On a religion discussion forum long ago,

[MineralMan]

I used to post on topics similar to the ones often found here in the Religion Group. That was in the pre-Internet days, on CompuServe. There was a fellow there who used to maintain a spreadsheet in Lotus 123. In it, he had rows labeled with common topics, and columns labeled with CompuServe screen names.

Through diligent data mining, and regular observation, he populated the cells in that spreadsheet with links to posts on those topics made by the screen names he followed. Apparently, he added notes to those links to help him find the ones he wanted. What a lot of work!

That fellow rarely posted any original thoughts, but was always ready to post something someone had written on a topic, after consulting his spreadsheet and following links. He used that spreadsheet to find writings and point out occasions when someone had said something slightly different about a topic, or about a related topic. "But you said, in 1994,..."

This kept that individual busy. No sooner than you'd post a reply in a thread, he'd pop in with a quote from another post of yours to demonstrate some contradiction or irrelevant point. Other than that, he had little to offer to the discussion. He was a contrarian with a massive database of linked posts on just about everything.

It was always puzzling, always annoying, and always inconsequential. But, he was proud of his data store and his meticulous maintenance of it. He readily admitted having it and was prideful of it.

Discussion groups are interesting in many ways.

[Bretton Garcia]

1. Some debates have gone on for millennia

In a way, we can 1) get tired of the same old ideas. But in the other hand, 2) it may be that some positions are in effect, "classic." Or tend to naturally come up for anyone, who is beginning serious discussion on say, science vs. religion.

Personally, as a sometimes historian and educator (among other things), I try to bring up both classic, historical discussions. But also entirely new things.

Your own continued interest in at least, religious music, if not religious, is a classic position, in Humanism; an early soft form of atheism. Humanism suggests that the great works of even religious art, music, were the creation of human beings; and can be admired and enjoyed as human creations. Without endorsing religion as such.

Some here, now and then, like Humanism. Though today, including here on this blog, there are more and more who don't like anything that might seem to make any compromise at all with religion. Even humanism, say. Even religious music.

That's just the character of this blog.

Since it is at least on the edge of hard atheism, such a subject might be of interest here to atheists. Though of course, it would be debated, probably. And maybe mostly opposed. Though not excluded or thrown off the air.

Which is the purpose of such blogs: discussion and debate.

Probably our attitude toward Guil's liberal Christianity, is about the same, but slightly harder. Liberal Christianity is after all, somewhat liberal. And it is therefore acceptable on a democratic blog. On the other hand, it is after all, still religion. And therefore, Guil can expect pretty stiff opposition in some ways.

But nobody has kicked Guil off the blog. Irritating as his repetitions are, most atheists sense his position is at least, almost on the edge of what they prefer. And they may hope that Guil can make the tradition from.soft liberalism, to a more hard edged, atheistic liberalism.

Which is what this longstanding debate,.here, is about. It's one of the positions we like to debate here. In some ways, its an old discussion. But harder-edged atheism is fairly new in many ways.

These days I'm mostly hard-edged myself. But I recognize the old liberal Christianity and then Humanism from my childhood. And I know that liberal Christians have at times assisted liberalism.

In addition, I'm working on an academic argument that the Bible itself tells Christians to give up faith, and adopt science. For that reason, I sometimes quote the Bible. Though I often regard it as, academically,. a "selfdeconstructive" or often self-cancelling document.

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks for your very thoughtful reply.

For me, religion is simply another human invention. It's just another way of looking at existence. It is simple, easy to follow, and adequate for many people in explaining things that universally need explanations. It's not adequate for others. I'm in that group.

I think. I observe. I listen. I offer opinions. I discuss. There's a wide range of opinions here, which makes the forum interesting, if sometimes frustrating. A few people here are not really discussing, but appear to be trying to justify things to themselves.

[Bretton Garcia]

3. Humanism has historically been a useful halfway house

Between religion -.and science,.naturalism, atheism.

Humanism - including possibly, marginally, Guil and the Founders' Deism.

So if you are say, an atheist who still likes religious music, the humanist option could be useful historically. Music is music, too.

Or better? New references to atheist choirs.

As for dealing with an often intractable Guil? None of us have found the solution to that yet.
Though discussion on the good and bad things about his god - Deism, "the creator" - looked very promising to me.

Personally though, eclectic as I am, I'm not currently enthusiastic about religious music. Religion is sneaky, snaky; always trying to slip in the back door.

Jesus told his followers to be " wise as serpents." A much better translation to my mind, is: "sly as snakes."

Religion is always trying to sneak back into people's lives. So lots of us have learned to kick it out; hard. At the first sign. And lock the door securely behind. With triple deadbolts.