaaayyyy better than I can possibly say it...

NDinL.A. - reps to you, my friend, for what you do on a daily basis. Coaching a game, especially with younger children is a great way to feel God's presence. My first year after high school, I coached the incoming freshman summer league basketball team. I had 28 players so playing time was limited. We had a young man who was globally developmentally disabled. The entire team tried to get him the ball every game, regardless of the score, because they wanted him to get a basket. Every game they would beg me to put Fernando in the game and they would pass him the ball time and time again. Finally, in the next to the last game of the season, Fernando got the ball at the top of the key and he put one up that went in. We got a technical foul because my entire team rushed the court and mobbed Fernando, but I didn't care. I felt God in all those great kids whose only concern was helping someone less fortunate than them realize what would be possibly his last organized sport triumph. By far, one of the greatest moments in my life.

What you do as an educator, coach, mentor, and role model is truly God's work.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Quinntastic said it very well before..

...If there is love in someone's heart and they display that love by being good to people, then will God, any god, forsake that person? If so, then what is the purpose of our lives? Christians believe theirs is the one, true God. They also believe that God is loving, forgiving, and just, but if you don't believe in "our" God, then you are f'ed?!? Doesn't make sense to me.

...My walk with God has been a difficult one at times ...

Wow. Absolute Wow. But I expect nothing less from my bud GoIrish!!

Great post my friend. Great posts everywhere on this thread. Very impressive.

Guess I picked a bad week to quit my IE addiction.

 

[Quinntastic]

NDinL.A. - reps to you, my friend, for what you do on a daily basis. Coaching a game, especially with younger children is a great way to feel God's presence. My first year after high school, I coached the incoming freshman summer league basketball team. I had 28 players so playing time was limited. We had a young man who was globally developmentally disabled. The entire team tried to get him the ball every game, regardless of the score, because they wanted him to get a basket. Every game they would beg me to put Fernando in the game and they would pass him the ball time and time again. Finally, in the next to the last game of the season, Fernando got the ball at the top of the key and he put one up that went in. We got a technical foul because my entire team rushed the court and mobbed Fernando, but I didn't care. I felt God in all those great kids whose only concern was helping someone less fortunate than them realize what would be possibly his last organized sport triumph. By far, one of the greatest moments in my life.

That is an amazing story! I know that I get pretty frustrated with High School sports around here because they care only about winning and not about playing time. For instance - when I was a senior in high school I sat the bench all season because I was a senior (going on the way out) and he wanted to work my replacement hard because she was a freshman and would have 4 more years to play with him so he wanted her to be well practiced for her future on the team - whereas I was old hat Sorry - that was a bit of a rant...an off topic one at that...but it just irks me, and I'm glad to know that it's not true everywhere.

 

[NDOM]

Oh god! (no pun intended). Someone gone and started a holy war!

 

[big daddy]

Tried to rep you dude, but it wouldn't let me. Also JPham, great post.

I teach in a Catholic school, and feel a very close relationship to God. However, you guys elequently put it into words that I can't. Very intelligent posts. Personally, I feel very close to God when I go to church, but I see what you are saying GOIRISH. Soemtimes after I coach a game, win or lose, I feel God's presence strongly in me. Doesn't matter where we pray, or how we pray, or whom we pray to, as long as you are happy with your faith.

Can't stand it when Catholics or other religions act like they are they are THE religion. I'm lucky to work at a school with a principal (a nun) who encourages us to teach students about the religions around the world, and i do just that. I'd write more but it's already been said in this thread waaaayyyy better than I can possibly say it...

I do not want to be negative, but the last paragraph is a good example of the feel good idea of faith. It doesen't really matter what you believe, we are all right. This is the reason why many Catholics don't know their faith or history of their church. People need to teach in the public sector if they want to water down faith. Keep the Catholic in Catholic School MA BROTHAS!!

 

[NDinL.A.]

I do not want to be negative, but the last paragraph is a good example of the feel good idea of faith. It doesen't really matter what you believe, we are all right. This is the reason why many Catholics don't know their faith or history of their church. People need to teach in the public sector if they want to water down faith. Keep the Catholic in Catholic School MA BROTHAS!!

Since you are responding to my post, I wish you'd be more elaborate. It feels like you're saying we shouldn't talk about tolerance, about what other people in the world believe, and that you think our school does that so much that the students don't know enough about our Catholic faith. YTou couldn't be further from the truth.

The school I work at is in the heart of the ghetto. USC is across the street. Over half the students are on scholarship, countless from broken homes. Yet our school is lauded as the top one in our entire district, And it's because of our principal, who I believe is a living saint. Yes, we do a unit on other religions. But our school is devoted to the Catholic faith. I've learned a ton about Catholicism just by working at this school and teaching the kids (and learning from them as well).

Just today we had a prayer service in which we 'buried the Alleluiahs', which comes from Catholics not saying the word Alleluiah during Lent. Every student in the school decorates a cut-out of the word alleluiah, and we put them in a locked room in the church. We do this every year, and after Easter we have a prayer service in which we resurrect the 'A's". All the kids in the school, from Kinder to 8th, all know that you don't say the "A" word and more importantly, WHY you don't say it. Sounds cheesy I'm sure, but damn if those kids don't learn about our faith. And this goes on with different activities throughout the year.

My long-winded point is, you can teach about tolerance and other religions and still teach about your own...

 

[NDinL.A.]

NDinL.A. - reps to you, my friend, for what you do on a daily basis. Coaching a game, especially with younger children is a great way to feel God's presence. My first year after high school, I coached the incoming freshman summer league basketball team. I had 28 players so playing time was limited. We had a young man who was globally developmentally disabled. The entire team tried to get him the ball every game, regardless of the score, because they wanted him to get a basket. Every game they would beg me to put Fernando in the game and they would pass him the ball time and time again. Finally, in the next to the last game of the season, Fernando got the ball at the top of the key and he put one up that went in. We got a technical foul because my entire team rushed the court and mobbed Fernando, but I didn't care. I felt God in all those great kids whose only concern was helping someone less fortunate than them realize what would be possibly his last organized sport triumph. By far, one of the greatest moments in my life.

What you do as an educator, coach, mentor, and role model is truly God's work.

Fantastic story dude. Chills. Those kids taught YOU something, which is what it's all about...