While I definitely agree that mass surveillance programs are making people less safe, and taking away the very freedoms they claim to be protecting in the 'free world', I don't know if my church (UCC) has taken any stance in this case.  Does anybody know if it has been discussed in their local churches, presbytery, conference or at head office?

If you believe that an all-powerful deity watches over you, and you're not only fine with that, but you worship the deity, how can you be against mass surveillance?

But Chansen you probably realize by now that I don't worship an all-powerful deity watching over me. 

I agree. You worship a mythical dufus with anger management issues.

But congrats on your particular angry dude not watching over you. Think of the stuff you can get away with that other Christians can't! You can use the Lord's name in vain! You can worship other gods to cover your bases! Well done.

We really need to create a matrix of beliefs for this place. Put in in a FAQ.

Hi Chansen -- Thats ok Chansen . I do believe in an all powerful GOD who looks after me. By the way chansen man is not GOD.  You have a nice day. airclean33

Could you ask him to proofread your posts, or is that not one of the services he offers?

And again, in all seriousness, if you do believe in a deity that has knowledge of your actions and thoughts, how can you turn around and say that mass surveillance for the purposes of security is a bad thing? I'd like to see the attempts to justify this.

Hi Chansen--First I don't really care what the Goverment hears me say or do. As a Christain I am not going to say something or do something behind there backs . That I would not say or do  to there face if they asked.Canada has  some of the worst leaders in the world. Across all party lines They lie cheat and steal. It seems to be something we have in all partys in this country  that needs to change .But I still believe this nation is one of the greates on earth .I just wish canadians would wake up.

Hi Jobam,

Why should they be?  Is Snowden currently in prison?  No, he is not.  Is Snowden currently wanted by the United States for theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defence information and willlful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person?  Yes, he is.

Do we know any more than that?  I don't do you?

It does not appear that Snowden intends to come back to "our side" whatever that means.  He has been granted political asylum by Venezuela and simply needs to work out travel arrangements.  Until then he has temporary asylum in Russia.

That is a good question.  I believe that more people need to speak out against the illegal activities of our governements.  If one is going to participate in civil disobedience then one should be all in.  Are we needing folk to speak out from an informed position or do we need folk to speak out from an uninformed position?

There is none specifically pertaining to Edward Snowden.  One can take as given that the United Church supports whistle-blower protection.  We have made several comments on the need for such protection.  I am unaware that the UCCAN has actually influenced the various levels of Canadian government to put into place whistle-blower legislation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

[quote=chansen]

I agree. You worship a mythical dufus with anger management issues.

It gets tiresome when you persist in telling other people what they believe or worship when you obviously have no idea.

Being watched by God...(probably Bores him/her/it...) Being watched by others is great if it ends in applause...

For purposes of security is ok by me...my life is an open book, (with very few pages)

I too consider my life to have been pretty boring as far a surveillance is concerned.  I can't imagine anyone being overly interested in the times I went over the speed limit, or parked in a 'no parking' area for just a moment, or trespassed on my neighbour's property to cut across her lawn to the next house, or even if I've gossiped, or told an off-colour joke, or gotten impatient with someone who didn't understand, or even sworn when I dropped something on my toe. 

/
If that were all there were to it, my only objection would be the money wasted that could have been used for better purposes.
/
But what if as some time the government decided that anyone who had any connection with a union at any time, past or present, was suspect. My husband once belonged to a union.
/
What if anyone who had ever stood in a non-violent protest was suspect. I once stood with a group outside an MP's office building and protested a bill that the government was pushing through.
/
What if having written a letter to my representative questioning the wisdom of paving over wetlands to build a shopping centre became retroactively undermining a company's right to do business.
/
What if joining a bowling team that has members of different races, religions, or cultural backgrounds, or political views became suspect.
/
What if volunteering at my church to be an advocate for the poor, or the marginalized, or the GLBT community was considered questionable.
/
Perhaps even the party I vote for might mean my loyalty to the present government is not quite what it should be.
/
No, I don't want the government checking my mail, evesdropping on private conversations, watching my every move.
/
And yes, knowing it might happen makes me feel a lot less safe.

Hi All,

The notion that only the guilty have something to hide is a canard.

The point is not whether anyone is or isn't hiding anything.  The point is whether the mass surveillance violates the right of the public.  Is it, for example, an illegal search?

Is it fundamentally different than the local constabulary, for example, sitting on my front porch and reading every piece of personal mail sent to me?  It is a different method certainly but is it fundamentally different?

At present the public is supposed to be safeguarded and if the police in any Canadian jurisdiction want increased surveillance over anyone they need to get a warrant.  My understanding is that this is an appearance before a JP (minimum) to present a rationale for the surveillance.  They do not need to contact my lawyer and I do not have the right to challenge the warrant before it is issued.  Those doing the surveillance have to make a credible case that there is a need.

The mass surveillance programs do not operate in this manner.  They simply spy.  They do not attempt to build a credible case against any one individual let alone the citizenry of any community.  They simply spy.

It may be that communications has progressed to such a point that mass surveillance programs which can sift through impossible reams of data for keywords is a necessity.  As soon as those key words are known new key words will be introduced and the cat-mouse game takes a new turn.

One wonders if illegal search litigation will increase.

Then again one wonders how I would ever know I had been the subject of an illegal search until somebody shows up at my door to take me into custody for some such thing.

I'm not sure what the state of affairs is here in Canada.

I do find it somewhat ironic that in the United States where Free Speech is a first amendment right mass surveillance (which trumps that right) has become a necessity meanwhile the right to bear arms causes the government very little concern.

To be blunt if somebody is sending e-mails where terrorist plots are being hatched I wouldn't feel secure knowing those people were probably also stockpiling munitions and we wouldn't know about it until the day somebody shows up to make an arrest.

If the threat is real shouldn't those responsible for our protection be going all out?  If they need access to my mail because I might be a terrorist why should I be allowed to purchase a gun and ammunition on a whim?

Of course, fear often doesn't think sensibly.

With respect to worshipping an all seeing God and objecting to mass surveillance by the government.  It is only an inconsistency if we equate God and our government.  While there are some who have taken such a position in the past I am unaware of any in North America who take such a position.  In fact, I would wager that it would be easier to find those who place earthly governments in opposition to God rather than equal to God.

My wife can read my mail.  She might even open my mail for me.  That doesn't mean everyone on the block has that freedom and it certainly doesn't mean that I approve of the local constabulary going through my mail for me.

At core is the principal that my wife and I have an understanding, that I have consented to her going through my mail.  No such consent has been given to any other authority.  If they want that privilege they can appear before an appropriate authority and present their rationale.  If they have none.  Then they should not have access to any of it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

This offers me an in to the conversation:

I do not believe in or worship such a deity. There are some who do, and not just on the religious side. Every totalitarian state has worked to achieve and maximize surveillance and control of persons. In times past this had critical limits allowing room for alternative imagination as ground for resistance. Such critical limits are in our context being overcome by the extension of technology as the means for comprehensive surveillance and control.

I wonder if we, in the United Church as elsewhere, are equipped for a counter imagination adequate for the expression of a viable alternative to the rise of a comprehensive and absolute grid of domination given as the gifts of scientific inquiry and technological development.

My suspicion is that we are wholly absored in the cultural myths of progress, with no sufficient resources for resistance.

George

There much more to it than you can imagine. Snowden leaks has unveiled massive ammounts of wrong doing, decption, harrassment and theft by US and it's four allies, Canada, UK, New Zealand and Australia.

For one civil servants  have been lieing to us and our elected reps about what and who and how they are spying on. There is so little terroism, relative to the billons spent  spying on us, and as result there are more cases of these civil servants caught tracking their spouses than they have terroists according to the leaks.  ALso our governement have been caught lieing and stealing from our alies in democratic countries. Most recently the leaks showed that Canada, was involved in industrial espionage against Brazil's government and it's mining industry. Well of course this is damging trade with Brazil, but also, it is just wrong to lie and steal for economic advantages against a poorer ally.  Is it not.  

This is just a few of the things Snowden has exposed. But if these civil servants are spying allies for our mining industry, spying on there spouses, and lieng to our elected reps. What else are they doing that we do not know. Are they spying and blackmailing our elected reps. Are they using the information they from spying on their spouces are they also hurting them in other ways enabled by the spying.  Are the pocketing funds in exchange for the inductrial espionage they are doing for various companies?

Essential what Snowden has stolen from his employer is evidence of much stealing and other crimes agaonst people, governments and compagnies.

According to the documents Snowden is releasing, Canada and the US are the same and use the same technology, share almost evrything and operate in ways not authorised by our elected reps. The UK New Zealand and Australia particpate with us in order to extend our electronic surviellence globally 

It has already ahappened. High tech surviellence just makes it easy.  Thinks of the cold war and the anti communist upraor which intangled many non communist activists. Or think of the mass of  around 500 people during the FLQ criss.  None of those arrested during the mass areests were part of the kidnappings, most with just democratic PQ activists, however even non activists were aressted, like the artists who belong to the cubism art movement. The police thought it had something to do Cuba.

farley Mowat was banned from the US for his environmentist activism and wrriting.

More recently, just  last month in London the police detained the partner of the Journalist Greenwald, on suspicion of terrorism. But in reality they were using special police powers to fight terrism in order to threaten a journalist and his family. in retaliation for legal activity, like publishing things the gvt disliked.  Just as the police and others are using tools created to fight terrism(like Prism)  for things unrelated and legal.

Now these civila servants can know evryone we call and can   intimidate us because the will know evryone we care about.,  

 you need not be involved in any thing political to be targeted. You just might befriend the spouse of a jealous husband at church, and he suspects you are profiding cover for his or her girlfriend.  Or you may own a company or stocks, that is of interest or???

Here you will find a series of slides which gives some indication of the direction in which technology is taking us, with our tacit consent and passive participation. "There are related slides on the page which also indicate this trajectory." [Edit: The related slides may not be as helpful as I thought when posting the Ellul link.]

George

Hi Alex,

Let us assume, for the moment that I lack any kind of imagination at all.  How does that affect what I or anyone else knows?  Do we take action based upon what we know or should we take action based on what someone else can imagine?

This presents two concerns.  First, is the exercise worth the expense?  The VIA train plot, was that uncovered as a result of the mass surveillance?  If so what value do we place on the lives saved as a result of thwarting that particular event?  Is the intrusion into the privacy of private citizens an adequate price to pay?  I think this sort of thing represents a tipping point between personal privacy and personal security.  Second, if there are individuals abusing the program how are they held accountable and who holds them to account?  Do these abuses represent a different tipping point or do they belong to the same as the first?

Which never, ever happened prior to the mass surveillance programs right?

I don't condone theft.  My imagination has no problem thinking that this is nothing altogether new.  Would you be more or less concerned if Canada was lying and stealing for economic advantages over a stronger ally?

Are you asking me to imagine what they have been up to or do you want me to tell you what they have been up to?

So some stealing is justified?  You just do not approve of the current way the stealing is justified.  Am I reading you right?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Well for one they has been no trial regarding the VIA Rail plot. It could turn out to be something else. The other cases of terrosism in Canada have nevr been to trial. THe so called Toronto 12, in which some made plea agreements , while those who did not agree to plea agreements, they ended up having the charges dropped.  At most it was about an adult who like to take teenager out on training mission and pretend to be terrists in the country, where he could abuse them. Sort of like Boy Scouts and Dungeon and Drzgons but with a reason to keep secrets.  Another case (famous because the accuse was a contestant on Canadian Idol, has nevr been to trial, becaseu the gvt keeps delaying and it looks likes that after 6 or 7 years now, that there never was a case to begin with. 

SO where is the PROVEN threat to Canadian security.? Even in the USA perhaps 2000 died in the last 30 years from terroism, whereas 335,609 americans died from evryday gun violence in the ten years between 2000-2010. So there is no reason to believe the US is doing this to save lifes.  Nor any proof that there security has been improve. It is also likely that AMericans feel as insecure as before, or even moreso.

Snowdens leak as well confirm that this is about gathering intel and power for reason that have nothing to do with terrosism.  The aresst and detention of a Journalist family member under laws to prevent immediate threats of attack, also shows the massive increase of gvt powers supposedly designed to fight terro is actuall about controling leagl and democratic behaviour.

If this was about security and not control and power than there are many better ways to make us safer in the world.  There are many threats that are greater than teorrism in Canada.  Would you not aggree RevJohn?

The thing that worries me: is when they get it wrong.

Rogers communications - said by some to be the all powerful keeper of things in this countyr - has been outed as using a aggressive collection agency whose spy network turns up the wrong people to go after to bad debts.  Credit ratings and life ruined. 

Good spy work is the collection of massive amounts of information which are seemily unconnected and then being able to make the connection to prevent that which is against "your" wishes.  In East Germany before the fall of the wall, with no electronics hardly at all, the secret police were able to collect lots of information on lots of people because 1 in 3 were doing the watching.  We rely on our neighbours to watch in the Neighbourhood watch program.

One day, a man was seen outside the local elementary school talking with the kids. A neighbourhood watch person called the police who zoomed right in on such a situation. The man, bald guy with a goatee, and a long trenchcoat on, was the VP making sure the kids got across the street and behaved on the way out the door.  They are gonna watch - it will never stop.  Pray that your name does not come up on the screen by mistake.

Let me tell  you it's hard. There is a guy in this city with the same name as mine who is a young reactionary.  Most people know its' not me when blogs, tweets, rants to the local paper are published.  A few don't.  And remember, everything you post here, and anywhere is permanent record of who you are.  The data banks are massive and growing.  There is a file on each one of us.  In more than one place. 

and think of this - where is this website server?  And does it bounce around the world?  Could.  then any country whose area it passes through has everything you put in your profile.  Gosh, my twitter account, my facebook, its all in China by now and they are producing a clone!

Hi Alex,

True.  That lack of action appears to be due to the fact that one of the defendants is rejecting any legal counsel that will not rely upon the Koran rather than the Criminal Code of Canada.  Which is a problem for any Canadian Lawyer.  At this point it appears that the legal system is trying to prevent this particular defendant from placing a burden on his lawyer that will ultimately be seen as an inadequate defence.

It may well be.

What if it isn't?  Do we free both men on the grounds that the information was not part of a legal warrant or does that provide to great a risk to the citizenry?

Do you mean the Toronto 18?

Of the 18, 4 were tried and convicted.  7 plead guilty (two of these 7 appealed their sentences.  The appeal for the life sentence was dismissed and the appeal for the 12-18 year imprisonment was allowed though it appears that the appeal failed and actually resulted in an increased sentence) and the remaining 7 had the charges laid against them stayed. 

That is a 61% conviction rate for the 18 Alex .  Of the 11 who did not have their charges stayed 100% were convicted because they pled guilty (only appealing their sentences or were found guilty.

Do you have a source for the allegation that this was not a terrorist case but rather a sexual abuse case?  I can find nothing on-line that even hints at this.

In the case of Dr. Khurram Shur.  Charges were laid in 2010.  The case is taking a while to come to court, your estimate of 6-7 years is 3-4 years in error.  Because the Federal Government has applied to have classified information the case will take longer to prosecute.  That doesn't mean that the case is not proceding.

11 of 18 convicted from the Toronto 18 is that no proof or not enough proof?

2, 977 alone attributed to 9/11 Alex.  That is 977 lives you have just dismissed.

3 dead in Boston (not including the one brother) takes it up to an even 3000.

13 dead in Fort Hood shooting.

168 dead in the Oklahoma bombing.

That's just 3, 181 dead from terrorist acts off the top of my head. 

Whose imagination is failing whom now?

I agree there is a sick twist in the fear generated by "terrorism" and the overwhelming threat of gun violence.  Let's not pretend that "terrorism" doesn't exist that is simply dishonest.  And apart from the dead the point of acts of terror is to terrify.  Am I only imagining that folk in the states are afraid?

I don't think terrorism is our greatest threat.  That doesn't mean that it is not a threat.

Had the Toronto 18 succeeded in blowing up the TSX how many dead would that be?

Had the railbridge bombing succeeded how many dead would that be?

Which of those numbers is insignificant?

So it is only something that mass surveillance exacerbates rather than causes.

Isn't the point of a trial to determine whether there might be mitigating circumstances which mitigate against the allegation of criminal intent?

Theft is wrong whether the victim be rich or poor.  We might be more forgiving of the criminal depending upon their circumstance.  That doesn't mean that crime is justifiable.

That is the claim.

The question is has he done so properly?  I note that few have disputed the veracity of his leaked material.  There is some dispute about his biographical material.  I suspect that is par for the course.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I did not fact check my numbers as I usually do, (exceept I had to lookup the number of gun deaths in the US, My memory uses images and picture, and since I am unable to convert numbers to Images I usually remebr numbers wrong. I am sorry for not checking my numbers as I usuall do. However the numbers do not affect the logic or the general facts, except one claim I made. That was to the fact of there not being a trial in the Toronto 18. It's just that my memory (wich is why I should check google when making claims,) had a picture of them being unable to tell the truth and make a defense based on them being messed up by other factors, that I will now explain.

So I check using Wilipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontario_terrorism_plot

It references only 3 trials in Canada with convictions.  One was tried convicted in the US, his crime was taking video of famous landmarks in the US and emailing them to others.

it also references a radical conservative Inman who like others in the conservative Islam community that knew many of the 18, that they suspected something was wrong and illegal was involved but it was not terrorism.

Also many in the gay community have pointed out how the modus operendi of the main leader matched that of adult attracted to teens and young men. 

Being conservative muslims, homosexuality is aginst Islamic law and is taboo. They would not be willing to present a defenced based on the fact that there leader was having sex with.

It also matches the profile of terror plots that would only be possible with the help of the police.  ( I also forgot about the plot to explode a bomb pn Victoria last year, which also involved the police of actually doing the work,. ) These so called terrorist have problems like menatl illness, or being gay in a mosque that is extremely homophobic. So they talk alot of BS about how tough they are, and how much more Islamic they are because they are willing to kill. The police and their paid informants than target theese less than descret people (after all the reason they talk BS is to impress others) and than call them on and provide them what is needed to get an aresst. Things like a target, a plan, weapons and bomb, and training.

This is well documented in the US, and theFBI and others share their tatics with Canadians, just as the NSA does. ( the self hating gay thing is speculation, but all the victims of police entrapement in the US and the UK are messed up by various things

From the NYThttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?_r=0

THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists

This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves — too sure, perhaps.

 

Carefully orchestrated sting operations usually hold up in court. Defendants invariably claim entrapment and almost always lose, because the law requires that they show no predisposition to commit the crime, even when induced by government agents. To underscore their predisposition, many suspects are “warned about the seriousness of their plots and given opportunities to back out,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. But not always, recorded conversations show. Sometimes they are coaxed to continue.

Fake terror plots, paid informants: the tactics of FBI 'entrapment' questioned

Critics say bureau is running a sting operation across America, targeting vulnerable people by luring them into fake terror plots

But in its commonly understood usage, FBI entrapment is a widespread tactic. Within days of the 9/11 terror attacks, FBI director Robert Mueller issued a memo on a new policy of "forward leaning – preventative – prosecutions".

Central to that is a growing informant network. The FBI is not choosy about the people it uses. Some have criminal records, including attempted murder or drug dealing or fraud. They are often paid six-figure sums, which critics say creates a motivation to entrap targets. Some are motivated by the promise of debts forgiven or immigration violations wiped clean.

also one of the three who had a Canadian trial and convicted, only actually shoplifted from Canadian Tire, and had no knowledge of any plot to blow up anything,   I will try to find out what happened in the other two cases.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/05/27/canadas_terrorist_shoplifter.html

Hi Alex,

Which is neither here nor there Alex.  11 of the 18 were convicted on charges relating to terror.  The minimum sentence handed out was 2.5 years (I'm guessing this is the time served).  Why this youth was charged while the others had their charges stayed is a decision made by the crown.  That there was a conviction under the charge showed that the charge stuck.  If the judge was of the opinion that the charge was not proven the verdict would have been innocent rather than guilty and time served.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-18-key-events-in-the-case-1.715266

I find the above link more helpful than wikipedia.

I have no doubt that the youth were being groomed.  I seriously doubt that they were being groomed as potential abuse victims.  I find it far more plausible that they were being groomed to commit acts of terrorism.  Your speculation isn't very convincing.

No doubt they are messed up.  That makes them far more pliable than somebody who isn't and those who do not value human life find them easier to work with for whatever the final purpose ends up being.

With respect to entrapment, has entrapment been proven or is that another failure of my imagination?  Entrapment was a defence tactic with the Toronto 18 it failed.

So if the numbers are crunched what do we find?  How often is entrapment used successfully as a defence?  Is it a 50/50 thing or does it tip either way.

In order for entrapment to be proven it has to be shown that the accused had no predisposition to commit the crime they are charged with prior to agents of the state becoming involved.

This was not found to be the case with the Toronto 18.

Stepping off of the tangent for a moment if the mass surveillance program caught these 18 because of their electronic communications does that justify its existence and use or not?

That really is the sticking point isn't it Alex?

If personal freedom and privacy had been safeguarded to the point that these 18 had actually managed to pull off their plan would the lives lost be considered acceptable losses for personal privacy?

If personal freedom and privacy are violated and plots like these are stopped from ever happening is the loss of our personal privacy an acceptable price to pay for the safety of our fellow citizens?

Talk about rock and a hard place.

The following standard is often employed right about here:

Would Ben say that the deaths of hundreds represents "a little temporary safety" or would Ben say that it is much more than that?

I don't know Franklin well enough to say.

I do not like mass surveillance programs simply because of the sheer volume of data being mined.  Going through my stuff wouldn't have brought them any closer to the Toronto 18.  Going through somebody's stuff very well may have.

This appears to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't policy.

You are damned for spying on everyone when we know full well that not everyone should be suspected.

You are damned for not spying on everyone when we know full well that someone should be suspected and if they are not caught before hand there is blood on the streets and the authorities will be blamed for not preventing it.

Which way do you lean Alex and how much blood from any other are you willing to wager that your way is right?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Spiritually advanced people may consult the Akashich record and learn the truth about any action ever committed by anyone.  Nothing remains hidden forever.  Security cameras are just a mechanical reflection of spiritual powers that are attainable by anyone given right paractices and perseverence.  Your Buddy on the Path Pogur

Who shot JFK?

Colonel Mustard with a Blunderbuss from a grassy knoll.

Blunderbusses don't have that kind of range.

You know so much you tell us who shot JFK -pblblblblblblblblblbl

I'm not the one claiming there is such a thing as an omnipresent mental security camera.

I love when folks for the sake of "intelligent/rational/critical debate" check all that at the door in favour of just debate. It makes for great entertainment on Wondercafe, but not so much the open-minded discussion aspect.

But, heck, forgetting/ignoring/dismissing...  in order to argue is simple. It is far easier than learning about hard/soft theism. liberal theism versus classical theism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, pandeism, panendeism, polydeism, dystheism, nontheist positions...

I know many don't believe in a Supreme Surveillance Deity. But, it is more entertaining to pretend they all do and mock them.

Well, which is it? Is God everywhere, or not? Is God in everything, or not? Does God hear you, or not?

Or is your God a servant who only comes when called?

If God doesn't watch you, why are you limiting God? The fundies get asked that question all the time. Why are you telling me that God doesn't watch over you? What do you know that other Christians don't?

I deal with dozens of Christians on this site, each with their own specific beliefs about what God does or does not do. I'm serious that some sort of chart is required to keep track of these beliefs.

Even within the UCCan, there are multiple different ideas of what God is or is not. That's part of what makes Christianity so entertaining, and so frustrating - it's indistinguishable from a loose organization of people who have each invented an imaginary friend, but all the imaginary friends have been given the same name.

There is one Grand Canyon. There are unlimited viewpoints opening to this one Grand Canyon. It may be viewed at sunrise or at sunset. It may be viewed from the North or the South. It may be viewed by the ecstatic or the despairing. Whatever the viewpoint, It remains one Grand Canyon.

Two problems are present in any discussion of the Grand Canyon. One is in play where any particular viewpoint claims priority and privilege over all other viewpoints. In effect saying, I am the only one who sees the Grand Canyon as it really is.

The other is in play where some voice insists that there is no Grand Canyon and therefore all viewpoints are irrelevant.

George

LOL ... start your chat chansen ...... 

Yes indeed there are a myriad of understandings and beliefs here.

And also diverse backgrounds, education levels, and abilities to process and use information.

I am neither surprised nor dismayed that "Christians" happen to hold such large number of bewildering and bizarre viewpoints.     Such is the human condition......

If you want the correct "Christian" viewpoint .... ask me ....   LOL

Regards

Rita

chansen,

I meet anti-theists, atheists, non-theists, agnostics.... They can be closeted or open. They can be passive, active, evangelical, militant... I meet agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists. They can be freindly, indifferent or unfriendly. I meet positive/weak atheists and negative/strong atheists... their beliefs can be broad or narrow....  I know religious atheists and non-religious atheists and I don't just lump them all together or say they make no sense beacuse of their diversity of belief.

I agree with Poguru. There could be something like a cosmic hologram which contains the record of all cosmic action, right back to the beginning of time.

After all, the smallest particles are also waves, and all material action is also wave action. There is a wave universe that mirrors the material universe. In the material universe, the moment is over when its over, but the wave universe goes on forever. The interference pattern of the wave universe could indeed constitute a cosmic record, which Poguru calls the "Akashich record," and which could be perceived by those who are perceptive to it, and perhaps by the cosmic totality itself.

I'd caution everyone to consider the possibilty that our thoughts and actions in the here-and-now are on eternal cosmic record. What do you want to be known for to the universe for all times?

You can say the same about coffee drinkers, who all believe different brews are the best, and will argue or not care to argue about it.

But the bible makes several mentions of God's ability to see all. I agree that a Christian could dismiss these as metaphor (for what, I don't know), but you can't blame me for assuming that the average Christian thinks God is watching when the central book of the faith says multiple times that God is watching.

Chansen,

I can read in a book that atheists are heathens, would I be right in assuming it, of all atheists, you can't blame me,  that it is true because someone said it?

Come on.

When someone has told me they are not a heathen, have morals... I have personally seen them... do I get to rest on "well, you can't blame me".

I can grab a dictionary and it says an atheist does not believe in the existence of a God or gods. I can talk to someone and find out that what they do not believe in is certainty o r maybe they do not believe in a very specific God or the God of a specific religion.

I don't say, "well, the dictionary says so, so you must be" or "it is right of me to assume even when you have told me otherwise".

I guess I just expect more of theists as well as atheists than "the Bible says so."

That would be in a religous book, of course.

Atheists are heathens to believers in that they are nonbelievers. The "uncivilized" part of the definition isn't true, of course, but religious texts have been known to lie about people who do not believe. The word is listed as derogatory, but I don't take offense to it.

That's just the bible being inaccurate. Quelle suprise.

Congratulations. In two of your three examples, you've found someone who is not an atheist. By the definition you listed.

Look, if the bible isn't worth referencing for the beliefs of Christians, then what the hell is it for?

If you want to tell me there is nothing worth quoting about God watching over people in the bible, I'm there. And I understand that you've decided not to cherry pick that particular belief for yourself. But you can't tell me I can't criticize a belief that is held by many Christians, and not just the wackiest ones, that is present in multiple locations in the bible.

You certainly can't compare my reading the bible in context, to you incorrectly assigning the "atheist" label to someone who simply doesn't believe in one of the thousands of gods.

chansen,
 

I have no issue listening to what you believe. I have no issue with you telling me what a large number of Christians believe. I have no issue with you being critical of many of the same things I am critical of.

I do, however, take issue with you telling me what I believe or not listening to what I do believe. "Which is it then...?" when I tell you I don't believe in a Supernatural Surveillance Deity.

I also take issue with the constant accusation that one cannot bacisally "be a real Christian" because of what they believe or that they "toss the Bible" when they are not literalistic, etc. (You share that avenue with others that you yourself find ridiculous and ignorant or illogical)

I may also take issue when someone else tells you what they believe and you are dismissive and rude telling them what they believe. or how dumb they are for what they believe.

I am, at the end of the day, not a fan of the way that you present what I consider very valid and meaningful arguments. Paul Alan Laughlin talks about much of the same things you do (even using anger management as an example) without the need to call anyone's deity a "dufus" or other inflammatory language. For me, the way it is presented can invite deep thought and examination, critical thinking... or it can put someone in defense mode or shut down conversations (conversations, I again, believe need to be had)

For me, putting your beliefs on the table and sharing them does not require insulting other people or their beliefs.

For me, putting the sharing of beliefs above insulting and/or hurting people is wrong. 

For me, taking the attitude that the website and the conversation is about beliefs and they need thicker skin is wrong.

For me, you insulting folks because of what you believe and what they believe is no different than someone calling a TG person by a diminishing pronoun because of what they believe.

At the end of the day, you are free to do what you wish.

As for an all knowing God. Yes. I believe so. If everything...is everything put together for all time. We can't prove it because there isn't an all knowing human. Because I believe Life contains everything there is to know about existence. And we can't prove non-existance while existing. And we have to aknowledge we exist to exist to prove anything. Something keeps us existing. Without Life, there is non-existence. I don't believe that any one person or even group of people can be certain of all there is to know about All of Life though. I don't believe in certainty because tomorrow isn't here yet and we don't know what will happen. We can only guess that tomorrow will logically follow what happened today. That often doesn't happen but that's how we tend to think. I can't live in complete uncertainty (chaos) because- knowing me, I'd never get anything done (what would be the point). So, what I have, is faith. I think, from observation, atheists have faith too. They just live their lives and don't name any source (or call it God) that life originates from- because they want to be certain first. They still get up in the morning, cross the street, and make the same types of life decisions that theists do. Trusting sometimes nothing more than intuition based on up to date experience- because tomorrows lessons haven't arrived yet. They still need to breathe, eat, sleep- like we all do. The biggest difference, from personal experience having been an atheist- is taking for granted that life is for the living- and without it, we can't live. That there is, even though we can't quite pinpoint it to every person's satisfaction, a source of Life, without which, we wouldn't be. I might wish to be certain, but I can never be certain- I just don't have the capacity to be certain, or the ability to predict the future. So, I have faith, and stay hopeful that it will be good, and try to work with what I am given to do the best I can- and Jesus, I believe, is a great universal role model for that- for the best humanity can be. He is. The difference between being an atheist and not- for me- is that God is life and life is everything. And now I have connected the dots enough to see how Jesus represents (and I note the metaphor and symbolism) the best of humanity, to preserve and continue life. Always act for the greater good, with love and compassion- is the lesson. God's not a micromanager though. We try to be though, when we can't control what we don't know- and we never know it all. Not a single person in human history ever knew it all. Not even Jesus, and he acknowledged that.

For clarity, I believe that a verse like Proverbs 15:3 says something in the wisdom tradition. It can be instructions for believers rather than that the author even believed God was watching.

I do not believe in a God watching, when I do not believe in a God with eyes because I do not believe in God with a body.

BTW I am not alone and would guess a large majority of folks believe the same as I just stated.

So, you have no problem with my methods when we agree. It's only when we disagree that my posts become a problem?!?

Those are just questions to figure out what you believe. To me, any belief I criticize is often immediately not held by the person posting. It's like boxing a shadow.

I've written numerous times against Christians who have used the No True Scotman fallacy. There are Christians who believe the bible verbatim, and others who look at Christianity more like a fan club.

Don't see where I wrote that. I don't think holding a stupid idea automatically makes you a stupid person.

I think we need to stop being so respectful of religion and gods. I've said before that they are no more deserving of respect than a political candidate or opinion. Only with religion, it's even more based on authority and entrenched positions and even more resistant to observation and evidence. As such, I think it should be open season on religious beliefs - let them defend themselves instead of being off-limits or treated only with kid gloves. I can think of no other ideas that are given so much automatic and undeserved respect.

Well, not really. Aaron goes on delting sprees every so often. This site belongs to the UCCan, after all. They can turf me out whenever they see fit.

As for the rest, I can't even see where I've gone far in this thread. You pointed out that I called God a "dufus". That's actually a very toned-down description of the way I see him. I actually think God as described in the bible is a jealous and vindictive prick who solves problems by killing people and who, it is written, intends to play a similar game of favourites again one day. The greatest news about the bible is there is no good reason to believe in God in the first place.

I rarely get involved in threads that are a case of people musing about beliefs. In this case, I originally thought it was interesting that a Christian could take such a dim view of being monitored, especially as it was posted in Religion and Faith. Then Poguru came up with his claim of infinite and timeless security camera feeds.

[Not sure how you read that I take no issue depending on whether I agree or not.  My issue is not about what you believe or what Christians believe or even being critical...

I am not sure you can find out what anyone seriously believes, starting from a place of dismissing it as rubbish.

Again, you highlight one as a Christian (verbatim) and others who use Christianity as a "fan club".

I have no problem with the kid gloves paragraph. In fact, I agree more than you know. As a minister, I do check my own and I not expect a check of rational thought at the door, critical analysis, or scientific knowledge....Howeever, you take aim at the religious and not necessarily their beliefs.

They can turf anyone.

In your paragraph about how you see God, we agree on everything but your last line. I would likely have more emphasis on "as described in the Bible" than you would.

The irony you highlighted in your first comment was not lost on me, I actually have a great sense of humour. When you rub me wrong is when you tell others what they believe, should believe, must believe... to be rational, intelligent people or even to just not be a "fan "club".

Sorry, but what the...? How did you turn this into an instruction?

I mean, also in Proverbs 15 are actions that are an "abomination to the Lord" that will result in "severe discipline". How is that possible unless God is actually watching? You really have to stretch to get to a place where you believe in God, but can read scripure like that and say it doesn't mean what it clearly says.

I would guess the exact opposite. I don't think that's how Christianity has historically been sold.

Let me reorder these...

Wha? Highlighted above.

More than ironic, I find it hypocritical. You don't like my style, unless you agree with me.

As for what they believe, I mostly take exception to those who make claims they can't support.

Well, where do you get your ideas about God from, if it isn't the bible? I can see having a sense of wonder and needing to attribute that beauty to something - people need explanations, even bad ones. But if we both agree that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant with anger management issues, explain to me why I am the only non-Christian between the two of us?

chansen,
 

You see stretching because you only know what some have done to Jewish thought. You would be hard pressed to find a Jew who believes in a God with arms and legs, let alone eyes. To assume they meant God had eyes and was watching is incorrect.

Yes, what was sold to folks was something else.

That said, I would bet that if you ran a Wondercafe survey or even a Christian survey, most believers do not believe in a old man sitting on a cloud watching with human eyes .

That is a caricature of most believers and yes, some believers look quite a bit like the caricature.

Wisdom literature, which Proverbs is a part of, are instructions. They are part of the Ketuvim or "writings". They are basically the Hebrew equals to Greek philosophy. They raise questions of values, moral behaviour, right conduct... even the meaning of human life.

The repeated theme of Proverbs is  "fear God". They are writings to make you fear God and thus do good....

It did not literally mean God was watching.

What's wrong with being a "fan club" for a role model (whether one believes he is myth based on an ideal person or physically real- however one is cogniscent of Jesus' existance) who advocates fairness, compassion and healing- and to walk humbly in life as we aim to be better at those qualities? Is fairness real? Is compassion real? Is healing real? Is life real? All the rest is an attempt to explain it through a particular lense. Of course the explanations won't meet everyone's satisfaction, but the qualities are real. Can we agree on that? What a boring cold world if humans stopped imagining a better world for humanity that isn't here yet. Christians and atheists both do it. And Christians and atheists both revere love, compassion, and healing. And Christians and atheists both run into doubt, and have to go on hope and faith. And Christians and atheists both can be too certain sometimes. We're not that different. The main question is whether we care about each other or not. That is what keeps us living.