Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then?

I agree with this. Permanant celibacy is cruel and unusual punishment and no one seems to be sticking to it anyway.

Thank you for this post, XSH, especially for the last paragraph. One so rarely sees any sympathy for the man behind the pedophile priest (sorry for the double entendre). Most of these people enter the priesthood with high ideals, and take the vow of celibacy without realising that it is something too rigid for them to keep. Their failure is something which they themselves regret deeply, but which they are not strong enough to resist. The man who enters the priesthood intending to tamper with young boys is rare indeed.

My criticism is reserved for the senior church officials who condone their lapses; they are the real culprits.

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then? The CofE seems to get along fine without it. Perhaps those who want to take vows of celibacy ought to enter monasteries where the temptation isn't as great.

In principle I agree with you, but the thought of a Mrs Pope (or even a female pope) appals! Still, there was Pope Joan.....

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then?

I agree with this. Permanant celibacy is cruel and unusual punishment and no one seems to be sticking to it anyway.

Seems ridiculous

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then?

I agree with this. Permanant celibacy is cruel and unusual punishment and no one seems to be sticking to it anyway.

Baloney, celibacy should be no problem. Buddhist monks have no trouble being celibate.

The reason the church got into trouble over pederasty was because it was happening a lot there and their powers were protecting the priest criminals. This is NOT related to their teachings on homosexuality. Don't paint gay people with the pedo brush. That is hateful.

Of course people are deeply offended when they discover that a priest has been indecently dealing with children, whether male or female (and the kiddy fiddling hasn't all been with boys). But that is not so much related to the Church's teachings on homosexuality, as JY points out, and there's more than one of these.

Apart from a natural revulsion for the idea of a grown man, in a position of trust, who is expected to be a moral exemplar (and perhaps a confessor), engaging in manipulation, deception and intimidation of children in return for sexual favours, many Catholics have walked away from the Church because they saw a cover-up - the clergy protecting their own above all and trying to keep the institution's reputation "clean" (Fail!). For many, too, this was the last straw in a series of disappointments and disillusionments with the institutional church that began with the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968.

Homosexual orientation, to my knowledge, has always until recently been viewed with sympathy by the Church, if not by the more "muscular" sort of Catholic (one of my bosses was quite openly homophobic, though a generous-spirited man in other respects). There have been homosexual saints, as long as they've been celibate, and the recently beatified Cardinal Newman is widely regarded as having had quite open homosexual orientation. However, there has not been, to my knowledge, any suggestion that he did not keep his vow of celibacy. Looking at some work recently on the Christian Sannyasi, Bede Griffiths (d. 1993), I would think he had some (maybe not strong) homosexual orientation, but he never violated his monastic vows. He certainly did say, in the latter part of his life, that he believed homosexuality to be as "natural" as heterosexuality.

So the issue for the Church and for the clergy has not been homosexuality, but celibacy. Until recently, when the child abuse became well known, candidates for the priesthood were not checked out for their orientation, but for their character and aptitudes in general. It was understood that they were applying for a celibate vocation and that this must be inviolate regardless of one's sexual inclinations. Since the child abuse scandals, however, candidacy processes include a closer look at any indication of homosexuality, and men who have engaged in a "gay lifestyle" are not admitted. So, although most educated people understand clearly the difference between homosexuality and pederasty, the priestly abuse scandals have not been helpful to homosexual candidates for the priesthood who genuinely wish to serve and to abide by their vows of celibacy. I'm sure many homosexual men of good faith and ability will be lost to the Catholic clergy as a result, and that is unfortunate.

Perhaps we also need, in our condemnation of the priestly pedophiles' behaviour, to not lose sight of the vulnerable humanity of the men concerned. I knew some of these men. The pedophile was not the whole man. That they had these weaknesses and succumbed to them led them to lives of great unhappiness. They knew they were despoiling their own lives as well as the innocence of their victims, but they also had gifts and virtues that people knew them by and the knowing of which caused such shock when their misdeeds were revealed. I remember especially one colleague who phoned me in distress and told me she could not get over the sense of betrayal she had as a result of a well-regarded senior administrator's uncovering. His was difficult for all of us who knew him because he was, to us, a very decent person and a very fair administrator. But his victims from 30 years before (he'd since become laicised, married and had a family), had not forgotten and were still very bitter. It seems we never really know people.

Thank you for this post, XSH, especially for the last paragraph. One so rarely sees any sympathy for the man behind the pedophile priest (sorry for the double entendre). Most of these people enter the priesthood with high ideals, and take the vow of celibacy without realising that it is something too rigid for them to keep. Their failure is something which they themselves regret deeply, but which they are not strong enough to resist. The man who enters the priesthood intending to tamper with young boys is rare indeed.

My criticism is reserved for the senior church officials who condone their lapses; they are the real culprits.

I have to say i don't fully agree with yourself, isanbirder, or xangsamhua with what you say here.

To label sexual abuse of minors by church officials as 'lapses' is really not understanding who pedophiles are. When they sexually abuse children, using their position of trust and power, these are not 'lapses', not temporary lack of judgements, these are actions they have quite likely been thinking, dreaming, planning of for years. They are planned manipulative actions, not lapses.

As for priests entering the job intending to tamper with boys. It may be a low percentage, but I don't think it is rare: abuse by Priests has happened very often There is enough evidence the last twenty years to show repeated abuse of minors by those in power in the church. These men are pedophiles, and many of these pedophiles have become church leaders to put themselves in the very position where they know they can access children.

It is fine to see sympathy for the man behind the pedophile Priest. Of course the sexual orientation of being a pedophile does not make this the whole man but that applies to every human in the world, their sexuality being just one part of their make up.

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then?

I agree with this. Permanant celibacy is cruel and unusual punishment and no one seems to be sticking to it anyway.

Baloney, celibacy should be no problem. Buddhist monks have no trouble being celibate.

It's no problem to the monks in our village. Half of them have girlfriends on the side. The other half have boyfriends.

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then?

I agree with this. Permanant celibacy is cruel and unusual punishment and no one seems to be sticking to it anyway.

Baloney, celibacy should be no problem. Buddhist monks have no trouble being celibate.

It's no problem to the monks in our village. Half of them have girlfriends on the side. The other half have boyfriends.

Surely you jest?

I think maybe it has something to do with making men wear dresses. The Catholics do it, some of the protestants do it, the Buddhists do it and even some of the Mullah's do it. Now don't get me started on the hats!

Men of the cloth is one thing, but really do they need to look like they are in the evening gown competition at the Miss Universe pageant? No wonder they dabble in extracurricular activities.

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then?

I agree with this. Permanant celibacy is cruel and unusual punishment and no one seems to be sticking to it anyway.

Baloney, celibacy should be no problem. Buddhist monks have no trouble being celibate.

I am hoping that this is meant as a joke? Buddhist monks are not widely known for sticking to their vows.

Men of the cloth is one thing, but really do they need to look like they are in the evening gown competition at the Miss Universe pageant? No wonder they dabble in extracurricular activities.

I'm not a big fan of ceremonial display. Perhaps it has a place, but an estimate of $30,000 to rig out a cardinal for High Mass suggests profligacy.

http://www.richardsi...oking Good 2007[2].pdf

Our Eastern Orthodox brethren don't mind a bit of dressing up, too.

I wrote a lengthy reply to Bookman, and then lost it! To summarise, I said that these men (the pedophile priests) probably entered the priesthood on a spiritual high, fully intending to keep their vows. Then the daily grind of parish work brought them down from that high. Their sexual instincts reasserted themselves... and the Church placed them in a position where they had access to young boys (but not to girls). They succumbed... and the rest was history. I don't believe they went through years at the seminary planning for access to boys at the end.... partly because they could not know where the church would post them.,

Clerical dress... this could well be simplified, but I think some kind of uniform is needed.

Clerical dress... this could well be simplified, but I think some kind of uniform is needed.

Yes, I have no objection to the surplus and cassock and to the seasonally coloured stole. These convey a message and a sense of continuity, and their cost can be quite modest.

Thank you for this post, XSH, especially for the last paragraph. One so rarely sees any sympathy for the man behind the pedophile priest (sorry for the double entendre). Most of these people enter the priesthood with high ideals, and take the vow of celibacy without realising that it is something too rigid for them to keep. Their failure is something which they themselves regret deeply, but which they are not strong enough to resist. The man who enters the priesthood intending to tamper with young boys is rare indeed.

My criticism is reserved for the senior church officials who condone their lapses; they are the real culprits.

Perhaps the Catholic Church ought to reconsider its views on celibacy then? The CofE seems to get along fine without it. Perhaps those who want to take vows of celibacy ought to enter monasteries where the temptation isn't as great.

In principle I agree with you, but the thought of a Mrs Pope (or even a female pope) appals! Still, there was Pope Joan.....

I can't see anything wrong with a Mrs Pope. Someone's got to make the cucumber sandwiches.

If you know your Trollope, endure, Mrs Bishop Proudie is warning enough!

The only trollops I know are of a much less salubrious variety...

I suspect this is another "study" that would be refuted by the next or a different one. But anyone wating for the world to become secular has a long wait ahead of them. Make no mistake that when the time is right a new "God" will come along and attract the masses just like all the other times and the whole thing will start all over again. I'm actually suprised it hasen't happened yet. The Jews are wating for "jesus" the christians are wating for the anti christ , why someone hasn't been sucsessfull at creating a new "God" to scoop up those who are tired of wating is a suprise to me. But it will happen eventually.

I suspect this is another "study" that would be refuted by the next or a different one. But anyone wating for the world to become secular has a long wait ahead of them. Make no mistake that when the time is right a new "God" will come along and attract the masses just like all the other times and the whole thing will start all over again. I'm actually suprised it hasen't happened yet. The Jews are wating for "jesus" the christians are wating for the anti christ , why someone hasn't been sucsessfull at creating a new "God" to scoop up those who are tired of wating is a suprise to me. But it will happen eventually.

Don't hold your breath, MrRealDeal!

The reason the church got into trouble over pederasty was because it was happening a lot there and their powers were protecting the priest criminals. This is NOT related to their teachings on homosexuality. Don't paint gay people with the pedo brush. That is hateful.

Of course people are deeply offended when they discover that a priest has been indecently dealing with children, whether male or female (and the kiddy fiddling hasn't all been with boys). But that is not so much related to the Church's teachings on homosexuality, as JY points out, and there's more than one of these.

Apart from a natural revulsion for the idea of a grown man, in a position of trust, who is expected to be a moral exemplar (and perhaps a confessor), engaging in manipulation, deception and intimidation of children in return for sexual favours, many Catholics have walked away from the Church because they saw a cover-up - the clergy protecting their own above all and trying to keep the institution's reputation "clean" (Fail!). For many, too, this was the last straw in a series of disappointments and disillusionments with the institutional church that began with the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968.

Homosexual orientation, to my knowledge, has always until recently been viewed with sympathy by the Church, if not by the more "muscular" sort of Catholic (one of my bosses was quite openly homophobic, though a generous-spirited man in other respects). There have been homosexual saints, as long as they've been celibate, and the recently beatified Cardinal Newman is widely regarded as having had quite open homosexual orientation. However, there has not been, to my knowledge, any suggestion that he did not keep his vow of celibacy. Looking at some work recently on the Christian Sannyasi, Bede Griffiths (d. 1993), I would think he had some (maybe not strong) homosexual orientation, but he never violated his monastic vows. He certainly did say, in the latter part of his life, that he believed homosexuality to be as "natural" as heterosexuality.

So the issue for the Church and for the clergy has not been homosexuality, but celibacy. Until recently, when the child abuse became well known, candidates for the priesthood were not checked out for their orientation, but for their character and aptitudes in general. It was understood that they were applying for a celibate vocation and that this must be inviolate regardless of one's sexual inclinations. Since the child abuse scandals, however, candidacy processes include a closer look at any indication of homosexuality, and men who have engaged in a "gay lifestyle" are not admitted. So, although most educated people understand clearly the difference between homosexuality and pederasty, the priestly abuse scandals have not been helpful to homosexual candidates for the priesthood who genuinely wish to serve and to abide by their vows of celibacy. I'm sure many homosexual men of good faith and ability will be lost to the Catholic clergy as a result, and that is unfortunate.

Perhaps we also need, in our condemnation of the priestly pedophiles' behaviour, to not lose sight of the vulnerable humanity of the men concerned. I knew some of these men. The pedophile was not the whole man. That they had these weaknesses and succumbed to them led them to lives of great unhappiness. They knew they were despoiling their own lives as well as the innocence of their victims, but they also had gifts and virtues that people knew them by and the knowing of which caused such shock when their misdeeds were revealed. I remember especially one colleague who phoned me in distress and told me she could not get over the sense of betrayal she had as a result of a well-regarded senior administrator's uncovering. His was difficult for all of us who knew him because he was, to us, a very decent person and a very fair administrator. But his victims from 30 years before (he'd since become laicised, married and had a family), had not forgotten and were still very bitter. It seems we never really know people.

Thank you for this post, XSH, especially for the last paragraph. One so rarely sees any sympathy for the man behind the pedophile priest (sorry for the double entendre). Most of these people enter the priesthood with high ideals, and take the vow of celibacy without realising that it is something too rigid for them to keep. Their failure is something which they themselves regret deeply, but which they are not strong enough to resist. The man who enters the priesthood intending to tamper with young boys is rare indeed.

My criticism is reserved for the senior church officials who condone their lapses; they are the real culprits.

Were they having consensual sex with adults I would agree. With children is just unforgiveable.

The reason the church got into trouble over pederasty was because it was happening a lot there and their powers were protecting the priest criminals. This is NOT related to their teachings on homosexuality. Don't paint gay people with the pedo brush. That is hateful.

Of course people are deeply offended when they discover that a priest has been indecently dealing with children, whether male or female (and the kiddy fiddling hasn't all been with boys). But that is not so much related to the Church's teachings on homosexuality, as JY points out, and there's more than one of these.

Apart from a natural revulsion for the idea of a grown man, in a position of trust, who is expected to be a moral exemplar (and perhaps a confessor), engaging in manipulation, deception and intimidation of children in return for sexual favours, many Catholics have walked away from the Church because they saw a cover-up - the clergy protecting their own above all and trying to keep the institution's reputation "clean" (Fail!). For many, too, this was the last straw in a series of disappointments and disillusionments with the institutional church that began with the encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968.

Homosexual orientation, to my knowledge, has always until recently been viewed with sympathy by the Church, if not by the more "muscular" sort of Catholic (one of my bosses was quite openly homophobic, though a generous-spirited man in other respects). There have been homosexual saints, as long as they've been celibate, and the recently beatified Cardinal Newman is widely regarded as having had quite open homosexual orientation. However, there has not been, to my knowledge, any suggestion that he did not keep his vow of celibacy. Looking at some work recently on the Christian Sannyasi, Bede Griffiths (d. 1993), I would think he had some (maybe not strong) homosexual orientation, but he never violated his monastic vows. He certainly did say, in the latter part of his life, that he believed homosexuality to be as "natural" as heterosexuality.

So the issue for the Church and for the clergy has not been homosexuality, but celibacy. Until recently, when the child abuse became well known, candidates for the priesthood were not checked out for their orientation, but for their character and aptitudes in general. It was understood that they were applying for a celibate vocation and that this must be inviolate regardless of one's sexual inclinations. Since the child abuse scandals, however, candidacy processes include a closer look at any indication of homosexuality, and men who have engaged in a "gay lifestyle" are not admitted. So, although most educated people understand clearly the difference between homosexuality and pederasty, the priestly abuse scandals have not been helpful to homosexual candidates for the priesthood who genuinely wish to serve and to abide by their vows of celibacy. I'm sure many homosexual men of good faith and ability will be lost to the Catholic clergy as a result, and that is unfortunate.

Perhaps we also need, in our condemnation of the priestly pedophiles' behaviour, to not lose sight of the vulnerable humanity of the men concerned. I knew some of these men. The pedophile was not the whole man. That they had these weaknesses and succumbed to them led them to lives of great unhappiness. They knew they were despoiling their own lives as well as the innocence of their victims, but they also had gifts and virtues that people knew them by and the knowing of which caused such shock when their misdeeds were revealed. I remember especially one colleague who phoned me in distress and told me she could not get over the sense of betrayal she had as a result of a well-regarded senior administrator's uncovering. His was difficult for all of us who knew him because he was, to us, a very decent person and a very fair administrator. But his victims from 30 years before (he'd since become laicised, married and had a family), had not forgotten and were still very bitter. It seems we never really know people.

Thank you for this post, XSH, especially for the last paragraph. One so rarely sees any sympathy for the man behind the pedophile priest (sorry for the double entendre). Most of these people enter the priesthood with high ideals, and take the vow of celibacy without realising that it is something too rigid for them to keep. Their failure is something which they themselves regret deeply, but which they are not strong enough to resist. The man who enters the priesthood intending to tamper with young boys is rare indeed.

My criticism is reserved for the senior church officials who condone their lapses; they are the real culprits.

I have to say i don't fully agree with yourself, isanbirder, or xangsamhua with what you say here.

To label sexual abuse of minors by church officials as 'lapses' is really not understanding who pedophiles are. When they sexually abuse children, using their position of trust and power, these are not 'lapses', not temporary lack of judgements, these are actions they have quite likely been thinking, dreaming, planning of for years. They are planned manipulative actions, not lapses.

As for priests entering the job intending to tamper with boys. It may be a low percentage, but I don't think it is rare: abuse by Priests has happened very often There is enough evidence the last twenty years to show repeated abuse of minors by those in power in the church. These men are pedophiles, and many of these pedophiles have become church leaders to put themselves in the very position where they know they can access children.

It is fine to see sympathy for the man behind the pedophile Priest. Of course the sexual orientation of being a pedophile does not make this the whole man but that applies to every human in the world, their sexuality being just one part of their make up.

Agree 100%.

I suspect this is another "study" that would be refuted by the next or a different one. But anyone wating for the world to become secular has a long wait ahead of them. Make no mistake that when the time is right a new "God" will come along and attract the masses just like all the other times and the whole thing will start all over again. I'm actually suprised it hasen't happened yet. The Jews are wating for "jesus" the christians are wating for the anti christ , why someone hasn't been sucsessfull at creating a new "God" to scoop up those who are tired of wating is a suprise to me. But it will happen eventually.

Church attendance (UK) has been declining for decades. Not sure what you mean about 'new gods TBH, there are as many gods are there are believers so any child inculcated into fatuous belief in an invisible sky daddy will bring along a new one while another others will disappear when people pass away. Sure they are some similarities between 2 individual's god but since they are both gods it is to be expected. You also have the Mormon church, Moonies and the Church of Scientology, both of which are fairly new. New Christian sects spring up as time passes which now stands at around 6000.

Religious belief within the population of the world as a whole has been declining for centuries. Areas where the power of clerical bullies and or state sponsorship of religion has been curtailed has shown the biggest drop off which indicates that without outside pressure, people tend to dump belief in the irrational.

I have an intellectual farang friend who is very serious about Buddhism. He thinks religion will phase out as time rolls on. I'm not so sure. I think people, as a species with their large brains, feel a need for such beliefs. Even without religion, most people would still cling to a raft of superstitious beliefs.

Let's not confuse religion with spirituality. To me, they're as different as butter and margarine (religion).

I think all humans (and perhaps some animals) have a capacity to realize spiritual enlightenment. Few know about that capacity, and fewer numbers seek it, and only a rarified few have attained it.

He thinks religion will phase out as time rolls on. I'm not so sure.

History would suggest he is correct.

I think people, as a species with their large brains, feel a need for such beliefs. Even without religion, most people would still cling to a raft of superstitious beliefs.

As more things are shown to have natural causes (earthquakes for example) the island of irrational items grows smaller. Also, postulating the supernatural is more widely been seen for what it is, an argument from ignorance.

I think all humans (and perhaps some animals) have a capacity to realize spiritual enlightenment. Few know about that capacity, and fewer numbers seek it, and only a rarified few have attained it.

Any proof that spiritual enlightenment actually exists would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for that insightful observation, but i never said that it is

"Of course the sex thing did not help. It is not only the violation of trust, trust being a large part of religious belief it is also the hypocrisy of an anti gay agenda while engaging in that very same behavior.I am afraid once trust is lost it is very hard to be regained."

So what did you mean by this then?

I meant exactly what it said,

They did not chose to molest girls, they chose to molest boys, and while they preached that sex with males is wrong, and if you do you will go to hell. they were having sex with males. that is hypocritical

Having sex with males whether consensual or otherwise is homosexual.

Which part are we not understanding, the what constitutes homosexual behavior,or the meaning of hypocritical.

You're still confused. They are not the same thing.

One is a sexual orientation and NOT CRIMINAL. Homosexuality.

The other is a serious crime. Pederasty.

I think you're skating on thin ice here.

The reason the church got into trouble over pederasty was because it was happening a lot there and their powers were protecting the priest criminals. This is NOT related to their teachings on homosexuality. Don't paint gay people with the pedo brush. That is hateful.

In the good old days (and not so very long ago) both were criminal acts.

However this is not supposed to be yet another debate on sex, but on the percentage of people who regard themselves as 'religious'. I hve been brought up in a Christian belief, with consideration of the entire bible as it still available - Old and New testaments. Although science has taken us beyond some of the propositions mentioned therein, the whole direction of the book is to promote an ordered society where one can live in harmony with one's neighbours and to that end I stil regard myself as 'christian'.

With respect to the early chapters on creation, the origin of the universe is not, to me, fully explained by the 'Big Bang' theory. For instance, what caused the Big Bang? What was ther before the Big Bang? How was that created? What are the limits of the universe? I understand that the general explanation is that the universe will eventually collapse in upon itself, then have another Big Bang. If so, what occupies the space currently filled by the universe? Will we ever bump into a wall at the end of the universe?

Religion may not answer these questions adequately, but it probably did so for the people around in the BC and early AD eras. But that was only a small part of what the major religions set out to do. Their main purpose was not to investigate and study the creation, it was - and still is - to provide a framework for society that allows room for most of us to co-exist without infringing on the 'rights' of others. In actual fact we have very few 'rights'. We have obligations.

Many often asked questions.

With respect to the early chapters on creation, the origin of the universe is not, to me, fully explained by the 'Big Bang' theory. For instance, what caused the Big Bang?

Why does there need to be a cause?

What was ther before the Big Bang?

Not a meaningful question. Time as we know it is just a dimension of the Universe (space-time), no space-time (no Universe) then no before or after.

How was that created?

Sounds like a re-word of your first question though 'that' could mean you ask what created that which existed before the Universe. If we leave aside the question of a need for a cause for a moment and explore further we can say.... The Universe has a potential to exist, the Universe exists and this potential for a Universe to exist has always existed. You would still be there holding the same empty sack as you would with the God, god or gods postulation.

What are the limits of the universe? I understand that the general explanation is that the universe will eventually collapse in upon itself, then have another Big Bang. If so, what occupies the space currently filled by the universe?

The Universe contracts (and expands), not that which is contained within it.

Will we ever bump into a wall at the end of the universe?

No more than we would reach the 'end' if walking around a circle (2D) or a sphere (3D).

More on topic....

Religion may not answer these questions adequately, but it probably did so for the people around in the BC and early AD eras.

Not adequately? False answers which have through time either been shown not to be true or unsubstantiated

In the good old days (and not so very long ago) both were criminal acts.

In the good old days (and not so very long ago) the age of heterosexual consent for girls in the UK was 13. How far back do you want to go to suit your prejudices?

Baloney, celibacy should be no problem. Buddhist monks have no trouble being celibate.

It's no problem to the monks in our village. Half of them have girlfriends on the side. The other half have boyfriends.

Yes, most Buddhist monks appear to be celibate as taught, but many appear to be having trouble adhering with it. Celibacy can fit with a true spiritual quest, but Thai style of Buddhism does not have much to do with true spirituality. It has more to do with rituals, superstition, blindly following what's dictated, memorizing texts, more rituals, etc.

Any proof that spiritual enlightenment actually exists would be greatly appreciated.

I've had glimpses on several occassions, some drug-fueled. I could explain it in words, but i can't offer a video. It's like trying to explain a sexual orgasm to someone who's never experienced it. Yet enlightenment is more like an orgasm of the brain rather than the gonads. Plus, there are variations to spriritual enlightenment. Religion has a paucity of info on that, because they so readily take one type of enlightenment (Christ's experience after fasting for 40 days, for example) and burnish it until it's as rigid as a bronze casting.

Any proof that spiritual enlightenment actually exists would be greatly appreciated.

I've had glimpses on several occassions, some drug-fueled. I could explain it in words, but i can't offer a video. It's like trying to explain a sexual orgasm to someone who's never experienced it. Yet enlightenment is more like an orgasm of the brain rather than the gonads.

Me too and mine was definitely drug fueled. I saw God in full color 3D and I have never had a hallucination so vivid before or since. I still wonder where it came from as it was so "real" and so intense and lasted for what seemed like 10 or 20 minutes.

Any proof that spiritual enlightenment actually exists would be greatly appreciated.

I've had glimpses on several occassions, some drug-fueled. I could explain it in words, but i can't offer a video. It's like trying to explain a sexual orgasm to someone who's never experienced it. Yet enlightenment is more like an orgasm of the brain rather than the gonads. Plus, there are variations to spriritual enlightenment. Religion has a paucity of info on that, because they so readily take one type of enlightenment (Christ's experience after fasting for 40 days, for example) and burnish it until it's as rigid as a bronze casting.

So no then.. as personal experiences are not proof. This does cast a somewhat dim light on other things within your post I have to add. A person could claim they are a chicken sandwich, for all I know they could fully believe they are a chicken sandwich but that does not mean they are, or that other people should believe they are, or that anyone should respect their belief that they are.

Many often asked questions.

With respect to the early chapters on creation, the origin of the universe is not, to me, fully explained by the 'Big Bang' theory. For instance, what caused the Big Bang?

Why does there need to be a cause?

What was ther before the Big Bang?

Not a meaningful question. Time as we know it is just a dimension of the Universe (space-time), no space-time (no Universe) then no before or after.

How was that created?

Sounds like a re-word of your first question though 'that' could mean you ask what created that which existed before the Universe. If we leave aside the question of a need for a cause for a moment and explore further we can say.... The Universe has a potential to exist, the Universe exists and this potential for a Universe to exist has always existed. You would still be there holding the same empty sack as you would with the God, god or gods postulation.

So long as you keep looking for God within the realm of physics, then you'll be forever searching. Searching for something in the confident belief that it does not exist seems somewhat futile. Perhaps you would be better to rely solely on your faith that there is no God, rather than searching for something that you believe does not exist, in the hope of not finding it.

SC

So long as you keep looking for God within the realm of physics, then you'll be forever searching.

Indeed, the invisible and the non existent look very much alike

Searching for something in the confident belief that it does not exist seems somewhat futile.

No question.

Perhaps you would be better to rely solely on your faith that there is no God, rather than searching for something that you believe does not exist, in the hope of not finding it.

Common misconception, atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a claim. You hold out 2 fists and claim you have a 10 Baht coin in you left hand, I reject that claim but that does not mean I claim you have a 10 Baht coin in your right hand does it?