So you believe in God because you want to, just like everyone else. But why do you think that is of any interest or value to anybody? You are quite right to feel ashamed: parading your irrationality in public is -- or should be -- deeply embarrassing.

You are right to mention ego, and ego and pride are what drives most, even those who deny it, and perhaps more so.

You are right to emphasis common humanity, but it is not religion that is common to, or consistent in, humanity. A focus on a common humanity and the world we share seems to be the best "inspiration to face the world without pretences". Altruism is the best God.

A few years ago Andrew Denton, in an article in the SMH, quoted the Risen Ape passage from Robert Ardrey's "African Genesis". Ardrey repeated the quote with further supporting comment in his "Hunting Hypothesis".

That, and a passage from the "Territorial Imperative", explained to me how we came to be here and why we are the way we are. I had both passages on file before Andrew Denton used one of them.

All religion is man made, mainly by the politicians of some ancient age for their own purposes of population control or what today would be taxation . If that isn't so why are there so many different religions.

Many religions have died out over the ages and being a non-theist only requires that you ignore one more beside the thousands you already think were or are nonsense.

Jon J writes: <So you believe in God because you want to, just like everyone else...> Wrong. And that was one of the main points of my article: I believe in God because, although I refused to surrender for decades, my experience impels me to do so. (And by the way "everyone else" must include you! Are you saying you share my belief?)

Jon J writes: <You are quite right to feel ashamed: parading your irrationality in public is -- or should be -- deeply embarrassing.> Wrong again. I feel no shame about writing the article. I did feel extremely reluctant to publish it (as I actually explained, in case you haven't read it) because I knew I would have to endure the attacks of the stone-throwing moralisers like you. Your ethical position is that whatever public utterances do not fall within your understanding of rationality must be repressed by the authorities -- i.e. by you. How does this differ from Fascism and Communism?

McReal: I think you and I are probably not far from common ground. It would take me a lot of words to explain this, so it will have to wait. Thanks for your comment.

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for quoting me. I think you wrote a great piece and am happy you found me worth disagreeing with.

"Jon J writes: <So you believe in God because you want to, just like everyone else...> Wrong. And that was one of the main points of my article: I believe in God because, although I refused to surrender for decades, my experience impels me to do so. (And by the way "everyone else" must include you! Are you saying you share my belief?)"

I should have said 'every other theist'. But since you have provided no evidence that would convince anyone who wasn't predisposed to belief, I stick by my statement: you believe because you want to.

"Jon J writes: <You are quite right to feel ashamed: parading your irrationality in public is -- or should be -- deeply embarrassing.> Wrong again. I feel no shame about writing the article. I did feel extremely reluctant to publish it (as I actually explained, in case you haven't read it) because I knew I would have to endure the attacks of the stone-throwing moralisers like you. Your ethical position is that whatever public utterances do not fall within your understanding of rationality must be repressed by the authorities -- i.e. by you. How does this differ from Fascism and Communism?"

I am not an authority, and I do not want to stop you proclaiming your beliefs -- or doing any other foolish thing -- in public, as long as nobody gets hurt by it. But I like to think that if I was tempted to publicise my own irrational beliefs -- yes, I have them, like everyone else -- some kind friend would tell me that it wasn't a terribly good idea. It's not a moral issue, it's just a charitable urge to prevent people making themselves look foolish.

If you do have any genuine evidence or arguments for your beliefs, let's hear them. If not, then they are irrational, no matter how widely held they are or how compelling they seem to you. The guys on the street wearing tinfoil hats have compelling beliefs too, but we're not obliged to take them seriously.

This article reminds us of the challenge which we feel when our rational mind adopts atheism as an answer. The immediate uneasiness with a rational answer in a world which increasingly proves, to us, its irrationality, persists until we privately adopt an irrational, and workable attitude.

Eventually we realise that it is not God in which we do not believe, but the institutional presentation of God, with which it has been confused all of our lives.

We are not anti Christian, just anti a current presentation of Christianity, which we cannot accept.

Jung was asked,”Dr. Jung, do you think there is a God.”. He laughed and said,”I do not think; I know.”

He said:”Why do we debate the existence of God, when the Unconscious behaves exactly as Gods are reputed to behave?” Of course, some debate the existence of the Unconscious, so this is no help to them.

For many of us, the nearest we are able to come to communication with God, is to love every human being. Beyond that, for us, God is unfathomable.

Thank you, Stephen, for a valuable communication of your most private self.

as the..body..of your/words
are just..repeating other/thoughts
i feel a correction..is in..order...[re..'god does insist']

oh a-thiest desist..
you know not..what/that you resist

god..the/good..doth not insist

know you not..he has begotten for-you..
a will of your own

that/with..the good/god..enthroned within your/living beating heart
you were never...alone

know that ye do/did..to evem/the least..you did
[or did..or not/do..for the most]

for within..each..of us..living..
resides our/own private..[god..of the most]..[our/own..holy-host]

god is all grace/all mercyfull..
he alone..will never judge[allways..from him;love]

no matter how much..we may begrudge..or fudge,..
his love/grace/mercy..comes to us/all

darn..i didnt..want to/write this in verse
but god gives..hope..even to/the worst

he loves..a repentant heart
god[good]..has refined love to/an art

[a reminder to all...
he resides in your heart]..emmanuel..[god with-in]

good/god is the light...but by his love of freewill...he allows us to reject..his radiance..even/to dwell..in..the darker than night

but he loves our repenting..
[our/seeing..the light]..will make-it/right

recall the..parrable..of the long/lost..one

simply by yearning for repenting..we begin to/right/that we-got wrong

god is..the long-lost servant..
serving even the most-vile..to live

those who lie..and say he must/will..judge us...clearly have gotten..the good/of god...totally wrong

jesus came..to reveal..the lie...of dead/being...dead
just as he/has..arisen..so for-us/all..get this..into your head
he born/of woman..was huh-man..just like you

there is no end-time judgment-day..we just/all go..where we belong
for..thyne..fathers-house..has many/rooms[;jc]

see those..who love the light/love/logic..go there
those who..reject the..light..know/that darkness..is there

[yet even/those..stuck..in the darkest of hell
soon must realise..inside..them/
there..
even the wholly/good..[god]..too must dwell]

im getting..sick of/this verse
even worse...those who claim to see..the light
yet chose*..to dwell in the darkness..some call hell

if only they knew..god gifts/ALL-us..our will..freely
those who..love the dark/vile..have their own/dwelling
as jesus did tell...

[good/god was/is..in his heart...too]

anyhow i/must..get rid of this rhyming
just know..in your heart
lives the love/light/logic..forever

even..when you/chose..to reject/his light..and sink/into hell

KNOW...dead aint dead..we all/are..but eternal/spirits..having..a life-experience

building...here..our soul..
leaerning/here..to-know..from good/love/light/logic/mercy..and such...

KNOW-more shall/be given..
much/more..than we could..ever know

but/from me..thats all

dont reject..the-good..
the god..you never..sought..to know

Jon J - there are people in this world who take the risk of sharing their beliefs and opinions with an audience, and thank god (whoever or whatever your concept of that is) that they do, because otherwise we'd be living in an intolerably dull world, with nothing interesting to read and argue about.

Instead of bagging people who take these risks (and the risks are considerable, as I know only too well from being on the receiving end of abuses and rebukes when I've published on OLO) why don't you save your scorn for something in the public realm that really deserves it, and either engage with the article intelligently, or zippy zip and move on.

If writing about your beliefs would embarrass you, then don't do it, nobody's going to make you. But why take cheap shots at those of us who do stick our necks out and give you something to think about and discuss, whether you agree with it or not?

God does not exist. This is true as long as we continue to apply the best human paradigms against which we talk about God. None of the raves and rants come anywhere near the truth.This is a fact given God cannot be reduced to the limitations of humanity.
It is true to say God is, without qualifying it.
This is a truth that was arrived at over 2000 years ago when ancient Jewish wandering shepherds thought hard and long just as we are doing today about God and the nayure of God and what the relationship is between God and man. We are the 21st century shepherds and we arent doing any better despite all our sophistication. All the usual outpourings have similar mistakes. The ancients came closest when they invented the tetragrammaton YHWH to speak about God.

God was, is and forever will be and everything including human beings have their existence in God. The rantings of atheists make no difference nor do the half-baked retaliations by arrogant theists.

Love Comes To Here In Time,
and Numbers All the Things
of Beauty In the House.
Only Light Itself Is Come
-- A Merest Touch of Brightness
Neither Mind Nor Body Can Deny.
It Is the Heart's Explanation of Reality.
It Is Reality, Plain Spoken To the Heart
-- and By the Heart Alone.
It Is The Beautiful Itself.

I grew up in that time period too. Instead of the usual incredibly boring Christian apologists or "theologians" I came across the iconoclastic Jiddu Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, and the magnificent trickster Timothy Leary via The Politics of Ecstasy.

Ecstasy was NOT in any way part of the vocabulary of all the buttoned down dreadfully sane Christian propaganda hacks of the time, NOR of Protestant Christianity altogether.

All the Christians I knew were incredibly boring.

And of course Jesus was not a social worker, nor did he preach or demonstrate a Social Gospel. His Wisdom Teaching was much more profound than that:

http://www.beezone.com/up/secretsofkingdomofgod.html

Meanwhile the Heart always has a question - which must be satisfied.

http://www.dabase.org/tfrbkyml.htm

Also

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/not_elsewhere.html

http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htm

The point is, are we capable of making this a better world for us rather smarmy whites, without some sort of God, whether it be the God of the written Bible, some sort of Great Architect or Grand Geometrician.

Certainly we need some sort of God to stop us whites calling most coloureds simply just low life, as we do to our Aborigines, and even to Arab nations, preferring the Jews as the US has done by unlawfully allowing them to go militarily atomic.

It is so interesting that Thomas Aquinas was made a Saint not as just a Preacher but as a philosopher who with a very worried mind believed that a conceptual and continual knowledge of history and science was the only way to make our world a safer and better place.

Briar Rose -- what could possibly be more deserving of scorn than someone who puts forward the results of their own wishful thinking as an explanation of the universe? Isn't that the very definition of wrong-headedness? No evidence; no arguments. What could possibly count as being MORE wrong?

If you check the forum archives you will see that I engage with several other topics as well. But religious claims are particularly inviting because:

a) they are so SILLY.

b) the fact that a forum like OO actually takes them seriously and publishes them is indicative of a social bias that needs to be kept in check.

I have nothing personal against theist articles on OO: but they clearly fall well short of the standards of coherence and evidence applied to articles on other topics. Whether this reflects a bias on the part of the selectors or whether they are deliberately pandering to their audience, I don't know, but as long as they keep putting up lame ducks I plan to go on shooting them down.

Religious claims are easy target practice for those of us who value logic and reason. Once their proponents and disseminators realise that and stop posting them, then we will have to turn our attention to more subtle errors.

As a matter of interest Jon J, to clarify the background to your assertions, what is your view on the concept of the unconscious mind?

I reckon that believers should be allowed to dwell in the murky confines of their religious delusions EXCEPT when those beliefs lead to divisions between nations, divisions which often lead to war.

After all, what's wrong with people wandering about muttering to themselves while thinking that they're having a nice little chat with some man-made god who, unseen, heeds their every pitiful word? I mean they're harming no one.

But of course, when leaders of nations claim that god is on their side and blesses their troops or has made them his children, then the fantasy of religion is certainly treading on dangerous ground.

No religion = no war! Simple really.

Leo Lane: Thanks for your encouraging response. I didn’t bring Jung or his psychology into the article because it would have raised too many questions at once in the minds of readers. But, as you seem to have already discerned, my approach to experience is partly based on Jungian concepts and practice.

Socratease: Thanks for your comment. You and I seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Jon J:
I’ll spend some more words on your posts simply because they are classic examples of the attitude and reasoning that I see as dangerous to human sanity world-wide.

Firstly, if you had read my article with a modicum of care you would have realised that it clearly does not purport to be “an explanation of the universe”. The universe can be explained only by scientific investigation and debate. God did not make the universe and does not interfere in the universe.

Secondly, mine is not one of your “theist articles”. My third paragraph explicitly states that! I believe in no supernatural entity.

Thirdly, nowhere in my article do I even pretend to present “evidence”. That would necessitate empirical facts – data that are publicly verifiable. Rules of evidence are quite inappropriate to my purpose in writing. I am not presenting a scientific report or a legal judgement: I am writing about my personal experience and the way I respond to it, in the hope that it will help some other people to deal better with their own lives.

As to your derogation of the OLO editorial team, I’ll leave it to them to respond if they see any need.

And now I eagerly await your answer to Leo Lane’s question, which is central to the whole discussion!

An interesting -and remarkably candid- look into another human's head.
My only regret is that you are not a woman, Mr Crabbe.
That -for me- would have been truly educational.

The religious people know that without new recruits their systems all but colapse and this is why their not ashamed, and as a matter of fact, they are counting on this type of publicity, because this is free advertising and the main way to spread the word so to speak.

As long as its a controversial subject, they get to stay alive even if only by the currant numbers.

The religions of the world are quite smart people, and they know the law and how to use it to their advantage and as long as there's communication outlets available not even God its self can stop them.

So I just live with them, knowing the real truth.

My definition of what and where God is.

When you ask your self a Question, who are you asking? and as jiminy cricket from Disney always told us, just let your conscious be your guide.

TTM

Stephen Crabbe did not present a logical analysis. He did not try to impose his view on others. He simply and beautifully told the way he felt and gave me the idea of the process which led to his connection with the Anglican church.

Although I don't have the same feelings I appreciate his feelings and his expression of those feelings. I hope he writes more.

Bearing such personal information publicly takes REAL courage. Well done.

But I like to think that if I was tempted to publicise my own irrational beliefs -- yes, I have them, like everyone else -- some kind friend would tell me that it wasn't a terribly good idea. It's not a moral issue, it's just a charitable urge to prevent people making themselves look foolish.

Q: Why Jon J do you feel the article was based upon irrational beliefs? Also, why the term 'foolish'? Why feel embarrassed for a person who writes an article based upon his/her own experiences, thoughts and beliefs?

Wonderful writing, your articles are fabulous.
I hope you have much more for us on OLO!

Beautifully written, Stephen ... a nice story.

But hey, we're back in the REAL world now, where false religion dogma is still being forced into young minds, as it was in yours, it seems.

You say "the music, symbols and language took hold of me". Well, I see the effects of early brainwashing. You don't mention the savagery and contradictions found in the bible.

I, too, have been told a few times by well-meaning believers that "I would make a great Christian". I tell them that they would make great atheists. That's the difference.

I can understand how some can let go of their rationality and be seduced by the "loving" fellowship of believers, but honestly Stephen, have you seen how these same believers carry on when you're NOT one of their own flock? It's not pretty!

Non-believers have no reason to harbour hatred against other human beings like that. Only self-righteous believers do that.

Talking about what we call god, is a bit like saying that trees are not alive, and we cannot see the trees for the forest. All living things are so unique in that they exist by the magic of nature, I doubt that man could manufacture any of these, and I doubt that nature can be described by any other than the work of god, remembering that the name "God" was derived and accepted by man. When you start confusing the houses of religion, you would be better off by first reading through the portion of the bible "The Gospel according to St Matthew", Chapter 23. I believe it condemns most of these "churches" which seem to being intent on aiming to instill in you that "They" are the chosen ones, and you should take notice and obey them.

Thank you to the readers who have posted words of appreciation. I especially thank David Fisher for his kind comments, since his lucid articles helped to crystallise my own ideas.

Foyle: Interesting post, but I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance to my article.

Bushbred: I agree about knowledge of science and history being essential to making the world a better place. I know you’re very keen on Thomas Aquinas. Have you ever read Matthew Fox’s book “Sheer Joy!”? It’s an unorthodox and inspiring insight into the more mystical side of Aquinas that churches and theologians have rarely given attention. I recommend it heartily.

David G: < No religion = no war! Simple really. > Are you serious?

Secular Guy:
< But hey, we're back in the REAL world now, where false religion dogma is still being forced into young minds, as it was in yours, it seems. > My parents never went to church and never talked religion, just sent me along on Sundays. Dogma was not heavily expounded in my church environment, and I don’t think I ever felt that I was being force-fed. (Of course society in general in the 1950s was still pretty moralistic, with a kill-joy attitude towards youth. But we showed ‘em the new ways once Elvis and Bill Haley started rockin’ us in the aisles of the local cinema!) My most vivid memories are of the beauty of the church architecture, its stained-glass windows and carvings, and the music. To quote John Keats, “Beauty is truth.”

<I can understand how some can let go of their rationality and be seduced by the "loving" fellowship of believers, but honestly Stephen, have you seen how these same believers carry on when you're NOT one of their own flock? It's not pretty!>
Yes, I know it happens in some churches and religious communities. But it has been very, very rare in the parishes of which I’ve been a member. It isn’t necessarily a part of religious life. My church is very inclusive, joins in activities with other denominations and in secular projects with the wider community.

Stephen
Thank you for a thought provoking article and for baring your personal journey so honestly.

"Put a little differently, truth is the eternal demand that we accept that the ground of our being is beyond individual ego-life and common to all humanity. I call that ground of my being "God". God is not a supernatural entity, does not exist. But God insists in the collective unconscious, and from God I (ego) came."

It might sound absurd but your final words ring very true for me as an atheist. There are many ways to accept that our being is beyond individual ego and common to all humanity. No matter our culture or belief systems all humans share a common bond - a universal sisterhood and brotherhood (humanhood if you like).

That connection can be pursued or manifested in various ways. Some people find that connection or understanding as you have through Christianity (in your case through the Anglican Church).

Thank you for being able to put your view without negativity and witout casting aspersions on the different paths to achieving a similar understanding of universal humanity that goes beyond the indidvidual.

i hesitate...to/say..that-most...that claim..to/be athiest...
arn't..as much/rejecting..god..as..much/as..rebelling religeon

it seems/those...who claim/christ..died..so-they..can sin
have much-to...account for..

[is/it..forgive..them/lord..they/know-not..what they/do?]

any claiming to-be...god/incarnate..clearly/are..decieved
even jesus..didnt claim..that..

yet its/like..some..so/need..the/christ...to..'be'...god
how/to correct..the clear-blasphemy...?

god is god..full-stop
[thou shalt-have..no god/but god]

then/there..is/the..graven-image..issue
and hanging..the christs/dead-corpse..on the wall
[a thing..demons..do/with..their..'trophies..]

demons..also/drink..blood...and eat..flesh
and if the..real/thing..cant-be gotten..
faux/blood...and..crackers..will-do

its..so/clear..as the/messiah..predicted..
by their..works..will/you..know-them

but what/can..one do..to..one/who..knows/they are forgiven
for such/is the truth..so far..as god..[good]..goes
for/he forgives..us-all...

but/then..you..have/victims..
who also/know..they-are forgiven...

and so..they dont/forgive..[nor forget]
and sadly...it/is many..of them..[other-wise..good]..that dwell/in hell

but then..the name..[hell]..is wrong
see good..gravitates/to..the place..where good dwells

and vile...dwell..in..a place..where vile/accumulates

and n'er..the two/shall meet
[for our/fathers-house..has many-rooms]

in fact..the place..where those/who..love vile/dwell
has many rooms/too..seems the..lovers/of vile..often detest..
each others..choice/of..vile

thus there is..a hell..[heaven]..
for those/who..love..murder

and..an-other...hell..
for those who/love..greed

each...'love'..however vile..[or good]
..has its/own...'place'/..[room/realm..sphere]

where the..lovers..[of a particular-vile..
can spend..eternity..doing that..specific-vile..[or good]..
..only/to/with..each-other

thus we/have-been..gifted..free-will..in this/realm
[the only realm..where the purest/love...
lives equally..beside..the/most..impure-vile...

so in the/next...'life'..
they..can/be cater-ed for
,...without hurting others..not into/that..per-version..of love

thus we/let..the wheat/and the chaff..
come..to harvest..[here]..in its-own..time

thus we/let..the sheep/mingle..with the goats
thus let..the good/bad..live in common/facility..[ear-th]

knowing we are/all equally...fallen..
to even/get..a life-sentance...[h-ear]..[here]

none..here..is/..or was innocent..[spiritually-speaking]
but then/got gifted..the innocence..of a child

till we took...enough rope..
to reveal..the true..us..[u/me]

our/every..deed...creates..the astral-body[soul]
which will/be our body..in the next-life

that will-be revealed..in the light
or obscured..in the darkness

every good we do ...earns,..our place..in the light
every good..we rejected to do..earns us a spot..in the grey-zone

every injury..we did to others[thus god]..
drags..us into..the dark-sphere

high..on this list..is decieving..gods/own..away from good

but what/the-use..of words
there is nothing..hidden..
that shall-not..be revealed

[not judged]..only revealed..by our/own..soul
obvious..to all...

[i just thought..i would pass that-on]
know..every bit/of good..we do/..for others..helps

and also-know...we can*..redeem..ourselves..out/of hell
anytime..we chose/to..see..the light..[love/logic]

[ie..reject..the lust/to sin]

simply/by..seeking to help-others
is the..first-step..to an/amasing eternity

which..we/all have..before us

believe-it..or not

ahhh-men
let..ye without-sin..
not cast..the first-stone

Dear Stephen,
thanks for a very nice little parable that I can relate to deeply, though with an important qualification.
I too love "Dover Beach", what's not to love? But since my discipline is English Literature, I also know Arnold for his prose, his apostasy, and his conservative influence. Arnold projected his crisis of faith onto canonical literature, so that in the popularising new secular age the masses (not to mention India) would be regulated by their indoctrination in the classics. This was taken up by T S Eliot and F R Leavis for the conservatives, even while they indulged their modernist elitism, and by Raymond Williams for a Marxist version. That is, canonical literature took over where religion left off, as a means to subject the masses.
I also read Carl Jung deeply years ago, as clearly you have. But in my less romantic moments I much prefer the rigour of Freud, and I see art as cultural production rather than aesthetics.
I've also had, and have, remarkable dreams and insights, which seem to defy any logical explanation, but yet I'm far too savvy in the ways of human duplicity to draw any conclusions from that, or other life experience, especially if it flatters.
But I do like your poetic distinction, that God "insists" rather than exists (rhetoric is next to Godliness) and you seem modest enough.
Yet naivety is a sin--an indulgence--and a God-sent to our masters.

Pelican:
I appreciate your response. It's heartening to find that my writing forges some deeper understanding and friendship between individuals who may seem, on the surface of their utterances, to be enemies.

Squeers:
Thank you. I read Arnold's "Culture and Anarchy". I felt some empathy with his position towards "Barbarians" and "Philistines"; I too valued both "sweetness and light". But my empathy was just as strong towards the general thesis of Raymond Williams' "Culture and Society 1780-1950". I could therefore be accused of understanding neither of them, but I think I reached a point of view beyond the conservative-Marxist or right-left dimension that they represented. Still, your remarks have nudged me into dipping into both books again.

I also understand your preference for Freud over Jung at times. There were some periods some years ago when I felt the same -- usually in times when I was bent on social-political action. Freud's prose style is of course far more pared and so easier to digest. But Jung's very different view of the unconscious (for one thing) definitely tilts me in his direction.

but/then..you..have/victims..
who also/know..they-are forgiven...

and so..they dont/forgive..[nor forget]
and sadly...it/is many..of them..[other-wise..good]..that dwell/in hell

OUG: thank you for the reminder and one in which I must pass on to someone I know struggling presently as a victim.

I loved your words.

Kindest wishes.

The talk of god, is in reality talking about nature. Nothing can exist without nature allowing it to. If we are going into the era of miracles, it is impossible to consider without them, they are so common that we consider them very mundane, we don't see the forest for the trees. Isn't there some brilliance in the birth of a new baby, whether it is one of your own or of a friend or even a dog, cat or a bird. If you want to think those miracles, think about how radios, TVs or Computers are made, they have to be planned very carefully, and all the components connected properly, then they have to be connected to power. And only work when they have power generated by some other means. Sure cameras can “see” and put imagines on a card etc, but you cannot point any human built device that has all the properties of either human, animal, bird, reptile, fish or bacteria. If that is God, I'll take it. If you are wondering where churches of religion come into this, In the King John's bible, in the gospel acording to St Matthew, read chapter 23, along with some other parts, it might give you some ideas about the religions.

"Then a Christian friend commented that social and political projects in which I had chosen to be involved displayed all the hallmarks of Jesus' teachings."

Miraculous. A revelation! A Christian seizing the opportunity to distort reality such that it fits the writings of gospels, unconfirmed as accurate. Why shirk other gospels? Why shirk Judas' gospel? Why not ask *questions* - demand evidence?

Had you asked for one example that cannot be done for it's own sake alone [void of course, of biblical reference] your "friend" would be silent. By this sentences end, all readers can think of wars, torture, murder, genocide and worse committed in the name of the Abrahamic god.

Simple humane secular values, are usurped by those unwilling to accept our fate, or let go their privileged life. Jesus' teaching's include:

Matthew 10:35-36
"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

Clearly, your "friend" lied or was firmly indoctrinated.

And it's the Christian god - not the notion of a deity, or our species evolutionary trait of seeking answers/understanding emotion [spirituality] - being sold here.

Why am I not surprised? Yet again, OLO gives voice to those conned and indoctrinated by false promises and grand illusions.

Firesnake:
Thanks for offering your point of view. I’ll try to respond to some of your more central questions.

< Why shirk other gospels? Why shirk Judas' gospel? Why not ask *questions* - demand evidence?>
My belief in God is not based on texts. Belief came from my inner experiences, such as those described in the article, and my relationships with other people and the ecosystem in which we live.

Evidence is for science, history and legal proceedings; it is irrelevant to my belief. The historical accuracy of the biblical narratives is often quite poor, and some accounts were obviously meant to be poetic or metaphorical rather than factual.

<Had you asked for one example that cannot be done for it's own sake alone [void of course, of biblical reference] your "friend" would be silent.>
If you have actually read my article with some care you will have noted that while not a member of a church, not accepting any religion and not accepting the notion of God I was “trying to promote different educational practices, new social and political directions, or more just and loving relationships.” I did so in the belief that these actions were worth doing for their own sake. Only much later did I come to understand that all along God (in one form or another) had impelled my actions.

The verse you quote from Matthew describes what often happens when an individual changes radically. If a person begins to be more authentic in a relationship, the other people involved feel challenged to follow the same path. They are often scared to do so, and this gives rise to defensive anger or flight.

< And it's the Christian god - not the notion of a deity, or our species evolutionary trait of seeking answers/understanding emotion [spirituality] - being sold here.>
God is not owned by Christianity, nor by any other religion. God is the urge to love the others unconditionally, an insistence in the collective unconscious of the human species. The challenge to the ego is to accept the insistence of God, who does not exist.

thanks..for the kind-words..[we-are-unique]

it/truelly is sad..how we can get so...far beyond..what the/reality is

if only people could comprehend...that the..so called/holy-books
are written..from a perspective...of spirit

that is not allways able-to..be adapted..
to matters of the flesh..[but often..can/be]

in/the flesh...we know..no-one..can take-away..our will
be/it..will to sin..will-to..comunicate..[or/not..comunicate]..etc

jesus...can..[could]..take our sin..on himself
[for he knows sin..isnt..the spiritual-reality/...
mainly because..no-one...judges..others..in/the heavens
[only..the-hells]

it truelly/is..a matter..of/not..casting the first-stone
[as we/all..lived/live..in glass-houses]...

till we..see/reason..to try to/do..better
its hard-to concieve any/reason..why to/even..try

take the/matter..[fact]..of gods/grace..
[which is truelly...allready/for-given..[by him]

yet those..hurt/injured...find..gods-giving..of/grace...
to..seem-to/make..their suffering..worse...[unregognised/disrespected/minimised]

and thus/find themselves..stuck-in//the poor-me...[hell]
and missing the big-picture..of moving-on[by forgive/forget]

to get grace..we must give-it...[
for none..[but/god]..is perfect

to demon-straight...we all/know...'the law's 10'
[actually its 12..and likely much-more..
[i found 16/once..without effort]

but lets/talk ..of the one..'thou shalt/not..murder'
[often..miss-read..as thou/shalt-not...kill]

see that even/a seed/lives...
just-to..take/our moring cerial/we-know..thousands of seeds needed to be killed..

[i think..thats/why..praying over-food..has importance]
[that..died..that we/may..live]

but its not/just..seeds...
[note the onion..and..why we/weep..as we kill it..to make a meal]..[the lessons..of the/onion..extend much-deeper..[of course]..

take its/many layers...these are/the..equivelent..
of our spiritual..[soul-bodies]..
levels of spiritual-evolution..through-which..we all must progress..to get/to the highest/level-heaven..

just-like..the layers/of..the humble/onion

in the next-life..we/are tied..
by our victim-hood..to/our oppressors
by the/very..deed/act..intent of that-oppresion]

[if we dont forgive;..them..their tress-pass...
as we expect/them..to forgive..us..our/tresspasses]...

we/remain..in that..'marrage'/
..the deeds..being..the fruit/offspring..created..
formed..in/the..flesh..[by/that-act]

we get grace/..by giving-it..
[so we..know..how much-pain..it costs/us..
to forgive.,.those who..made-us..victim..
[when its ourselves..who did/that..by not moving-on/forgiving/forgetting]..

but the/thing..is to/forget..

begin by forgiving-them..thier idiocy...
rather than spend..eternity..with them..
via-our/thought..in union..with them..
[obsession]..about..the same-things/events..]

[in the next/life..just thinking..on/a..given-thing/topic/subject
joins-us..to/that..we/are thinking-about..

as well as others..thinking..'it'/to]...

ie..the..'more..shall-be..'given'-promise/rule

turn-the/other cheek...
involves..seeing..a different-side/vieuw

but also trusting..god..
and turning-away..from..a fear

seeing..things/differently

Has it ever occurred to you that atheism is the healthiest development in any religion? It is merely the rejection of the current p[osotion adopted by those who claim to know God and feel they can speak on his/her behalf. What atheism is really saying is: " Not good enough. Work harder.Your ideas about who or what God is aint good enough. Keep looking."Atheism is a challenge to man.
Hopefully man will realise that onecan only experience God and never be able to contain the ineffable in a very limited and defective vessel called man.
socratease

Dear Crabsy,
interesting thoughts, and I'm impressed you've read both Arnold and Williams. I've been making a study of Williams's works in particular. I'm kind of a troubled leftie and would be interested to know your "point of view beyond the conservative-Marxist or right-left dimension that they represented"? Right and left are of course utterly relative; as you'd know, the ultra-conservative Edmund Burke was appalled at the idea of democracy--or modern bourgeois conservatism.
I've actually read more Jung than Freud, but I came to the conclusion on my own account that Jung was something of a romantic, which is what lends him appeal. My preference for Freud is akin to self-flagellation; as John Cleese once wryly intimated, there's nothing quite so bracing as a good thrashing!

we live-in..an imperfect-world
[after-all..this is the realm/adam..eve...
decended-to..following their/fall from/grace..[fall from eden]

the church/long revealed..the spiritual-truth..
we all have origonal-sin..

[for only by rejecting gods/heavens..
can we incarnate-here..[for a life-term...a sent-ance..into sentanance]

of course/the church..gets much..wrong
[after-all..they/are only..carnate-flesh/..like we-all are]
and..to be huh-man..is to make error

take..the previous..words..i wrote..about jesu
[jesus;..you shall..call/him..emmanu-el]

we/are told..he can take-away..our sins..[and he can]
[cause only..god's../good..is real]

but/..even..jesu[emmanuel]...[meaning god with-[in]-us..]

even/jesu..can-not..remove..our/will*..to-sin

thus its/like..washing/our soul..clean
yet knowing..we shall/surely..stain it again

[its like exzising..a demon..[only to have 7 return]

that isnt jesus/ability..to..remove..our/will-to..sin

[only we/can CHOSE-to/repent..our love/of vile]

only..we/can..chose..
'to go..and sin/no-more'

its not complicated..to say..your sin/is forgiven
for the sin..wasnt/real..[it didnt..come of god..[good]

besides..then there/is..karma..[the law/of balance]
many/good-works..are inspired...by a will-to repent
by/us..activly..trying to correct..our past-errors

recall the..long/lost-son...
[heaven rejoices..when we/CHOOSE..to repent..our-will/..to sin]

in-fact..hell is..there only/to further validate..our freewill
to give us..so much/more..[of that we chose to love-here]

till we/get..sick-of...'it'..[for there..[in/our..chosen-room]
..are better..and worse..than we...

we soon realise..how a victim-feels..over and over/again..till we..get-it]

and realise/what..we done
[we did-do..to good/god]..

that we..do/did..to the most..
we do/did..to him..[the..holy-with/in us all]

[the/host/..with-in..ie..the-most][good/god]

still..i need to..correct/yet further error..
ok..[maybe..just/simple..ommisiion]

but recall..yea..though i/walk..through..the valley..of fear
i shall fear..no/evil...

[this is because...in feeling-fear...
we cant..feel god..[cant feel/good]

and if we..SEEM/to-be..wanting..fear..
chose/fear/anger/hurt/blame..over..love/grace/mercy..

[well..'more/shall-be given']

it is said..we should/be..carefull/..that we wish

we should also...know..
we must be carefull..that-of/which..we think...

as those thinking..the..'same'...
unconciously..join..together..
in their..own-room..

with-same/goats..or..with..same/sheep..
or same..wheat/tares..whatever

all..in the-same[realm/plane...sphere-of..in-fluence;..via/influx...yet/another-rule]..

any-how..there/is..so much/more..to/it

just/by..trying-to love..neighbour
just/by..turning..the other/cheek

just-by..fearing..no/evil..
evil cant-even..come close..
untill we CHOSE to/forfeit..good...
and chose* fear...

same with all/the..other...vile/veil/evil/live
the same dna..[letters]..
but with/so..much-divergent/fruit

fear/no evil..by..seeing..no-evil...

by hearing..no-evil..
by doing..no-evil

one/can only get-god..
by doing/thinking...as he/does

as jesu/said...he who/will lead..will serve-you
just/like..god-serves..even the/most vile...their very living

the nurture/...gods natu-real...natu-re..
is..all loving/..all living/..
all forgiving/..grace-full/mercy-full

cheers....ahhh-men

find..his..joy/with-in
then reveal..it...out-side..upon/all..equally...

dont judge/you might-be judging..angels..unaware
each/bad..is an oppertuinity..for greater-good

Dear OUG

How you explained forgiveness and forgetting [if possible after working on it] is profoundly unique, inspirational and what a reminder! Thank you, love and warmth from my heart and soul.

To my mind, Crabsy's self revelations are basically an enlargement of the hackneyed observation that anyone unfortunate enough to fall out of an aeroplane without a parachute instantly becomes -not only a theist, but an extremely devout and passionate theist.
Obviously, some people can make that leap without actually falling out of a plane.
I confess, I suspect I also am afflicted with this 'god gene'.
Although I have never been able to find any rational reason to believe in a god, and most certainly not a personal god who interferes in his own creation, my automatic, instant and totally unreasoned response to any significant event in my life -good or bad- is, “what am I 'supposed' to learn from this?” As if my life has some divine purpose, that I am currently unaware of.
I think some truths don't matter. It's always a good thing to learn from one's experiences, isn't it?
The argument always inevitably devolves into a choice between the rational (Freud) and the intuitive (Jung). I find the notion of a Universal or Collective Unconscious intuitively appealing, despite there being little evidence of it's existence.
For me, the fundamental profound question is; when that very first protocell discovered the neat trick of self replication, was there now 2 lives on the planet, or 1 Life, in 2 places?
Is our much vaunted individuality more apparent, than real?
If a single blood cell was capable of self awareness, would it realise it was a tiny (and completely expendable) part of a greater whole, or would it think it was just doing it's own thing, for it's own reasons?
Am I that blood cell?
When I say these questions are unanswerable, I don't invoke a deity. I freely admit it's simply because I'm just not smart enough. I believe one day though, Humans will be.

we_are/unique..i would/like-to..take..the credit[but/cant]
i'm...only paraphrasing..from memory..and mind-imagry..putting/what i see/hear/feel..clumsilly..into words]

sems i ask a question...and an avalanch/of answers..come-to mind[takethese for egsample]...

quote/grim..<<..to/find..any..rational-reason..to believe/in-a..god>>
the first/reply..is thats cause/he-never..fell-out/of..and airoplane[with-out..a parra-legal-shute]..so..there is the joker/joke

which..i overcome[switch-off/from..by reading-on<<..certainly/not..a personal/god..who interferes>>.thats because the only...inter-fear-ance..he will/do..is that of the unseen/benevolent/good..helping-hand[so-as/to not..interfere..with our free-chosing/free-will/free-choice]

<<my automatic/instant..totally unreasoned-response..to any significant/event..in my life[good or bad]..is,.“what am I..'supposed'..to learn/from this?”>>

clearly...a healthy/attitude
[it neatly avoids..the poor-me/why-me..victim/blame..response..some use to attract..yet more negativity

<<As-if..my life..has some divine-purpose,>>.thats just the egsact-thing..what...is the truth-is...god..has long sought..equals[his test...to satan/where satan-refused..to bow-down..before adam...is as close..as he had/thus-far..been able to come]

satan..used/his ability..to think..decide..for himself...was able..to stand/equally...toe/to..with..god..and say i refuse to bow-down..before mere-clay[being made from fire]...

while also thinking..[in his heart]...
i bow-before..none less/than-thee...good-lord../god

<<..some/truths..don't matter>>>
egsactly..sorting/the tares/..from the wheat..
the grain/from..the chaff..decerning[good/usefull..from worth-less]..

without/labeling..it good..nor bad
not judging..only/discerning..that currently..use-full..from..that/not...

<<It's/good..to learn/from..one's experiences>>thats..why..we are/here-for...to learn..that we feel..good/usefull..from that not

<<I-find..the notion/of a Universal..or Collective Unconscious>>
confusing,....i prefere..a universal-concious...that we unconciously..suspect..as prime-causation..[just-in-case]

<<despite there/being..little-evidence..of it's existence>>
there-is..overwelming..evidence..once..we get-god
once we sort..the good-ideas..in our mind..from the selfish
as jesu/said..know..they masters-voice..[is good]

allway/let-your..concious..be your guide..[jimminy-cricket]

RE..<<the fundamental/profound-question>>.god..is one

imagine..is joy..when..he saw..his reflection..in a bubble..[drop]..of water..and saw..him-self..for the first-time

simply..that act..of recognition..gave..that drop[bubble]..life

lets say god/even tried..to pick..that-one..other living-up
then..there-was..two..[ok..3]

<<Is our/much..vaunted..individuality more/apparent,..than real?>>
we/are..the highest/evolution..of the material-form..

[as close..to god..as/matter..can get]

to get closer..needs..us to get-into spirit
where there is much/more evolving to be done

yet...at the..same/time..
the devine-goods/spark...gifts us/all..our very life
from with-in..via the mirra-call..of the quantum/physics-affect

<<If..a single-blood cell..was capable/of..self awareness>>
not-to..the extent..true-life..is..
[thats/more..at the/level-of plant..intelligence..[auto-nimouse]

<<it think's..it's..just doing..it's own thing>>
action...reaction..god..alone could/explain..at what..level

<<for it's/own reasons?>>no..for ours

<<Am-I..that/blood--cell?>>..not...that..cell
but..just think-if..that blood-cell could talk

it..would say..i am a part-of...me
the person..who calls..himself..i

i am..because..he-is..i
because..he-is i..
...i am..as-well

we collectivly...total..
the great..good/sum-total..of god

just as my/computer..form's..part of the world-wide-web

we collectivly...are all..god/..is and can-be

<<I believe..one-day/though,..Humans will be>>

i think..we/are..colectivly..
are/much-closer..than we dare..real-ise

we can/only..think...of/things..
we can comprehend
all/else..become's..non-sense-icle

or..ill-logic-al..[logic-logus]

[logus=logic/light/life/love]

God exists!

Who else could have created a Mr. Stephen Crabbe?

What a confused, and confusing, piece this is Mr Crabbe.

>>I am about to tell you why I believe in God<<

Ok, I'm listening.

"...it is simply untenable to claim that a supernatural entity called God exists. I am not a theist."

<<theist n. A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world>>

Interesting. So the challenge you set for yourself is to find a resolution between the non-existence of God, and your personal belief system.

To do so, you provide an idiosyncratic, and frankly inadmissible, perversion of the English language.

"I believe God does not exist, but insists."

<<insist v. to be emphatic, firm, or resolute on some matter of desire, demand, intention, etc>>

I would have thought that there is the small matter of an admittedly non-existent entity somehow being able to be emphatic, that requires some explanation.

Sadly, nothing.

Just a fairly standard exposition of how you came to be a "practising member of the Anglican Church". No mention of the mental effort required to reconcile the Church's position on the existence of God with your own.

Where surely there must be substantial disagreement?

I suspect you realized this, and added the hasty coda:

"But God insists in the collective unconscious, and from God I (ego) came."

Hmmm. Sounds dangerously heretical, claiming that "I" came from "God". Except that you had already constructed the catch-all get-out, "it is simply untenable to claim that a supernatural entity called God exists"

If "God" doesn't exist, the "I" doesn't either.

It's certainly a pretty story, Mr Crabbe, but a little dishonest.

You have been seduced to Christianity by the poetry, the music, the dreams, and a little bit of self-flattery.

"Through dreams, writing poetry or making music, images would arise from my unconscious to pull me back to inner reality."

Fair enough. That's how many believers reach their conclusions about religion, albeit often tinged with a fear of the unknown.

But "I am not a theist"?

Hardly.

The credit's God's however you are brave and courageous to deliver via explanations in layman's terms OUG; sacrificing your time and energy. For this I am thanking you. Enjoy your week and I along with undoubtedly many Australians reading your contributions.

Stephen thanks for your comments but I have never perceived myself as an enemy. :)

Pericles I think you are being unjustly harsh.

Christianity like all religions evolve and Stephen's approach is indicative of that process.

Christianity is still plagued by some despots and it certainly is not the only religion that has lent itself to abuses of authority. We al know the 'hell and fury' types who remain steadfast in the 'God as an entity' approach pushing a dogmatic line while at the same time conceding they are acting purely on faith while existing purely on a premise of fear.

My understanding was that Stephen (correct me if I am wrong) is coming from a different perspective ie. God being the tie that binds us as fellow human beings which can manifest simply as a desire to see beyond the needs of the individual.

Give me the evolved Christian who sees his faith as a way of life (similar to Buddhism) anyday over the zealot who damns us all the hell for questioning the existence of the 'supernatural' deity.

Harsh, pelican? Possibly.

>>Pericles I think you are being unjustly harsh.<<

But unjustly harsh?

I think not.

You squeeze some additional meaning from the piece that would be hidden from many of us.

>>My understanding was that Stephen (correct me if I am wrong) is coming from a different perspective ie. God being the tie that binds us as fellow human beings which can manifest simply as a desire to see beyond the needs of the individual<<

If that was his intention, then the entire "God does not exist: God insists" ramble is entirely misleading, and completely superfluous.

Because were that the case - that "God" is merely a metaphor for being nice to each other - where does Mr Crabbe's professed Anglicanism come in? Should we believe (despite all the Jensen-oriented evidence to the contrary) that Anglicanism is also just about being nice to each other?

On reflection, I'm not sure I was half harsh enough.

>>Give me the evolved Christian who sees his faith as a way of life (similar to Buddhism) anyday over the zealot who damns us all the hell for questioning the existence of the 'supernatural' deity.<<

Well yes, of course. Give me an evolved atheist, who takes his responsibilities to his fellow-humans to heart, any day over a fanatical Christian who thinks Obama is the devil. But they are hardly exclusive choices.

If Mr Crabbe is evidence of "the evolved Christian", I humbly suggest that they, collectively, have barely emerged from the primeval ooze.

i often-get...things totally-wrong
i wish..i had/the word-skills..of pericules
but accept..we all are needed..to create..the whole..life-story

which/brings me...to yet more/ommisions

the key...to god...is that we/seek..to know...the truth-of
jesus/revelation..'know..thy/masters-voice'..

[as even..a beast/in-a..stable..knows its/masters-voice]

gods..is that..still/quiet-peacefull/forgiving,loving[good],
inner-voice..within...

yet the trouble..being..
vile-begins..with/inner-wispers/..too

its a/matter..of ignoring..[the vile]..
refusing to..see/think/accord..thy brothers-weakness..
as/being-by..informed..concent/
or deliberated-will..or evil-intention

[give...all..the benifit-of doudt..
its harder/than we/might..first-think]

but there...i go..again
i meant/to say..

god is one...[atonement....;..at-one-meant..]
in time..we will/all..come-together..as one..

of one/mind/body..of good-will..
of...good/loving/living..good-will..to all

[see how..inside-us..we have all/heard..the truth's..that lead..to god]

but..the/truths...have become..dis-joined/decieving
lost..in the 24/7..war of terrorising...miss/diss-believers

[vile will/take/make..any excuse..to make-war..
all war..is un-holy..]

but/its said..no one,..can/be forced..to kill
[that excuse..simply dont wash..in the next-life]

and most surely..there is..
[energy..cannot..be created..nor..destroyed]

i said..god..[as one/unique]..seeks an equal
thus..sits..inside each/living..to at least grasp the concept

but there is no equal..for god..[not even..in/at-one-ment]
its like saying...there is an equal..for wind..
or electricity..or gravity

simply speaking..there cant be

as becomes..clear..via..the e=mc2..rule
[energy..cant/be..created]

see..life can/only-come..via life...
[passing on/its..gift]
via..a living-sperm...being admitted..into a living egg

[life from life...[life=energy]..

its/called..the/mc2..rule..to point-out the absurdity..of e=mc2..
[energy=mass..times/the speed-of/light..
times..the..speed-of/light]

..its nonsense..as many/of-mens ideas..often-are

i/lost..the 2de/correction/point..thus..go/with..the/flow

note..how jesus birth..is obscured/by crass..comercialism...

and a satan/clause...who is a god/like omnipotant..know-it/all
..who judges/us..good/bad...

when the true-god..is nothing like-that

its bad/enough...that jesus's/bith-even..is hidden..
by such deceptions/almost as/bad as the blashemy..of him
[born of woman...being the wholly-spirit..[god]

then note..how neatly..easter-eggs and bunnies obscures,his being/born-again...[rebutting completly..his dying*..for sin..
and the idea..of waiting*..for..some far-off..judgment-day]

had he/not..returned..he could/still..be awaiting...lol..judgment

but peopl/need to have it both-ways..
him/dying..so they can sin...and a omnipotant/god-head...
ready willing/to..judge..the whole-universe

its plainy..wrong...
doubilly so...when accorded/with..the other/absurdities

jesus..said..ye..unbelieving/mob..needing miracles
yet they claim..he made wine..from toilet-water[hand-wash/jars]

[no-one..could serve..the..'best-wine'..from a toilet/equivent]

[then add-in..the misery..resulting from booze]
its clear..the lesson..wasnt about..wine/making]

[but servants..not-willing..to risk/losing face..
by the master/proving..such/a poor-host..by running out/of the/basics]

same-re/feeding..4000/5000...jew's
who need-to..wash/hands..before eating

no..handwash-jars..they simply..couldnt eat
[thus/did..'eat...all-they/wished*'...lol]

[so fixed..in their/faith..were they..
even..their..messiah..couldnt..make*-them/eat...

[jesus even..ensured/this..by sitting/them..facing..each/other]

believe/only-half..of what/you..hear
[were..all*..half-right...all*..half-wrong]

only...on..is all/good...all/perfect
and he..lives/in..our-hearts..[emmanuel]

Pericles, Pelican (and anyone else):

Allow me to gurgle a response from the “primeval ooze”.

Pericles writes of my use of the word “insist”: < …you provide an idiosyncratic, and frankly inadmissible, perversion of the English language. >

Inasmuch as idiosyncracy and perversion involve challenge to cultural norms and authority, I take your comment as a compliment. :) Whether or not you admit my usage of the verb “insist” is of course up to you, but I’ll attempt to explain the reasoning behind it.

“Exist” and “insist” derived from the classical Latin “sistere” = to cause to stand, to place, to establish, etc. The addition of “ex-“gives the notion of externality and hence accessibility to public perception, and so we use “exist” to mean “to be” in an empirically verifiable sense. The prefix “in-“implies interiority. “Insist”, while keeping its usual contemporary meaning of “maintain positively” or “emphasise”, can logically also bear the locative notion of intrapersonal or subjective being.” I use it in both senses in my article.

Hence I offered the word “insist” as the solution to the problem of verbalising the notion of non-objective being. The fact that it already means “to demand” is a bonus in the article because God is a demand.

Pericles writes: < No mention of the mental effort required to reconcile the Church's position on the existence of God with your own. >

The Anglican Church embraces (or perhaps endures) a wide range of theologies, including positions like mine. And as for your charge of heresy, I would say that heretics have taught us many valuable things and I welcome their contribution.

Pericles writes: <Should we believe (despite all the Jensen-oriented evidence to the contrary) that Anglicanism is also just about being nice to each other?>

I tried to show that I experience God as the common ground of our being which demands that I acknowledge this – i.e. be authentic. Compliance will always challenge other people to do the same, and we will have to deal with defensive aggression from some. It can never be “just about being nice to each other”.

Crabsy

I find myself caught between Pericles and Pelican - not a bad place to be really, I think there is merit in what both have to say.

I feel a spiritual connection to the world around me, however no sense of a god. The idea of a god is far too anthropogenic and way too loaded with testosterone to be anything than a male biased construct.

If I was Prince Charles, I would be described as "potty" cause I don't mind a bit of a chin-wag with trees, animals and the landscape in general. I live in the Dandenong ranges - opportunities abound.

Therefore, I don't believe in formal religion particularly the Abrahamic trio - your particular emphasis on Christianity detracts from your argument. Like Judaism and Islam; very hierarchical.

I can identify with Buddhism, no supreme deity, therefore, far more equitable. However, not so sure about the reincarnation side of that religion. Should also point out that there is nothing that Jesus was supposed to have preached that has not been discussed and preached centuries before he supposedly was in existence.

I would really like to see an article that does a comparative deconstruction of the major world religions, should I hold my breath?

Crabsy wrote: “”Exist” and “insist” derived from the classical Latin “sistere” = to cause to stand, to place, to establish, etc. The addition of “ex-“gives the notion of externality and hence accessibility to public perception, and so we use “exist” to mean “to be” in an empirically verifiable sense. The prefix “in-“implies interiority. “Insist”, while keeping its usual contemporary meaning of “maintain positively” or “emphasise”, can logically also bear the locative notion of intrapersonal or subjective being.” I use it in both senses in my article.”

Never have I seen a finer example of sophisticated theology’s intent to baffle.

“Expressive theology is rightly an object of suspicion. People who go in for it sound like atheists in dog collars. It sounds as though they have discovered a nice cheat. You need only defend religious sayings as a kind of fiction, which is not too hard, for who can object to fictions? But then you can go ahead and use the sayings with all the force of conviction and belief. You have relieved yourself of epistemic obligations but kept the old fire and fury.” (http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/01/08/sophisticated-theology-vs-religious-reality.htm)

Severin:
I understand your distaste for hierarchical authority; I often feel the same. But I don’t think of God as a “supreme deity” in that sense. Consider the image of Jesus as Immanuel (God with us) sleeping in a stable manger, washing our feet, serving at our table and joining in the fun of parties with the rest of us.

And I certainly don’t think of God as male (or female for that matter): gender and sexuality here are irrelevant.

I can empathise with your talking to the plants. I do the same, and our children were all taught to talk to the trees (and hug them) when they were young. Not sure that it’s had any long-term impression on them though.

I don’t think Christianity is the only way towards God (i.e. towards being truly human). But it’s the way that seems right for me.

Yes, I agree that articles comparing the world’s religions would be very interesting, but I don’t have the knowledge or intellect to write them.

AJPhillips:
I have never intended to baffle: Pericles took issue with my choice of words and I tried to explain why I chose “insist”. The experiences and perceptions I described in the article did not occur primarily through language. So to try to convey them entirely through language, as it must be on OLO, calls for unusual linguistic devices. In discussions like this semantics are central to communication.

If you can’t understand me, I admit inadequacy. And if you don’t like semantic subtleties there’s nothing I can do about it.

John J:
Are you still around?

I’m still waiting to hear your reply to Leo Lane’s question: “As a matter of interest Jon J, to clarify the background to your assertions, what is your view on the concept of the unconscious mind?”

This matter is essential to what I have tried to communicate in my article.

Why bother to put the name god to such an experience, even if you evacuate the term of most of the meaning usually associated with it? This is an example of having an experience which can be described as being within human experience, but for some reason the person experiencing it doesn't do so. It's also an example of the dominance of the sky-god paradigm. I've recently become a pagan, after many years of being an athiest, and I discover that paganism doesn't need any god - it's quite content to take the world as a given, and spend it's time trying to work out how it works. Much more rewarding than trying to appease a god whom even He says one cannot understand!

At least I am giving your sophistry muscles a good workout, Mr Crabbe.

>>Inasmuch as idiosyncracy and perversion involve challenge to cultural norms and authority, I take your comment as a compliment.<<

You may take it as a compliment if you wish, but I should remind you that in many walks of life, idiosyncracy is not prized, and perversion is positively shunned. You could certainly describe (sorry to use such a clichéd example) the acts of paedophile priests as idiosyncratic and perverted.

But I doubt you would find much to compliment.

>>“Exist” and “insist” derived from the classical Latin “sistere”... The prefix “in-“implies interiority<<

Even your approach to etymology is self-serving.

As you well know, the Latin preposition "in" has many meanings, depending on the case that follows. Even my first-form Latin told me that 'in + ablative' implies in/at/on in terms of space e.g. "in domo esse", while 'in + accusative' implies motion towards e.g. "in urbem ire".

To state grandly that "'in' implies interiority", is to cut more than a few corners, is it not.

And just a little glib.

"Insistere", is in any case already a complete Latin verb, most often translated as "to set foot upon, to stand, tread, or press upon", as in "insistere alternis pedibus".

Face it, your use of "insist" is at the very least highly personal. And completely lacks explanation in the text, which is just a little impolite.

>>as for your charge of heresy, I would say that heretics have taught us many valuable things<<

This is simply a reprise of the earlier "perversion is good" argument, and is equally dubious. And to claim by association that your own heresy teaches "many valuable things" is just a touch precious.

>>It can never be “just about being nice to each other”.<<

But you wrote:

"God being the tie that binds us as fellow human beings which can manifest simply as a desire to see beyond the needs of the individual".

So, rephrased and "simply" stated, God is merely a metaphor for being unselfish.

Fair?

Crabsy

>>> "I don’t think Christianity is the only way towards God (i.e. towards being truly human). But it’s the way that seems right for me. <<<

I would also question the need to elevate human beings in such esoteric terms, whether one uses Christianity or other doctrine.

I had a German Shepherd dog who on two occasions protected me from assault - one could claim "pack instinct" in operation. How then to explain a cat which would always run to me growling when strangers approached my door and one time when an 'intruder' who turned out to be a muso friend who climbed through the window of my living room in the early hours one morning, the same cat jumped on the bed and woke me.

Are we so arrogant as to presume that such sentient creatures do not have a sense of wonder? Just because they cannot express it in abstract terms? They certainly feel love and even demonstrate humour.

Camo

I understand your position - the universe is what it is; being both fair and dark. Neither of my animal companions needed a god to do good for another creature. But they acted selflessly to my benefit.

Pericles:

<At least I am giving your sophistry muscles a good workout, Mr Crabbe.>
I wondered how long it would take you to grab your favourite “s”-word!

<To state grandly that "'in' implies interiority", is to cut more than a few corners, is it not.>
I don’t see any grandeur in it, Pericles, but if you do that’s fine. In + ablative locates; ex + ablative dislocates, or places outside. In + accusative indicates motion into (not towards, which would require ad + accusative). In this respect I think “in-” and “ex-“can be seen as opposites. I chose to introduce a new usage of “insist” that would convey the idea of “a way of being within”, as opposed to “an objective way of being” which I think “exists” commonly covers. If you gag over new usage, that’s your right.

I wrote: < As for your charge of heresy, I would say that heretics have taught us many valuable things >
To which you replied: <This is simply a reprise of the earlier "perversion is good" argument, and is equally dubious.>
You regard heretics as perverts? Who’s idiosyncratic now?

You called my language perverted and then wrote: < …I should remind you that in many walks of life, idiosyncracy is not prized, and perversion is positively shunned. You could certainly describe (sorry to use such a clichéd example) the acts of paedophile priests as idiosyncratic and perverted >
Straight from the gutter! Don’t misrepresent my statements as approbation of paedophilia.

<And to claim by association that your own heresy teaches "many valuable things" is just a touch precious.> No one in my church accuses me of heresy, but I don’t mind if you do.

<But you wrote: "God being the tie that binds us as fellow human beings which can manifest simply as a desire to see beyond the needs of the individual". >
Careful Pericles! I did not write that; Pelican did.

< So, rephrased and "simply" stated, God is merely a metaphor for being unselfish. Fair? > No. It’s much more, but I have no time to elaborate.

Apologies for the bad editing in my last post.

Pericles I don't dispute the logical analysis in your argument particularly if you are looking purely at semantics.

However, the difference between an atheist and a non-atheist is not confined to the absence of belief in the supernatural (albeit it is a large part). Human beings IMO share a common natural altruism and a vision that extends beyond the self (ego). To the theist, being 'nice' to each other as you put it, requires the intervention of a higher and all-powerful authority.

On closer analysis theists believe that for those commonalities to come together and for 'good to win over evil' (in the simplistic sense) there needs to be a 'higher' authority to set the framework for that spiritual/human connection (whatever one wants to call it).

The danger is when you hand over that sort of power and authority to an organisation (a group of people) there is a risk of abuse of that power and responsibility. That does not imply that those who hold that vested authority will always choose to abuse it.

My own view is that we can come to those same conclusions and foster those behaviours without a religious framework. In other words, ideology does not require an artificial stimulus via a belief in a deity.

Like Severin, I do believe that there is a spiritual connection that binds us to each other and to the environment that sustains us and humans don't need Gods to find that connection, but some may see that connection as 'God' - similar to the stance in Stephen's essay.

The positives that are found in a Church community such as friendship, support, mutual desire to do good, goals of self-awareness can be found in many groups whether it be political parties, tree planting groups, charities or other areas of society where people gather together for a common cause. Some people find that commonality in the Church. As OUG put it, the problem is not with 'God' but with the intrusion of Church into affairs outside their jurisdiction in a secular State.

cont/...

AGIR once chided me for suggesting a re-write of the Bible. It was said in the context of the above. I don't believe that society will lose religion or that some theists will lose their belief in the supernatural God (as opposed to the symbolic/metaphorical), but I hold out some hope that the more primitive (sometimes barbaric) language, religious rituals and the negative connotations on women and homosexuality can be modernised to reflect a more progressive 'way of life' approach discussed earlier.

That is, make the Church/religion more in tune or 'egalitarian' if you like, and in keeping with modern developments in law, science and human rights needs. It looks like some Churches like the Anglicans are willing to embrace or 'tolerate' in the early stages some semblance of this idea.

Pelican, hear hear.
"On closer analysis theists believe that for those commonalities to come together and for 'good to win over evil' (in the simplistic sense) there needs to be a 'higher' authority to set the framework for that spiritual/human connection (whatever one wants to call it)."
Some of the posters here seem genuinely mystified by the idea that an atheist can trusted to do the right thing, in the absence of any compulsion by God.
I suspect the very worst thing for society would be for such people to lose their faith, if that is all that is keeping them on the 'straight and narrow'.

You share my old Latin master's skill at hair-splitting, Mr Crabbe. That's some achievement. You even sound like him.

>>In + accusative indicates motion into (not towards, which would require ad + accusative).<<

Well, yes. But we can at least agree that both in and ad, plus accusative, indicate motion, can we not?

The objective was not to exercise first-form Latin, but to point out that your assertion that this particular prefix "'in' implies interiority" does a major disservice to the language, when a perfectly serviceable - and comprehensive - translation of the whole word "insistere" already exists.

>>I chose to introduce a new usage of “insist”... If you gag over new usage, that’s your right.<<

How can we possibly divine any meaning from your writing, if you randomly indulge in such a practice without due warning? It gives you free rein to say "it doesn't actually mean what you think it means, I simply decided to introduce a new usage."

>>You regard heretics as perverts?<<

Don't be so defensive. Look again - I was placing your claims "perversion-as-a-compliment" and "heresy-is-valuable" alongside each other, and making the obvious connection.

>>Straight from the gutter! Don’t misrepresent my statements as approbation of paedophilia.<<

(I suppose I could protest at this point that I was "introducing a new usage of 'paedophile'". But I won't.)

I should remind you that you had previously accepted the labels "idiosyncracy" and "perversion" as complimentary. I merely pointed out to you situations where these were not acceptable attributes.

>>No one in my church accuses me of heresy, but I don’t mind if you do.<<

There you go, imagining another slight. I have no opinion on whether what you say about the non-existence of God is heretical. It was your claim that your insights contained "many valuable things" that caught my attention.

>>It can never be “just about being nice to each other”... It’s much more [than being unselfish], but I have no time to elaborate.<<

Those two simple concepts take us a fair way down the track, though, don't they? How much more can there possibly be?

I guess crabsy doesn't so much exult our intelligence pericles, rather he insults it.

And by that I mean he inwardly celebrates it.

Here is one strait out of the good book Iam reading right now, and it says............... Please for give them my lord, for they not know what they do.

Can some-one translate that for me.

TTM>

Pericles:
<…your assertion that this particular prefix "'in' implies interiority" does a major disservice to the language, when a perfectly serviceable - and comprehensive - translation of the whole word "insistere" already exists.> That’s the point: the translation "to set foot upon, to stand, tread, or press upon" would not have served the purpose.

<How can we possibly divine any meaning from your writing, if you randomly indulge in such a practice without due warning?>
No randomness. My third paragraph stated: “Yet I do not accept that existence is the only way of being. There is also insistence: non-objective being. I believe God does not exist, but insists.” Thus I offered a first step in understanding of my use of “insistence”. Rather than drive away potential readers with the dry semantic or etymological analysis found in this interchange, I tried to help them further through the content of the rest of the article. I said as much at that point: “I hope the rest of this article will explain this.”

<Don't be so defensive. Look again - I was placing your claims "perversion-as-a-compliment" and "heresy-is-valuable" alongside each other, and making the obvious connection.>
No defence: just presenting the clear meaning of your original statement. The first “claim” was in the context of a discussion of my language; it had nothing to do with interpersonal relationships, let alone paedophilia, which you later introduced. The second “claim” was simply about the value of heretics to understanding in religion and perhaps the wider culture; it was not connected with the first except perhaps in that both may imply a certain anti-authoritarian stance.

< I have no opinion on whether what you say about the non-existence of God is heretical.> But you do and said so: “Hmmm. Sounds dangerously heretical…”

<It was your claim that your insights contained "many valuable things" that caught my attention.> I did not say that. I commented on the value of “heretics”, but did not accept the label myself.

Enough! To clog this thread with more of this argument would be unenlightening for all of us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nxMrRXHqpo

I just thought you might want to see truth of what god just might be, Oh well, you know best.

TT

im enjoying..[now enjoining]..the dis-course..on the pre-fix..in and ex

wether/invection ..or inflection,
..its good to/be..in-side..the in-ter-course

how i envey/those..who/were given...so many..clue's..so young

i need to laboriously..in-vest-gate
such-as/like..with the quote..from luke..23;34

recalling..this is post jesus/trial..
which has/many imp-lications
such-as...jesus-silence...
[silence..in/law..signifies concent]

anyhow..i learned..to keep/things..in their context
thus in/the preceeding..verses..28/29...
[where jesus forcasts..the fall]...finishes..with the green-tree parrable..[active-faith]..versis...dead-tree..[ex-faith]

then at 32/33..returns..to the descriptive..[narrow-tive]
followed..by jesus utterance,...'forgive/them...for/they..know-not..what/they-do'...

[just/as..they miss..the whole meaning behind
...jesus...dying..yet/not...dying]

clues...might-be/found..in the following-words...
still..with-in..33

''and/they..parted..his rain-ment'..
which is the..in-verse..of...
adam/eve...'being..sewn-into skins'..

in-dicating..[dis-incarnated/morte/dead..]
versis..adam/eves..being/sewn-into..skin..[ie..made carnate]

the casting of/lots...is a..means/of divination..to acertain/gods-will]

[the thought/was..to leave..the..alotted-decision..to god..[chance]

reveal-ingly..it is/written..in 35..that..
'the people..were..be-holden'
[im not/sure..what/the..prefix..'be'...is bringing..into real-is/ation]

as..the/koran..reveals..

god said/simply..."be...and..life be-gan"
[then..be-gat..etc]...
but/its..not/what..others..be-lieve

anyhow..its good/to..have..the in-tell-i-gent/in-put
its only when/we..internalise...thinking..
it enters..the real-m..of de-lusion..

[ok there is mass-delusion..too...which may/even..have worse..ad-verse/affect]

but back to 35.....'the rulers...[also/with-them]..de-rided/him...saying..he saved/others...let him/save himself'...

[yet jesus clearly revealed...it wasnt/him..but god..doing..'it']
did/he..not utter..eli[my/god..why have thee..forsaken/me]...elsewhere]..[a permissable..errant/moment../confirming..his huh-manity]

[i do naught..of/myself...when..you/see..me..[see..the father/who sent-me..[for in-truth..it..is..all/of/by..his hand]

[parra-phrased]

jesus..knew[thought]..he/wasnt..the messiah...[clearly...a more/amasing-miracle..is..an old/high/priest's..son's-birth..
for-told..on the most/holy-day..and..his childless 87..year-old..wife..giving birth]..but..that..was not/to..be

thus he spake-of...the one/to come...

[per-verted..into...a con-joinder..of jude-ment/judement-day...
and..the error/of..a judging/jesus..2 de-comming]..
a truelly/demonic-hope..
not..a realistic..possability..of real-isation..into real-ity

this realm..is unique..[for here/equally..we can chose..!..to accept...love..or reject/it]..

good and twain/alike..live side/by-side
[this isnt allowed any-where/else..in the/other..10 realms]

where else/can..those rejecting..god..[good]..
yet/not..loving..vile..[darkness]..be...be-ing

as it/is./.heaven..is full/of..sleepers
[those decieved..into believing...a..reserction-day..lie]
thus calmly..sleeping..away/eternity

JESUS..rebutted/that..deception..!

or worse..having sincere..thiestic/belief..in/no after-life...

belief...under the/rules..of freewill..is sacro=sanct
..we/can..only allow/them..their sleep/causel-belief's
however/wrong..their beliefs...may be

see they arnt...bad..enough..to have earned..a place/in hell
yet reject..the fruits/rewards..of their..good/nes
thus chose/...to sleep..away/eternity

sadly..heaven..is full/of..them
thankfully..many..eventually-do..wake-up..and..in/time join-in..their various-rewards

but soo/many..other-wise/good../athiests..
and end-time..believers..

cant realise..their error..of judgment..and thus lie/there..sleeping/eternity-away..needlessly/heedlessly

Agreed, Mr Crabbe.

>>Enough! To clog this thread with more of this argument would be unenlightening for all of us<<

So let's tackle it from a different angle.

Let's concentrate on the chasm between your belief - or lack of it - and that of your Church

While your short bio describes you as a "practising member of the Anglican Church", your words - even allowing for any "new usage" - are completely at odds with this position.

>>God did not make the universe and does not interfere in the universe... I believe in no supernatural entity.<<

The Anglican church has at its foundation the Apostles' Creed ("I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth"), the Nicene Creed ("We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.") and the Athanasian Creed ("we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity")

If you have a moment to spare, could you clarify how you reconcile these two positions: your lack of belief, and your Church's insistence upon it?

It's not a test, by the way. It is a genuine question from an atheist to a practising Anglican

Pericles:
<If you have a moment to spare, could you clarify how you reconcile these two positions: your lack of belief, and your Church's insistence upon it?>

The issue of the relationship between my position and the Church's Creed(s) has been on the back-burner of my mind for some time -- for too long, in fact. So your question is both important and timely for me. I intend to respond, but I suspect it will take too many words to do so through this forum. I will make the question the basis for another article. Thanks for a very useful prod!

Grim:
I read your last post with interest. I wonder whether your puzzle of the cells is out of place in investigation of one's identity. Maybe the former should be allocated to scientific enquiry and the latter to metaphysical or psycho-spiritual examination. Peter Sellick recently posted a pretty clear article on the "parallel" relationship between science and religion, which I suggest would be relevant in this case. Rather than cells, maybe we should be thinking about the relationship between ego and the unconscious. Thanks for the post; you've set me thinking on a different track.

Squeers:
<I ...would be interested to know your "point of view beyond the conservative-Marxist or right-left dimension that [Arnold and Williams] represented".>
Sorry for neglecting your post for a while. The POV I developed is rather blurred, I'm afraid. I'd not thought about the topic for a long time until you raised it. I'll try to clarify and verbalise it when I can make the time.

from/its beginning/this thead has/been..both confusing...and informative

i only god/through the first-page..of/the-article
reacting/more..to the title..and concepts..as/they-emerged

now..i realise..the title..to/be-inspired
but incorrect...

god/does..insist..[reside/within]..at the personal-level
but as/we.know...he insists..in all of us/and...
and..all-of/you..arnt..inside/me
thus/he...does/egsist[too]

that/we-do...to the least..[existing]..we do to him
i use..the lable/him...as from man..comes the/living-sperm[life]
and/if science..has validated...anything..its that life comes only from life

crabsby...has achieved..his awarness..via the non-biblical-route
[music/poetry...for egsample...[he ommits peers/influence..]
but we all know..parents..and peers..influence us greatly
wether rebelling/from...or seeking harmony/with..etc

what/the biblical/approach..could have achieved..in a helpfull-way
would have clarified...the believe..that god didnt..make the universe

clearly...that first/super-cell..that created..the big-bang
had/its logical-cause..and the best theory..science can offer
is that two opposing forces..'collided'[and this the bible covers]

we can read...in the so-called holy-texts..about good/and evil..things
and on the last-page..it affectivly states..<<rev 22;11;...he/that-is..unjust..let/him..be unjust/still>>

<,and he..which-is..fithy..let him be filthy/still>>

<<and he that-is...rightious/let-him...be
..rightious/still>>

and he that-is holy...let/him-be

holy/still

revealingly..comes 22/12:..and behold...i come/quickly
[and the end/doth come quickly]
'my reward/is..with-me'
[as your reward..is with/in..you]

[it/is/thus..with-me..thus..within/you]

'to give/every-man..according to'..
{their..[his]..workings/deeds/loves}

'according as his/work..shall-be'

14..ex-plains..that room/realm/of those..loving the good/works
15..ex-plains..those who's..loves are outside..the realms of the light

17...'and the spirit[good/god].
and the bride/say'..

..'come...let/him..that..athirst'...come

[athiest..lol..seeking to rationalise...
the light/via assimilating-science..and poetry/music..]

but via entering..via the wrong/gate
dont see the/cause..dont see the god..within
in all of us without

yes there is much/werror..in the translations of spiritual concepts
much vile..in the so-called holy book...but rwealise..that people re-wrote the thing..often...but deep underneathj...the voice of good..still silently reveales..its eternal promises

we can tell that..of god[good]
from that not of god[not good]

if we dont get the reason for the differences
were missing the big picture...all good comes from god

it was written..we should see visions..in the heavens
how could/they possably..have seen-that..
hubble only recently revealed

That makes a lot of sense, Mr Crabbe.

>>The issue of the relationship between my position and the Church's Creed(s) has been on the back-burner of my mind for some time -- for too long, in fact.<<

It goes a long way to explaining the confusion and anomalies in your article.

I wish you good fortune in your deliberations. And if I may offer a word of advice: don't be afraid of what you find.

A well-written article, and I think you go as far towards making sense as is possible for any theist.

I was just left thinking, that all of what you said still provides no ground for believing anything of the doctrine of the Anglican church, built as it is on the triple-garble of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the history of the church; and your thesis is indeed probably heresy.

What I can’t understand is this: why can’t you just accept a beautiful or ineffable experience directly for itself? Why is there any need to intellectualise from there to talk about “ego” and speculations on psychology, and the entirety of humanity and “God”? And as far as I'm concerned, to get from there to making sense of the Eucharist is indeed a pious hope.

Hurrah for Peter Hume. he has said it all.

God is. Full stop.

Stop attributing human qualities to Go who is ineffable. It makes a super human being of him. Another but bigger Captain marvel. Shazaam!! Remember him?

socratease

<<All religion is man made, mainly by the politicians of some ancient age for their own purposes of population control or what today would be taxation . If that isn't so why are there so many different religions.

Many religions have died out over the ages and being a non-theist only requires that you ignore one more beside the thousands you already think were or are nonsense.Posted by Foyle, Friday, 24 September 2010 9:59:47 AM>>

Rolex is a real watch, even though there are many immitations

Dear grateful,

You wrote: "Rolex is a real watch, even though there are many immitations"

All watches are real watches, but Rolex was made first. The imitations were all made later. Islam was invented after Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity so Islam is an imitation.

However, in one way the analogy is correct. Rolex and its imitations are all manmade.

Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity are all manmade.

They are all human inventions.

Trouble is all the religions think they are the Rolex.

i can agree with..pel-i-can
but the issue..isnt..what time
the various watchers/..say it to be

but that they..syncronise us..with the same beliefs/disbeliefs
into the same/..time..same-place...most-of..the time

god of course..isnt a watch
he is energy..[good-energy/..EL=mc2-love]

and energy..cannot be created/nor destroyed...it flows

wether/he is..a watcher..is debatable
certainly many are watching...but god-is..beyond/time/watching
yet we/can..watch his creation

god lives..in the ever/now

anytime is the right-time..to talk
and recieve reply...from him..

[if its good...all good..comes from him]

its about..knowing our/master's..[time-lord]'s...voice

he is infinite..
thus free of time...living-in..the ever/now

just as when...scribes accorded his workings/..in their living[god]-time..was..in gods living..[live-time]...then

just-as..he lives..in real..[now]-time
now

its much-as/the lord budda..revealed
many/wells..[religions/beliefs]..
all drawing..the same water..good..of god..

knowing good..and bad water/still reveal...
within them..the good..that alone comes..from god

i hope/..im not muddying the waters
many pretenders presume..they are the water
many reject the water...
thinking..by drinking whine..they avoid the life/..sustaining-water

but the timeless..{now}..cannot be captured..but by living in the moment..[now]...cannot be captured...in the temporal..[nor the temple]..nor measureable..via a time-keeper/or other measure

so much/more..could be revealed
i havnt translated half..the visioning..into word

[there was the vision of the watchtowers/
and the watch-men
but that/..moment is past....

to honour god
i can only reveal/that..able to be revealed..
in gods..[real/...now/..live/..living moment..[free-of time]

4/the..present..
im/reading
http://www.jhardaker.plus.com/pdf/Through%20the%20Mists.pdf

to quote;..<<revelation..which began..in/the beginning..of man’s-existence,..and..will/be carried-on..to its/close.

Jesus wrote no/law..which was..handed/to-His..disciples..with a command..to keep,>>but..love/neighbour/..love-god

<<neither did/He..commission..anyone-else..to do so/after..His departure.

His..injunction was/to..preach,..and that only..
as the Spirit should give-them utterance>>...
in gods living-moment/..[now]..via deeds/works/egsample

<<that..{living/loving/doing}..voice-of..the/now..
good..{living}..Spirit
being the/continuance..of revelation..until/time should cease,..leading His followers..into all/mysteries..>>

with love-in their heart/and deeds...
knowing..the good...{voice}..with-in..[ALL/of-us}

to love good/..by loving neighbour

[by not killing/
or adulterating gods..good-word]

anyhow cheers..

Dear Stephen,

I like the personal experience thrust of the article but remain confused by your return to the church. Granted in a tarnished urban environment it may provide a place of quiet beauty for prayer and reflection.

The history of organised religion, to me is too tarnished by the way they become captured by the dark side of the ego and discourage individuals from pursuing their own spiritual enlightenment. I think this is the fate of any institution that not is subject to intense scrutiny by a judicially equipped democratic process.

The fate of organised religions in educated society is testament to their failings.

Short of our own fantasy or interaction with fellow humans, I believe it only in public lands free of the strictures of institutional ownership that we can freely approach the experience of the divine. Is'nt naming the divine a step too far for rationality and also invasion of other peoples freedom to experience?

there are..a few questions..
[raised/in the words..preceeding my last quote]

[it was written..late 1800's..the words use..is confusing]

in-its context..quote<<..there is..no appeal/but-that..of repentance.>>..in the realm..[in-the/mists]

<<You will find/no bribery..and corruption;
<<everything is sternly real;..all men and things
are just/what they appear to..be>>...

previously/to this..
they/are removing..spititual-restraints

<<“The restrictions..>>restaints..<<binding these friends..have been worn..in violence..to their better/judgment>>ie are not/by freewill/choice

<<but lacking/power..to conquer..the forces opposed to/them,..they have become..victims of circumstances,..and have passed their/lives..in an irksome bondage,..being..dominated..by wills and usages...they could/not successfully resist.>>

OK THERE IS THE CONFUSION
i get/the whole..sentance...
but cannot grasp..'usages'..
in the context/being revealed

<<If they/had..given a ready/consent..to custom and dogma,..followed with unquestioning/faith..where others led,..and/been..content to crush..the right to think,..they would-have..developed..the required littleness-of soul,..without/necessity..to apply restraint.>>

<<But..they recognised..the God within,..and//refused to-still..the voice calling/them..to newer,..nobler/higher duties/for the welfare..of..their kind.>>

<<“Their prophetic/utterances..were dangerous..to a craft>>

AGAIN/here...what craft?

<<hence,..the gag/must-be..applied;their eyes..saw visions/of..coming glory..for the weary and oppressed..therefore/their sight..must=be distorted..lest the interests..of/a..class be endangered;>>

why/are this..class privledged

<<the intelligent-vigour..of the/child..proclaimed a/leader..in the man,..and church and dogma..forged letters/to cripple his
power,..and force..the noble stature/of the giant into the contortions of the dwarf.

<<You can/see..it was a battle to the death,..noble lives have been hindered..from work-wasted,..yea/worse;..for whereas they/were ordained..for construction and deliverance,..being forcibly
tampered/with..they have been perverted..by party-bigotry,?

<<and compelled..to struggle for..existence/instead of scattering..the blessings they/were designed..to carry to their fellows.

<<The result is/to-be..seen in the wrecks..which lie before us.

<<Wasted-opportunities,..wasted/intellects,..wasted lives!

<<For all these/things..those who-are..responsible..
..must be brought to..judgment.>>

then follows the quote..[previously quoted]
i just needed...to put/this-out there

any/thoughts?

grateful, I do think that before you resume posting here, you should offer an apology to stevenlmeyer.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10962#183609
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10962#183610
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10962#183652
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10962#183689

It is my view that deliberate falsification - which this clearly was - in the hope of gathering emotional support to your point of view, is poor form.

But to compound this by declining to apologize to someone who is upset by your lie, is unforgivable

how we/have gotten..things so-wrong
[or/..making miracles happen]

quote
http://www.jhardaker.plus.com/pdf/Through%20the%20Mists.pdf

<<Surely you/do-not..believe..
in..the literal/fulfilment..of that promise?”

“There are/mountains physical,..mental..and spiritual,”..he/replied,

“and the..latter-are..quite/as difficul..to remove
as/the former,perhaps even more so..and require..equally..
the power/of God,..but it..can/be done.

Have you not/just..witnessed..
the removal/of mountains of/deformity?”

“I have..indeed.”

“How was/it..accomplished?”..he asked.

“NOT/by..the assembling/together..of the great..congregation and singing..‘We can/..do nothing,..nothing!’..
as our brethren on/earth are taught/to do;

they came[toghether]..to work,..and that every-soul..
did its/utmost..[which]..was attested..by the result.

Before..Siamedes/proffered..the invocation,
which secured..that visible/response,
he had/assured himself..that his...
and their..unaided powers/were put forth..and exhausted!

;..and being..confident/that..of himself..he could do/no-more,

he invoked..the strength..which was beyond/and above;
and God would..have broken troth..if He had/not..honoured such faith.

He had/not to detail..his desires,[nor]..elaborate his/wish,
or discourse..on the benefits..and glory to/accrue;

his cry..was..a prophetic thanksgiving

for the strength..he and..every soul...
*knew ..would/be given..to them

he was..conscious/of..the fact
that his/requirements..were already known.

Everything which/could-be..done..in this hall..was completed
and there was..a pause..in the/service,..an interval
only to be..terminated by Divine action;

and the waiting/faith..of the-multitude/
captured..that action..by storm.

God had/not power..to tarry/when assailed..by/such..an-other serving-force, therefore that/sign..descended..and with-it
the necessary energy..to continue..the/work
they had..so confidently/undertaken.

It might..and should be-so..on earth,
but instead/of healing..they..inflict most-grievous wounds
and then..send/the sufferers..here..for remedy.”

“They have not/the..opportunity..even..if..they had/the power
to do..what I have witnessed/here,”..I ventured/to remark.

“God is too..wise and just,”..he answered,
“to require or expect..any/man..to perform..an/impossibility.

But in those/things..which..are well/within..their capacity
[to]-do..men work/according to that-rule/of faith..
which you have/seen exemplified?

Nay verily!

Rather,..forgetting that/they..[earthers]..are called-to
the high privilege/of..being workers..together/with God,

as/you have-seen..illustrated,..they have-been..educated into
the practice of/doing..nothing but/asking God..to do it/all.

When God works..for man it/is always
in conjunction..with man;

it is/no canon..of Divine-law
that the master..shall do/all the labour
while..the servant/gives..the/orders.

When you ask..God to-lay..the corner-stone,
you may rest assured..that He will wait/..for you
to get..the foundations ready*.

But the...earth idea.../of the matter..
is that/..a man has/nothing to do
but to tell God..what he wants
and then wait...lol..
for it to/be done,>>

dont/say you wernt/told

more info my appearance
re near-death
http://31digital.com.au/greyarea/
from
On the..8th October 2010,
“The Grey Area”..debuts on 31 digital at 8.30PM!

The first episode covers the topic/of..“near death eperiences”, author of the book..‘HOW WOULD LOVE RESPOND’..Kurek Ashley

shares his personal story of visiting the zone/between life and death and helping his friend Mike cross over into the light.

Not all of the panel found Kurek’s story convincing..or would able to condone his actions...Questions about the scientific nature of/out of body experiences..and the religious conetations to them were covered.

Tune in for a great show/and check out
the behind the scenes footage on this site..soon.



“The Grey Area” comes/about..as result of the many phone calls,..e-mails and letters the 31 receives..about the lunch time show “Questions of Faith” which was filmed in New Zealand 5 years ago.

The discussion of social,..moral and spiritual topics from a semi religious perspective..is a unique format..that continues to engage the audience..and provoke thought and opinion and thus feedback.

Having an informed panel, who are given..enough time to represent a diversity of views..on the same subject is the secret to the show’s success.

The objective is to offer..the viewer an insight and education and yet..allow them to conclude..who they agree with or what parts of each perspective they like.

The show has a broad following/due to its inclusive nature, interesting topics..and guests/and the fact..that it is not preaching,..or coming from..any one doctrine.

Broadcasts will be on a Friday night..from 8:30pm to 9.30pm with repeats..at 2am and 8:30am..the following morning....

there will-[be]..im assured
a chatbox...to discuss/issues
[or get your..own back on me]

i will-be promoting olo...on it..no-doudt

Like to get a thanks in, Crabsy with your understanding about keeping one's feet on this wonderful earth thus following Aquinas with his studious message concerning the necessary tie between earth and beyond.

Must say, however, that as regards knowledge of history, Hope is much more important to me than faith, as faith can become too much involved with historical concepts such as treating our Aborigines as low life, for example.

Makes an old bushman wonder if there really is a God or a Great Architect, and whether male or female, it was them who gifted us with sport and the need for rules of fairness for all humankind.

bushbred wrote: Must say, however, that as regards knowledge of history, Hope is much more important to me than faith, as faith can become too much involved with historical concepts such as treating our Aborigines as low life, for example.

Dear bushbred,

Robert Kenny's "The Lamb Enters the Dreaming" tells the story of the first Aborigine to become Christian.

This was before Darwin published "The Descent of Man", and the predominant opinion among the scientific community and the non-religious was that the Aborigines were a separate species. It was not killing a human being to kill them. The missionaries believed in the Bible stories that had all people descended from Adam and Eve so they thought of Aborigines as human and therefore tried to protect them.

It was only after Darwin that the non-religious in general who accepted Darwinian theory thought of Aborigines as human. There were still exceptions such as the anthropologist, Carlton Coon, who thought of the races of man having separate origins even though they were enough alike to breed.

Faith can encourage doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Darwin was a truly enlightened soul, much more so than many famous moderns or pious Christians. This is he in the “Voyage of the Beagle” qtd. in Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” (36):
“Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean. …And these deads are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and prey that his Will be done on Earth! It’s makes one’s blood boil, and yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are [still] so guilty”.
Darwin was a great and compassionate man.

Peter Hume, Socratease, duncan mills:

Thanks for you questioning.

“Naming the divine” as duncan mills puts it, is unnecessary – maybe even a hindrance – when meditating, gaining mystical insights through the natural environment and music, feeling the pulse of union while making love, or sensing ongoing creation as you hold your baby for the first time.

But I wrote this article primarily to help readers understand why some people – such as I – might go to church, or consider the Bible important, or pray, or call themselves Christians. Granted, the act of naming can unduly restrict, even distort, experience of the divine. But if non-linguistic channels of intelligence – music, art, drama, dance etc. – are also given weight the experience of the divine can avoid such barriers. That is one reason why the liturgy of my church is so important to me.

And yes, any institution has an intrinsic tendency to ossify due to the innate will to power of individuals within it. But if enough challenges come from other more anti-authoritarian individuals this tendency need not triumph. If the organisational structure allows such voices to be heard and to persuade, then the institution can renew its vitality with fresh understanding and practices. I see this happening in my church and this gives me great hope.

david f and Squeers:

I agree that Darwin was a “great and compassionate man” – and still is!

.

Dear Stephen,

.

Dreams were the stock in trade of Sigmund Freud. Your story appears a classical case study for the Freudian psychoanalytical school of psychology.

Though you did not mention it in your article I imagine you investigated likely interpretations of the recurrent dreams you experienced, including, perhaps, by consulting psychoanalysts of the Freudian school.

Your definition of a non-exitant, "insisting" God seems very much to me to be the expression of what Freud termed the "super-ego" of (I should add, in your case) "an atheist".

It is to the credit of the Anglican church that somebody like you can find a place within its fold in which you feel comfortable.

Regarding the definition of "truth", it seems that David Fisher and many others, including a certain number of theologists, tend to confuse the notion of "truth" with that of "reality".

A close friend of mine and eminent (Anglican) theologist even defines God as the "ultimate reality".

(Continued ...)

.

.

Dear Stephen, (continued)

.

Not surprisingly, my definition of "truth" is fairly close to yours though expressed in vastly different terms.

I see truth as information which has not been voluntarily deformed at the time of emission. Or should I say it is whatever version of reality, thought, ideas, qualia, dreams or imagination a particular individual is capable of perceiving or experiencing and subsequently transmitting without voluntarily deforming it.

Truth and the object of truth (reality, thought, ideas, qualia etc ...) are totally different entities. Truth is simply the absence of intent to voluntarily deform information concerning the oject of truth.

That, of course, does not exclude the involuntary deformation concerning the object of truth. The information that is emitted may be totally erroneous but perfectly truthful.

There are as many truths as there are observers and each one may be completely different from all the others, though each observer is telling the truth from his or her particular perspective, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I see truth as a perfectly subjective notion.

Our initial perception may be false. We may incorrectly interpret what we perceive. Shock or prejudice may prevent us from correctly registering what we perceive. We may suffer a lapse of memory at the time of transmitting the information. We may not employ the correct expressions or be sufficiently precise in relaying the information. Our body language may be inconsistant with our oral expression, etc. All these and many other factors may possibly result in the involuntary deformation of information concerning the object of truth.

The star we claim to see may have disappeared from the heavens millions of years ago. That does not alter the fact that we are telling the truth in claiming to see it. The reality we (truthfully) see does not exist at the moment we see it.

Unless, of course, there are other living species capable of deliberately deforming the information they transmit regarding their perceptions and experiences, truth will disappear with humanity.

Reality, of course, will continue to exist.



.

.

Dear Stephen, (continued)

.

At the end of my first post (above) I should have written:

A close friend of mine and eminent (Anglican) theologist even defines God as the "ultimate reality and the ultimate truth".

Sorry about that.

.

im largly in agreement with banjo

so will react to the summation of the topic
under the heading of crabbies first statement

quote..<<Christian atheism>>..is a conflicted freudian slip[term]

its at the same time a contradiction/
as much as sadly..a reality

christ is not god
yet there is a god

and those ascribing god wrongly..[deney his egsistance
thus are revealed as godless..[athiest]

to ascribe...god does not insist...
<<as a way to being truly human>

is to deney..him who sustains us our very being

to be huh-man..is to be in error
we either see...

and thank god..
for sustaining us our lives/...our logic..
or believe we are doing..it of our own influence

in-fluence...see that very term...
ascribes the flow
comming from without[outside]..to within

and within..lies the flux/..
emmanuel..godwith-{in}..us

modern neurology..is confirming..
our mind concieves,...its action..3 seconds before we actuate.

this/now science-fact affirms..an predictive/in-flux..[in-fluence]...

from with-out[outside]...or as many may know
via the revelation of swedenberg...external mind....
interacting..with the inner brain

its the inner-mind..{NOT THE BRAIN]
that survives the apparent death of the id..

[ergo/ego;..physical/mortal-self]

after the mind..that conveyed the external-flux..[without}..
to the brain..within...survives the dis-incarnation of the meat/flesh/body

anyhow..banjo..perhaps is saying it..more clear

<<God as the "ultimate reality>>
but i would see it more
as good sustaining/ultimatly...intimatly...our various realities
from within...[influx...
or if you insist...his insistance]

and without..via recognition..by his influx
that we are existing..ergo...ego

still i feel..your own quote..explains your own con-fusion

<<Christian/atheism>>..ie
just another form of denial

or a way of making..the truth
<<God as the "ultimate..{logic/reason..sustaining}..reality>>..

into a deciet/deception...
miss-con/ception

via/mortal ego
supplanting the super/ego

anyhow thanks for the topic

Banjo:

Thank you for your interesting contribution to the discussion. I agree that truth and reality are separate concepts and too often are confused with each other. I think your reasoning is well worth consideration in an effort to differentiate them. This is a crucial issue largely ignored in most debates over spirituality, religion, rationality, atheism etc.

As regards Freud, I have read much of his work and believe it to be valuable to the world. Eventually however I gravitated towards Carl Jung's school of thought. Freud and Jung, though initially following the same theory and practice later parted ways over a number of things, especially a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the unconscious. Freud's concept of the superego, while useful for understanding many aspects of human development, does not help me to make sense of the experiences I mention in the article. The Jungian approach does.

OUG:
Thank you for your very extensive contributions to this thread. Forgive me if I seem ignorant or harsh, but I find it difficult to understand your writing. You may have sound reasons for using such extremely unusual syntax, but it is to me so complex that I don't have the skill to decode it. I have until now avoided responding to you because I have never been sure how to reply.

.

Dear Stephen,

.

You wrote:

"Freud's concept of the superego, while useful for understanding many aspects of human development, does not help me to make sense of the experiences I mention in the article. The Jungian approach does."

Now that you mention it, your article does bare the stamp of Yungian theory: dreams, the individual and collective unconscious, the "self" archetype representing the transcendance of opposites uniting to form a balanced psyche and personality, the indistinction of human and divine self.

Quite amusing really, seen in that light.

An exercise in style perhaps ?

.

<<Life..is/a mystery so/deep..so-profound/..so-vast,so/glorious

that it/is..a/problem..whether..any-eye*/mind/heart..
save that/of Deity,
will/ever-be capable of..penetrating..it>>

..{is/one-of..those/questions..that lead..hearts/astray}

<<For ourselves..we have-to await..its revelation>...gradual/unfolding.

Its..brilliant/dawning-beam..is/just..beginning to-touch/our-soul,
You..must..[learn/to}..feel-it,..see/it,..know..'it"..for yourself.

No one..can tell/you..what-it/is,
whence..{from}..it proceeds,..
or wither{where/by}..it..goes,..save-God/good.

Rouse..yourself..to know/Him...With/all..your-heart,
all/your-soul,..{let/logus/logic}..mind..seek/and find..living-love

{GAIN}<<..strength..reach-out..{you/are..the peace..
go}..after..{him..who's..way/is...peace

and/in-finding...{him/..alone..all-peace..{all/mercy/all-love}..,
follow/Him..who's/way..of-love..for/other...
alone/finds..[peace..with-in.]

peace/able-to..lead-you..into..the..true..light/of-Life.>>

and..him/who..is..enthroned..in-your/peace-filled/heart

then..In-this..qualification...and adaptation
to..occupy..a position-of/citizenship..in two-worlds

we can see..at/once..the..sublimity..and..dignity..of/manhood,
as/designed..and provided..for/by..the matchless/wisdom-of the/Creator.

In/this..great/achievement,..social-consciousness,
through the..agency/of..the sleep-life-communion,
bears..witness..that we-are..sons/of Good,

and/via..the/interblends..peace/love/life/mercy/grace..
that..unite/us-with heaven,..as warp..and-woof/weft/weave..

as/of/like..a..fabric/woven-together..into/one.

illumination..had..carried/that..revelation
a stage forward,..unfolding more..and more/surprises

in my/past..experience,..{life}..
until..I have/been..constrained to-say
that..“I am..scarcely/able-to..recognize..even/myself.”

But I/need-not..be-afraid,..
the woof/of..consciousness
abides..as..the/guarantor..of my..identity..{soul}

In the past..I did/my dreaming,..but now..I/am awake,
and find..available..all-the/dream-treasures..I collected
in..those..transient/nightly-visits..to..the other..astral/side.

It..was/God’s plan..
that they/should..have-been..available..for/service..in-the..lower-life,..and thus..prepare/us..for a better-entrance..into..this/life.

But..such/realised-assistance..would/have..
destroyed/any..pretence
[for..a/priestly-cult]..

and so..“the..superstition”/of..
the validity-of..dreams..had-to/go.

Such-was..the/reason..that led..to/this..corridor..of communion/being closed..“by/authority,”..

and few..there-be..that find-it..in the/present-age.

It does..still/exist,..however..for..“what-soever..the/Lord-doeth
it/shall-be..for ever,”..and/they..who-by..patient-searching..find-it,..discover..a treasure/of..incomparable value...>>

[but also...possable..destraction..
of/..THIS/present-lifes..lessons/teachings..progressions

and..yearning..in-to..futures-certainty...
are-best..achieved..[founded/grounded....here/now]

<<How differently..should..I have/been placed,..
had I-been..thus fortunate,..and yet..it lay-nigh..to my/hand,..
but..in my/blindness..I..missed-it,..passing by...on/the..other-side...>>

*SEE/how..we
even..in astral/heaven..we/shall-yet yearn

thus..in others/wisdom..we..create our..sure..found-ation..
in/this..material-realm..FIRST

<<The result/of-the..enquiry
was..not/so reassuring..as I-could..have/wished.

I had..done/something,..but
my more..mature-reflection..showed me..how-much..
I/might have-said/..that..did-not..occur to me..at/the time.

How..differently..I might/have..replied/to..her enquiry
had-I..paused to/consider..before following/the impulse-of that/illumination.

Was..I/acting..wisely..
in taking the/course..I did?

Would it/have helped...?>>

it/all helps
man/is...not/meant-to/be..alone

[at-one-meant]
one...love..{all-loving]..
[all-good/god]

<<In/my-heart..I..had an/unconquerable-yearning..to find/a love

I had-never/known,..though..I felt-sure..it existed..somewhere;

I sought/but could-not..find it>>>

you can..ONLY/find-it..WITH-in.

<<Experience..told/me...that..I was not singular..in my/quest,
nor-was..I alone..in/the..failure/to attain..my end.

Then/feeling that-touch..of nature..
that makes all/mankind..kin,

I attempted..to relieve..my own/sense
of loss..by stretching out..a helping hand/to..such
as..I might find/who were..even..more-pitiably/situated.

It may..have-been/probably was..that I..failed to/rise..to all
that was/demanded-of..me/on the occasion;..

that/I came short..of doing..all/that..the revelation/was..intended to..accomplish...

Still,..though..I had/not-scored
a victory,..I..could comfort..myself/with the..thought
that I had-not..closed my eyes,to the..vision..nor resisted..the call/
that..had been..made upon-me...

With this..I had to/be content.>>>

as we/all..must*
[only god..is/perfect]

we do..the.our..best..in/the present/living-moment

then trust god..with..the rest..
none..can-be asked..to give more..than they/have-to give

we can only be/that..god gave-us..to be
till..we finally..be-come....all
that..god planned..us to/be

[extracted..from..the gate-of/heaven]