An excellent, balanced survey article, comprehensible also for those not versed in legal and moral philosophy like myself.

THIS POINt needs developing

<<..How does this debate
and the ordinary,..everyday *values it draws on
relate to arguments..>.which appeal to religious authority

STUFF RELIGIOUS 'AUTHORITY'
WE Each god the personal good god of grace/mercy/LIVING WITHIN EACXH AND EVERY ONE OF US/DURECT..WHAT WE NEED 'any auTHORITY..WHEN WE are the embodyment..of the highest author

we each living are the enjoined material/MORTAL LIVING EMBODIEMENt..of the ETERNAL IMORTAL OMNIPRESENT..HOLY SPIRIT

does not the creator..of the asset
hold hIGHEST CLAIM/..OVER ITS values?..[us]?

but by TRICKERY/COLUSION DESIGN/AUTHORITY HAS CREATED IGNORANCE/THUS dependance

<<..The choice of words is deliberate;>>

TOO RIGHT..THOU ART GOD BECOMES A Son..of the sun

<<.>>IMAGRY =IDIOlitry

I<<..

'ordinary' is better than 'secular' because the latter is widely understood to deny the existence of God, whereas the values in point are, if not universal, at least ubiquitous - they figure in the arguments of believers, agnostics and atheists alike.

'Quotidian' may be a better term,
but it is not one familiar in this context.>>

but the thing is this is DIRECTLY RELATED
TO THE QUESTION..of que warrento

[bY WHAT RIGHT]
http://rss.infowars.com/20140327_Thu_Alex.mp3
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/this-common-core-math-problem-asks-kids-to-write-the-friendly-answer-instead-of-the-correct-one_032014
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=0
h
SEs THE SNOWDEN/THREad
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152&page=0#178808

is close enough good enough?..WHAT ARe the moral implications?
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/this-common-core-math-problem-asks-kids-to-write-the-friendly-answer-instead-of-the-correct-one_032014

IS THERE A CORRECT RIGHT MORAL/ANSWER
HOW WRONG DOES doctrine NEED TO BE..RIGHT..NOT WRONG
is the right answer..MORALLY..the only wrong religious one.

is it a moral/math test or doctrinal/English comprehension
does PROPER value relieve angUwish ..assist materialistic /COMPREHENSION..of the higher unseen moral values/seen only in works..not words

ANYHOW THE ONLY CORRECT Answer..is one under THE GUIDANCE
OF THE ONLY TRUE GOOD [GOD]..IE THE HOLY LIving spirit/live all the time..direct..onE TO ONE..WITH AND WITHIN EVERYONE

HAVE FUN..the true answer..lies ..WITHIN..NOT DOWN-UNDER
[under reflects the respect]..inherent in BEING ..friendly YET IMMORAL?..IMMORAL Yet correct..[satan and demons are miss teaching our kids..into convoluted thinking

taught what to think
not how to think
what ya think?

Unfortunately One Under God I find your writing to be not of my liking, I feel worn out just by glancing my eye over it, nothing against you, as that is the way you write, but I do like the clearer and more precise writings of others.

What this seems to boil down to is that most of those who profess to follow a religion make the vast majority of their decisions on the basis of reason and common sense like everyone else, while those who do actually act in accordance with the precepts of religion are rightly regarded as dangerous, and quickly killed or placed in protective custody. Nothing new there, but it's nice to see it recognised. Why the weasel words at the end, however?

"I hope it is clear from this last comment that nothing in the paper is intended to question a religious view of the world or the role of faith in supporting it."

I don't think you could 'question' the religious view of the world much more effectively, Max, than by pointing out that all sane people eschew it almost entirely for the purposes of everyday decision-making.

Indeed George, an excellent, balanced and comprehensible article: thank you Max!

Now to the ultimate question as presented:

<<where do our values come from and why are they important?>>

Our essential values come from us - that is from nowhere. One could perhaps tell you: "if you value X then you should logically also value Y and not Z", but the essential value X has no other source but ourselves - that's what makes them important, to us!

Now there are those among us who value God, who love God and want to come closer to Him. This is an essential, primary value that we either have or we don't. Note that a concept of 'God' is not required: it may give us an intellectual understanding of our values, but it's quite possible to value God without conceptualising or trying to explain it.

A competing value would be of satisfying the body's desires, including for comfort, pleasure, safety and esteem.

Among those who value God, were sages who previously scouted and mapped the path to Him, then documented it producing travel-guides, which we call 'scripture'.

There happens to be a significant overlap between those travel-guides and common, ordinary morality. In other words, sages have concluded that for those who seek God, following common morality is most of the time a good idea. We could delve into the reasons for that, and there are good reasons, but for now suffice that this overlap exists, but is partial. Society and religion tend to travel together for a stretch of the road, wherein they can be good companions, but as they are not heading in the same direction, as they are different values, there is a point where they must separate.

Blaming those with different values as 'insane' is itself insane: if you like chocolate ice-cream, would you accuse another who prefers vanilla or strawberry as 'insane'? It's all about values, different values!

A more detailed and less ideological treatment of this subject will reveal may cracks in the argument. I suggest that the writer should read MacIntyre, "After Virtue" especially chapter 5

The author writes: “Denmark's recent ban on religious slaughter for halal and kosher meat has outraged Muslims and Jews, who see it as a violation of human rights; their argument, however, is not that the Minister is ignoring God's law, but that cutting the throats of animals is not cruel.”

He has oversimplified matters. Their argument is only partially that cutting the throats of animals is not cruel. It is also other than that. It is also that the Danish government has interfered with the right of a religious community to practice its faith in accordance with its religious law. They probably grant that the Minister is not obliged to observe Islamic and Jewish law, but he is overstepping his authority in restricting Muslims and Jews from doing so.

Actually the question of whether cutting an animal’s throat is less cruel than other means of animal slaughter depends on what the other means of animal slaughter are. However, one can carry the argument further. One can contend that one avoids cruelty to animals by not raising them and then killing them for food. One can substitute vegetable protein for animal protein and not kill animals for food at all. That would put less strain on the environment. Of course most Danes accept killing animals for food. We can even go further and contend that the slaughter of cockroaches, ants or other forms of animal life that interfere with human well-being is not justified since other forms of life have as much right to life as humans have to their well-being.

One can also question the Danish government’s ban on ritual slaughter on the grounds that it may have been motivated by the desire to bring Jewish and Muslim practices in conformity with the mores of the majority population. It also may have been inspired as a measure to discourage further Muslim immigration.

I don’t know whether the ban was justified. I don’t know whether it was primarily a concern with animal welfare or an attempt to bring the Islamic and Jewish communities into line. I suspect it was both.

.

I still have a vivid memory of my visit, as a boy, to my home-town slaughter yards and abattoir in the Queensland outback.

I can still see those big innocent eyes of the lambs looking out at me as they were held in the tight embrace of the slaughterer as he slit their throats.

The pigs were stabbed in the neck with a pick, the blood gushing out onto the concrete floor and running into the drain like rainwater.

The cattle (mostly steers, heifers and some cows) were hustled, one at a time, into a narrow, rectangular enclosure of wooden beams which was quickly closed behind them once they were in.

The slaughterer then hoisted himself up onto the top of the enclosure, straddling the animal beneath him with a foot on the top beam of each side of the enclosure. He then proceeded to smash the animal on the head with a sledge-hammer.

I can still hear the sickening sound of the solid steel on bone and the howling moan of the beast as its knees buckled with each blow from which there was no escape. After a half a dozen blows it was left reeling with pain and shock, trapped between the wooden beams, literally knocked-out on its feet.

The slaughterer then scrambled down from his perch, threw down the sledge-hammer, picked up his rifle and put the poor beast out of its misery with a single shot between the eyes. He then slit the beast's throat from ear to ear, the blood gushing out onto the concrete floor, flowing into the drains.

That was the work of a good professional in those days. It had nothing to do with religion.

It was an impressive experience, even though I was used to chopping off the heads of fowls, ducks, geese and turkeys which my brother and I raised in our back-yard for the family consumption. I also used to ride off into the bush on my bike to shoot the occasional rabbit with my .303 army rifle I bought for a few shillings from military surplus.

.

Re comment by Sells: I don’t believe there is anything in McIntyre’s book which undermines any views or arguments in this paper, but I would be interested to hear why you think otherwise; even a brief summary, with references, would help.

Re Jon J: They are not weasel words and your question is important but would require an article of its own. In the meantime you might be interested in a more extensive account in ‘Religion without God’, by R. Dworkin.

Max Atkinson

http://theamericanscholar.org/loving-animals-to-death/#.UzPb6SEU-FF argues that it is unethical to eat meat.

Some of the Inuit would starve to death without eating meat. I don't think there is any objective set of ethics, values or morals only the set of ethics we choose in our particular circumstances.

There is, of course, no objective religion also. If Sells or Sellick were Jewish or Muslim he would be a monotheist and could not accept the Trinity.

Jewish: Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One.

Muslim: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

Dear Max,

Thank you for your article. Well written and reasoned.

I would draw the distinction however between the 'ordinary, everyday values' or others such as those imposed by religious authority, and the 'value' ordinary people place on their religion.

The following link is a radio prank call organised by a gentleman's daughter with the aim of cheering him up before major surgery.

http://youtu.be/RQT1lF-gX6A

Besides being very amusing it is interesting the reaction of many non-believers to what occurs. The general theme is around the hypocrisy they judge the man displays when reacting to the deacon's request. To me his reaction was human and I get little sense of it impacting his faith.

I suspect that there are rational decisions made around retaining religious dogma implanted in ones formative years than most people are prepared to accept, although those decisions may be in a sense subconscious. For instance the welcome comfort of others praying for you or the thought that an intervening god might help have the dice roll your way may well serve to supercharge what scientists call the placebo effect and add to chances of surviving serious illnesses.

As a piece of moral philosophy your article is commendable, I'm just not sure of its relevance to ordinary religious folk nor if they would see themselves being referenced within.

Dear david f,

Christianity is also a monotheistic religion with a Trinitarian structure (of their model) of God that neither Judaism nor Islam, and many others, share.

From Wikipedia: "Monotheism characterizes the traditions of Atenism, Babism, the Bahá'í Faith, Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Islam, Judaism, Rastafarianism, Ravidassia religion, Seicho no Ie, Shaivism, Sikhism, Tenrikyo (Tenriism), Vaishnavism, and Zoroastrianism."

Dear George,

I do not understand how one God can be in three parts. Christianity is free to call itself anything it likes. To me it is not a monotheistic religion. I don't see any particular virtue in being a monotheistic religion. If one is going to invent a god it can be in as many pieces as one likes. Christians may refer to the mystery of the Trinity. It is a mystery to me why it wants to be considered monotheistic without having a God in one piece. You are free to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion. I am free not to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion. However, one considers Christianity does not make it better or worse.

.
 
Dear david f.
 
.
 
It’s nice to catch up with you again.

I found the article on the food movement in the US, for which you provided the link above, quite interesting. Thank you.

As I understand it, there is no such thing as morality in nature, just whatever is necessary for survival.

Also, for the sake of clarity, I understand that the terms “ethics” and “morality” have essentially the same meaning and are interchangeable. “Ethics” is of Greek origin (ethikós ). “Moralis” is the Latin equivalent which Cicero coined in 43 BC in order to translate it.

In modern usage there is a general tendency to employ the term “morality” when the emphasis is placed on the individual. Otherwise, the term “ethics” seems more appropriate.

Morality or ethics is a human concept, a product of the human mind. But, of course, that does not mean that it is not also part of the evolutionary process of nature, necessary for survival.

Perhaps it is for that reason we do not practise cannibalism despite the fact that we are, generally speaking, omnivores. By extension, our appetite for the flesh and blood of other animals, particularly mammals such as ourselves, is also becoming affected as we begin to realize that they share many of our thoughts and feelings, if not some of our conscience as well.

For the time being, such altruistic considerations are, nevertheless, seen as too great a luxury by the poor and too great a sacrifice by the rich.

Another potential barrier to this evolution, of course, is religion. The consummation of meat is a right for Muslims and Jews when it is Halal and Cacher. And seen as an obligation for Christians who respectfully obey Jesus:

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.”
(Luke 22:19)

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
(Luke 22:20)

.
 

Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "For the time being, such altruistic considerations are, nevertheless, seen as too great a luxury by the poor and too great a sacrifice by the rich."

Well said.

Dear George,

We have different definitions of monotheism. Your definition comes from the religion you believe in. Mine comes from the religion I don't believe in. The definitions are incompatible.

Wikipedia accepts the Christian definition of monotheism. I don't.

My first criticism of Atkinson is his identification of the Golden Rule as the property of christianity. The beauty of the GR was recognised by philosophies centuries older than christianity. Like most moral and ethical ideals, the GR was plagiarised by the original recorders of religious texts and incorporated into doctrine. A Google of the term will disabuse him.

That he holds that perversion of compassion and pious dedication, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, or Mother Teresa, as a glowing example of humanitarian philanthropy reveals just how well the catholic church has disseminated another great lie and how vulnerable even sworn skeptics can be guiled into believing goodness exists simply because authority says it does.

Certainly the cull of the unborn shows how consciences are seared by those rejecting their Creator.Moral relativism has dulled society into the morally bereft and yet self righteous society we live in. The attempts to call right wrong and wrong right are yet pathetic attempts of self justification. How well the Scriptures reveal the corrupt nature of
Man. Max confirms this so clearly.

Protesting the rights of animals to be treated about as well as we would treat a brother or sister becomes something of a futile argument when it is realised that science reveals there to be no clear biological demarcation between plant and animal life.

Yes, everyone can differentiate between a carrot and a cow. But, should we extend our filial concerns to earthworms, termites, arachnids and the myriad of harmful and harmless human parasites?

Humankind survived and prospered by killing and eating other animals. Even today, humans have themselves been the source of food for predators. Why then do some of us need to self-flagellate and excoriate others for following our natural proclivities? Some of us are inclined I think to see themselves as above the other animals and thus above nature itself sometimes. Such presumption is complacent and self-indulgent waffle. We are subject to the laws of nature and can never be in reality outside nature. I don't see anything in eating animal flesh that I should feel sorry about or apologise for.

.

Dear david f.,

.

Allow me to suggest that the Trinitarian doctrine of Christian monotheism should, perhaps, be best understood as an unsolved mathematical problem.

Knowing George, he has probably been secretly working on it himself most of his life but has not yet managed to solve it.

If you want my personal opinion, if George can’t do it, nobody can. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

.

Dear dvid f,

I think it is not about what you or I like something to be called. Of course, you can use your own terminology, except that it helps our communication if we can agree on the meaning of terms we use.

I was referring to Wikipedia, as an authority on accepted terminology on all sorts of things. Another online source is https://www.boundless.com/sociology/definition/monotheistic-traditions/. And many others.

[Of course, there are many arguments against the trinitarian model of God believed in not only by Christians. They appear in discussion/dialogues between Christian and other theologians. However if I do not believe in something, I should not care about how it can/should or cannot/should not be modelled.]

Dear George,

There are Christians who reject the Trinity. An example of that is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those Christians are monotheists. Christians who accept the Trinity are not monotheists. The God I don't believe in is one and indivisible. It is not just my terminology or idiosyncrasy.

Why should it bother you that I am unwilling to accept a 3-in-1 God as monotheistic? It doesn't affect your belief. We are arguing about an imaginary entity anyway.

dear/davids/quoTE..<<.You are free to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion. I am free not to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion. However, one considers Christianity does not make it better or worse.>>

GREAT WORDS
EXCEPT..i feel Christianity alone..STANDS..ABOVE MONO-THEIST

AS I hope to clarify/using your words..

<<I do not understand..how one God.can be in three parts...>>

ME TOO..for a lonG TIME..the sanity..of
father son and mother/seemed more reasonable

BUT IN THE END..ONCE YOU SEE IT..AS IT Really is
it explains itself..[the confusion/being\the mono/god\BEING]
MEANING../ALL BEING\..BEING BY..THE HOLY SPIRIT..being aS ONE-being

LETS RECALL..WHAT jesus said..[that ye see me do/..ye shall do greater...[GREATER THAN 'GOD'..FOR SO MANY THINK OF HIM]..AND ITS NOT FOR US TO JUDGE/BUT YES

YE SHALL BE GREATER..THAN Jesus[the'other'..son/of\god]

jesus a sun..of the father..is a son of god
as we all are/..gods have SONS/DAUGHTERS THAT THUS MUST BE GOD/GODS ..'LIKENESS'..[IE LIVING].TOO

DOGS BRED Dogs/cats breed cats/../GODS BREED GODS
And yet the HOLY SPIRIT..[THE THIRD LEG OF THE TRINITY..[THAt makes clear the un*sepperated-ness of jesus/god and the living [HOLY]spirit [LIFE'S/holy SPIRITUAL/being..wholly sustaining every life its VERY BEING/living being

where 'THE HOLY SPIRIT IS..THERE IS LIFE IS

jesus lives/thus HOLY SPIRIT LIVES..
[GOD Lives thus the holy spirit sustaining his living 'lives'

SEE ME SEE [LIVING]..REVEALS..That MY FATHER/lives..both OUR LIVING ARE SUSTAINED..BY THE HOLY SPIRIT...[WHO BY BEING WHOLLY SPIRIT..CANT BE SEEN WITH HUMAN EYES]..yet all seeing requires/life...[indeed all being]

THERE ARE INFINITE GODS....INDEED..Our father [sun]..SUSTAINS US OIUR EVEry life..by his light/HIS LIGHT..[as in all light is the holy spirits light]..we are one/THUS ITS YOUR LIGHT

BUT ITS Much more easy to explain..if ITS A TWO WAY CONVERSATION
AND TOO MUCH ITS US TALKING nonsense..i had to SEE THE ONENESS..inherent..in the trinity/BY SEEING THE ONENESS OF CHRIST/WITH GOD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

3..but of one will..to serve our will

<<>.Christianity is free to call itself anything it likes. To me it is not a monotheistic religion.>>

CLEARLY IT ISNT..[SEE HOW 'THE Invisible good is manifested by the viable good [the sun]..and his begotten son/CHRIST/YOU..BY THE HOLY SPIRIT..SUSTAINING US ALl our living..

continues

RIGHT THERE IS 3 goods..
plus the infinite other goods..[GODS]

MONO-..of aGOD IS REDll we can be and inDEED ARE

damm editing

RIGHT THERE IS 3 goods..plus the infinite other goods..[GODS]

MONO-GOD IS REDUCTIONISM..But of truth the earth and ITS BIOSPHERE ARE ONE..[With the life giving holy one..too]

and our father*[sun]..birthed the earth/
so the scIENCE REVEALS..[EARTH THE EJECULATE..BIRTHER FROM OUR FATHER Sun

-his son-LIGHT SUSTAINS LIFE/LIVING..
just as god is the sun..the son of the sun and the holY SPIRIT ARE Made one

be one..WITH US

<<I don't see any particular..virtue
in being a monotheistic religion.>>

WE DONT either/but see..its Kismet

<<If one is going to invent a god..>>

how much better..if you can tell him..
he realy is a son of good..too

<<..it can be in as many pieces as one likes. Christians may refer to the mystery of the Trinity. It is a mystery to me why it wants to be considered monotheistic without having a God in one piece.>>

i think peace is spelled wrong
GOD IS ONE..IN YOU..ONCE YOU SEE YOU
ARE THE WHOLLY UNHOLY 3RD leg..of TRINITY Denying thyself

anyhow id rather be taking about how gOD MADE ADAM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16065&page=0#280906
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-3.html
denying WHAT YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN..JUST BY being a living being...

Whatever association of dueling DUALIST-ISMS..OR Trinities WE ARE
BE AT ONE WITH ALL of it..we are of one bio-logical cellular earthen sphere..in fact little more than a CLAY BUBBLE..Of light and life..[THE TRINITY tribunal]..

TO JUDGE THE UNHOLY ANGELS THAT CREATED THESE Materialistic Sub-diversions..of matters of matter]..[as the antimatter of the matter of the PATTER..OF THE PAPA..our most wholy triune spirit Incarnate.

FROM THE wikseed/wikigeld EXCHEQUER..sun-treaty.[johan9]

Dear david f,

>>Why should it bother you that I am unwilling to accept a 3-in-1 God as monotheistic? It doesn't affect your belief.<<

I was not arguing about how to understand the concept of Trinity or my beliefs but about accepted TERMINOLOGY.

Truly, I mentioned the fact that there were arguments against the trinitarian understanding of God. In square brackets, to emphasise that that was not the point of my post. I concede, that since irrelevant, I should not have mentioned it at all, brackets or not.

Dear George,

Labeling a triune god montheistic is accepted terminology only because there are a great number of trinitarian Christians who choose to ignore the contradiction. I see no reason why I or anyone else who does not accept the contradiction should.

Extropian1,<<>.Why/then..do some.of us..need/to self-flagellate..and excoriate others..for following..our natural..proclivities?>>

ITS..JUST HUMAN NATURE..tO HEAR/THE VOICES..OF Negative/DISINCLINATION ..rather than affirmation..Rather than the positive AFFIRMATION..simply/by our mindset

[to think low..is to attract..the low blow spirits][HIGHER THOUGHTS CAN BE..SO FLEETING]..BUT LOW ONES..DRONE ON AND ON..[so im told]

<<...Some of us..are inclined...to see themselves/as above the other animals..and thus..above nature itself..sometimes...Such presumption is complacent..and self-indulgent waffle.>>

yep..we all are..that we consume/IMBIDE/take-in.
[that/we..TAKE INTO OURSELVES]IS[THAT WE ACCEPT..AS OUR DUE]..more [of the same]..shall be..a given..

IF WE CHOSE/TO LIVE..IN THE MORTAL\MATERIAL/REALM

<<.We are subject to..the laws of nature>>..ALONE...<<..and can never be..in reality/outside nature...>>..ITS our right/god given right]..TO FREEWILL..FREE CHOICE..ITS Written..on our very soul.

[EVIL/Can claim..our/soul..
but..our/living/life-spirit/belongs..to god.

<<..I don't/see anything..in eating animal/flesh..that I should feel sorry about..or apologise for.>>

as jesus/himself said..[in/the remaining..notes of thomas]
MORE BLESSED..IS THE LION..consumed by man
than the man.oconsumed by lion.

of course..we are/what we eat..[AND THERE..IS NO INNOCENCE..IN EATING
anything..[think how many..living soy SEEDS DIED..SO WE CAN HAVE OUR 'guilt free'..soy latte*

OR HOW MANY..LENTIL SEEDS..DIED TO MAKE.-YOUR LENTLE Soup
the murdered peas..IN YOUR pod free/guilt free pea-soup

THING IS..FOR US TO LIVE/materially..[IN THIS MATERIAL-REalm/we need KILL..BUT ITS THE QUALITY..OF OUR LIVING..[AND/KILING]..I FEEL Is key[recall john..LIVED OFF GRASSHOPPERS..and honey..[NO BEES NEED DIE TO EAT HONEY..but when your so hungry/your eating a grasshopper..it fights you..all the way down/plus coming BACK OUT.

none/living is innocent/
guilt/IS INHERENT..LIVE WITH-IT*

I RECALL..the holy man test..where one.holy fella..was so hungry
HE BEGGED GOD FOR A FEED..[GOD MADE AN EAGLE..To swoop dOWN AND CATCH A FISH..THAT WAS DROPPED..AT THE HOLY ONES FEET..[the TEST OF THE HOLY MAN..IS NOT TO TAKE LIFE]..SO HE RETURNED THE FISH.TO THE WATER..AND ATE/GRASS INSTEAD.

BUT YET..ANOTHER TEST/*/COMES TO MIND..throw OUT THINE CAST-NET.

THE CATCH IS 100 small fiSH..AND ONE LARGE FISH..whICH DO YOU EAt
do you take the one fish..save the 100..or eat the hundred throwing back..the ONE..[full of eggs]

neither/:.under tribal law..discovery allows the finder/to keEP UP/TO..HALF..SO up to/THE 50 little/FISH..ARE TAKEN..AND THE BIG MOTHER FISH..RETURNED TO THe waters..to safe guard..home-turf..a playing/growing/learning-place for the wee ones.she protects..FROM THE OTHER FISH....thus given-THEIr chance to live...[OPPORTUNITIES-TO KILL]

NONE..ARE innocent..
so..THE WISE...OTHERWISE..dont name-CALL..NO-ONE.

Extropiant1 you are correct, why should we feel guilty of eating animal flesh, likewise why should as an example should a shark or lion feel guilty of eating a so called human being, which ever way you look at it animal and human being end up the same digested and excreted, no difference, goodbye animal,goodbye you, just a heap of poo, such is life or no life.

.
 
Dear david f. and George,
 
.
 
I was hoping George would come up with the solution to the unsolved mathematical problem of how the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity qualifies as monotheistic religion.
 
What I hadn't realised, of course, is that it is far too simple a problem for a university professor of pure mathematics like George to solve and, now that I come to think of it, it's also well under the level of a brilliant phyicist such as yourself, David.

I guess it's more for an ordinary person like me to work it out. So, please bear with me. I'll give it a go. If you don't mind, David, I'll start where you left off:

"God is one and indivisible". He is the essence. He exists simultaneously in three different forms (God the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost) and in three diferent places at the same time ( just like two sub-atomic particles in quantum mechanics theory ).

I suppose the algorithm couldn't be any simpler really :

1 + 1 + 1 = 1

As my dear wife often says: "On a toujours besoin d'un plus petit que soi" ( we always need somebody smaller than ourselves).

.

Re: SteeleRedux.
Thank you for your comments. I don’t disagree with your view of the prank, your comments on how religious views become engrained, or your question about the paper’s relevance to ‘ordinary religious folk’. The last brings to mind a comment by a critic of modern art who thought teaching art theory to students was like teaching horticulture to cabbages. This is not meant to denigrate religious folk - far from it.

Max Atkinson

RE/QUOTED..<<.."God is one and indivisible">>.
the search term don't come up..AS A QUOTE
THUS WE HAVE A JOINING OF TWO/SEPARATE/QUOTES
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=God+is+one+and+indivisible>

THUS WE GET GOD IS ONE[OF US][AS GOD IS WITHIN ALL OF US]
THE Search ..is revealing..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=God+is+one&i

the indivisibly thing see,ms a jewish thing
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=God+is+indivisible&o

i dont need search..the 3 rd question//<<>god..IS the essence>>
AS life exists..only because his living ESSENCE DWELLS WITHIN US
but wtf//lets look at the search term/anyhow
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=God+is+ESSENCE&

its one of those search terms that energize us

<<..He exists simultaneously..in three different forms>>

now we get into the need to inform form
FROM THE FORMless..into all living form

GOD AS MANY HAVE SAID..ISN'T 'FORM'..[I THINK YU SAYS THAt bit best]
inform..him that form precludes function that form has many function
that god IS CAUSE OF ALL FUN AND FUNCTION

INFORM..HE..THE ESSENCE..of (God the father,]
SIGNIFIES THE END GAME[YE SHALL BE As gods]
that..YE KNOW..THE Formulations..you inform
i wish to inform THOU THOU ART<<.. God the son>

and that all form IS INFORMED..WITH\IN THE Words<<.. and God the Holy Ghost)>

omnipresent..means..THAT WHERE I AM..YOU too can be/but wherever life is there is gods goods OF THE HOLY SPIRIT INFORMING THE SUNS OF GOOD..WHAT WE ALL ARE..BEING..ALL OVER THe place..in googilians of locations..

ie everywhere life is there is A god sustaining the holy spirit/withIN-it..[IT Is godly..as its life essence iS WHOLLY eternal/OMNIPRESENT...[one WHOLLY HOLY WHOLE-spirit]..WHOLY SPPIRIT IS ONE/WITH EVERYONE..JUST AS THE ONE SAYS the sayinG...SAYING I AM AS I AM...AT ONE AS THE son of the sun[the sun of god..AS ONE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT

in so much more thaN..<<three diferent places at the same time>>
OMNIPRESENT..IS SAYING I AM EVERYWHERE.and then some.

think/why..(we always need somebody smaller than ourselves)
yet consistently fail to SEE THE GREATNESS IN OTHER[see the miracle is all other]

feel the oneness with everything.
don't let THINE HEART BE DIVIDED..TO LOVE EVERYONE..IS HOW YOU LOVE THE FATHER and the sun..and the wholly spirited one*

have fun..the wholly SPIRIT CLEARLY DWELLS WITHIN you
[holy spirit/light sustaining life via logic [in]..live time all the time..FOR ALL Time and beyond any time-line]

Dear Banjo,

My understanding of monotheism is that it embodies the belief that God is a unitary entity. Your equation 1+1+1=1 is true in Boolean algebra. However, Christianity also embodies the equation 1+1=1. The latter equation is an expression of the belief that Jesus was divine. That is also a departure from monotheism. The divinity of Jesus and the trinity are Boolish in essence.

When Abraham Lincoln was practicing law he was cross-examining a hostile witness. He pointed to a calf outside of the window and asked the witness, "If I called that calf's tail a leg, how many legs would a calf have?"

The witness answered, "Five."

Lincoln replied, "Calling it a leg wouldn't make it a leg. Let's get to the truth."

Christians may choose to think of their religion as monotheistic. Because there are many Christians in this world that has been accepted. However, calling something what it isn't doesn't make it what it isn't.

THE TRINITY IS A REVELATION..OUT OF BABYLON
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=TRINITY+ORIGONATion

I SUGGEST ITS LIKELY LINKED TO THE AGe/old calf thing
mosus came up against..and the POLITRICKS OF JESUS DAY..
OR LIKE That which led to the fall of babble..or the flood

you know that bad[YET REVEALING]..PENNY/That seems SO FAKE/But represents a truth that sustains its consistent re appearance

like IF AN ANGEL TOLD YOU..To call him Emmanuel..[eL MANUAL]
YET YOU CALL HIM JESUS..YOUR Missing a part of the tail..THE THING IS..THAT Trinity thing..is the only real thing that Christians have/FOUND.

saul/paul told progressive isms..AND the WITNESS[Gospel]..TELL WHAT THEY SAW..OR RATHER HOW THEY PERCEIVED..WHAT THEY DID WITNESS.

lie say jesus says..'its NOT YET MY TIME'
THAT MEANS JESUS DIDN'T 'turn'..toilet water into winE[THE SERVANTS DID SO THEIR 'MASTER'..WOULDN'T Loose face

any servant is not deceived
just as any jew IS NOT DECEIVED IN 4000/5000..JEWs sitting on a hill not eatING FOOD BECAUSE THEY HAD 'DIRTY Hands'..see the shew bread parrable[that reveals his deciples didnt KNOW THAT,.either]

THOSE WHO KNOW THEIR true living loving gods voice arnt deceived either[they can recognize it in any man..or rather his works rather than words..EVEN RECOGNIZABLE THE ONE TRUE GOOD HOLY SPIRIT..EVEN IN 'GOD'..LET ALONE A SUN OF GOD..[the sun]..radiating the holy spirits LIFE ENERGY/LIGHT/love/logic/logus life.

Dear Mr Max Atkinson,

you say:

“In most social and political disputes religion plays no role”, and

. . . “most of the time, on most matters, religion takes a back seat in our public debates”

Who do you refer to when you say “OUR” as in “our public debates” on morals etc.?

Surely you do not include in “OUR” the more than 10 million Australians not of an Anglo heritage nor even a European heritage BUT rather are descended from peoples and cultures from elsewhere like Asia, Africa, Middle East etc.? Yet I cannot see how you cannot include them since they are part of our multi-cultural society as much as any of the European-type peoples are.

Thus either –
(i) You have included these people in your thinking; OR
(ii) You have excluded these people in your thinking

If the answer is (i) then you have an enormous amount of catching up and learning to do since many if not MOST of the cultures and peoples who make up this other half of our nation (non-westerners) are not so likely to separate religion and their ethnic traditions from their debates about morality and politics.

If the answer is (ii) then you have committed an extremely racist crime of ignoring and discarding over half of Australia when you consider history, legal and moral culture and politics.

So Mr Max Atkinson is your definition of “OUR” as in the Australian people and culture, include these “other” peoples whom are not direct descendants and cultural heirs to the Liberal Western Enlightenment values and ideals as the descendants of the English colonisers are?

If not, please address this MASSIVE oversight in your thinking and apologize to those “ignored 10 million” by re-writing this article and include this time the factor of this phenomenon.
I realize it seems almost impossible a task, no doubt especially if you desire to retain your current image and friend base not to mention your career and any hope of future advancement.

. . . . continued in next post . . .

However it is simply too important and REAL since it involves real live humans who our society must eventually incorporate and deal with one way or another whether that means forcing debate upon some groups (primarily those groups that are particularly strict and bigoted to those different to themselves).

– for instance IF we had a German ethnic population who all congregated in one main Sydney suburb and who openly seemed to preach, practice and fully endorse values and political ideals as bad as the Nazis they descended from, would we not instantly scorn them and address this?

For argument’s sake pretend we actually did have a German community who seemed obviously Nazi-like and even perhaps engaged in political endeavours to ultimately overthrow the Liberal west and to return to the Nazi Reich (for good measure pretend also that some were terrorists who had already bombed trains and destroyed the NY WTC in 2001).
What does everyone think would be Mr Atkinson’s response?
In fact I bet that Mr Atkinson and the others who share his obvious racist and classist ELITISM which allows their mindset to be so narrow and so selfish, that if these hypothetical Nazis existed as a Germanic ethnic community in Sydney, that he and the LEFT (and others) would be in instant agreement to smash them to oblivion without any due consideration.

That is to say, Atkinson and co. would (I bet anything) wish to imprison them with little regard to rights (remember what happened to Australia’s first political prisoner Pauline Hanson?) and if they could to deport them back to Europe regardless of whether some were born in Australia or not.

. . . continue next post . .

. . . Post to Max Atkinson continued . . .

Most definitely they would at least give no support to them or their cause like they do with other extremely violent and hateful and super-racist supremacist groups like the “Muslim extremists” and others (who the Left even protest along side of).

If you doubt my hypothesis just recall how the western world treated White South Africa during “Apartheid” – how they were banned from all international sport and shunned from many other things until the whites handed control to the negroes.

Yet right now today apartheids exist all over the world. India has extreme oppression of women and especially of low castes (poor people); much of Asia has near slave labour which fuels their wealth and which we westerners buy into and exploit; filthy rich Arab nations have apartheid against all women and all peoples of different religions and other races such that in some places to be a non-Muslim is illegal.

But the west does not impose some sanctions on these nations. They still play at the Footbal world cup and in the Olympics.
Why?

Don't stress I will answer it for you.

Answer: you (wealthy westerners generally but mostly the Left) believe that these "third-worlders" are non-human or at least "sub-human". This is why you do not speak to them up front and as an equal you respect, as to respect them requires honesty and frankness.

No, in fact you hope they stay in that dark little corner you "think" they are in, you do not wish to be "BUSTED" by all for being a racist and an elitist.

Max Atkinson,

one other thing to help clear an important issue up for you -

You say "some philosophers distinguish as ethics and morality" as though you are saying that we have a moral ground which we assume to be universal somehow and then we have our everyday practical ethics (which the ancient Roman moralists wrote of in detail).

Then you ask "How does this debate and the ordinary, everyday values it draws on relate to arguments which appeal to religious authority?"

Yes I know this has historically been an impossible question, yet I implore you all to not believe that somehow western laws and moral values are based in our Judeo-Christian heritage. It is NOT at all.

Regardless of how there are some values seemingly taught by Jesus etc. which are identical with Liberal notions of "equality", "freedom", "justice", non-violence" [although the latter is ignored], I refer all to a brilliant comment by the genius 18th century philosopher Immannual Kant . . .

. . . who described this dilemma in the following way -

"I do not follow the morals of Christ because the bible says it, rather I read and follow the bible and Christ because their is a moral imperative within me to do so". And he explained in his 3 Critiques that this "moral ground" is of an "existential universal" order.

I really cannot come,to terms with the stuipidy of people who believe in any so called religion the more I see of all of these people running around in dresses, expensive at that, waving some sort of smoke coming out of a pot I completely turn off, Pell defending the doings of his flock and then gets posted to a cushy job in Rome to get out of problems here, truly how can so called people believe in the rubbish being pedalled by religion, The rest of the religious brigade are no better, Muslim, Scientology, Jehova's Witness, the list goes on and on of people being sucked into some sort of a belief system , when there is no truth that it exists, only in what's between your ears.
When their is,proof I will don my expensive dress with gold braiding and start preaching to the flock, or more to the teaching of the so called Holy Book don my clothes of the poor.

Dear Ojnab,

<<I really cannot come,to terms with the stuipidy of people who believe in any so called religion the more I see of all of these people running around in dresses, expensive at that, waving some sort of smoke coming out of a pot I completely turn off>>

You hit the nail on its head: too often a "so called religion" is not a religion at all.

<<or more to the teaching of the so called Holy Book don my clothes of the poor.>>

Indeed, there is no logical link between religion and expensive clothing - http://www.lightstalkers.org/images/show/175879

<<people being sucked into some sort of a belief system , when there is no truth that it exists, only in what's between your ears.>>

Religion is NOT a belief system. Although SOME religions exercise a belief system as one of their techniques, they should only do so because it's practical, because it works, because it forwards religion's goal of coming closer to God, not because it is supposed to be true in any existential sense.

Then wear what suits you and do what works for you!

Yuyutsu,but these people do not have to look at me every day, while I have to look at them, you obviously condone the Catholic misdeamers of male sexual abuse, I do not, is that part of the religion that I have to put up with.

Dear Banjo,

Actually, it is worth than that. I get 1 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, if I follow your reasoning, since according to my dictionary, both Australia and Victoria, Queensland etc are states (and so are de facto ACT and NT). So we have eight states making together a single state (monostate) :-))

Dear Ojnab,

You should know very well that sexual abuse is not part of any religion. In fact it's quite the opposite and it takes people away from God.

worse, not worth

,,..<<..this is not surprising..if the primary aim of religion is spiritual..not political>>

AGAIN/SADLY RELIGION IS FAR FROM/THE matters of spirit
and separation of church from state..is both a joke and the sad reality...[fine dining..fixates the materialist realm]

this 'not political'..[sic*]..seeks..<<..to tell us how we should live our lives rather than define the social institutions and policies we should adopt.>>

nor limit their presumptions to lord it over us via moralizing lAW
Punitive sin taxes..guilt fear and eternal war mongering[and no one dedicated to bring peace to gods children[even our fighters die by their own hands[separation of church from/state..has failed hugely

<<.These two realms>.

these Intertwined satan realm that have enslaved the living into servitude to dead corporate fictions...lorded over by those changing money for usury and debt..and debt into a serfdom..inside this prison planet..the minions of satan lord it over by oppressing the living with the burden of bailing out the dead[govt created cooperate [in-cORPSE-ORated fictions..

<<..which some philosophers distinguish as>>

ethics and morality..are not realms
just as grace and mercy are not realms

the morality of 'statuted'..ethics are yet further sin taxes with which the dead paper fictions lord it over the sukked dry

stuff it just rewrite..it

in practice usage morality varies and the terms and limitations[indeed applications..for applied as opposed to implied 'ethics'..are largely synonymous)[only in the realms of delusion - thus they are connected in impotent ways, but there in..remains a lively debate between and within political parties which ignores religious ideas and doctrines...were either side interested in a talkfest..on the public purse.

<<

..How does this debate and the ordinary, everyday values it draws on relate to arguments which appeal to religious authority?>.

its a dream[tell him.dhe is dreaming..around the edges]
tell him..charity is an application/act..not a state/realm..nor useful fiction talisman.

<<..The choice of words is deliberate; 'ordinary' is better than 'secular'>>

neither word is the be/all-end/all..catch-all
how about extremist..application of the words to a concept relitive to loving other..as the..w ay to give back..to god[or society]..the false god

<<>..[because the latter[secular]..is widely understood..to deny the existence of God,>>

and one cannot serve two masters
http://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/the_handbook_of_human_ownership_a_manual_for_new_tax_farmers.html

<<....whereas the values..in point are,..if not universal,..at least ubiquitous-->>they figure in the arguments of believers,..agnostics and atheists alike...'Quotidian' may be a better term,..but it is not one familiar in this context.>>

its a shame..that big words confuse and confound,
and [yes they are realms]your living in it..[its designed to confuse and confound..even the worldly and wise[to sort out the sheep from the tares the goat grom the wheat..the sinned against from the love of sin...here we each get equal wage..for a life well lived..the wage is grace and mercy..you get it..SIMPLY BY GIVING IT.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

.

Dear david f. and George,

.

David wrote :

“My understanding of monotheism is that it embodies the belief that God is a unitary entity. Your equation 1+1+1=1 is true in Boolean algebra. However, Christianity also embodies the equation 1+1=1. The latter equation is an expression of the belief that Jesus was divine. That is also a departure from monotheism. The divinity of Jesus and the trinity are Boolish in essence”.

I'm afraid that's way above my head, David. I should have to sit down with you and discuss it for many long hours before I could possibly understand.

The only algebra I am familiar with is that which allows me to check that shopkeepers have handed me the right change.

That was the algebra I used for the algorithm 1+1+1 = 1, the logic behind it being that it doesn't matter how many forms god may take simultaneously nor how many places he may occupy at the same time, you can only count him for one.

My references are not found in the bible, nor in any other academic source. The reference I have in mind is standing on a hill when I was a boy, overlooking a flock of sheep in the Queensland bush and trying to count them as they gently grazed in the valley below.

I was with my brother and though we counted and recounted several times, we never could agree on the total number of sheep. We had nothing better to do and had all the time in the world, but what proved to be an insurmountable difficulty was not to count the same sheep twice, nor to mistakenly think it had already been counted, as they slowly moved around while grazing. From our observation point every sheep looked alike. If you have ever had the experience I think you will agree it is no easy task.

The Trinitarian doctrine of 1+1+1 = 1 means that we are looking at the same "sheep" three times and should only count it as one.

George, what a pleasure to see your smile !

.

.

Dear George,

.

You first wrote :

“ Actually, it is worth than that. I get 1 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, if I follow your reasoning … “

Then hastily corrected:

“worse, not worth”

If you don’t mind, I’ll stick with the first version, the one which surged up from deep within your sub-conscious, escaped your control and commanded your fingers on the keyboard – what Freud termed “a bungled act that hides an unconscious desire” , a “lapsus manus” (slip of the hand) :

“worth, not worse”.

Unless, of course, you insist … in which case, I shall gracefully acquiesce.

.

Dear Banjo,

In Boolean algebra there are only the two numbers 0 and 1.

The operation of addition:
0 + 0 = 0
1 + 0 = 1
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 1

The operation of multiplication:

0 x 0 = 0
1 x 0 = 0
0 x 1 = 0
1 x 1 = 1

Applying this to one form of computer circuitry:

OR gates perform Boolean addition.

If all inputs are 0, the output is 0. If any input is 1, the output is 1.

AND gates perform Boolean multiplication.

If any input is 0, the output is 0. If all inputs are 1, the output is 1.

0 and 1 may be expressed by different voltages

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-logic-influence/ tells of Leibniz's influence on Boole. If one considers 1 as the expression of a true statement and 0 as the expression of a false statement one can build logical systems using the quantities.

Dear Banjo,

Blame my spellchecker not Freud for slipping in unwanted corrections, when I mistype a word.

.
Dear George,

.

Thanks for the explanation.

So it was a “lapsus clavis” (slip of the keyboard).

I understand.

.

I know I am at fault at times by not following the authors posting correctly but Algebra has nothing to do with this posting, or am I missing something along the way
OLO is for the subject as given.

THE MORALITY..OF..THE ONE..and the zero/reminds me its april 1
[AS PER the law/of\APRIL ONE]..IT FEELS AS THOUGH THE TRINITY IS TIME WARPED arc as per the valie of pie

heres mud in ya eye

#7: Alabama Changes the Value of Pi

The *April 1998 issue of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason newsletter contained an article claiming that the Alabama state legislature had voted to change the value of the mathematical constant pi from 3.14159 to the 'Biblical value' of 3.0.

further detail/deleted..[word/limits]

we can use letters and symbols
to name and describe the predictable world around us.

so/What about all the rules?
A large portion of algebra textbooks focus on rules and conventions. Each “rule” is one standardized convention to represent a real-life consistency.

For years men did not use our current conventions at all! The graphic shows some different ways an algebraic equation has been expressed.

Why does algebra often seem so meaningless?

So often, algebra students completely miss seeing the amazing consistency algebra records because they get lost in the mechanics.

As Morris Kline points out, “The usefulness of the techniques of algebra has caused many people to mistake the means for the end and to emphasize these menial techniques to the exclusion of the larger ideas and goals of mathematics.

The students who are bored by the processes of algebra are more perceptive than those who have mistakenly identified algebraic processes with mathematics.” [Morris Kline, Mathematics and the Physical World (1959; repr. and slightly corrected, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1981), p. 68.]

Conclusion
As you teach algebra, beware of emphasizing the means (i.e., the rules and conventions) to the point that your student loses site of algebra’s purpose–to record consistent relationships.

Remember to let your mind pause and consider the greatness, power, and consistency of the God who, day in and day out, governs all things consistently enough for us to record general relationships and expect them to hold true in various situations. His power, might, and faithfulness truly know no bounds!

Dear Ojnab,

I apologise. I shouldn't have posted. Algebra is much interesting to me than the subject.

.

Dear david f.,

.

Thank you for your brief explanation of Boolean algebra. I thought that was what was called binary code but don’t worry, I can live with my ignorance.

I’ll take a look at that article on Leibniz’s influence on 19th century logic you indicated a little later.

I don’t want to upset Ojnab but I agree it looks quite interesting. No offence meant to Max Atkinson, of course.

.

Dear Banjo, david f. and George,

1+1+ (etc.) = 1 is a mathematical representation of the former de facto motto of the United States: "E pluribus unum," (out of many, one). Thus, the expression also has an entirely secular meaning.

.
 
Dear David, George, & JKUU,
 
.
 
George wrote :
 
« Actually, it is worse than that. I get 1 = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, if I follow your reasoning, … ».
 
I confirm the reasoning – but do not consider it worse.

I understand there is no specific mention of the trinity in the bible, the closest allusion being:
 
“ And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God “. [Luke 1:35 (King James Version)]
 
However, to interpret this as a trinity is to totally ignore one of the principal characters described in the scene : Mary.
 
The trinity is a concept of unknown origin, open to conjecture.

The Catholic church adopted the concept and, according to its web site, elaborated its Trinitarian doctrine in the year 381 during the second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, based on the declarations of the first Council of Nicaea in 325.
 
Jesus is a typical example of an anthropomorphic deity.

The Trinity is presented as the composition of his family. However, Mary is conspicuous by her absence. The role of the mother has been totally eclipsed, as though she did not exist and was completely dispensable.
 
The bible presents the conception of Jesus as a “macho” or, should I say, “all male” affaire of what is now known as gestational surrogacy. It is not the least of paradoxes that the Catholic church condemns such practice today, apparently considering it to be a divine privilege.
 
There is nothing to justify such a misogynous concept - for the mother to be treated so differently from the father. It is a quaternity, not a trinity. But then that, of course, raises the question of the statute of the godly couple’s other children, the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
 
Hence the pertinence of your algorithm, which I prefer to inverse :
 
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 1
 
.

Dear Banjo,

I wrote “worse” because 8 > 3 and provided it with a smiley.

Recently somebody here started a discussion about the claim that infinity = -1/2. I tried to explain that this was based on a misunderstanding, but did not think we should engage in here in detailed discussions of how the Riemann-zeta function was defined (although I probably understand more about analytic functions than about the complicated evolvement of Christian doctrines).

So the smiley was just to indicate that I find 1+1+1=1 as silly as infinity = -1/2, whatever the reasons for making such statements might be.

.

Dear George,

.

Thanks once again for your explanations which, I assure you, are always useful.

Needless to say, I am sorry you find my algorithm “as silly as infinity = -1/2”. I should have hoped you would find it slightly less silly.

Counting eight times the same “sheep” as just one seems quite sensible to me – but I have to bow to your superior knowledge of mathematics.

Not only am I a very ordinary person but, apparently, a silly one at that.

At least I am learning, George !

.

Dear Banjo,

The “silly” adjective applied to the mathematical statements as they stood not to you; au contraire. Apologies for causing that misunderstanding.

it seems clear to me
1plus1plus1=something RIGHT OUT OF 1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

as an example of an obviously false dogma one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in the novel. It is contrasted with the phrase "two plus two makes four", the obvious—but politically inexpedient—truth.

Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, does that make it true?

*The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant;..**so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink..

("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three.
Sometimes they are all of them at once")

Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality.

Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink#Origin_and_concepts

.

Dear One Under God,

.

Thank you for those literary references to “silly mathematics” (to employ George’s term) and the article on George Orwell’s “doubler think” phenomenon.

As George advises that my algorithm corresponds to no known family of mathematics and taking into account the various comments on this forum - George, david f., JKUU and your good self - it seems the algorithm is more of the order of “the symbolic” (to borrow the expression of Jacques Lacan as suggested by Claude Lévi-Strauss) than of the real or of the imaginary.

Moreover :

- The Christian Trinitarian doctrine is indelibly and irretrievably permeated by the fourth century machismo of the 150 elderly (all male) bishops assembled in conclave at the second Ecumenical Council convened in Constantinople in the year 381 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius.

- The procreation of Jesus by traditional surrogacy (and not by gestational surrogacy which I incorrectly indicated in my previous post), is no justification for ignoring the maternity of Mary whose egg was inseminated by the Holy Ghost. Mary was the genetic mother of Jesus.

- Jesus was as much Mary’s offspring as he was the offspring of God. He was conceived by them both – not by God alone. Mary developed him in her uterus, gave birth to him, raised, nurtured, protected and educated him. He had no other mother. The role of the mother was preponderant in his upbringing. He even had a foster father: Mary’s husband, Joseph.

That being the case, the present Trinitarian doctrine is clearly a gross injustice which the Church continues to condone and perpetrate as it has for nearly two thousand years. It would be well advised to recognize its error and take the advice of Jesus in such circumstances :

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's”. (Luke 20:25 King James Version).

The current Trinitarian doctrine should be replaced by a Quaternitarian doctrine (God the father, God the mother, God the son and God the Holy ghost).

My algorithm then becomes:

1+1+1+1 = 1

.

I SUPPOSE IT COMES UNDER /RELIGIOUS VALUES
but the 3 gods in one..is a rev*elation..it would be interesting to know where it comes from...but im in a good place with..the son needing a father..and god needing the holy spirit..just as much as the daughter needing a ,other..needing a god needing the holy spirit.

but the thing is sons and daughters are-not equal
god..in his wisdom..[for god the father*..is male]*
just as the matriarchal aspect[creating aspect..of god] is in the one with the womb...[TO TRY TO RATIONALIZE..IT OUT.]

SE THAT AN EGG/HAS THE POTENTIAL..OF LIFE..but it needs the life giver aspect[the wind if you like/the breath..breathed into the egg to live]..and that comes via the clearly living sperm..[an aside is tha 'natural'/fertilization..takes 13 sperm..[the egg membrane..isnt under pressure/or else the sperm/WOULD BE EXPLODED OUTWARDS..UPON ENTRY

SO THE 12 NEED TIGHTEN..THE MEMBRANE..ENOUGH.THAT THE 13 TH SPERM GAIN ENTRY..[ANYHOW..THE POINT BEING THE TRINITY..explains only the life from living..aspect..of life.

a new life isnt created..at 'fertilization'..but was in our living testes all along..ok to woe-man..god gave the gift of creating..jUST LIKE GOD..but to the man/he gave the gift of life..[just as the holy spirit animates god..his living [think of life as the catalyst of energy changing state]

you/said..<<..The current Trinitarian doctrine should be replaced by a Quaternitarian doctrine (God the father, God the mother, God the son and God the Holy ghost).

My algorithm then becomes:

1+1+1+1 = 1>>

we are told..[god=1]..that means one singular..'god'....[all good is derived from/of the holy life spirit..]..thus..that life/living in the egg..is made one..in the son.

thats an aspect of three/clear to anyone

2b/ctd

in the beginning was the living one[wholly spirit]..
who entered the egg[ego]..of god..who gave his gift of life-giver..to god..WHO GAVE..THE GIFT OF CREATION..TO EVE..AND THE GIFT OF LIFE UNTO ADAM

[now life by itself..[CHI]..[holy-spirit]..1 alone..is of little use...Sans it being in the right place[god]..at the right time..[this live ever now/live\living moment]

thus enter the CO-creator...Sub-stainer of livinG..BUT THAT STORY CAN ONLY BE HINTED AT
AS THE PATRIRCHAL STORY = THE TRINITY

BUT ASSUMNING THE SAME 3 STEPS..we get..6 =1
but thats not a math problem/thus cant have any masth solution
thats simply a mater of faith creed..the result of living..but its not a sum..just an attempt at summation/rationalization..FOR NOW IRRELEVANT..TO ANY who/BUT THEO-RISERS..[TALKING]..ABOUT THEORY ..[THAT without the rather intriguing triune concept..couldn't be had]

THERE IS MUCH THOUGHT..to be had
much to be made clear..in its time
lucky we have eternity to solve this imposable thinking point made a creed..even now placing the rod firmly..on its back..

just to highlight..that true holy..
the wholly [good/living/logical/loving-wholly holy-spirit..reveal-elation]

[THE WAY../and\..THE MEANS..and the fruit=1]
or cause/purepose..[causation/reason]...en-act..re-act..[re-tract]

THERE..IS A LOT..OF DIRT..IN OUR PAST
it must be faced..sooner rather.than later

but..THE MORE I PUSH THE WATERS AWAY..TO TRY TO MAKE THINGS MORE CLEAR
THE MUDDIER THA WATER GETS..[THERE IS A TEACHING..IN THE GOSPEL/MADE BY WITNESS]..but in the beginning..it was just the holy spirit..[life=force..energy..called chi..or el..or jeah*hova..]doing things only he would know.

earlier..i threw out that god is male[my guides reacted so strongly]..i now need clarify..and risk stirring up even more mud

YESTERDAY..on alex jones.[near end]
http://rss.infowars.com/20140401_Tue_Alex.mp3
there was a guy/talking about how the elites..of any time..speak freely..before servants..and that is a key pointer..at how things work.

the bible hints at it/strongly..[who will lead you shall serve you]
thus a servant..'knows'..jesus never made no wine[as servants..even they know..the water..in the jars..is worse that toilet water..[and no servant would[dare]..serve toilet water[or even the finest wine]..out of a toilet.

BUT THE MASTERS HAVE NO SUCH KNOWING..they care nothing for no=one
[as we see arround us this day]..anyhow..typing is a great pain[type on]..long story short

anyhow holy spirit..is father[life giver][father/mother lover/every other]

he created his love toyboy..[god]..WHO AS CREATOR CANT HAVE BEEN MALE
ANYHOW HOLY SPIRIT.IS A BUST MAN..GIVING AWAY HIS LIVING SEED HERE THERE AND EVERYWHERE..[anyhow he mated with god..and brought forth adam..adam having a lot of his father in him/wanted.needed what the beasts hAVE[A MATE]..HE REJECTED THE MOTHERLY GOD..TO WANT WHAT THE BEASTS GOT..A MATE

SO GOD..ISNT 'THE LIFE GIVER'..[holy-spi*it]..PASSING..ON LIFE GERM
SO ANA..[@LPHA/NEGATIVE\@LPHA]..[YOU CAN CALL BE ANYTIME][GOD 4 SHORT]
NEEDED TO CHEAT..TO MAKE CHEETA..[chimera/chimp/sexist pig-man]...new age adam....INTO A MAN/

he was of course a half breed made for gods amusement..with the logic of mind to be companion to the holy-spirits pay-mate..'god'.. anyhow..she [god]..simply took ADAMS RIBS DNA..DOUBLED UP ON THE 'x''..AMD THREW AWAY..THE 'Y'..SEE HAMMY CHRISTIAN THREAD]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16038&page=0

ANYHOW ALES TODAY..IS TALKING OF THE BIG LIES
http://rss.infowars.com/20140402_Wed_Alex.mp3
THE BIGGER THE LIE..THE MORE THEY CAN ABUSE US..WITH/IT
THUS MY WAR AGAINST APES EVOLVING INT0 ADAM..and god really being one with thE HOLY SPIRIT/AND US.

.

Dear One Under God,

.

Many thanks for your kaleidoscopic commentary which I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate.

Your natural talent to jumble up such a broad and interesting selection of ideas, knowledge and information and tumble them out in what appears to be random disorder is inimitable.

Reading your texts is a voyage in supergalactic space-time deep inside your brain where the familiar seems strange. I feel like a Lilliputian sitting on a neurotransmitter, gliding through a maze of synapses, creating new junctions and associations among your nerve cells, discovering a brave new world.

Thinking differently? New interactions ? Creative networking ? A trans-disciplinary approach ? Brilliant insights into the semi-transient virtual world ? I guess it’s all that and more.

But while that’s intellectually stimulating I can imagine it also has its drawbacks if, as I suspect, it is not a faculty you can switch on and off at will.

Unfortunately, natural talent does not appear to obey the conscious mind.

.

thanks bp..LUCKY ITS NOT A THING I CAN CONTROL
its just noting the things bopught to my attention and my interacting with the flow that comes from that..[its the result of my life experienced as the always new guy..and thus never 'relaxed' enough to accept..anything as being what its presented as being.

like the miracle thing..if it was to make a larger than life myth
then i can accept miracles..but jesus himself said..his deciples expect miracles thus they see..exactly what they wish to see.[but the real life teaching is behind the words.

but my LIFE..taught me words are fine..but its what people do rather than say..[as i read your words i kept waiting for the other shoe to drop..but the one legged man..dropped only the one shoe..SO I LET THE VOICE say what it needs say..and my finger begins typing away.

i dont know I BEEN SWITCHING 'IT' on so long..the switch simply rubbed away..[anyhow the switch..when switched..gives me all or nothing]..so naturally i prefer avoiding the nuthin switch.

my lack of comprehensibility..also stems from being allways the newguy
asa the outsider one needs be carefull of what one says..and how the phrase could be turned against oneself..[BUT LARGELY/COMFORT MY SELF..that I DONT CARE..about how what i say..or how..it is taken..OR WHAT PEOPLE THINK..ONLY THAT I SAID IT..AND THAT MAKES THE NAGGING VOICE GO AWAY.

damm page has GONE TO PRE-VIEUW TWICE NOW
I TAKE THAT AS A HINT IM SAYING TOO MUCH..but will ignore that as a comment.

they [who is they]
they say..that..clones..could make a new me..but it might look remotely..like me..but by its sheltered living could never evolve the RE-wiring MY BRAIN UNDERWENT..JUST BY THE BEING MY LIFE EXPERIENCES BRUNG TO ME

THAT SAYING..walk a mile in my shoes
dont replace a lifetime of walking without shoes
the times do make the man..and those times are gone..my problem/thus remains...how to make sense of these times...just by being the me my life set me up to be...so i take it as it comes/thinking what teaching will i be forced to learn..next.

ITS FUNNY..HOW..folks know we live..in amazing times
like just a day ago..the queen of the common wealth/met with the pope
[7 th pope apparently..but the point is the father gave the ptince georges grandma..a lapis laxuri..orb..
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFDqqM_WMKfjx03n4Mecu03xAPewGwJ1n_dQHoa6n34KFPwQcmMuo4dFY

[and i been fact checking up on it]
what does the words say?
what is a sharp cross
it looks like malteaze/cross
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=+stone+orb+topped+with+a+sharp+cross

its has high..'sign'..signification..hrh may not know..
but doth phylum even know the meaning of the 3 coins.[orbs]?

anyhow/quote/link

<<>.For example, if we gaze on the Lapis Lazuli-orb of Gabriel, the Divine Messenger, a sacred oracle opens through the lineage of the wisdom traditions, and as though from God’s voice itself. This oracle moves us through the sands of time, to a far distant memory of the Atla Priests of Atlantis, through to the Ancient Egyptian Gods, then on to the Greek and Roman Gods and Goddesses. After a period of darkness, the line once more reappears through the light of Carl Jung’s extraordinary work, through the aspects of the 12 Archetypes he brought to our attention.

You will also see against the orb, a sacred sigil that contains, in geometric form, the essence of the Angel’s heart. Sigils are ancient mystical symbols that hold the force of an entity. In the second oracle the ANGEL HEART SIGULS, the Angels of Atlantis have given us powerful teaching about the heart as the seat of the soul.>>..

http://www.mindbodyspirit.co.uk/blog/the-angels-of-atlantis-stewart-pearce/

http://www.mindbodyspirit.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AHS-Gabriel-708x1024.jpg

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/queen-gives-honey-to-pope-who-has-gift-for-prince-george-504197

.

Frying Pan's Theology :

.

Scene : On Monaro.

Dramatis Personae :

Shock-headed blackfellow,
Boy (on a pony).
Snowflakes are falling
Gentle and slow,
Youngster says, "Frying Pan
What makes it snow?"

Frying Pan, confident,
Makes the reply --
"Shake 'im big flour bag
Up in the sky!"

"What! when there's miles of it?
Surely that's brag.
Who is there strong enough
Shake such a bag?"

"What parson tellin' you,
Ole Mister Dodd,
Tell you in Sunday-School?
Big feller God!

"Him drive 'im bullock dray,
Then thunder go;
Him shake 'im flour bag --
Tumble down snow!"

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

That's a variation on the Hindu epic. U pan I shed.

If I were to be pun-i-shed
For each pun I shed
I would not have a puny shed
In which to hide my punished head.

the snow dance..is A ritual,..often involving a dance of some sort,
http://www.snowjapan.com/the-japan-snow-dance
that is practiced with the idea
of increasing the chance of significant snowfall.

remembrance..of snow..Often pertains to the desire for a snow day to occur...in the snow expression..the point is dannced arround/by..[in this case clearly hunger saw flour

its Frequently used jokingly,..as a parody parental form..of need meeting/more faith than superstition.[the squeaky wheel gets the greece/silence signifies contentment.

but by speaking up
A: "I hope there's going to be..a snow day..[more flour]..flour-day tomorrow…"

B: "Yeah, I'll be doing my snow dance."

anyhow..lets see what banbjos snow [lour]..dance/reveals]

set/the scene..Boy (on a pony).
Snowflakes are falling
Gentle and slow,

Youngster says, "Frying Pan man
What makes it snow?"[ie flour]

Frying Pan, confidently,..Makes the reply --
"Shake 'im up..oh big big flour [snow]..bag
Up in the sky!"

boy.."What! when there's miles of it?
Surely that's brag.
Who is there strong enough
Shake such a bag?"

the fryer..doth reply.."What pastor [parson] tellin' you,
[Ole Mister Dodd,]
what he Tell you in Sunday-School?
its Big feller God!

"Him who drive 'im [sky-size]..floating bullock dray,
Then his thunder let go;
Him shake 'im his big ol flour bag --
and down Tumble more snow!"

lest we forget..these word images
project..each picture/image..into mind's eye
thus we see as we are meant..to see what we wish..to see

go ahead shake the flour dilly bag..back at me.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=snow+dance+edward+scissorhands&
http://www.snowjapanforums.com/sjimages/snowdance-5.gif
http://www.snowjapanforums.com/sjimages/snowdance-3.gif
http://www.snowjapanforums.com/sjimages/snowdance-2.gif
http://www.snowjapanforums.com/sjimages/snowdance-7.gif

authers pick
old kisser hands..the klutz..himself..appearing to be making an angel
its clear from the shots he is chainsawing to death
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mg8SyAJfaw

Frying Pan's Theology :
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=pan's+labyrinth&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan%27s_Labyrinth
.
the faun refuses to give Ofelia the third task.
Scene : On Monaro.

Dramatis Personae :
ex uno, plures. changing the sequence
of the words is no solution. E (or ex,
before a vowel) makes the noun go to the ablative

Shock-headed blackfellow,
Boy (on a pony)...

we know thats nonsense
but it dont feel right..just posting the tube link

.

Dear david f. & One Under God,

.

Referring back to my previous post regarding the surrogate motherhood of Mary, inseminated by the Holy ghost in order to give birth to Jesus, you may wish to consider the "seminal" case of surrogate motherhood in the USA, known as “baby M”.

In the case of “baby M”, on appeal, the New Jersey supreme court “assumed” that the surrogacy agreement was declared void and found that the exchange of “money” for a child was “illegal, perhaps criminal and potentially degrading to women”.

Reviewed in the light of the case of “baby M”, it is debateable whether there was a surrogacy agreement or not between Mary and God. She does not appear to have been given any choice in the matter. It appears she was simply "informed" (warned?) by the angel Gabriel:

“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God “. [Luke 1:35 (King James Version)].

If there was an agreement, it was purely verbal and, of course, cannot be proven as there were no witnesses.

It could, perhaps, be argued that there was a tacit agreement because at no point does Mary appear to protest or object in any way.

Whatever the case, the baby, Jesus, would be morally and legally the son of Mary and Joseph, not the son of God. Though the bible remains silent on this point, that is surely how the citizens of Bethlehem greeted Jesus and accepted him as a member of their community.

Here is the video :

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002781402/baby-m-and-the-question-of-surrogacy.html?playlistId=100000002148738

Thank you, David for the Hindu "U pan I shed" poem. It just goes to show you that great minds think alike.

And thank you One Under God for that Japanese snow dance and Edward Scissorhand’s ice dance. I hear there has been some rather hot weather in Australia lately. Viewing those videos must be quite refreshing.

.

Dear Banjo,

The presence of Jesus in Christianity is difficult for me to understand. If he is divine Christianity is polytheistic. My understanding of monotheism is that it is the belief in one god, complete in himself. If there is another divine presence then the religion is not monotheistic. However, my understanding of the Christian God is also that He is omniscient and omnipotent. If he needs a mediator or another presence then He is not omniscient and omnipotent. The presence of Jesus as far as I can see is due to the fact that the early Christians wanted a humanoid god like those of the Greeks and Romans.

It would seem to me that worship of Jesus is a violation of the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Praying to Jesus puts another deity before God.

WE KNOW..THAT WHEN WE READ ANYTHING
we get intO THE..mind..of the reader
but its more than just that..we get to see the imagry..that 'inspired'..the writing.

sO WHEN...i see mary..and the holy spirit
im reminded of the 'ye shalt call him emmanu'el'
god with us..[god within us sustaining all life its living]

what happened to mary..is what happens to us all
except usually the holy spirit..COMES IN VIA A MAN[OR OF LATE A TURKEY BASTER]..OR A TEST TUBE..thing is..it is as was written/by the minds eye as they saw it/

lets go back to mosus
QUOTE..<<..I>>t would seem to me that worship of Jesus is a violation of the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Praying to Jesus puts another deity before God...>>

THAT CAME DIRECTLY..FROM MOSUS
WHO SAW THE LAW..inscribed upon tablets of stone
and for a long time..that was the only way..to look upon the face of god

[see me see my father]
but rev-elation since christ..we learn of the holy spirit
as separate from god[the sun]..and separate from jesus the sun of god

the point being we are splitting hairs
yes the sun=one with the holy spirit

yes the sun/is and angry god..[on occasion]..
and yes we all will in time become suns of the father/but even now are suns of the sun..as much as sons of god.

yes i and the father and the wholly spirit are wun
TO SEE ME..IS TO SEE THAT THE WORK OF THE WHOLLY HOLY ONE IS DONE.

[as one via his number one son]..
AS ONE UNDER/GOD..[we cant take anything of man..AS true..
OR FABLE..AND OU/god don't like INSANITY QUALITY certainty..
[its the first Tactic of the igno-rant]..SO SURE/SO CERTAIN..THE 3 AR'NT AS ONE/..yet..EXPECTING THE PAST CAN BE UNDONE...

the same handicaps follow everyone.

its too late to ask THE AUTHOR TO EXPLAIN
ONCE THE WRITTEN WORD..COMES UNDONE..its just part and parcel..of further fun

.

Dear david f.,

.

Yes David, I suspect there are a number of discrepancies and contradictions to be found in Christian dogma and in the bible if we were to go over them with a fine-tooth comb.

Please be assured, however, that I am no expert and certainly have no intention of wasting my time on that.

Suffice it to say, so far as the subject I was treating is concerned, that voluntary insemination between a married person (Mary) and someone/something/or some “entity” (such as the Holy ghost, for example), other than her lawful spouse, Joseph, is called adultery.

I may be wrong but I don’t think that that was looked upon very kindly at the time (nine months before year one) by the local community at Bethlehem.

The Old Testament (Hebrew bible) was written well before the conception of Jesus and it strongly advises against adultery.

Adultery is not something it considers to be acceptable practice either for a good Jew or for a good Christian – so it seems.

It’s hands and eyes off your neighbour’s property whatever it is : house, wife, children, male or female slave, servant, ox, donkey, sheep, goats, dogs, chickens . You name it. It doesn’t specifically mention introducing your semen into your neighbour’s wife’s ovaries, but I’m pretty sure that’s out of bounds too.

Anyhow, I for one, should not have wanted to take a risk on it in those days. Some of those village people were pretty good at throwing stones and rocks and would have jumped at the occasion.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You wrote: "It’s hands and eyes off your neighbour’s property whatever it is : house, wife, children, male or female slave, servant, ox, donkey, sheep, goats, dogs, chickens . You name it. It doesn’t specifically mention introducing your semen into your neighbour’s wife’s ovaries, but I’m pretty sure that’s out of bounds too."

Behaviour of God or Gods is not subject to rules or commandments. If we were to judge God by the standards by which we are supposed to behave, he is evil. He destroyed almost all life on earth during flood. He commanded Joshua to commit genocide. In the New Testament he arranged to have his "only begotten son" subjected to agonizing torture. The God of the Bible is not someone I would want to associate with unless it would be to try to reform that evil entity. The God described in the Bible is simply unworthy of worship or any kind of respect.

i agree..david..the god in the bible..is the sun
and yes the sun..can burn/do harsh things

but both atheist and theists can accept the truth
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6326&page=0

but after all..god [the sun]is only human
ALLOWING US TO BECOME..evolve..into..HUMANE
http://rss.infowars.com/20140407_Mon_Alex.mp3

.

Dear david f.,

.

The oldest known list of New Testament books, known as the Muratorian Fragment which the American biblical scholar, Bruce M. Metzger, refers to as “the canon of the New Testament”, dates from about 170 AD and was written by an unidentified author.

I understand that 94% of the New Testament was written by two people: Saul of Tarsus and his close associate (and probable disciple) Luke the physician, whom Saul had taken along with him as a legal expert on most of his missionary journeys. Two thirds were written by Saul and 28% by Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke (the longest book of the New Testament) and the book of Acts.

The New Testament and Christianity were essentially the creation of one individual : Saul of Tarsus. But if it were not for Constantine, the Roman emperor, who assured Its subsequent promotion and widespread adoption, it would probably have remained just another sect before disappearing like most other sects at the time.

Constantine established tolerance for Christianity by the edict of Milan in 313, personally converted to Christianity, elevated the sect to a religion with full powers and privileges and promulgated Christian laws. The state church of the Roman Empire was established on 27 February 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica, when Emperor Theodosius I made Nicene Christianity the Empire's sole authorized religion.

Saul had a long history of religious fanaticism. He participated in the stoning to death of the first Christian martyr, Etienne, then became a rabbi before having an illumination and converting to Christianity. He was a tent maker by profession. His life was marked by physical violence, pain, illness and self-flagellation – to such an extent that he seemed to have masochistic tendencies, detesting himself and the human condition, while glorifying the virtues of obedience and submission.

For Saul, religion appears to have been the sublimation of the death impulse which haunted him all his life. It obsessed him and consumed him. Nero put him out of his misery by decapitating him in Rome in the year 64.

.

EXCELLENT SUMMATION..
what more left to say
but jesus/john//one came from a virgin/the other from A verY old high-priestess/conceived on the holiest day..but things happen[as the bible says..because its time was...so written.

thing i wanted to add was like the koran/the words were recalled
not written..then even the quaran//wrote first on any scraps of bark wood etc..scrolls..point being the stories were told[not made up]..and sure copnstantine/but he seems to have added the holy spirit[a true revealation]

but cant you see paul
the hand of spirits..in it all
how come you didnt begin at genesis/who first wrote that
[careless reading of your opening words could impress that your talking about the bible[speed reading cant beat comprehensive reading]

but anyhow great new test summation
but for paul saul and luke and constance
we wouldnt have had a clue even..of what may be true
or not..but able to be made true by doiing as paul imagined jesus doing.

more needs doing
http://rss.infowars.com/20140407_Mon_Alex.mp3

Dear Banjo Paterson,

It is simply appauling. Possibly, Paul was a homosexual who stayed in the closet. "It is better to marry than to burn." One can burn for one's spouse or anybody else and practice conflagratio. Paul's religion was masochristianity. Of course, it was a Roman exercise to play on or fight over words. The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between Rome and Carthage from 264 BC to 146 BC.

.

Dear david f. & One Under God,

.

A psychoanalysis of Saul nearly 2000 years in hindsight is no easy task but there seems good reason to diagnose that he probably suffered from a chronic problem of a sexual nature.

As you suggest, David, he may have been “a homosexual who stayed in the closet” (I like your expression). It is also possible that he may have been sexually impotent. His case seems to have been particularly complex.

Whichever it was, the libidinal disorganisation of his body would certainly have generated a corresponding disorganisation of his way of thinking – of his world view, if you like. He seems to have developed a strong disposition for the death impulse and an equally strong detestation of the life impulse.

There are signs which may, perhaps, be interpreted as symptoms of hysterical neurosis and others which may, perhaps, be interpreted as symptoms of chronic psychotic illness.

The incident which reportedly occurred on the road to Damascus, which I referred to in my previous post as an “illumination”, may be diagnosed as a symptom of hysterical neurosis.

Acts 9 describes the incident:

[As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.]

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

A symptom of chronic psychotic illness is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:8 in which Saul writes : “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time” (King James Version).

Biblical scholars interpret this to mean :

[Verse 8. - "He was seen of me also". The reference undoubtedly is to the vision on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5; Acts 22:14; Acts 26:16). As of one born out of due time; literally, as to the abortive born. The word means "the untimely fruit of a woman," a child born out of the due time or natural course; and hence "diminutive" and "weakly." The Greek ektroma is represented by the Latin abortivus. St. Paul, when he remembered the lateness of his conversion, and his past persecution of the saints, regards himself as standing in this relation to the twelve.]

In short, Saul sees himself as “an aborted foetus (who was given life)”.

His lugubrious appetite for pain and suffering of the flesh and his natural disposition for the death impulse, were, no doubt, instrumental in redirecting his destructive energies away from torturing the flesh of his own "detested" body, and from the persecution of Christians, to adoration of the cruelty of the interminably long and “excruciating”(to mime One Under God) crucifixion of Jesus and the glorious sense of exhilaration and sublimation it seems to have inspired him, Saul …

… and by ricochet, the 2.6 billion Christian population projected in the world for the year 2020, who continue to subscribe to the tenets and practices of Christian faith.

.

BANJO..IM SURPRISED AT YOU
so little circumstantial speculation
to dismiss such a huge and influential work

what im now expected to ignore his many wisdom's
cause he was 'borne'..before his time..and because he claims he heard jesus/and was blind for 3 days..thats as bad as saying john the baptizer born of high priesthoods was mad for eating only honey/grasshoppers...[THERE IS REASONING/BEHIND EVERY BELIEF/AND MANY MISS BELIEFS]

when..you finally meet paul/you will regret//much we presumed
but that's why we got this life experience/to make us more humble

are you saying his witting [read by billions]
is irrelevant/by who he was[would banjo Patterson/be measured..by the same unfair/biased measure]..THE FUNNY THING IS..my minds eye is showing me..Saul/and banjo..sitting there..reading out the texts of their name sakes.

now its saul inspiring the writing for banjo
and banjo writing for paul...its quite hilarious the amusements your giving thyne name sakes..

what doth banjo Patterson write re morals and values?
did saul write more fiction..or more from experiences?

its the fine details we miss/from fine writings..such as you dismiss

Dear Banjo,

The Romans calmed the population with panem et circenses. In his masochristianity Paul substituted pain and circuity. His circuitry transformed human suffering into something glorious instead of the affliction that it is. His evil presence lingers centuries later.

I am trying to imagine what reaction I would get here if I wrote about “the evil presence of Richard Dawkins (or other atheist preacher) lingering” among his followers, of whom there are certainly not 2.2 billion.

Dear George,

You would probably find many to support you if you referred to Richard Dawkins as evil. However, I think Paul's attitude toward sexuality which presumably arose from his own internal conflicts has caused great suffering. Dawkins has caused human suffering by attacking beliefs that some hold dear. In my opinion those beliefs have also caused suffering. It is painful for people to have cherished beliefs challenged. However, Paul's attitude toward sexuality and sin has caused great suffering among those humans who have taken his words seriously. In my opinion it is of much greater scale than the suffering caused by Dawkins. We cannot be sure of the exact causes of Hypatia's death outside of it being the result of actions of a Christian mob. Paul objected to women being teachers, and Hypatia was a noted teacher, astronomer and mathematician. Hypatia's death and the death of others were consistent with the teachings of Paul. Perhaps there are no completely evil human beings, and there was a spark of goodness even in Paul. However, his attitude toward sexuality and his intolerance which was a consistent feature in his entire life makes him an inspiration for evil as far as I am concerned.

I think I can help you out here, George.

<<I am trying to imagine what reaction I would get here if I wrote about “the evil presence of Richard Dawkins (or other atheist preacher) lingering” among his followers, of whom there are certainly not 2.2 billion.>>

It would probably be pointed out to you that Dawkins has done nothing evil in his fight against irrationality and nor has anything that he’s done resulted in, or influenced, evil deeds from others.

It would probably also be pointed out to you that the term “preacher” has religious connotations and is, therefore, an emotive term to use in this context since atheism has no preachers as such (one of its many virtues). It may also be pointed out to you, here, that the insertion of the word “preacher” could be interpreted as an attempt to erroneously equate atheism with religion and drag it down to the same dogmatic level. It would also be appropriate to remind you, at this point, that Dawkins (or any other well-known atheist) is not an authority.

Finally, it may also be pointed out to you that the fact that Dawkins doesn’t have 2.2 billion followers like Christianity does is both fallacious and irrelevant. It’s fallacious because it invokes the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, and irrelevant because Dawkins doesn’t want followers (certainly not in the religious sense). Even if Dawkins did want followers, though, one could also note that the fact that Christianity has been around for about 1500 years longer than Dawkins gives it an unfair advantage.

aj/slips..<<..It would probably be pointed out to you..>>

in words..not proof

ie by re-proof..<<that Dawkins has done nothing evil>>

ever..from a babe pooping his diapers..smearing his mud on the wall/eaten his greens since day on
this most perfect og humanity.yes we can take your unbiased unabashed words..aj

comeon/son..you dont know
he may cheat in his taxes..or lead kids away from god
no evil in your eyes..is hardly proof/thus reproof..[prooF Goes poof]

<<..in his fight against irrationality>>

to your way of thinking
he is saying seductive things you like
so you think he is 'special'..a messanger?//yep..a prophet..[yep
if IT SMELLS LIKE A DUCK/TALKD LIKE A DUCK..FULL OF HALF THUNK OUT ATHEOLOISPHY..OPINIONATUS..[LIKE YOURS]

<<..and nor has anything...that he’s done
resulted in,..or influenced,..evil deeds from others.>>

LETS TALK AGAIN[IN 2000 YEARS]
HE HAS ONLY JUST PLANTED HIS SEEDS
WAIT TILL THEY BUILD HIS FIRST MUSEUM/mulisu.church..holy pilgrimage place..WAIT TILL HIS SEED FRUITS..EH?

2000 YEARS FROM NOW
WHAT WILL YOU THEN SAY?

<<>.It would probably*..>>[LOL]>>..also be pointed out to you that the term “preacher” has religious connotations>>

..Preach
said to give encouragement...to a person dropping mad knowledge.
ex..Well pimpin ken say
'dont down it, crown it'.

Don magic juan 'PREACH'

<<..and is, therefore, an emotive term to use in this context since atheism has no preachers as such (one of its many virtues).>>

LOL SAYS THE AGNOSTIC PROTO-PREACHER
PEACHING TO THE QUIRE..?

OUG,

Your ability to derive meanings from what others say, and even what they do not say, purely to suit yourself, knows no bounds. You are incapable of reading (or choose not to read) anything that anyone says within the context that was intended and so you take a purely literal interpretation of what others say, and add your own context to it, to come up with some of the most irrelevant and bizarre responses. Here’s an example:

<<so you think [Dawkins] is 'special'..a messanger?//yep..a prophet..[yep>>

No, I said nothing like that. Furthermore, by splitting up the sentence of mine that you were responding to into three parts, all context was lost. George was simply wondering what others might say if he were to make a certain claim about Dawkins. Whether or not Dawkins has cheated on his taxes (in his fight against irrationality (a qualifier lost in your chopping up of what I had said)) is of little relevance since he has not done so as far as we can know. Nor has he committed any deeds that a rational and secular society would deem ‘evil’. Even if he had, it would be nothing compared to the hundreds of years of bigotry inspired by Paul and the careless words of a supposed son of a god, who should have known better given his omnipotence.

Oh sure, we can guess what might be 2000 years from now, but Dawkins is not an authority and nor does he project himself as being anything of the sort.

This is why I ignore most of your replies, because they don’t counter anything I’ve said and my points continue to stand regardless. But thank you for coming to the defence of anyone I respond to. It adds a nice touch to what I say.

aj/quote..<<..Oh sure, we can guess what might be 2000 years from now, but Dawkins is not an authority and nor does he project himself as being anything of the sort.>>

YEP I RECALL A YOUNG VIRGIN..sweet innocent/unmarried
gave birth to a carpenter/a lowly wood worker..who tried to teach people/they could know god

but many got it wrong/yet many more got it right
regardless in time..it was black as night/then along came a guy/who had studied the stars..began talking oF HOW LIFE Happen by chance

little did this humble star watcher now/greater than Darwin.the seeds he did sow..it was he that dispelled the virginse cursw

yes thats him/dear..right there.. dic dorking who removed the curse.of godly creation/oh dear what could be worse

bravo the dik of the night light
who revealed all delusion..of what was wrong now made right
[oh no the atheists have infiltrated my guids..god is dead run and hide.

dorkins was right..this i admit
now i wasnt listening to him

so..can you please list..all
that he actually did?
HE MADE THE light..[right?]
dik doorky HE MADE LIVE..ALL LIFE?
HE CAME OUT HARD AGAINST ABUSE TROUBLE AND STRIFE?
HE SAyS LOVE EVERYONE..LIKE A BROTHER..WHO IS THIS DIK DORKINS..?

OH WHY BOTHER?

.

Dear One Under God,

.

I am inclined to conclude that Saul’s conversion to Christianity which, obviously, he did not invent, but, reinterpreted, reoriented, reconceived, reconstructed, redeveloped and recorded (cf. his clash and rupture with Peter in Antioch related in Galations 2:11-14) should be understood as the sublimation of his natural perversion, masochistic tendencies and disposition for the death impulse.

It was a personal triumph for him, a moral victory. He managed to elevate himself and come out on top. I understand the “illumination” he experienced on the road to Damascus as the “flash” of his sub-conscious mind associating his personal stigma (deep, internal wound) with the stigmata of Jesus on the cross, triggering the mutation of his Calvary into a source of personal fulfilment. His life suddenly took on a new dimension, a new meaning, a new direction and a new mission.

Today’s Christianity is Saul’s legacy to mankind. Instead of persecuting it, he promoted it. His internal struggle finally found pacification. It nevertheless remains that the Christianity Saul bequeathed to us clearly bears the mark of his personal stigma. It permeates 94% of the text of the New Testament.

We should be aware that Saul’s vision is heavily influenced by his natural perversion, his masochistic tendencies and his disposition for the death impulse. He glorified ignorance (cf. : “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” : 1 Corinthians 14:38 King James Version), obedience and submission.

It was, no doubt, this philosophy which found favour with the Roman emperors, Constantine and Theodosius I, prompting them not only to adopt it but also to promote it and finally to impose it throughout the Roman Empire as the sole authorized religion.

I should like to feel that we are all free to chose to adhere to Christianity if we so decide. As it happens, I, personally, was not given the choice. My dear mother had me baptised shortly after birth, without my having any say in the matter.

My two daughters are adults now and neither of them has felt the need to be baptised.

.

AJ Philips,

Thanks for illustrating my contention that what is often allowed to be said on this OLO about Christian thinkers would not be allowed to be said about atheist preachers by their apologists, c.f. reactions Peter Sellick is getting for his articles.

Dear david f,

I would not use the word evil in vain. We can still remember where a recent rhetoric about “evil empires” brought us to. So I would certainly use less offending words if I wanted to express my dislike or disapproval of a religion adhered to by millions of people, even less when the number is 2.2 billion. That was all that my remark was about.

I am not a historian, but I agree with the historian Herbert Butterfield who wrote

“if history can do anything it is to remind us that all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance ... We can never assert that history has proved any man right in the long run. We can never say that the ultimate issue, the succeeding course of events, or the lapse of time have proved that… [Steven Weinberg, Physics and History, in Labinger Jay A. and Collins Harry (Eds), The one culture?, U. of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 119]

Another quote:

“The study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history. It is the essence of what we mean by the word “unhistorical”. – Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931).

As you can see Dawkins needed to be defended here, although nobody accused him of having done “evil” things, (or being “naturally perversed”, or having “masochistic tendences”). Paul/Saul, who inspired thousands of thinkers over centuries, does not need such defence, only the standard of our discussions here, I thought, needed such defence.

banjo..<<..I am inclined to conclude that Saul’..reinterpreted, reoriented, reconceived, reconstructed, redeveloped and recorded>>

THATS INDISPUTABLE/HIS MANY LETTERS GUIDED/MANY
[assuming they were sent/recollected etc[collated together at/nicea?]

<<..(cf.>>

darn george just said/the same thing
research/needed..#The abbreviation cf. is interpreted, and can be read aloud,..as "compare"...It is the/imperative singular form of the Latin word confer,..literally meaning "bring together

<<..his clash and rupture..with Peter>>
http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-14.htm

But when I saw..that they were deviating..from the truth of the gospel,..I told Cephas..in front of everyone,.."If you,..*who are a Jew,..live like a Gentile..and not like a Jew,..how can you compel Gentiles..to live like Jews?"

puts this in different context<<..the sublimation of his natural perversion,..masochistic tendencies..and disposition for the death impulse.>>

never the less/these were the times of many messiahs
[and holy men/well to put it truthfully/often have a longing/A DRIVE..TO LOVE]..AND WOMAN of course made jews unclean/before ritual/the unspoken to me..always seemed..to lack the mention of act/only specifically..the opposing sex.

also/the 'wisdom..of soloman..[u seem to recall he was monosexual/thus the strangeness of his love poems

IM NOT SURE IM FOLLOWING..BUT<<>>It was a personal triumph for him,..a moral victory...He managed to elevate himself..and come out on top.>>

HE HAD OVERSEEN THE DEATH OF HIS NEMISIS/JESU
WHO HE HOUNDED/TO DEATH/thereby setting up a scape goat/dying for us
and perverted much jesus really did say[ie not into miracles/no church/personal god/predictable god//served by loving neighbor

maybe he over compensated
or was taken over spiritually..[NAME CHANGES OFTEN REFLECT RADICAL personality CHANGES..[MAYBE JESUS HAUNTED HIM[AT LEAST ONCE/ON THE Road..much was inspired/

and few recognize the dead have real power to influence the living/especially one as powerful as Christ/who did return many times[even reportedly/has kiDS IN INDIA

George,

I don't understand how you could have possibly interpreted what I had said in such a way.

<<Thanks for illustrating my contention that what is often allowed to be said on this OLO about Christian thinkers would not be allowed to be said about atheist preachers by their apologists, c.f. reactions Peter Sellick is getting for his articles.>>

I said nothing about who is allowed to say what, here, so I don't see how I could have illustrated that. You are free to say whatever you like on OLO. I was simply pointing out the possible responses you would receive if you were to make such an erroneous statement while pointing to the flaws in the analogy you were simultaneously putting forth.

Please don't confuse hurt feelings for attempts from others to silence you, or your apparent discomfort with what is being said for a low standard of discussion. If you feel unable to express your views when others are not restricting you from doing so, then perhaps that's a good indication that you yourself are not comfortable with your own position? Surely if you were, then you would not feel the need to hold others to a standard or tone that you feel comfortable with; a standard to which nothing negative can be said in anything other than the most softly, softly manner.

AJ Philips,

I think you have correctly spelled out the reasons why it is pointless for me to argue with you, especially since argument was not my intention in the first place.

.

Dear david f., George & AJ Philips,

.

The word « evil » is not part of my vocabulary. I feel it has a religious connotation: “devil” without the “d” - which is not at all to my liking. I have also heard it in the mouths of particularly lecherous individuals who pronounce the word with undisguised appetence. There are many other words in the English language which I feel are much more appropriate.

For example, David, you wrote:

“Perhaps there are no completely evil human beings, and there was a spark of goodness even in Paul. However, his attitude toward sexuality and his intolerance which was a consistent feature in his entire life makes him an inspiration for evil as far as I am concerned”.

May I suggest the following alternative:

“Perhaps there are no completely vile human beings, and there was a spark of goodness even in Paul. However, his attitude toward sexuality and his intolerance which was a consistent feature in his entire life makes him an inspiration for wickedness as far as I am concerned”.

Perhaps George may find that version a little more palatable.

.

Dear One Under God,

.

You wrote:

"maybe he over compensated
or was taken over spiritually..[NAME CHANGES OFTEN REFLECT RADICAL personality CHANGES..[MAYBE JESUS HAUNTED HIM[AT LEAST ONCE/ON THE Road..much was inspired/

and few recognize /especially one as powerful as Christ/who did return many times[even reportedly/has kiDS IN INDIA".

That’s interesting. I didn’t know Jesus had popped-up in India and is reported to have set-up a family over there. Who with ? Mary Magdalene ?

That sounds like Yuyutsu’s stamping ground. He may have something on that. If Jesus is in India perhaps he'll send his kids to school in Australia.

By the way, you indicated that “the dead have real power to influence the living …”. I guess you were referring to the “previously living” or possibly “the memory of the dead”. Once you’re dead you’re dead … right ?

Otherwise, the only influence I can think of is the possible inheritance … or pile of debts !

.

You will have to elaborate for me, George.

<<I think you have correctly spelled out the reasons why it is pointless for me to argue with you...>>

I see no sign of an unwillingness or inability to accept or understand what you were saying. I merely pointed out that you are free to saying anything you may wish to say and that someone who is comfortable with their position (and able to defend it) shouldn't feel like they are being censored (thus an uneven barrage of criticism should not be a deterrent, if that's what you meant).

If I have misread anything you have said, then you simply need to clarify. I certainly don't have a history of not being able to understand what you're talking about. Except maybe when you are trying to describe the apophatic god that you believe in, but not even you understand what you mean in there, at least not beyond something that cannot be reduced to the physical, so I think we're even there anyway.

If I am ever wrong in my interpretation of what you say, then you simply need to clarify what you mean. But please don't belittle others by implying that the problem lies with them when no effort has been made on your part to explain yourself and no such problem has ever been demonstrated before. That's a bit rude.

It's also a bit rude to assume that one is out for an argument...

<<...especially since argument was not my intention in the first place.>>

There was nothing about my post to suggest that an argument was what I was looking for, and your assumption that an argument would be inevitable suggests an unwillingness on your behalf to entertain the possibility of changing your mind in any way.

The truth be know, I loathe arguing. I just value the truth more. So your insinuation that I am out looking for arguments is a little offensive, I'm afraid.

forgotten/post..continued..13 hours/later..oops..now/1 hour

<<.His life suddenly took..on a new dimension,..a new meaning, a new direction and a new mission.>>..jesus could have been operating him remotely..with HIGHER INSIGHT FOLLOWING HIS Transition

<<..Today’s Christianity is Saul’s legacy..to mankind...Instead of persecuting it,..he promoted it.>>

no he subverted IT
SCAPE-GOATING.WASNT A JESUS THING
HAVING HIMSELF BEFORE GOD..[NO WAY WAS THAT JESUS]
JESUS WAS SURE THE COMFORTER WOULD COME IN THEIR LIFE TIMES

<,the Christianity Saul bequeathed to us..clearly bears the mark of his personal stigma..>>

FOR SURE/BUT..I FEEL DIVINELY INSPIRED
by events

<<He glorified ignorance>>

ignorance..is bliss..knowing only involves much pain
and to then feel helpless..its better to not know..for many

<<this philosophy which found favor>>

thats sort of the idea/we have to survive..cause jesus is comming back[but he was offered/these realms/by satan himself/and refused
he said..a comforter comes...not him?

<<..I should like to feel..that we are all free..to chose..>>

that would be great/but so many children DIE young
i would rather they believe in god/till they decide themselves..

<<..I, personally,..was not given the choice.>>
those times were hard.mother wanted you to be safe
you in the end..didn't hurt yourself.mum knows that's cause she did what she did

forgive me for mentioning..it..but if they had fied.,,by horrible chance..would the lack OF BAPTISM..HAVE WORRIED..YOU/I KNOW IT WORKED OUT FINE..but still kids die..i would rather they knew god will welcome them home personally.

its harmless..for kids/you turned out fine
i began/where you are now/i knew there was no god
then one day..i couldn't deny it...and had to learn from scratch
thats where your daughters will go one day..[kids arnt like their pa Rents/PARENTS ARE ALWAYS WRONG.]

kids know best..just/ASk..them.

Aj Philips,

>>So your insinuation that I am out looking for arguments is a little offensive<<

Sorry for making you feel offended. I concede that you are not out looking for arguments. Neither am I, and this is a good reason or us to stop.

George,

Thanks for the apology and the concession. Though I would have preferred that you acknowledge the problems and oversights with your comparison between criticism levied at Paul and criticism levied at Dawkins, I’m happy enough to leave it at that. Sometimes silence is the best acknowledgment we can hope for.

AJ/QuOTE..<<..I certainly don't have a history..of not being able to understand..what you're talking about...Except maybe when you are trying to describe the apophatic god..>>

damm people..talking in tongues
WHY USE CODE WORD ODE*
why talk in exclusive non speak?

<<apophatic god>>...In negative theology, ?

<<it is accepted that experience of the Divine is ineffable?>>..wtf?

IM SEEING THE HAND..OF THE GREAT CON-FUSER..
<<..What is the differencebetween apophatic and cataphatic theology? ... Answer:..Apophatic (or negative) theology is an attempt to describe God by what cannot be>>

AS I THOUGHT..ITS ATHEIST muddied thinking
HEISTING THE GOD Concept ..into ABSuRDiUM
dumber down addendum..its sad these great giants are respecting each others wordy/codeword/waffle

and not standing up..for a concept ya dont need to hide behind a clever absurd satanic wurd..bah..boo..[that's the best you can do/../be nice?]..these demons are only repelled by act..not word.

clearly atheists win..the godless deniers
have simplified it down to nothing god created VALIDATES HIM

TAKE THE CREATION AWAY..YA KILL THE CREATOR..IGNORE HIS CREATION..IGNORE LOVE/GRACE.Mercy..

oops..missed a bit..of the quote.
RE/THE APE-GOD..<<..that you believe in,.but not even you understand>>

TO BE FAIR..god being the sun..was likely wrote..in code

<<..what you mean in there,..at least not beyond something that cannot be reduced to the physical,..>>

the sdun being god is purely his physical manifestation
in spirit..he looks more amazing..but you will never know

<<>>so I think we're even there anyway.>>

yeah me too
no hard feelings
god doth the solar sun thing
jesus doth the earthy earthly things
and holy spirit lords it over all* the fallen suns

win/win..lets forgo../the\..code-wurd..spin

Dear Banjo,

Yes, I presume I would find your version of criticism/disparagement more palatable although I am afraid it still does trespass against the quoted above reminder by Herbert Butterfield that “all our judgments (e.g. about Paul’s ‘attitude towards sexuality’ and what today can be seen as his ‘intolerance’) are merely relative to time and circumstance”. And against his warning that “the study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history”.

.

Dear George,

.

You quoted Herbert Butterfield’s warning:

“The study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history”.

The word “sins” is no more part of my vocabulary than the word “evil” for the same reasons as indicated in my previous post : “it has a religious connotation and I have heard it in the mouths of particularly lecherous individuals who pronounce the word with undisguised appetence”.

Also, anybody who suggests I should not look at something from any and as many perspectives as it pleases me to do so, and make whatever comparisons I see fit, is most unlikely to receive my approbation. I am not disposed to turn a blind eye to anything or anybody.

I consider Butterfield’s recommendation to be detrimental to the revelation and comprehension of historical facts. To find the right answers, it is important to find the right questions – and some of those questions may not surface, or occur to us, until many years after the event – due to current circumstances – due to “an eye on the present” - which Butterfield explicitly and emphatically advises against.

Past, present and future do not and cannot exist independently. They, necessarily and inevitably, influence each other. Even the greatest historical ruptures and the most revolutionary ideas are linked to what went before and what came after. Unless I am mistaken, there is no such thing as effect without cause nor cause without effect.

Which is why I consider that a holistic view is superior to a partial view (all else being equal). Had he said that I should have agreed with him. But he didn’t.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

You also wrote:

“I am afraid it still does trespass against the quoted above reminder by Herbert Butterfield that “all our judgments (e.g. about Paul’s ‘attitude towards sexuality’ and what today can be seen as his ‘intolerance’) are merely relative to time and circumstance”.

This, again, is an eminently partial view. A holistic view is to see them, not “merely” but “also” … relative to time and circumstance. Forgive me for saying this, but I find your friend, Butterfield, a little narrow-minded. His broad-sweeping statement does nor stem from an open mind. It is only partially true.

The broken leg of a Neanderthal man (whose DNA differed from ours by only 0.15%), was no different from the broken leg of my next door neighbour.

By the same token, Saul’s hysterical neurosis and/or chronic psychotic illness, at the root of his “attitude towards sexuality” and what today can be seen as his “intolerance” , was no different from any number of similar cases in the world today.

Broken legs and psychiatric disorders have been constant, not “relative to time and circumstance”.

In fact, I feel rather inclined to apply Butterfield's qualifying term of "sophistry" to his own method of reasoning which, if not totally false, I consider to be false as a general principle, but possibly valid in certain specific instances which would need to be defined in detail.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for spelling out for me in such detail your views on this matter.

I am not a historian, so I cannot compare Paul’s attitude to sexuality, etc to that of his contemporaries. Neither can I provide professional counter-arguments in defense of Butterfield’s views expressed in a book I have not read, only found referred to by Steven Weinberg - an authority on theoretical physics who obviously saw Butterfield as an authority on historiography - in his criticism of social constructivism views about natural science. Besides, Weinberg explicitly states that Butterfield’s criticism of the “Whig interpretation of history” does not apply to where matters of natural science are concerned (like your Neanderthal’s broken leg).

From what I understand about history, including my own personal memories, I find Butterfield’s insights confirmed and to my liking. They are obviously not to yours.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

“From what I understand about history, including my own personal memories, I find Butterfield’s insights confirmed and to my liking. They are obviously not to yours”.

I’m afraid I had never heard of the gentleman before you mentioned his name.

I was simply commenting on the text you posted in which he described his opinion and recommendation for what he calls “the study of the past”, in other words: “history”, and his statement that ““all our judgments … are merely relative to time and circumstance”.

As I think you must by now be aware, I have the utmost respect for your opinion – whatever the subject – there is no doubt in my mind that Butterfield’s “insights” are exactly as you say they are.

How he manages to obtain such excellent results with such a poor method is a total mystery to me.

Either there just happened to be nothing else to uncover in the particular period or field of enquiry he worked on, or, perhaps he may have been able to obtain even better results if he had used all the possibilities that were open to him – instead of closing one eye.

.

Dear Banjo,

I have also respect for your opinion, and if I am not as keen to proclaim a scientist’s or other specialist’s research methods poor it is because I have no qualifications in his/her field, which in this case is historiography.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

“… if I am not as keen to proclaim a scientist’s or other specialist’s research methods poor it is because I have no qualifications in his/her field, which in this case is historiography”.

I guess we are in the same boat there, George. I am not keen to do that either, but as my formal education ceased at the end of primary school, I have no qualifications of any sort whatsoever.

If I had limited my critical thought to that for which I had formal qualifications, I should not be where I am today. As it happens, I know from a life of experience that my critical thought has rarely been found wanting when I put my mind to it, provided, of course, I am able to understand the basic concepts of the subject matter involved.

An untrained mind has its drawbacks but it can also have the odd advantage.

Naturally, to my great regret, there are many fields of knowledge in which I am totally illiterate. However, though it may seem presumptuous on my part, I do have the immodesty to believe that I am capable of expressing an opinion worthy of consideration on the matter in hand: Herbert Butterfield’s comments on historiography.

In What is Enlightenment? (1784), Immanuel Kant defined the Aufklärung as the capacity to think by oneself, without referring to an exterior authority, be it a prince or tradition:

“Enlightenment is when a person leaves behind a state of immaturity and dependence (Unmündigkeit) for which they themselves were responsible. Immaturity and dependence are the inability to use one's own intellect without the direction of another. One is responsible for this immaturity and dependence, if its cause is not a lack of intelligence or education, but a lack of determination and courage to think without the direction of another. Sapere aude! Dare to know! is therefore the slogan of the Enlightenment”.

.

Dear Banjo,

My reservations were not about critical thinking but about passing hasty judgement about a scholar’s research methods as poor. I certainly would not worry too much if somebody, who was not a mathematician, called my research methods poor. In distinction to e.g. my teaching skills that any student could judge.

Also, there is, roughly speaking, only one way of doing mathematics “properly”, whereas there are many ways of interpreting and judging historical facts by professional historians, some of them to my liking, some not (usually depending on whether or not they go agaisnt my worldview preferences, bias if you like), but I would leave the appraisal of their professional quality to the community of professionals.

George wrote:

I would not use the word evil in vain. We can still remember where a recent rhetoric about “evil empires” brought us to. So I would certainly use less offending words if I wanted to express my dislike or disapproval of a religion adhered to by millions of people, even less when the number is 2.2 billion. That was all that my remark was about.

Dear George,

You are correct. Evil is a theological word which one should be wary of. The Catholic religion is much more than Paul. I did not criticise the Catholic religion. Many Catholics including those who head the church are wise and humane enough to disregard the words of Paul which denigrate women. There are teaching orders which involve women teaching men. True, one should be fearful of consequences when one criticises a religion which has 2.2 billion adherents. However, a religion with only 100 adherents deserves as much respect. The following is typical of Paul’s remarks concerning men, women and sexuality.

1 Corinthians 7

1: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2: But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3: The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4: For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5: Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6: I say this by way of concession, not of command.

It is well for a man not to touch a woman? Men can great joy in touching and being touched by women. Women can great joy in touching and being touched by men. The one who is not well is Paul.

continued

continued

More from Paul.

1 Corinthians 11

3: But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5: but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7: For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8: (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9: Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10: That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11: (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12: for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)

In the above Paul plays on his talibanjo. Man should dominate. Woman should be covered.

The ten commandments tell one to honour father and mother – not just father. The Jewish Bible has a woman general and prophet, Deborah, who commanded men. Although the Jewish mumbojumbo also favoured men it did not put women down to the extent that Paul did. Paul’s attitude toward women was a step backward from Judaism and pagan religions with priestesses. The Christian sects which ordain women have liberated themselves from the baleful influence of Paul.

Continued

Continued

Paul’s influence has not been restricted to Catholicism. It affects other Christian sects.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/eternally-unforgiven-st-pauls-view-of.html

…A case in point here is what has happened in the largest conservative evangelical Protestant body in the United States - the Southern Baptist Convention, which is, in all likelihood, going to elect the very conservative Dr. A. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Now president of their Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky.) as its next convention president this summer. Also, Under the leadership of Paige Patterson (President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dallas Texas) the Southern Baptists have forced out all women professors in their seminaries following the Biblical command drawn especially from the Pauline corpus in the New Testament that demands that women are to be second class humans and totally submissive to men. In light of this fact, it’s time to review this evangelical denomination’s view of women as they understand their role in the New Testament…

It all goes to show how stupid religion is, at least we Atheists do not have the hang ups that all religious people seem to have, we accept women as equal to men, gay people to marry, voluntary euthanasia etc, we do not lose any sleep over such stupid issues as those that are presented here and in the bible and by all those pedalling the same to gullible people, most religious people I know are terrified of jumping off the planet into the arms of their beloved maker, they should be happy to do so, Atheists do not seem to have this problem. Atheists have compassion for all people, I am sure most Atheists though would cringe against the giving of a toy filled with expensive opals to very wealthy people,when there are people starving in the world, where are the religious people saying enough is enough and lets give presents first to those in need, they are not to be heard, so much for religion and its wealth.

Its funny[sad?]..how we can read/the same words
/yet end up at a different/place..<<..Corinthians 7>

lets lock-it down

paul/saul.:<<6:..I say this..
by way of concession,..not of command.<<.

ok its a concession/dispensation/SPECIAL GIFT...why?..regarding what?
<<..2..because of the temptation to immorality>>

so/with scales..off..plank removed..lets try again

<<..1:..Now concerning..the matters>>regarding IMMORAL TEMPTATIONS/WITH..CUTIES..<<about which you wrote..It is well...for a man..not to touch a woman.>>..whoever/for whatsoever

BUT*..<<.2:..But because of the temptation..to immorality,
each man..should have his own wife..>>

meaning paul/has a wife?..[he could not say..it../if..he didnt follow the same way...but let paul continue
<<..and each woman.[should/have]..her own husband.

<<..3:The husband..should give to his wife..her
conjugal rights,..and likewise the wife to her husband.>>

WHY?..<<..4:For the wife..does not rule-over her own body,..but the husband does;>>..that sure 'sounds'..bad..but then/he invberts/the same duty..re hubby

<<..likewise the husband..does not rule
over his own body,..but the wife does....5: Do not refuse one another except..perhaps by..[mutual].agreement..[..for a season,]..*but then come together again,..lest Satan tempt you...through lack of..self-control.>>

NOW/SEE..THIS SELF/mutual..self CONTROL..
wear/your self-control..[modestly]..AS IF A VEIL/of honour

why?..<<..1 Corinthians 11

<<..3:..But I want you..to understand..[very clearly]
<<..that the head..of every man..is Christ,
<<..the head..of a woman is her husband,..
<<..and the head of Christ,,is God.>>

by head/husband../like union/obeisances..
[spi-ritual/conjugal rights/if you will]..must be respected/both ways...[see previous..'advice/concessions']

4..Any man..who prays or prophesies..with his head>>[read master/husband/duty>>..covered>>,,[[hidden/secret]..<<..dishonors his head,

[now same/inverted..like/previous/duties].

<<..5:..but..any woman who prays..or prophesies
with her head...[messiah/husband/god]..unveiled..dishonors her head>>

JUST AS MAN..UNVEILED..DISHONORS HIS HEAD/SAME SAME

THIS LINKS BACK TO..THE Holy spirit..[UNSEEN
/PREFERS TO REMAIN..veiled/unseen]..TO A;LLOW FREEWILL..IT's FRUITS

maybe..its about..not proclaiming on the streets
cause you already..got your praise/reward...private relations/conjugal right...?

<<>>it is the same..as if her/his/their head were shaven[exposed]... 6:..For if..a woman/man will not veil himself/herself,..then he/she should cut off her hair;[pride]..but..*if it is disgraceful..for a woman to be shorn or shaven,..let her wear a veil.[husband/god/partner/MESSIAH/PROTECTOR]

7:.For a man..[husband...god/messiah;head]..ought not to cover his head,..since he is the image..and glory of God;[the holy spirit].. but woman[read wife]..is the glory of man..[READ HUSBAND/MESSIAH/GOD]

8:..(For man.>>[GOD/greater/CAUSE]..was not made from woman[MAN/FRUIT]..but woman from man.

9:..Neither was man..[GREATER]..created for woman,[LESSER] but woman for man.)
10:..That is why..a woman/MAN/MESSIAH/GOD,..ought to have a veil on her head,..because of the angels.[THE BRIDE OF THE WHOLLY SPIRIT]

11:..(Nevertheless,..in the Lord]..WE are made equal
YET..woman..is not independent of man..nor man of woman;
nor god from man/nor holy spirit./from that not wholly spiritual.

12:..for[just]..as woman..was made from man,
so man..is now born of woman...And all things are from God.)..AND THE HOLY SPIRIT..IS MADE WHOLE...now just to get as..ONE MOST WHOLE....holier than thou..

Dear Ojnab,

I was critical of the teachings of Paul. That does not mean I attacked Christianity or pushed atheism. An atheist can also be sexist, and Christians can disregard Paul's injunctions regarding women. Some branches of Christianity give women equal status. Paul is regarded highly by some Christians because his words are in scripture. A sophisticated Christian is capable of recognising that scripture is a product of its times and incorporates the views of those who wrote it even when those views are inconsistent with enlightened thinking.

There is a tendency to regard those who agree with one on either religious belief or non-belief as somehow more virtuous than those who don't agree. I regard all religion as mumbojumbo. However, there are many decent, virtuous, intelligent people who accept mumbojumbo.

David F, Mumbojumbo! I do like that word, that is religion.
One Under God, we are all born equal, correct, but some are more equal than others, lets take a close look at Royalty, they consider themselves as not equal to the beggar on the street, although they have the same body functions as the beggar, so equal, in their brains though we are a Prince, Princess etc. man made titles which set them apart from the all born equal you mention. Money also comes into the equation, the more you have the more you are not equal to the masses, you are better, that thinkig being only between your ears or the head between male legs,death thank goodnes is the only time we are all equal, we all smell to high heaven, rot or burn, only then are we equal to every one else.

ONJAB..of course we/arnt.all equal..[an example]."predatory equity."..

ITS NOT THAT SOME..ARE MORE/EQUAL
BUT THAT SOME..THINK THEY ARE BETTER/more clever/more aware
[and..by and large many are../so\..where is this going?]]

<<.man made titles>>rank/status/licended/unlicenced..
legal/lawful..aware unaware..old YOUNG MAN BEAST..sure/im with you

<<>>Money also comes into.the equation,.the more
you have..the more you..are not equal..to the masses,>>

MONEY/REMINDS ME/OF WIKISEED/WIKIGELD..THERE..I INVENTED A BANK/THAT ALLOWS YOU TWICE.[IN CREDIT/OF THAT..YOU PUT IN]..INTEREST FREE/overdraft..and.if you put more in...you have double available..in intrest/free credit/by overdraft..[non-fee bearing non-intrest accruing

but yeah..the more.they put in
the more.they get out/but thats fair..isnt it?

<<thank goodness..the only time weare all equal,..we all smell to high heaven,..rot or burn,..only then..are we equal to every one else.>>..apparent/endings..[death]...the ultimate/social leveler

IT DONT NEED BE..LIKE THAT..unfairness isnt law
isnt a moral value..nor specifically..a doctrine the church follows[though jesus d..id say something like it...[taking only your holy book..might make some more humble]..but we cant/all be the same/

god glories..in our differences

its no fluke/we each got our own face/own dna..own scent..
own voice-print..own eye sign/fingerprint's..own life own reality...own/perceptions/even own ways...etc..etc

we each are meant/to realize..what we are..by the clues
some need more to get it..others dont..its about perceptions OF SCARCITY..CREATING NEED GREED FEAR HATE SPITE ETC...but some get their rewards here..others get theirs ten fold in the next life/

but essentially..those WHO Have naught..have either chosen..it spiritually .. physically mentally..or pre-emptily oR KARMICly..but never permanently.

as our values evolve/we see how rich/simply good health is.
not..needing to spend.money looking better physically/while our spiritual side rots...

what good wealth/../that cant buy
health..power influence/fame....LOVE

money cant buy me love
thus the one with a lover..has things money cannot buy

if you have a happy home..your wealthy..we are the people of the common wealth...in things reality cant despoil..ROT STEAL OR REMOVE
i love.the promise/purity..of spirit...over.this realms/boom/bust..cycles

[ITS SCHIZOPHRENIC BIPOLAR material-ISM]

it*wont..last...dust we are..to dust we return
as we gave/so shall we earn/learn

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
You wrote :
 
“My reservations were not about critical thinking but about passing hasty judgement about a scholar’s research methods as poor. I certainly would not worry too much if somebody, who was not a mathematician, called my research methods poor. In distinction to e.g. my teaching skills that any student could judge”. 
 
I am sorry to insist but you will recall that following my careful analysis (page 18) of Butterfield”s statements which you had posted, you replied:
 
“ Thanks for spelling out for me in such detail your views on this matter”.
 
This does not imply that you considered I was “passing hasty judgement” - quite the contrary. In fact, my analysis could more correctly be described as a “critique” – certainly not a “hasty judgment”. Had I contented myself with simply declaring that the “the research methods are poor”, that would have been a hasty judgment.
 
First there was the “spelling out”, the analysis (critique), then the conclusion (judgment). My intention in submitting all my arguments to your scrutiny was to invite criticism and debate. It had nothing to do with “hasty judgment”.
 
Neither had I ever envisaged that you might make a “hasty judgment” either - make a judgment in conclusion of the debate, why not? - but certainly not hastily.
 
You also indicate:
 
“ … there are many ways of interpreting and judging historical facts by professional historians …  but I would leave the appraisal of their professional quality to the community of professionals”.
 
Interestingly, I found on the internet a commentary of one of Butterfields peers, J.P. Kenyon, considered “one of the foremost historians of 17th-century England and a Fellow of the British Academy”. Kenyon describes Butterfield as :
 
“ A man with a reputation rather like an inverted cone, his wide-ranging prestige balanced on a tiny platform of achievement”.
 
.
 
(Continued …)
 
.

.

(Continued …)

.

Another of his peers, J.H.Hexter, an American historian, specialist in Tudor and seventeenth century British history, and reportedly well known for his comments on historiography, commenting on Butterfields major historical work, the “Whig Interpretation”, noted:

“ Given the developments in historiography and historical theory, it is tempting to view it now as a somewhat primitive piece. One ‘has to see his act of criticism in the light of its own day, responding to a climate of historiographical opinion that no longer exists”.

I am inclined to think (without necessarily concluding) that though peer review is, generally speaking, an excellent means of determining the value of intellectual endeavour, even this needs to be considered in relation to the inevitable rivalry which exists within the community of historians whose subject matter, unlike mathematics, is “open to interpretation”, as you rightly point out.

So how do we overcome this inconvenience ?

Hannah Arendt observed :

“The genius can start something new, but in order to communicate it, this novelty must be described in terms that others can perceive”.

So we are back to Kant’s recommendation: one should employ one’s natural “capacity to think by oneself, without referring to an exterior authority, be it a prince or tradition”.

However, I see no reason why I should not consult peer review before formulating my own opinion - whatever the subject.

 
.

<<..Hannah Arendt observed :

“The genius can start something new, but in order to communicate it, this novelty must be described in terms that others can perceive”.>>

OHH BOY DONT THAT JUST RING A BELL

<<>>So we are back to Kant’s recommendation: one should employ one’s natural “capacity to think by oneself, without referring to an exterior authority, be it a prince or tradition”.>>

i have said this often/not as well.but thus know why it cant be done
[not that i can tell you why..in light of the next reply
yet that wont stop me from giving it a try.

the thing is education..[thus teachers]..are experts at recalling
they can recall names dates places faces..works deeds glories and disgraces..[my term is rote learning/they have instant recall]
but..kant was a thinker..and thinking is developed..EARLY..IN THE DEVELOPMENT..of any specialty..[ITS INVENTION..INVOLVES DEFINING THE VISIONS THEY ARE REALIZING INTO BEING.

but once the idea if formed..there comes in this thing/fixation..of peer review/again not clear thinking but specialists..in recalling the detail..of how strictly the thought follows its bloodlines

<<..However, I see no reason why I should not consult peer review before formulating my own opinion - whatever the subject.>>

that of course..is science METHOD..and MAKES SENSE
but we all have fears hates bias..and your looking for the peers 're'-vieuw..[or something like that]

george is excellent at clearly defining..the logical progression
your SKILLED at the summation..for me..i wade in before i loose my reaction..to the thought.,mainly because i have limited recall..of that which..others learned off/by heart..thus can reel oFF/note by note..BY instant recall..or ROTE.

SOME SEE the flowers..others draw their SCENT in..others draw their IMAGERY..or colour onto paper..its not really that which is..that is the focus..but what it sets off in the observer...AFTER THEY EXPERIENCE..ITS WAY OF REVEALING...damm caps..that last point wasnt that strongly felT..it was a ripple in the stream of conscious/thats all.

Dear david f,

I agree that “evil” is a theological word, or perhaps better, a biblical word: (my KJV version of the Old and New Testaments found 571 occurrences of “evil”). However, it is often used in everyday language, and there I would be more cautious with the use of this heavily loaded word. Like, “infinity” being a word with a clear (at least since Cantor) mathematical meaning, which is also used in everyday language, often as an exaggeration, where “large number” would have sufficed.

A also concede that you did not associate that word with Christianity only with one of its “founding fathers”.

Thanks for the extensive quotes that certainly show that Paul’s understanding of sexual matters, attitudes towards women etc were not up to standards as we understand them today. As I said above, I do not know how they compare with the views and habits of his contemporaries, or how would the West have evolved in these respects if not Christianity (undoubtedly influenced by Paul’s writings) but Judaism or the Roman civilisation became or remained the main cultural determinants for the centuries to follow. Or, for that matter, if Islam’s attitudes prevailed. In particular, I do not know to what extent did different attitudes to, and treatment of, women play a role in Christian “controversies” with the pagan world, medieval Jews or Moslems.

Nevertheless, I agree that the West, to much extent shaped by Christianity and hence by Paul, developed a much more neurotic attitude to sexuality (and sex) than, say, Indian or Chinese cultures. Both the chastity belt and pornography (in distinction to eroticism) are exclusively western deviations from “normality”, but here I am certainly not an expert.
(ctd)

(ctd)

However, unlike in natural science, we cannot experiment, not even mentally (like e.g. Einstein in the free-falling elevator), for instance by removing Christianity (or Paul) from the shapers of Western culture in order to see what we would get, Dark Ages with or without Enlightenment, or oriental-like stagnation or what. The most we can is to look at other civilisations, the Indian or Chinese already mentioned, that had a healthier attitude to sex (I am not sure whether this applies also to their attitude to women) but did not arrive at an Enlightenment, modern science and technology.

I am also not sure that not having priestesses like the pagans did was necessarily a step backwards. As you might remember, I am a fan of the yang-yin complementarity (of the abstract male-female) which is perhaps more explicit in the Catholic version of Christianity, than in some other religions: God is seen as “male” but He chose a female human to incarnate Himself, and Mary is more visible in the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) versions of Christianity than in others.

I once asked a theologian where came the female complement to the “male” God in Judaism, and I was given two examples: Israel is His “daughter”, and the Spirit of God (ruach Jahweh?) is of female gender in Hebrew. Well, you would know better.

Dear Banjo,

Again, expressing reservations about the use of the word "poor" does not imply that I have also reservations about everything else you wrote about the subject.

Thanks for the quotes from J.P. Keynon whom I did not know of. They illustrate what I wrote, namely that unlike in mathematics there are differing professional views on what constitutes and what not “proper” historiography: you favour Keynon, I favour Butterfield.

Please note also, that I did not write “you should leave” (the appraisal of their professional quality to the community of professionals) but “I would leave”.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … you favour Keynon, I favour Butterfield. »

I do not favour Keynon. I had never heard of him. Neither had I heard of J.H.Hexter. I simply discovered on the internet that they were two eminent historians, peers of Herbert Butterfield, who happened to have expressed a professional opinion on the latter's work.

As you indicated (page 19) that as regards ” … judging historical facts by professional historians … I would leave the appraisal of their professional quality to the community of professionals”, I thought you might be interested in what these two gentlemen had to say about the work of Herbert Butterfield.

.

Dear Banjo,

I thanked you already for the quote from Kenyon though forgot about Hexter.

Yes, I was interested although I can judge neither Butterfield nor Kenyon nor Hexter, and certainly would not dare to say which one of them is the greater authority, since not only is/was historiography not my field, but I have read nothing from the three except for the quotes I and you gave here.

(By the way, a respectable professor of mathematics would hardly say about a Cambridge professor of mathematics that his “wide-ranging prestige” was “balanced on a tiny platform of achievement” or about his research that he was tempted to “view it as a somewhat primitive piece”. That is not the language they use to criticise their colleagues. But then, as I said, the situation in mathematics is different.)

So I correct myself about our differences on this: I found insightful the opinion expressed in the quotes from Butterfield that I got from Weinberg, and you did not.

I think we should leave it at that.

Dear George,

You may find the following interesting. In Jewish theology God is given feminine attributes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Shekinah, Shechinah, Shechina, or Schechinah is the English spelling of a grammatically feminine Hebrew name of God in Judaism. The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the Divine Presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem...

Like Jesus Paul was not a Christian. He lived before Christianity was other than a Jewish sect. The split between Judaism and Christianity was still in the future. Paul’s horrible attitudes towards sex and women existed in Judaism. Fortunately there were healthier trends. However, Paul’s influence prevailed at that time.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/20214/who-was-paul

A new generation of scholars argues that the apostle long considered the progenitor of anti-Semitism never left his religion.

Paul’s sexist attitudes still exist in Judaism:

Rabbis Gone Wild — About Modesty and (Gasp!) Zumba

By Frimet Goldberger

In recent years, a slew of savvy Orthodox rabbis have taken to condemning women for everything they do. Their brilliant speeches can be found on YouTube and other websites, and have made their rounds on social media. The topics of their impassioned speeches run the gamut: from life challenges to laziness to Zumba to healthy dating — most of which include, at some points, women and their inherently provocative nature.

…Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein, the founder of Ohr Naava, a Torah center for women and girls, ostensibly for those who are at risk. Rabbi Wallerstein, a true tzadik bestowed with unparalleled wisdom by God, uses his pulpit, err stripper’s pole, to preach to women about sexism and racism, condoning both.

That is exactly what he did last summer when he took the Orthodox world by storm, declaring that Zumba, a dance fitness program that has been the latest craze in gyms across the U.S., is for monkeys in the jungle. Zumba, whose kosher version for kosher women was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal, lure modest women into a trap, sometimes leading to divorce, loss of one’s children, or worst yet, prostitution, Rabbi Wallerstein said.

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/196355/rabbis-gone-wild-about-modesty-and-gasp-zumba/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Weekly%20%2B%20Daily&utm_campaign=Weekly_Newsletter_Friday%202014-04-11#ixzz2ycUZ16jx

Dear George,

You wrote: “oriental-like stagnation”

My view is that “oriental-like stagnation” is a product of western historiography rather than reality. Until about 1760 China was probably the most advanced country in the world technologically. Western writing of that time acknowledged it. Two nineteenth century theoreticians had a great influence in the adoption of the view of “oriental-like stagnation”. They were Marx and Weber. Marx saw capitalism as a vital organising force which would be replaced by socialism. He saw China as never having advanced to a capitalist system. Marx was influenced by Hegel who saw history going through a series of stages. His highest stage was embodied in the Prussian state. Marx and Hegel dismissed developments in the East as oriental despotism. Weber saw Protestantism as inspiring the capitalist economy of the West and saw no similar driving force in the East.

My reading has convinced me that both Marx and Weber were compelling propagandists who have succeeded in creating a false view. The present upsurge in the east Asian economies as far as I am concerned is just that area taking back the position that it has held for most of history.

Some books that counter the common western view are:

The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation by John M. Hobson

Orientalism by Edward W. Said

Science and Civilisation in China (1954–2008) - a series of books initiated and edited by Joseph Needham

The Man Who Loved China by Simon Winchester (It's a bio of Needham & summary at end of book lists devices China developed before west)

george said..<<I once asked a theologian where came the female complement to the “male” God in Judaism, and I was given two examples: Israel is His “daughter”, and the Spirit of God (ruach Jahweh?) is of female gender in Hebrew.>>

its just a few words..but of huge import..but clearly its not even a question..apart from having the right name..so lets go the search.

Showing results/for ruach Yahweh
Search instead.for ruach Jahweh

Hebrew Roots/Trinity/Holy Spirit - Wikibooks,

The divine designation also apparently has
an intensifying function in a few..passages:..ruach elohim (Gen 1:2) and ruach yhwh (Isa 59:19)” (Theologica/Lexicon ...

Isaiah 11:2 NOG - The Ruach Yahweh will rest on him—the Ruach of wisdom and understanding,..the Ruach of advice and power,.the Ruach of knowledge/of Yahweh.

Ruach haKodesh Of YAHWEH in YAHSHUA - Yahweh's Sword

The Ruach haKodesh the comforter of YAHWEH
which will lead and guide in all/truth and is the most important and precious part..of YAHWEH that HE has given ...

Ruach Yahweh..on/the....breath/of..god

Ruach Yahweh..My spirit..wants to dance.
my wings..take flight and soar...I want to/cast myself upon the winds...and glide..the breath of God...Up and up,..in a spiral...

The Ruach HaKodesh: Him Or Her? - YAHWEH & YAHSHUA ...
www.joyintheworld.info/teachings/ruachkodesh.html

Ever wondered..just what Ruach HaKodesh,..the set apart spirit..really is? Because..the Heavenly Father..is depicted throughout Scripture..as masculine,..it is...[the being/by which i am..reveals all being...being..all being][think/like a hologram]

RUACH (Hebrew,meaning spirit)..Who Is The I Am?
whoistheiam.wordpress.com/2011/11/.../ruach-hebrew-meaning-spirit/

Since life begins with breath,.the word Ruach conveys the idea of entry..into..the 'Lord's/Spirit'..(Ruach Yahweh),..and 'the Spirit of God'..(Ruach Elohim)...which enters..in.

"Please explain your understanding of the Holy Spirit" -Yahweh's...
www.yrm.org/holy_spirit_doctrine_qa.htm

The Holy Spirit..in an extension of Yahweh's power
and not..the third person of..THE SON...Note the definition of the word ruach..(Heb.for "spirit"):.."The basic meaning o..[search/will reveal].
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ruach+Jahweh&

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

" ... a respectable professor of mathematics would hardly say about a Cambridge professor of mathematics that his “wide-ranging prestige” was “balanced on a tiny platform of achievement” or about his research that he was tempted to “view it as a somewhat primitive piece”. That is not the language they use to criticise their colleagues".

I guess that is the difference between the solid ground of the exact sciences and the troubled waters of the humanities which is what we are dealing with here.

You wrote (page 19) that there is [only one way of doing mathematics “properly” ]. Whereas, it would seem that there are many ways of doing the humanities “properly” - and "ne'er the ways shall meet".

If we accept for all practical purposes the brief definition of the term “insights” (which you mention) as : “the faculty of seeing into inner character or underlying truth”, we are obviously looking at a can of worms and seeing whatever it is we want to see. There are as many interpretations and as many “truths” as there are observers.

So-called authorities confront each other, each from the height of his elevated podium, declaring that it is he alone who perceives the truth, the "insights" of all others being blackballed as simple brags of mountebanks.

So, all things considered, let us, as Kant suggests, exercise our own power of discernment and decide for ourselves, and as you suggest … "leave it at that".

.

 

OK EVERYONE SEEMS FINE IGNORING EACH OTHER
so STUFF EM JOHAN..its their comfort zone
continue/EDIT/FIRST SEARCH RESULT

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/Trinity/Holy_Spirit

the word..'Ruach'..cannot be construed..as a person...It is a force[PRESSURE..like osmosis//from where there is much..to where THERE IS LESS/..think accretion like gravity/by osmosis]...lack CREATES VACUUM..[MUCH CREATES MASS/Weight/gravity/pressure]

It is invisible..and like wind,..because it can be felt..[think consciousness/logic/COGNITION/logus]...or experienced,..[felt/sensed/heard.EMOTED..recognized..APPRECIATED..EVEN Rejected/feared hated despised..but not seen.

It is the breath/life sustenance[PROCESS/progress..INGRES]...
..even of of God..which disperses olistiCLY/THE HOLY SPIRIT/the holy life-force, His energy's..our[life/LIVING]..collectivLY and His intentions/mind..IS OURS/COLLECTIVLY..WE=ME*.

It is Wholly/WHOLE totality..of living/Spirit..which is is omnipresent,..Going from/cumming to..do what living spirit CAN DO..but also can be directed in specific ways for specific purposes...by the recievers of hIS living gift.

It is not..His actual Person/NOR PERSONA..NOR OF HIS WILL/NOr his reason..WHICH SUSTAINS EACH LIVING AWARENESS..ITS AWARENESS Of being..(which remains incorporeal..and outside of..the physical dimension)..as reflected/BY THE LIFE Livings/lived WITNESS..

WE EACH ARE SEEING/HEARING/LIVING REVEALING..Concealing...CONGEALING..being..SUSTAINING awareness/presence/vacuum..[UNSEEN]..INTO BEING..[SEEN]

that..living animus..MOST HOLY..manifests itself..in the world,
or..RATHER..which comes to dwell..LITERALLY..in the hearts..and lives of His people...[AND WHICH LIVING..IS NOT SUSTAINED..by him...who is not his..be iT..beast/flora/fauna/or humane]

His spirit..can be said..to be the emanation..of THis life-force - i.e. breath..The word for “spirit”..(rucha, ruach).in Aramaic and Hebrew,..is feminine whereas..in Greek (pneuma),.it is neuter in gender.

In some occasions in the Greek text, masculine verb endings and pronouns are used with the neuter gender word “Spirit" when speaking about the holy Spirit, and sometimes it is without the definite article - i.e. just “holy Spirit”.

selected extracts

Being often addressed as “it" and “the", also confirms that it is not another “Person" in a trinity of ‘gods’. The term, “holy Spirit" is a descriptive title and not a name.

It is a description given for a specific manifestation of the Father’s Spirit Being. The absence of a personal name indicates that the holy Spirit is not a Person in and of itself, nor is it ever addressed as a third “Person”.

Very significant also that the Holy Spirit is never worshipped. “And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sits upon the throne,[heart]..and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” Revelation 5:13

Neither is there any evidence in the scriptures that..There is no instance either of anyone praying to or fellowshipping with the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit or ‘ruach’ by itself, is the breath of Yahweh which carries His life-force, but not necessarily the Presence of His Person.

When the term “holy Spirit” is used,..it denotes the special emanation of the Spirit of/life.. which originates from His throne..[THE HEART..YOUR HE-Art/MIND..in your body]..into our physical world to convey..His personal Pres*ence..and power.

The holy Spirit..is not a separate being, but an emanation,..a LIFE/force/power..that proceeds from..source..to.need(goes out..from, or exits..AS)..the Father/THE Sun,or as u..and is poured out..upon His people..[all livING..(Isaiah 32:15,..44:3;.Acts 2:17).

“But when the Helper..comes,..whom..I/shall send to you..from the Father,..the Spirit of truth..who proceeds ..He will testify of Me. John 15:26

“the Spirit..of God..dwells in you”
1 Corinthians 3:16; Romans 8:9

The holy Spirit.is the presence of the Father
which was also in the SUn;..(John 14:19-23; John 17:21,23; 1 John 1:3).

“Now there..are diversities..of gifts,[LIVING]
but..the same..[holy]..Spirit.”
1 Corinthians 12:4.

“For..by one Spirit..are we..*all baptized
into..one body,..[FOR WE ARE/ALL..OF THE ONE/MOST HOLY..life spirituous]..whether we..*be..Jews[AB'ORIGONAL]..or Gentiles..[Peace Nick's]..,.whether we be bond...[serve]..or free;..and have been all..made to drink..[MANY]../into one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:13.

BANJO/GIVES..ME THE STRENGTH..TO TRY AGAin
<<>..There are as many interpretations..and
as many.“truths”..as there are observers.>>

see we are each/even GOD JESUS/YOU Me..like sense organs..of the holy spirit seeking to know of himself..and all he can be[like any parent/LIVING THROUGH HIS KIDS.]..EXCEPT THE SUM Total of everything is he = we..SIMPLE BEING ALL THE MOST HOLY CAN BE

once we call our selves our true name..ie
me,,i am..part OF ALL SEEING hearing feeling being..ALL THAT I AM..iS..SIMPLY aLL..SEEING..THE Being...Sustaining of all we are being..BY SIMPLY BEING ME..sensory/SENSUAL..EVEN Nonsensical being

Stop/freewheeling..don't wast ya last..poST/..SEArCH-FIND*

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ruach+Jahweh&

AT/THE BEGINNING..verse 2: ..“Now the earth..was formless and empty,>>

DONT/READ ON TILL YOU SEE THAT..IN YOUR MIND]

EARth/formless?=THE MINDS SEEINg..see god seeing form forming..in his mind..BUT wait..its still formless..[AND EMPTY]...<<.darkness was over the surface of the deep..and the holy/livING-Spirit of God was hovering..over the waters.”..OF the formless/empty/darkness...

to quote/from..whoisiam/

<<>>The images..in my mind were thick..and rich>>

nOTE THE WORDS/Solidifying..yet/again..taking form/firmING AFFIRMING..IN MIND/taking shape/forming

BEING..The seeing/feeling..of the formless/empty darkness

<<>.:..a formless mass..of deep,..dark water[with shades of midnight blue and charcoal gray.]Solidifying...FORMING/INFORMING..I AMS very being taking FORM

Hovering above this..“surface of the deep”
was a mist…but.one that was palpable/emanating [by osmosis]..FROM infinate plenty..[think like..life comming from the tap]....from here to THERE...and liKE ITS SOURCE..very much alive.

I could not move on..in the reading,..nor could I get..the image out of my mind. ..[DITTO..I-AM...'IN-the-beginning']...And so I just focused on it,..let it wash over me.

Who is this..Spirit of..Provisioning..this sun..as a 'living'..God?
Who is Ruach?..He is One..living EMBODIMENT..OF ALL..who existed before/the universe existed.

This..whoy/Spirit hovered over the surface..of the deep..when the world as we know it...was merely a formless void.[VISUALIZE..AN EMPTY BALLOON..THE SIZe of a full-stop..[.]..[sO SCIENCE SAys]..as long as he lookS/on...THE OSMOSIS GOES ON...life force..flows onto us/all..suns sons..institutions/EVOLUTIONS/light logic life love.

<<>.I do not imagine..the hovering as something that produces dread. The presence that I sensed was not one that produced fear. Respect, oh yes! Awe, certainly. And an overwhelming understanding that this God – Ruach- is infinitely bigger than anything I could comprehend or capture with my finite human intellect.

.

Dear david f., George & One Under God,

.

Given the psychiatric case history of Saul of Tarsica, it is understandable that despite the fact that he was by far the principal conceptor and promoter of Christianity, having written 94% of the New Testament and undertaken most of the evangelical work with the help of his assistant, Luke, the Catholic church nevertheless preferred to adopt Simon Peter, the fisherman, as its head, not Saul.

But Peter was not exactly the perfect model to serve as the official head of the Church, either. In Matthew 14:31, he is rebuked by Jesus : "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

And all four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, tell the story of Peter's three denials of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew goes even further and accuses Peter of having denied Jesus "in front of everyone", thus making a public witness - considered the ultimate form of betrayal because Jesus had forewarned: "whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven".

Also, whereas there is only one reference in the whole of the New Testament of Jesus having said: "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18 KJV), there are two other references which designate Jesus as the foundation of the Church : "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20 KJV) and : "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV).

There is also a fourth reference: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house … acceptable to God by Jesus Christ … Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." (1 Peter 2:5-6 KJV)

There is even a fifth reference: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14 KJV).

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

However, while it is understandable that the Catholic church hesitated to adopt its authentic founder, the neurotic and/or psychotic Saul of Tarsus, as its legitimate leader and model for the papacy, it is paradoxical to say the least, that it preferred to designate Peter who, far from being a "rock", proved on many occasions to be a particularly weak personality with a highly versatile and unpredictable character, to the point of revealing himself, on three critical occasions, in front of public witnesses, to be an outright traitor.

On the face of it, it would have seemed logical to designate Jesus of Nazareth as the foundation stone of the Church – which, apparently, was Saul’s idea, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV.

The decision of the Church is perfectly incomprehensible so far as I am concerned. If anybody has any inside information to share with me, I should be delighted to hear it.

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Matthew, whose real name was Levi son of Alpheus, is reported to have been a dishonest tax collector.

Jesus met Levi in Capernaum, in his tax booth on the main highway. He was collecting duties from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, on imported goods brought by farmers, merchants, and caravans. Under the tax system of the Roman Empire, Levi would have paid all the taxes in advance, then collected from the citizens and travellers to reimburse himself.

It seems that Tax collectors were notoriously corrupt because they extorted far and above what was owed, to ensure their personal profit. Because their decisions were enforced by Roman soldiers, no one dared object. Not surprisingly, Jews who became rich in such a fashion were despised and considered outcasts by the members of their community.

Levi is reported to have displayed one of the most radically changed lives in the Bible in response to an invitation from Jesus. He did not hesitate, he did not look back. He left behind a life of wealth and security for poverty and uncertainty. He abandoned the pleasures of this world for the promise of eternal life. He changed his name to Matthew in an attempt to redeem his wayward past, and escape his previous bad reputation, no doubt hoping to find a little more self-esteem as well as that of his compatriots.

Levi, the dishonest and highly detested tax collector thus became Matthew the respectable disciple of Jesus, to whom is generally attributed the Gospel of Matthew, though it seems there is no consensus among scholars on this point. Some consider it was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories with similar wording. Mark was written first and the two others took Mark as a source, adding additional elements.

Only in Matthew is to be found the indication : "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" .

.

I DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR ASKING OF US PAUL pattersON
Even the best of men, the chosen generation, the people of God,
need to be exhorted to keep from the worst sins...
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=68&source=&seq=i.67.2.2
Elders exhorted and encouraged.

A Christian conversation must be honest; which it cannot be, if there is not a just and careful discharge of all relative duties: the apostle here treats of these distinctly...
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=68&source=&seq=i.67.2.3

Younger Christians are to submit to their elders, and to yield with humility and patience to God, and to be sober, watchful, and stedfast in faith.

Servants in those days generally were slaves, and had heathen masters, who often used them cruelly; yet the apostle directs them to be subject to the masters placed over them by Providence, with a fear to dishonour or offend God...

Dear david f,

Thanks indeed for the interesting post. I found the following, indicating that Shekinah might not be much different from the ruach Yahweh appearing in Genesis:

> The concept of Shekinah ("presence") is also associated with Holy Spirit in Jewish tradition, such as in Yiddish song: Vel ich, sh'chine tsu dir kummen "Will I, Shekinah, to you come”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruach_HaKodesh ) <

Looking at religious cultural constructions (representations of the Divine reality for believers) through the yang-yin complementarity PRINCIPLE is, of course, an oriental influence that I fell for. Instead of the yang-yin “binoculars” one can also look through the beauty-truth-goodness “trinoculars” inherited from Hellenic culture. Maybe this is related to the Trinitarian “structure” that Christians see in God. (Sorry, this is a deviation from our topic into my hobby realm.)

>>Paul’s horrible attitudes towards sex and women <<

Again, if I may so, I would be more careful with the word “horrible”. In the Middle Ages doctors amputated legs without anaesthetics, and Inquisitors had their victims tortured on torture racks. Both things are horrible, however one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second. However, in both cases people did not undergo such treatment voluntarily - they were either compelled in order to save at least their lives, or forced by the Inquisitors. On the other hand, in case of Paul, I think there were many women who voluntarily became Christians, (or what you would call those whom Paul addressed his Epistles to) in spite of his teachings about the man-woman relation that today might seem “horrible” to some of us.
(ctd)

(ctd)
You are right that my use of the phrase “oriental-like stagnation” was too terse and can be misunderstood as a Western “chauvinism”. I used it as description of a state of affairs that led to neither our Dark Ages nor Enlightenment followed by the rise of natural sciences and technology that today all - Westerners as well as Easterners - understand and enjoy. I did not mean it as a denigration of oriental civilisations. Of course, there were mutual interactions and interdependence, but again complementarity is in my opinion the best way to describe the relation East-West.

Very roughly speaking, the West excelled in a better understanding of the world outside man, the East in a better understanding of the world inside man. As Rodney Stark put it in his “The Victory of Reason” (Random House 2006):

“Centuries of meditation will produce no empirical knowledge. But to the extent that religion inspires efforts to comprehend God’s handiwork, knowledge will be forthcoming, and because to comprehend something fully it is necessary to explain it, science arises …” and “Real science arose only once in Europe. China, Islam, India and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token … only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy”.

The Chinese invented the paper but it became an important tool for humanities advancement only after the Western invention of the mechanical movable type printing.

On the other hand, one could quote examples showing that East, Eastern religions, developed better ways and techniques for human “self-comprehension” and self-control.

There are many cultural aspects that illustrate this complementarity. For instance, http://www.drsheedy.com/civilizations-and-history/civilization-differences-east-and-west.php provides even a table to list the complementary characteristic features of the two kinds of civilisations. Of course, this is possible only at the price of perhaps too crude generalisations.

So I think which kind of civilisation was “better”, “more successful” etc depends on what level and from what perspective you want to compare

Dear George,

You wrote:

(citing me) >>Paul’s horrible attitudes towards sex and women <<

“Again, if I may so, I would be more careful with the word “horrible”. In the Middle Ages doctors amputated legs without anaesthetics, and Inquisitors had their victims tortured on torture racks. Both things are horrible, however one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second. However, in both cases people did not undergo such treatment voluntarily - they were either compelled in order to save at least their lives, or forced by the Inquisitors. On the other hand, in case of Paul, I think there were many women who voluntarily became Christians, (or what you would call those whom Paul addressed his Epistles to) in spite of his teachings about the man-woman relation that today might seem “horrible” to some of us.”

I went to Delphi a few years ago. It is in a magnificent setting. Wooded hills surround the area. There were many inscriptions of the walls of the ancient buildings. They were by Greeks who boasted of their good deeds. Most of the inscriptions involved freeing slaves. Many Greeks apparently recognised the evil of slavery. It was an accepted institution so they could not get rid of it, but at least they could free their own slaves. Paul did not appeal to the generous nature of slave-owners and exhort them to free their slaves. His appeal was one-sided. He appealed to slaves to serve their masters faithfully not to free their slaves. His appeal was to the downtrodden to accept their lot and wait for the pie in the sky bye-and-bye.

In most societies of that time as in most societies of this time women were second-class citizens. However, there were exceptions. Deborah was a prophet as well as a general. In Sparta the warriors were men, but women had an equal voice in decision making. They were equal citizens. Paul’s advice to women was the same as his advice to slaves. Submit.

continued

continued

Paul’s message was not one of freedom but of submission to authority. As a person who thinks one should question authority I think his attitude stunk. To my mind one of the glories of being human is expanding our freedoms. Figures such as Paul who push for the expansion of authority are ugly blots on our history.

In Brisbane there is a Catholic cemetery I have visited. In it are the graves of priests and nuns. There are crypts, one for each departed priest, but the nuns according to the headstones were buried more than one to a grave. Was not a woman religious as worthy as a man? Evidently not. I feel this is part of the heritage of Paul.

It is true that Christianity was attractive to women, and possibly women predominated in the early church. However, as important as Paul was the usually gentle figure of Jesus was much more important.

The first pope was Peter not Paul. In some respects Peter was a weak human being. He betrayed Jesus, but he seemed to have had a normal sexuality. He was married and apparently had administrative ability. He also doesn’t appear to be a bigot. IMHO he was a much more worthy person than Paul.

Paul, before he had his vision on the road to Damascus, persecuted Christians. That was terribly wrong. Nobody should be persecuted for their religious opinions. Acts includes the story of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and his actions after.

One of the first acts when he had recovered from the effects of his vision.

Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

In the above Paul was completely out of order. At that time some Jews was followers of Jesus, and others were not. Christianity had not yet become a separate religion. It’s as though a Catholic priest would come into an Anglican church to preach his religion even though Anglicans are also Christian. Any Catholic priest would probably not do that in Australia.

continued

continued

Both Testaments of the Bible contain much bigotry. However, reflection and even actions at that time challenge the bigotry. For example, Leviticus tells us not only to love our neighbour but also not to harass the stranger among us. Jesus quoted Leviticus.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

The Talmud contains stories called midrashim. Some of them aim to soften the harshness of the Jewish Bible.

One of the stories tells of the angels around the Lord cheering as the Red Sea closed over the Egyptians. God wept as the Egyptians were also his children.

That humanity seems lacking in Paul. As Saul he persecuted Christians. As Paul he lacked respect for the beliefs of non-Christians and pushed his mumbojumbo on them. He was a sexist, authoritarian bigot even by the standards of the more enlightened people of his time. I think he earned the adjective, horrible.

In regard to eastern and western civilisations I agree mostly with you. We should be aware of the differences and similarities. We should try to avoid sweeping generalisations and realise we generally are not as familiar with other cultures as we are of our own. We should also realise they is a tendency to exalt what we are familiar with and identify with.

i seem to recall there are many ways to free a slave
[one is simply THE SLAVE RETURNING HIS MASTERS CLOTHING]

[Slaves usually were enslaved BY OUTSTANDING DEBT..even war debt]

there is also.he shall serve..you six years,
and in the seventh year..you shall let him go free from you.
ITS A FERTILE AREA OF STUDY
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=bible+free+slaves

that paul SUBVERTED THE DIRECT ONE TO ONE PERSONAL GOD..of christ
IS BEYond dispute/he did however Clarify much of what christ revealed
[in fact it was to be john doing the revealing/even jesus thought so/never THE LESS HE DID much..because it was predicted..it be done

as it is jesus did better than john would have done
and saul..returned the creed more BACK TO WHAT JOHN WAS PREVENTED DOING..AND because it said the things like david just raised/govt didnt need delete THE RECORD.

THE RECord survives IN THE WEST/MAINLY BECAUSE OF SAUL/S TWISTING IT..further[for whatever reason]..then there is the translations of Francis BACON]..and why its commonly held/that the bible is word for word the jewish texts..[that mention why mosus had a lisp/[the eating of the hot coal/gave mosus aCceSs to the egyptian higher knowing [abouve that even witnessed by servants.

anyhow/jesus warned of these times via a key text
[that eVEN A BEAST IN THE STABLE..KNOWS HIS MASTERS VOICE
BY READING THE WITNESS.of the gosapil..we can know the christ/BUT EVEN THEN..WHICH CHRIST WE GET FROM THE TEXTS IS UP TO US

I FEEL THE BI-BLE NEEDS BECOME TRI-BLE
including The revealINGS oF THE KORAN/THE TORAH/[JEWISH OLD TESTIMONIAL/FULL VERSION..plus GOSPIL/Witness..INCLUDING PAUL

LEST..WE FORGET..the corner stone
is only the base upon which 'the church'..IS BUILT
12 corner stones lie in THE full body of christo'..reveal-elations

LETs join heads and sort it out
its ok to be wrong...only god..OOOPS SORRY
ONLY THE WHOLLY holy SPIRIT..is perfECT.

George quotes Rodney Stark: ” and “Real science arose only once in Europe. China, Islam, India and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token … only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy”.

Such "crude generalisations" are an insult to scholarship and deserve the most severe censure. I direct every readers' attention to Joseph Needham's compendious work Science and Civilisation in China or a more recently published condensation of this vast work, Robert Templeton's The Genius of China, in order to correct Stark's Eurocentric view.

As an example, Templeton's work [Simon & Schuster 1986] Page 110 PRINTING. "Effective movable type was invented between the years 1041 and 1048 by an obscure commoner named Pi Sheng who lived from about 990 to 1051." I recommend the entire chapter that the reader may learn of the prevalence of printed works in China prior to the invention of movable type.

I'm unaware of similar important histories of the development of the sciences regionally but suggest that historians like Stark be careful of dismissing India, the Arabs and Persia from important contributions in the sciences and mathematics. Terms like "real science" and "real chemistry" are relative to the civilisations that developed them. Denying the genius of other civilisations that Europe might be glorified reveals an unscholarly smugness unsavory in any historian.

>>I suggest that historians like Stark be careful of dismissing India, the Arabs and Persia from important contributions in the sciences and mathematics.<<

I have never heard of a professional historian, Stark (a sociologist) included, who “dismisses” these civilisations from important contributions.

>>Terms like "real science" and "real chemistry" are relative to the civilisations that developed them.<<

I presume today every student of science wants to learn "real" science, whatever that means. So the dependance on civilisations could perhaps be checked by comparing how much science, theoretical as well as experimental, developed in the last centuries in the West an e.g. Chinese PhD student of physics, chemistry etc has to absorb, with how much a Western PhD student of science has to learn from what has been developed in oriental societies in the past centuries.

Self-deprecation, even self-hatred is not the only alternative to hubris. On the personal as well as cultural level.

gooD POINTS FROM NUMBER 1
just thought you would like some history on slavery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

MODERN DAY ESTIMATES VARY.BETWEEN..12 TO 20 MILLION/Enslaved
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=moderN+SLAVERY+NUMBERS

that's way under/THE TRUE NUMBERS SO MY guide's TELL ME
it ignores marrying..breeding abduction to enslave.[IT IGNORES THOSE ENSLAVED TO drug's booze gambling *debt]..HOW MANY ARE ENSLAVED TO Their bank..or via a car..enslaved to obsessions that hurt demean..or make others less..THOSE BROKEN..DISCOURAGED..BATTERD BRUISED AND FORGOTTEN.

there are slaves WITH LUXURY..surrounding them[we forget the servant who prep[ares the food..often partakes OF IT..the definition..as it stands IGNORES THAT ALL SLAVERY ISN'T EQUAL/NOR EQUALLY Hurtful of spiteful..IN FACT MANY TODAY GET TREATED Worse than slave/YET TECHNICALLY ARE NOT Enslaved..[i wanted TO WRITE Are nor free]..but if you think paying blackmail /protection MONEY TO GOVT IS 'FREE'..YOUR Enslaved but too dumb to notice

[IF your working ONLY TO PAY TAX.RENT AND LIVE OFF NOODLES..YOUR ENSLAVED]..WHO-ever wields the reigns

In 4014, that man made book of mysteries, the Bible will still be debated, come 6014 the same, and so on, when will people realise that it is only a book, the human race will still be looking for that everlasting life after death, not knowing the answer, but never mind those who departed this life in 2014 according to the book will be in the house of many rooms, exceedingly full though, folks it is all rubbish, enjoy life now, it is the only chance you will get , in four thousand years and so on who will care that I ever existed. Perhaps somebody somewhere may be retrieving me from Ancestory.Com and wondering where on earth I went, and the gullible will still be saying "he went to the house of many rooms" you know the one that my God concocted. What a joke.

`NAB,O.J/QUOTE..<<..when will people realize..that it is only a book,>>

actually/[lets get it right]\.biBLE MEANS TWO BOOKS
THUS VIA logic..we have refuted a concept put forward wrong

SO NOW YOU KNOW ITS TWO BOOKS
when wILL PEOPLE REAlise that..IT ISNT Even two books but 70 BOOKS
[to retain honesty/thats an approx guesstimate given by my guides/I COULd easy google it to be right/but the cathoholic version has an extra booK[ALL ABOUT JESUS RETURN/NOT MENTIONED IN The james version

<<>.[THEN/when?..6914?..<<the human race will still be looking for that everlasting life after death,..>>

not really..well before THAT TIME JESUS WILL HAVE CAME AND GONE AGAIN
WELL BEFORE Then..mankind will haVE SUICIDE.DEAD ITSELF/READ MASS MURDERD INTO EXTINCTION\..well before then/science will finally have PENETRATED THE VEIL..but by comparing not machine

<<..not knowing the answer,>>

is again easay refuted..by asskinG TO TO PROVE IT
NO PROOF MEANS the words ARE NON-SENSE.

<<.. but never mind those who departed this life in 2014 according to the book will be in the house of many rooms>>

WELL FINALLY A TRUE WORD/EXCEPT THEIR NOT 'ROOMS' BUT REALMS..often called spheres of affect..OR PLANES of experiences..BUT YES ROOMS I HAVE RECEIVED PROOF OF..by means i trust..[many texts..[that should be joined WITH THE TWO BOOKS..]..[trust over your assurance>..the rooms..will..or could BE<<<,exceedingly full though>>

SEE THAT IN THE After realm/jesus took 3 earth DAYS TO RESolve his earthy life..[there are nO NIGHTS/JUST ONE ETERNal day,[or raTHER IN HELL one eternal/infernal..night/but LUCKEY MANY NO SOONER GET PULLED INTO THE REALM..BEFORE THEY GET OVER IT,..HELP OTHER WAKE UP..and moved on to the next on YOUR BUCK IT/HIT LIST

ANYWAY...PLEASE PRESENT YOUR PROOF..<<..folks it is all rubbish, enjoy life now, it is the only chance you will get>

I KNOW YOU cant prove that/.so thaTS YOUR OPINION
BUT LETS TRY TACT..your body..moves its muscles via electric charge
your brain PROJECTS MINUTE electrical charges able to be recieved by electroencephalogram..[or whatever]..THEN YOU DIE

WHERE DID ALL THAt energy go>
[recall THE SCIENCE SAYs..energy cant bE CREATED NOR DESTROYED]
SO WHERE DID all that will power go?

<<What a joke.>>

OH DEAR..YOU PRE REPLIED YOUR OWN JOKE

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
You wrote to david f. :

« In the Middle Ages doctors amputated legs without anaesthetics, and Inquisitors had their victims tortured on torture racks. Both things are horrible, however one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second. »

It is not just the first case (amputated legs) which is in the “historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics”. The second case, (victims tortured on torture racks), also happens to be in exactly the same “historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics”.

According to Butterfield’s theory, history should be understood within the context of the particular period of time considered, in this case, the Middle Ages, when there were no anaesthetics. The first recorded use of an anaesthetic was in 1842 by a Boston dentist named William T.G. Morton at the Massachusetts General Hospital in the USA. Dr. Morton gave an ether anesthetic for the removal of a neck tumor by surgeon John Collins Warren (the first editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and dean of Harvard Medical School).

So if we wish to apply Butterfield's theory, we have to place ourselves in the context of the Middle Ages when there were no anaesthetics in order to understand why :

- Doctors amputated legs without anaesthetics
- Inquiitors had their victims tortured on torture racks without anaesthetics

As you rightly indicate : « … one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second. »

This illustrates the point I was making in a previous post (page 18) : «I consider (Butterfield's theory) to be false as a general principle, but possibly valid in certain specific instances which would need to be defined in detail.»

.

SO MANY BUTTERED UP THEORIES
Butterfield's theory http://www.google.com.au/search?q=+Butterfield's+theory&

A FRAMeWORK FOR PARTIAL TRUTH
http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/butterfield/Papers/ToposTheoryPartialTruth.pdf

POLITE ANARCHY
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=sSPHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=Butterfield%27s+theory&source=bl&ots=28o_mGwFTY&sig=uWdj3GR-GrL-yVLCN_SO1-m1u-8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I0JMU9aWFISJlAWOkoDADQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Butterfield%27s%20theory&f=false

http://www.counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/butte-body.html Butterfield stresses the highly problematic character of quantum indeterminism: it only appears in some interpretations of quantum theory and it involves a highly nonclassical ontology. He acknowledges the enormous empirical success of quantum theory but notes that considerable problems arise in reconciling it with special and general relativity, and he argues strongly against reductionism. He then provides a brief summary of the formalism of quantum theory, including a discussion of pure states, mixed states, and the meaning of probability in quantum theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Butterfield In the philosophy of spacetime physics, Butterfield has argued for a resolution of Einstein's 1913 hole argument that preserves spacetime substantivalism by utilizing David Lewis's theory of modal counterparts.

http://www.winds.org/~frost/words/writings/butterfield.html Butterfield writes that, “…Willie remembered the the rules of the street and what his mother had taught him. ‘Don’t be bullied,’ she had said. ‘Hit back. To get respect, you’ve got to be the toughest.’” Willie’s righteous anger in response to the other boy’s attempt to violate and psychologically emasculate him combined with his mother’s lessons, and he went out and beat the other boy to the point of needing medical treatment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history Butterfield's book on the 'Whig interpretation' marked the emergence of a negative concept in historiography under a convenient phrase, but was not isolated

WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL QUESTION?
i hatE LEARNING NEW STUFF.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the three posts supporting your opinion about Paul. I appreciate that, in response to my “I WOULD be more careful with the word horrible”, you conclude with “I THINK” (otherwise). Both emphases added. We indeed have two different, not necessarily opposite, perspectives on Paul’s heritage. In my perspective the “Ode on Love” (1 Cor 13) prevails, in yours something else does. Paul is not the only controversial historical personality whose overall contribution to mankind some evaluate rather positively, others rather negatively.

His epistles are certainly not revolutionary, calling for the abolition of slavery, liberation of whomever, including women, etc. As you rightfully point out, his views and advise contain things that are highly objectionable from the point of view of human rights as we understand them today, the same as e.g. Genesis contains things that are absurd in the light of what is known about the material world today.

Complementarity can be misconstrued either as the superiority of one over the other or as interchangeability of the two poles. In the psychological and social complementarity of the two sexes, Paul and many of his followers erred in the first sense, some contemporaries in the second.

Paul contributed towards the spread of Christianity in the first centuries - and among followers of his teachings were many women and slaves - and probably also to the rise of Christendom after Constantine. It is hard to tell, at least for me, whether things would have been better or worse without him, no mental experimentation possible to tell. Sorry, I think I am repeating myself.

You are right that both from the Christian and non-Christian points of view Jesus, or what is attributed to him, is preferable to Paul. You also seem to endorse the choice of Peter rather than Paul as the first head of the Church, which again agrees with Christian tradition.

Dear Banjo,

I thought we already agreed to let Butterfield rest in peace. So here we go again:

When I wrote “one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second”, the remark “historical context” applied, of course, to both cases, sorry for not making that explicit.

All that Butterfield claims - as I understand his quote “all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance” - is that you should not judge the two things happening in the Middle Ages as if they happened today. He does not say you should consider them equivalent, equivalently justifiable, just because TODAY amputation without anaesthetics is almost equivalent to intentional torture.

The person who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is wrong irrespective of whether he lived in the 13th or 21st century, but a historian will form his “judgement” about him differently, since in the first case he is part of the mainstream, in the second case he is not.

The problem with social constructivists of science is that they confuse the two: from the fact that one has to judge the scientists’ methods“relative to time and circumstance” they seem to conclude that the same must be said about the “truth” of their theory. Perhaps there are also “social constructivists of ethics” who make similar conclusions about morality. I don’t think the quotes given here indicate that Butterfield was one of them.

OUG,
Herbert Butterfield &#8800;Jeremy Butterfield

Dear George,

As I tried to point out in reference to Paul, he was a reactionary influence. Some opinion of his time was against slavery and for equal rights for women. Some areas actually had equal rights for women. In some ways his views were against freedom.

I have read 1 Corinthians 13 and would like to comment. One element in love is consideration. I think we should have consideration for the feelings of other people whether we love them or not. Paul after the incident on the road to Damascus went into a synagogue of a differing sect and tried to push his views on them. I don’t think that was showing charity or love. Mohammed maintained there should be no compulsion in religion. It would be good if his followers and adherents of other religions would follow that. I have had Christian missionaries try to push their views on me. They had different reactions when I wasn’t interested. Some just accepted it. Others said they would pray for me, and some were angry at my ‘blindness.’ I find their honest anger less offensive than their prayers which seem phony to me. The Catholic church puts ads in publications inviting those interested in finding out more about the faith to answer the ads. I think that is the way it should be. Let people know you are there, and let them come to you if they are interested. Unfortunately some missionaries go out and expect a quid pro quo. They help others and expect others to accept their faith in return. Their charity is definitely not the charity that Paul means. At least I hope he regards charity as its own reward. If I had read 1 Corinthians 13 and had read nothing else about Paul I would feel differently about the chapter. Paul apparently means something different by love and charity than I mean by those words.

continued

continued

CO1 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

I think what Paul means by charity in the above is you must not only do the deed but do it with a certain feeling. I don't think charity should profit one. The deed should be sufficient. If a person sacrifices wealth to feed the poor and even sacrifices life that person has shown charity because, to me, the act is important. We have had a previous discussion on belief and practice. To me it is important what you do not what you believe or feel. The poor have been fed regardless of your motives. Last Saturday I volunteered to help Sunday Assembly make up stuff to distribute to homeless. Sunday Assembly is a group of people who meet once a month for socialising, singing and a talk. Although they are primarily atheists they welcome anybody regardless of religious belief. Bluecare, an agency of the Uniting Church, comes around to our house and has done things to make it easier for my arthritic wife. They are going to send someone around to help keep the house clean. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two atheists, are the biggest philanthropists in the USA. Charity is an act that both religious and non-religious people can practice.

continued

continued

CO1 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Here again I differ with Paul. I see nothing wrong in thinking evil. IMHO there is no wrong in thinking evil. It is wrong to do evil. It is unreasonable to condemn a person for evil thoughts. That is a recipe for unreasonable, neurotic guilt such as exhibited by Augustine when he kept on about stealing pears from an orchard as a teenager. That sort of thing is found in the new Testament, Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. I feel that is sick, sick, sick. I know a woman with a magnificent bosom. I shall never comment to her on its magnificence, never stare at it and certainly never touch it. I just catch glimpses of it out of the corner of my eye. I feel no guilt in thinking how it would feel to run my hands over it or to nibble at it. I can see it in my mind right now. I have thoroughly enjoyed my lust for her bosom, and my enjoyment has not harmed her.

CO1 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

I am sure Paul does not mean truth as something subject to verification. He means accepting his religious beliefs.

CO1 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

‘believeth all things’ sounds like a recipe for gullibility.

CO1 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I like the above. I don’t think Paul ever reached manhood in the sense I think of being a grownup. Being a man to me includes accepting that other people may disagree with you on things you feel important and still treating them with consideration and not harassing them with your unwanted opinions.

continued

continued

continued

CO1 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

In the above I partially agree with Paul. I prefer doubt to faith. From doubt and questioning comes knowledge. Hope can be comforting, but confronting reality is more reasonable. However, I feel charity is definitely preferable to hope and faith.

However, 1 Corinthians 13 is written beautifully. Perhaps one should be satisfied with the fine prose and not subject it to analysis any more than I should question the amount of fatty tissue in the bosom I referred to.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

« I thought we already agreed to let Butterfield rest in peace. »

Yes, I was surprised you raised the subject again, but that’s no problem. Please feel free to mention his name again if you wish. There is no need to ostracize him.

You then indicate:

« All that Butterfield claims - as I understand his quote “all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance” - is that you should not judge the two things happening in the Middle Ages as if they happened today. »

I have no problem with that, if that is what he means.

But, you also indicated in a previous post to AJ Philips (page 16):

[ “The study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history. It is the essence of what we mean by the word “unhistorical”. – Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931). ]

This does not necessarily mean, as you suggest, “as if they happened today” but, rather,” in the light of how they are judged today”.

Perhaps you will agree that today’s events contain the germs which will grow, develop, evolve and eventually blossom out into tomorrow’s history. Germs, of course, are invisible to the naked eye and rarely detected at birth. Their true significance and importance, can only be appreciated when placed in “historical perspective”, in time.

The storming of the Bastille in Paris on 14 July 1789 was seen, at the time, as just one event among many others. It was practically empty at the time, housing only seven old men annoyed by all the disturbance: four forgers, two "lunatics" and one "deviant" aristocrat, the Comte de Solages (the Marquis de Sade had been transferred out ten days earlier). It was not until 1880, almost a century later, that it was officially recognized as the symbol of the French revolution.

This was not because it was seen “as if it happened in 1880” but, rather, “in the light of how it was judged in 1880”.

.

Dear david f,

>>Paul, he was a reactionary influence.<<

I grew up in a world where “reactionary” was everything that was against the official Marx-Leninist line, Americans and West Europeans (except for the “proletariat” and Communists) were all reactionaries. So for me “reactionary” means being against an official ideology, in particular going against “positive” developments in history. These associations of mine are, of course, not your fault.

>>Some opinion of his time was against slavery and for equal rights for women. Some areas actually had equal rights for women. <<

As I said, he was not a revolutionary, and we cannot tell how things would have developed if those opinions and areas became mainstream instead of what followed after the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect into what became one of the main religions, albeit still an outgrowth of Judaism, a transformation that Paul substantially contributed to.

Also in my (Stalinist) times people went to church not to hear revolutionary talks (those who needed them got them from Radio Free Europe, mostly jammed by those in power) but to find strength to live the life they had to live. In other times, and under other circumstances, religion, in particular also Christianity, did serve as a vehicle of social change. Paul, for better or worse, did not think these were his circumstances.

>>In some ways his views were against freedom.<<

I would agree had he lived in our times, otherwise I do not know whether his contemporaries understood freedom in the same way that most of us understand today.

As for your comments about the Ode on Love this was for me a rather unusual, analysis of what is, after all a piece of poetry. I take it as your personal, self-revealing and interesting reading and interpretation of the text.
(ctd)

(ctd)

>>1 Corinthians 13 is written beautifully. Perhaps one should be satisfied with the fine prose and not subject it to analysis<<

Here we are in complete agreement. One can “analyse” a peace of poetry, especially if it has become one of the defining text of a culture (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13 ) but not in the same way as one would analyse a scientific text for its verisimilitude or plausibility or what, without taking into account the historical and cultural context.

Dear Banjo,

I agree that I should have written (about not judging medieval events) “in the light of how they (such things) are judged today” instead of “as if they happened today”.

DaVID/quote..<<..I think what Paul means by charity in the above is you must not only do the deed but do it with a certain feeling.>>

YES..to honour god/with their lipS
ISNT THE SAME AS HONOuring good with our heart.

see that IN HEAVEN/HELL THERE ARE NO SECRETS..[as man thINKETH IN HIS HEART..SO HE BE]..there you CANT DO CHARITY[the right thiong..but for the wrong reason/WITHOUT EVERY ONE KNOWING

THE QUARAN ALSO TEACHES THIS WHEN MOSUS WALKS WITH SATAN
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_901_950/story_of_moses_and_the_guide.htm

<<..I don't think charity should profit one.>>
yes like those giving alms in the market place have already reachieved their reward

like in looking up the mosus link/my REWARD WAS/THIS LINK[NEW KNOWING]wHO KNEW?
http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/black_man/blk55.htm

<<The deed should be sufficient.>.

NO..its like lying when YOUR ORDERING FOOD
your not getting what you really WANT..YOU GET AS YOU chose/order/

<<..If a person sacrifices wealth to feed the poor and even sacrifices life that person has shown charity because, to me, the act is important.>>

BUT NOT IF YOUR Expecting it to buy your WAY INTO HEAVEN
CHARITY MUST BE FROM the heart/not expectation

ie many think dead is dead/should we leave them feigning deATH?
IF WE KNOW THEY WERE LIED TO..OR WAKE THEM"?

ONCE we serve other for love of god or other
THE CREDIT HAS been given/but why is key..[pretender HEAVEN IS YET LOCATED in hell/hell isnt punishment..ITS WHERE Everything is a pretense/done because its seemly or fashionable/that IT BE DONE[YOUR Pleasing yourself not really loving the giving

EVEN TITHE ..CAnt buy..grace
http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-24.htm

<<..Charity is an act that both religious and non-religious people can practice.>>..AND IS ALL Charity good?..IS ALL Charity helping OR HINDERING..is it SETTING UP DEPENDENCE..sorry im not yelling..but the thing is doing the right thing spiritual..isnt the SAME as doing it materially.

whether..IF I GIVE YOU A FISH
OR TEACH YOU HOW TO FISH..

or whether..YOU SEARCH FOR GOD
or need a priest TO LEAD YOU TO WATER UNFIT TO DRINK

in tri-ble society/excreting into water..is a killing offense
but in white fella-way..if you dont poop INTO THE WATER/YOUR THE SAVAGE.

DAVID/quote..<<..Bill Gates and Warren Buffett,.two atheists, are the biggest philanthropists in the USA.>>>

not if their only DOING IT TO TAX AVOID
[AND THEIR CHARITY..IS TAX FREE..[plus even worse/their so called 'AID'..AIMS AT STERILIZING THEM FROM BREEDING[IE THEY USE CHARITY TO STERILIZE DARKIES]..to extinct them..so wE CAN PLUNDER THEIR ESTATES
like they TRIED to do/to..bundy
http://rss.infowars.com/20140414_Mon_Alex.mp3

IMPORTANTLY..IF THEY ARE Cruelly..OR Truly good..i just committed A MORTAL SIN..I MAY WELL HAVE JUDGED ANGELS..but thats not in my heart.[THEY DO IT FOR EXTERNAL CAUSE AND PERSONAL TAX Minimization

I CANT GET INTO HEAVEN/TILL I HEAL MY ERRor with them
[the alter REFUSES THE GIFT HORSE]

<<..CO1 13:5..Doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Here again I differ with Paul. I see nothing wrong in thinking evil.>>

in the next realms/THE THINKING IS THE DOING
[IF YOU THINK IT/YOU JUST DID IT]

<<>.It is wrong to do evil...It is unreasonable to condemn a person for evil thoughts.>>

that's where..ignorance trips one up
without bodies//OUR MOTIVES ARE REVEALED FOR ALL TO SEE
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=lawrence+arabia+after+death
nope
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=after+death+new+birth
closer
http://new-birth.net/books_life_after_death.htm

http://www.divinetruth.com/PDF/People/Other/Jane%20Sherwood%20-%20Post%20Mortem%20Journal.pdf
ok paGES 19

<<I know a woman with a magnificent bosom.>>
AND IN THE NEXT LIFE SHE KNOWS..ITS IN YOUR AURA
REALLY LAWRENCE SAYS IT/SO WELL..THESE BOOKS NEED BY JOINED INTO ONE MORe booK in the trible

<<..I feel no guilt in thinking how it would feel....>>
WHAT..IF..she can read minds/how Will she feel then?

in the next realm..YOU HAVE..VIOLATED her in your heart
[I KNOW WE ARE NONE..WITHOUT SINS]..but lawrence says it so weLL

<<CO1 13:6 Rejoiceth not..in iniquity,..but..rejoiceth in the truth;

I am sure Paul does not mean truth as something subject to verification.>>

why truth must bE CONFIRMED
ITS affirmed by how we lived

if you MIS-believe..a lie/shows up in your aura/
not the lie..but that..you believe..THOSE TRUE..THUS RESIDE WITH THOSE TRUE.

just as lust/doubt..etc all are revealed..in our aura/
my first act.is to believe..everything ANYONE SAYS..is true/
because why..would they...RISK/THEIR SOUL..4/lie...why?..[im noT WORTH LYING..TO]..thus..dive/THEM..THE BELIEF...KNOWING/the lie cant hurt me.

<<..CO1 13:11..When I was a child>>.../sinner/THIEF/SCUM
<<....I spake..as a child,sinner/thief/scum
<<>.I understood as a child,..etc etc

<<>>I thought as a child:[PROJECTED/like a child]..but when I became a man,..I put away childish things.

I like the above.>>

me too

<<..Being a man to me includes accepting that other people may disagree with you on things you feel important and still treating them with consideration and not harassing them with your unwanted opinions.>>

ahhmEN

continued

CO1 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity,
*these three*;..but the greatest of these is charity.>>

because they neeD TO BE DONE
FOR THE RIGHT REASON..[OF THE THREE]
higher than charity is grace mercy love of other

<<.In the above I partially agree with Paul.>>ME TOO

BANJO/QUOTE..<<>.This does not necessarily mean,..as you suggest, “as if they happened today”..but, rather,”..in the light of how they are judged today”.>>

OR MAYBE HOW THEY will be judged tomorrow?

<<..Their true significance and importance, can only be appreciated when placed in “historical perspective”, in time.>>

NOTHING IS that clear/we have eternity to Finnish ALL we began here

<<..The storming of the Bastille..It was not until 1880, almost a century later, that it was officially recognized>>

recognized or subverted into..<<>.<<..the symbol of the French revolution.>>

<<This was not because it was seen “as if it happened in 1880” but, rather, “in the light of how it was judged in 1880”.>>

IN HINDSIGHT NO ONE GETs blamed for the WAY WE LIVED
WE TURN..OUR FAILINGS as motivations..INTO ever greater/GLORIES
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

Notice in Ohio, USA ,that Muslim cab drivers are refusing to carry Gay people in their cabs, also Brunei has brought in stoning to death of Gay personnel as of now, Religion is the scourge of the whole world,always has been and always will be. Selective good readings from the so called Bible which spews from the mouths of the clergy should be abolished and more of the corrupt readings should be told to the gullible and stupid public, lets have so called truths, good and bad from this book instead of sugar coated bullxxxx.

.

Dear George,

.

What you wrote previously was:

“All that Butterfield claims … is that you should not judge the two things happening in the Middle Ages as if they happened today”.

You now indicate:

[ I agree that I should have written (about not judging medieval events) :

“in the light of how they (such things) are judged today” instead of “as if they happened today”. ]

The revised phrase therefore reads as follows:

“All that Butterfield claims … is that you should not judge the two things happening in the Middle Ages in the light of how they are judged today”.

The difference between these two versions is the "date of occurrence" of the "two things" ( events). In the first version we judge them as though they occurred today. In the second, we judge them at their actual date of occurrence (within the context at that time) and in the light of subsequent evolution which we now have the advantage of knowing (their "historical perspective").

Butterfield expressed his theory in the following terms:

“The study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history. It is the essence of what we mean by the word “unhistorical” – Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931).

Am I right in thinking that we now agree that Butterfield is referring to the second version and not the first version as you initially stated ?

If so, what effect, if any, does this have on your opinion of Butterfield’s theory ?

.

jABOj/QUOTE..<<..Religion is the scourge of the whole world,>>

SCOURGE=The typical scourge (Latin: flagrum; diminutive: flagellum) has several thongs fastened to a handle;

The scourge, or flail, and the crook are the two symbols of power and domination depicted in the hands of Osiris in Egyptian monuments.[2] They are the unchanging form of the instrument throughout the ages,[1] though the flail depicted in Egyptian mythology was an agricultural instrument used to thresh wheat, not implement corporal punishment

the wHeat threshing flail..<<..always has been and always will be>>

its nonsense oj religion..IS a wheat threshing allways has beenb

nO YOUR MIXING UP META WHORES..SEE THE BIBLE SAUS LET THE TARE GROW WITH THE Wheat till harvest[deaTH]..WHEN WE SORT THE TARES FROM THE WHEAT/THEN THRESH THe wheat and burn the tARES.

YOU SEEM CONFUSED/YOUR Anger has made YOU BLIND

<<..Selective good readings from the so called Bible which spews from the mouths of the clergy should be abolished and more of the corrupt readings should be told to the gullible and stupid public,>>

you have any specific cases or this generalization is all inclusive?

is it all many most few or i heard of one one day?

<<..lets have so called truths,>>

TOO RIGHT/I FOR ONE GOT NO TIME FOR DEFENDING SINNS
[as a follower of the christ i JUST HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO FORGIVE THE SINNER..nOT HIS SIN

<<..good and bad from this book>>

OF COURSE GOD MUST BE SEEN TO BE FAIR
IF THE BOOK WAS A LAY DOWN Misere/NONE COULD Reject god and 'live'

but its not/iy allows at all time EXCUSE TO IGNORE OR OBEY

<<.. instead of sugar coated bullxxxx.>>

NO THANKS THEY may be kosHA BUT NO WAY THEY GO ANYWHERE NEAR MY MOUTH
[YOPU SWEET Talkers you..but heck you go ahead..bite hard into the thing that god blEW WIND INTO..[IT JUST SEEMS SO WRONG IN MANY WAYS

ALMOST AS BAD AS THAT GREAT Rejuvenating skIN CREAM MADE FROM LITTLE FORESKIN BITS..YEAH IT DOES TAKE OUT WRINKLES BUT THE KARMA of it stains our soul.

cheers..joda

Dear George,

You wrote: “I grew up in a world where “reactionary” was everything that was against the official Marx-Leninist line, Americans and West Europeans (except for the “proletariat” and Communists) were all reactionaries. So for me “reactionary” means being against an official ideology, in particular going against “positive” developments in history. These associations of mine are, of course, not your fault.”

It is somewhat my fault since I am aware of the world you grew up in and knew of their use of the word, reactionary. I will now do what I should have done before and define my usage. I consider the word, reactionary, to mean a tendency to retreat from what I regard as the positive aspects of society and restore what I regard as the negative aspects of the past. By that definition Marxism-Leninism is reactionary since it restricts freedom by censorship, secret police, concentration camps and other means. A counterrevolution seeks to undo the revolution and restore the past. The revolutionary government under Kerensky was overthrown by the Leninists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy,_Autocracy,_and_Nationality

"Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality also known as Official Nationality was the dominant ideological doctrine of Russian emperor Nicholas I. It was "the Russian version of a general European ideology of restoration and reaction" that followed the Napoleonic Wars.

"The Triad" of Official Nationality was originally proposed by Minister of Education Sergey Uvarov in his April 2, 1833 circular letter to subordinate educators. It was soon embraced by Nicholas and his establishment and gained wide public recognition, vocally supported by intellectuals like Mikhail Pogodin, Fyodor Tyutchev and Nikolai Gogol."

Marxism-Leninism replaced Orthodoxy. Dictatorship replaced Autocracy. The Party replaced Nationality. With Lenin came the reactionary counterrevolution. Leninism is czarism reincarnated.

Christianity has served as a rallying centre against tyranny for Catholics in czarist-occupied Poland, English-occupied Ireland and many other places. Unfortunately, it has also served as a support for tyranny for the Orthodox in czarist Russia, Anglicans in English-occupied Ireland and many other places. Separation of church and state serves to preserve the church’s freedom to criticise government wrong-doing. I am repeating myself.

davidf 14th April writes; "In regard to eastern and western civilisations I agree mostly with you. We should be aware of the differences and similarities. We should try to avoid sweeping generalisations and realise we generally are not as familiar with other cultures as we are of our own. We should also realise they is a tendency to exalt what we are familiar with and identify with."

Thanks for an excellent expression of the sentiment that I stumbled around with. Very well put.

Dear Banjo,

I am not sure what is Butterfield’s theory or where is the problem. I have already conceded that I should have written

“All that Butterfield claims, as I understand his quote, is that you should not judge the two things happening in the Middle Ages in the light of how they (such things) are judged today” .

Here “judge” is to mean “form an opinion or conclusion about” not to decide about the truthfulness of what they thought or morality of what they did. To illustrate the difference I gave the example of a “young Earth” believer.

The mass killing of innocent people is bad by any moral standards, but the gas chambers are especially repugnant because they happened in modern times and the perpetrators were (supposed to be) cultural heirs of Goethe and Schiller. So taking into account the historical context can work both ways.

Dear david f,

You gave a very good description of the world that I came to have a personal experience with.

>>I consider the word, reactionary, to mean a tendency to retreat from what I regard as the positive aspects of society and restore what I regard as the negative aspects of the past. <<

This is a clear definition exposing the subjective meaning of the word, even when on most (but perhaps not all) aspects of what is and what is not reactionary we can all agree. During my “Stalinist” teenage years I dreamed of “restoring the past” becuase that was all the alternative I could imagine: books in my father’s library, the only alternatives to what was prescribed at school and available in shops, were all printed in the thirties.

>>Separation of church and state serves to preserve the church’s freedom to criticise government wrong-doing. <<

I think you know that I completely agree with this.

I shall have to attend now to a number of Easter greetings I am getting, so - sorry for being somewhat late - Happy Passover.

Happy Passover.“The point of cleaning.OUR Heart..for Pesach is to remember..that we are leaving HOME/HEARTH,..leaving the things that constrict us.spiritually.” – Rabbi Shimon Raichik

“The message of Passover..is Freedom is won/not..on the battlefield but..in the classroom..and the home...Teach your children the history of freedom...if you want them TO live it.” -- Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks

“Pesach..is not only about..that good of "freedom from."
It is about..our having the freedom.."to"..[make the world a more sacred place..by expanding OUR Awareness..OF God's presence..living of/on/WITH/in...ALL OF it.” – Rabbi David A. Teutsch

“This is..OUR ONE TRUE true freedom:..Our ability to shape reality.

We Gave..to you..the power to initiate,.create..and change your/OWN reality..rather than only react..and,,SEEK/TO..survive it...How can we all educate..all/our children...to ///more fully/realize/true freedom..lies if freeing other?

Teach them..not to look at reality..as defining their acts
but to look...at their acts..as COLLECTIVELY re-defining reality.” – Yaacov Cohen

"Freedom..is within our grasp,..and Pesach reminds us..that we need find the will..to Teach."..TO REACH Above our station-- Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson

Passover.is a time of reflection..and..recalling joy.
When we emerge from our cocoon's/..Of doubt to fly freely
On the wings of loving service to other.

Blessed be ye..of the LIVING Lord
Who made heaven and earth...LIVE BY ENDLESS rebirth.
Happy Passover!

Passover Celebrates/God's Gift of..life/logic/light and Love
May you see..His mighty hand..In every detail..Of your life..WITH/in others living...Happy Passover

Shalom..from the prince/who Sought/THE PRICE.of /PEACE
On Passover and always..May you rejoice in..the living peace..only love of all..GODS pieces.[other] brings

“The mere thought..hadn't even begun to speculate
about..the merest possibility..of crossing..FROM..within/my SLEEPING mind.”

Douglas Adams



I Like/this quote
I dislike/THAT QUOTE
this quote.“If man...could be crossed with the cat,..it would improve man...but deteriorate the dog.”

Mark Twain quotes



I have noticed..even people..who claim
that...everything is predestined,..foreordained
and that....we can do nothing..to change it,.YET/..EVEN..They.look before..they cross the road.”

Stephen Hawking



“The word.''Christianity''..is already..a misunderstanding
in reality......there has been..only one Christian,..and he died on the Cross.”

Friedrich Nietzsche


“Like two..doomed ships..that pass..in storm..
we...had crossed/each other's way:...but.we made no sign,..we said no word,.we..had no word...to say.”

0Zcar wild

by..their works..will ye know them..\this quote/..as was rote..
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/a-look-at-the-new-warsaw-ghetto-we-know-as-gaza/
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=24914
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/israel-blackmailing-palestinians-over-projects-1.1320266
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hfBla6r_CwE
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/rigging-game-palestinians/
http://investmentwatchblog.com/what-happens-when-all-assets-have-become-too-expensive/

There has been one only Christian and he died on the cross, please One Under God, give me proof, actual proof, physical proof, not proof you have been led to believe out of a book where there is no proof, I want proof, proof, and proof and that OUG you cannot do. Don't give me bible readings, I want proof that it happened.
Father Christmyth appears to children once a year, at least there is evidence in their minds he is real, and that is proof to them he exits, there is no proof on the other.

Nietzsche was dead wrong. Jesus was not a Christian. He was born and died a Jew. Sing along with me to the tune of the old jazz standard.

Six feet 2, eyes of blue,
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew.
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose
There he goes, preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared in the abdomen by a Roman
Blood gushing out.
Rose from the dead.
So it is said.
People believe without a doubt.

Jesus died, still a Jew.
Still a Jew, so why aren’t you?
Has anybody seen my lord?

naboj/..<<<..There has been one only Christian and he died on the cross, please One Under God, give me proof, actual proof, physical proof, not proof you have been led to believe out of a book where there is no proof, I want proof, proof, and proof and that OUG you cannot do.>>

DEAR Oj mate long time a go/pe9ple asked for proof/it was bouND INTO WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED THE GOSPIL/[so inn those particuLAR SACRED PAPERS ..That say they sqw what they saw..has BECOE MY LAW IN THE MATER

YOU MIGHT ASK WHERE LIES THE LINE OF THIS LAW
AND I WOULD SAY BETWEENB WHERE YOU ARE NOW AND WHERE YOU WILL BE when its made real for yPU

I GIVE PEOPLE THE BENIFIT OF THE DOUDT[why would you bother to lie?]

so i say HE REALLY BELIEVES IF HE DENIES THE WRITTEN WITNES..THATS ALL WE GOT?

MATE..I DONT NEED PROVE ANYTHINg to you
its in the book you deny

<<.. Don't give me bible readings, I want proof that it happened.>>

AND I WAnt proof it didnt//by occums razor/yOU ASKING ME TO PROVE MEANS YOU CAN DISPROVE./CHECKMATE[look oj tell your life story/

But dont tALK OF ANYTHING YOU DUN..[ITS SILLY/..DUMB>>

as for THE CHRIST MYTH..SOLD BY THE FAT SATAN CLAUSE/SANTA CLAWS]..RE NIK..the fat sweaty guy in right ROYAL RED/WEARING FAKE HAIR FAKE BEARD..YES YOUR KIDS CAN BELIEVE THE fatties cummin down the chimney but thats..CALLED aid AND COMFORT FOR IGNORANT SUCH AS THEE...WITH NO SPIRITUAL GIFTS there wAITING..under YOUR life's/living TREE.

YOU AT LEARN Earn the value of a gift and about gift GIVING
from THE DIVING WE JUST GET ON WITH LIVING.. GIVING Better than that we are given.

david raises an interesting point<<..Nietzsche was dead wrong. Jesus was not a Christian. He was born and died a Jew.>>

a jeW ISNT WHAT YOU ARE/BUT OF COURSE THATS NOT FOR ME TO SAY
BUT WASNBT jesu a galiain..or spme other name [as there was no j back in that day

BUT LETS TAKE IT FURTHER.IF HE WASNT KNOWN BY HIS PLACE OF BIRTH
he was the messiah..the living incarnate potentate..pfferD THIS AS HIS WORLD/BUT HE DIDNT TAKE THE OFFER SO ITS SATANS REALM

REGARDLESS THE GALLALEEAN..became emmanuel..or as the greeks say CHISTO/WITHIN//whats in a name davids city still remindS US OF the man not his names..durn i hate names ..i know em by their works..BUT

IF 'J' WASNT Existent
then no jESUS..neither the jew..Maybe thats greek..to mE TOO

IT IS ENOUGH HE LIVED/AS A BODY OF WORK
HE IS THE EMBODIMENT..OF THE PERSONALS LIVING LOVING GRACE MERCY of our most HOLY SPIRIT.

but never the less as we all know
today he is jew..

[but jew mEANS FIRST...
IE JEW MEANS..[AB*ORIGINAL/TOO]
WE Are all ab/original from some where..[thus a name]
or someone[thus the other name]
but abouve all call. not but the most hoLY FATHER [SUN]

Re George's post 14 April 2014 7:46:15 PM [p.24].

I had already written a reply but it disappeared into Limbo, a result of unfamiliarity with compulsory review. It should have appeared and be read between George's reply to me and my brief congratulatory message to davidf.

If Stark wants to write as an historian then he'll be treated as one.

I concede you have a point, but its importance depends on the students, their teachers and other historians being able to easily differentiate between what precisely was Eastern science and technology and what was Western. In the millennia that have passed since ancient trade routes by sea and land were established ideas and discoveries have flowed in both directions, to the degree that no meaningful differentiation is possible. Add to this the phenomenon of independent coincidental discovery.

Historical forces and actions have seen in the past millennium or so a remarkable advance in Western science and technology with which the Eastern features compare unfavourably. Yet when we go back 4 millennia Western sciences and technology compare unfavourably with their Eastern counterparts. Stark's superficiality caters to, shall we say, the short-sighted view. Very rarely indeed has history profited from being arranged on an apparatus of pigeon holes painted either black or white

Extropian1,

From what I, a non-histoprian and non-socilogist understand of him, I think he would agree with most of what you wrote.

>>Historical forces and actions have seen in the past millennium or so a remarkable advance in Western science and technology with which the Eastern features compare unfavourably. Yet when we go back 4 millennia ...<<

This is exactly the difference - Stark wrote with hindsight about what you describe in the first sentence, not about the situation 4 millennia ago.

Happy Easter/Passover.

Your differences are stark.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« The mass killing of innocent people is bad by any moral standards, but the gas chambers are especially repugnant because they happened in modern times and the perpetrators were (supposed to be) cultural heirs of Goethe and Schiller. So taking into account the historical context can work both ways. »

I saw a documentary on French television recently of the trial of Adolf Eichmann as it was filmed at the time in 1960-1961. The camera flashed briefly on Hannah Arendt and Joseph Kessel who were present during the public hearings.

Eichmann remained perfectly calm and composed throughout the trial, respectful of the judge and the prosecutor, standing-up each time he replied to a question. It was an untiring ritual. By contrast, many of the survivors of the holocaust had difficulty controlling their emotions at the evocation of their traumatic experiences. One of the witnesses, a poet, I believe, appeared to lose himself in a verbal delirium until the judge intervened, provoking the poor fellow to tumble off the chair he was only half perched-on in the witness box. He collapsed on the floor, unconscious, and was carried-off on a stretcher.

The image I have of Eichmann is that of a very ordinary person - dare I say : an "average" person. He was neither stupid nor brilliant. He had a poor school record. He, nevertheless, picked-up some Hebrew and Yiddish in his work and gained a reputation as a specialist in Zionist and Jewish matters. He was polite and obedient of authority, not particularly cultivated and probably inherited nothing of Goethe and Schiller.

If there is such a thing as collective culture – which seems to be the case – it is obviously the most ignoble one which prevailed among the Germanic peoples during the Second World War.

The principal attributes of Eichmann, so far as I can judge, were his inability to accept responsibility and total amorality, the former logically being the consequence of the latter.

.

<<>.so far as I can judge,>>

THE BIBLE EXTENSIVLY CAUTIONS US AGAINST JUDGING OTHER

<<>>were his inability to accept responsibility>>

as you know taking just twO of the options[phycppaths]..dont regard others as having any importance at/all[thus we asre commanded to love other

and the other is this obsession yet others have of following other
thus the need to sort the sheeple from the big-note[goat]

there are of course the sorting of the usefull from the useless
as in letting them grow together in satans realm/to be sorted at harvest..[these we sort into type of wheat..and type of tare]..its a horrible job yet we are so good at moralisation..we aply it to everything

then we get the possessed by demons..<<..and total amorality, the former logically being the consequence of the latter.>>

IM UNSURE..IF ITS not visa versa
so i reveal soME GEORGIAN relative..INFO..re bit coin..that seems to be using up [wasting]..vast amounts of computer time making up numbers.to open locks..[to me it seems a hacking operation/that rewards successful code breaking]..basically they high jack peoples computers to 'solve' problems..[access codes?]..and all the ones that could be solved..by our home computers..have been broken..so fools give up their computers/to cia/the biggest holder of bit coin/by far.

TO ME ITS IMMORAL WE USE up all that computer time to 'code break'..to open some imaginary lock..[especially id we got silly kids running computer bitcoin..programs..they could be used collectively to do great evil..[no doudt invented by useful idiots[goats..to abuse the sheeple..to turn their works from productive wheat..into tears

at best it gambling..at worse..who knows
but the bigger brain/computer tou give them access to
THE BIGGER The mining [for code]..payoff...whats the numbers on what if..ALL THAT COMPUTER 'TIME'..IS DEAD/OR NEGATIVE EQUITY..ie being used against us...damm morality//let others think for you..you invite demons unawares

.

Dear One Under God,

.

You wrote :

« THE BIBLE EXTENSIVLY CAUTIONS US AGAINST JUDGING OTHER »

I know the bible is your bible, One Under God, and I respect your deference to something you consider to be sacred.

I should, nevertheless, like to point out that nature has attributed us with the means of forming our own opinion (judgment) in a multitude of situations and circumstances, in order to assure our survival.

The mere fact of having two eyes enables us to “judge” distances with more accuracy than if we only had one. Jumping over ravines in our flight from predators, if we only had one eye, might prove just as fatal as being caught.

In the same way, our faculties of discernment (judgment) and “free will” are effective shields of defence against another type of predator. Without the faculties of discernment and free will, our naivety would expose us to the unsolicited enslavement of all sorts of gurus. We would be easy victims of con-men, manipulators, crooks and swindlers, unscrupulous salesmen, and all the zealous good-doers and do-gooders of this world.

And If we are not to “judge other” as the bible strongly recommends, how can we differentiate between God and the devil ? Are we to treat them the same ? Didn’t Jesus, himself, say :

« Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. » Luke 4:8 (King James Version) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VipNWSdQaYw

.

banjo/quote..<<..And If we are not to “judge other” as the bible strongly recommends,.how can we differentiate between God and the devil ?>>

im not sure i could judge either
but differentiation is simple..one sustains life-living love logic
the other is an embodiment..of evil..IF YOU LIKE BOTH ARE A CHILDISH CHARACTERIZATIONS..OF EXTREME EMBODIMENTS..BETWEEN /GOOD/LIFE/LIGHT/AND DARKNESS DEATH/SIN.

IN REALITY..OF COURSE GOD IS THE SUN
AND DEVILS INHABIT THE FACE OF THE SUN..[BEHIND THE RING OF FIRE]

<<..Are we to treat them the same..?>>

we are to know them/by their fruits[god=life/love]
and devils are embodiments and deciples of tHE VARIOUS SINS.

[IN TIME THE DEMONS/DEVILS WILL SIMPLY DISSOLVE/their astral forms..as their sin is resolved..[AS THE SPIRIT Animating their 'living'..moves on]..re-uniting..back into the holy spirit/even more time..god returns to the holy spirit


<<>>Didn’t Jesus, himself, say :« Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. » Luke 4:8 (King James Version) >>

i tried hard to HATE EVIL
I TRIED HARD TO HATE SATAN..BUT..without the fallen..[most beloved angel/of god]..we would have no freewill/..we would not have this post big bang realm..which he was 'cast out into'..along with half the angels.

ITS SAID IN THE HOLY TEXTS[LUKE7;28
<<>..I tell you, among those born of women..there is no-one greater than John;..yet the one who is least..in the kingdom of God is greater than he.>>

that got me thinking who.is the 'least'
who is yet greater..than any born of the flesh
in time i realized it..must be the fallen beloved angel/OF GOD..SATAN
HE HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED..TO BE IN HELL.and why should he be/there.. when this is his realm HERE...[AND WHO ELSE TO COMPARE HIM WITH BUT..THE BEST BORN OF WOMAN/..THE BAPTIZER..

ANYHOW..as revealed at the lamb ISLAND THREAD..WE ARE HERE/LIVING IN SATANS REALM..TO JUDGE SATANS 'FALL'/IS THIS FREEDOM FROM OBEDIENCE/A WISE CHOICE OF THE LOVING LIVING GRACE..MERCY..whole spirit..of atonement [at-one-meant]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

anyhow i removed..THE 'S'..from the htt thing
WHATS IN/your vidio..[unwatched].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VipNWSdQaYw

.

Dear One Under God,

.

You wrote :

« i tried hard to HATE EVIL
I TRIED HARD TO HATE SATAN… »

I understand your difficulty and commiserate with you. Perhaps the reason is that there is no such thing as right and wrong in nature. There is just what is most efficient for survival and development. Morality is a human concept.

“Evil” is a secular concept and “devil” is a religious concept. Neither has any existence beyond the human mind and both will disappear with the extinction of humanity.

This is what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say about the words:

Evil :

"In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease (n.). The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in Old English, but did not become the main sense until 18c. Related: Evilly. Evil eye (Latin oculus malus) was Old English eage yfel. Evilchild is attested as an English surname from 13c.

Satan :

In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity.

Devil :

The Late Latin word is from Ecclesiastical Greek diabolos, in Jewish and Christian use, "Devil, Satan" (scriptural loan-translation of Hebrew satan), in general use "accuser, slanderer," from diaballein "to slander, attack," literally "throw across," from dia-"across, through" + ballein "to throw". Jerome re-introduced Satan in Latin bibles, and English translators have used both in different measures.

In other words, “evil” was originally a secular Anglo-Saxon word having no religious connotation whatsoever, whereas the words “Satan” and “Devil” are purely religious terms, invented by the conceptors of religious dogma.

.

my mind..is almost talked out[meaning my guides havnt got anything they need me to say]..so im searching for faint echos..to find something to say..[some emotion.that sparks the right spirit intO SAYING THE ..things that need saying.

my mind goes aver the last few days..and there are three tragedies
where great chunks of kids lives..are taken..[the school and the ferry clearly come into mind..the abuse of kids..is meant to set off a reaction..but we are so numb/we arnt seeing the emoting.

ITS LIKE WE ARE MESMERIZED..in shock so deep/we are in stasis
anyhow my human..is thinKing..if only this pain would go away
but as people fail to awake..the dream can only deteriorate.

anyhow/[i have to stop that any who call/to CHANGE THOUGHT STREAMS
damm caps..we have a linkage [linkages]..of words..moral tied with value..where is the value in morality?

INDEED WHERE IS THE VALUE..OF ROTE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE
INDEED WHERE THE..value of talking or questioning
better than we have tried and failed..to awake

and yet the dream goes on/life goes on..and on and on and on

OOPS MOVING ON
THE FLESH IS TOO FAR GONE..its in stasis/hypnotized/sleeping/the greater IS ONLY DEMEANED BY ITS LEAST...but its the least/that help clarify the greatness..[ok my life is ccc rap/but if there is happiness.. out there..for other..which is great..[the greater has earned something better..than just greatness..like gratitude..would be nice]

HARDLY WORTH POSTING
I JUST WANT OUT OF THIS HELL...A JUST KNOWING THIS STUFF BRINGS us down...[we become that we obsess over][more of the same is a given]

signING off.

.

Dear One Under God,

.

Thanks for making the effort.

Tradgedies are part of life, but, ... life must go on.

We shall survive ... and we shall be wiser ... and we shall do better, next time.

It's Easter, One Under God.

I wish you a calm and pleasant Easter ... for you and yours.

We don't need writing - just a little humanity. I'm sure we have a lot of that to share.

.

IT HAS BEEN GREAT WORKING WITH YOU

TODAYS special ops/NOTES

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/04/more-propaganda-fake-leaflets-telling.html

Earlier this week, Jews exiting a synagogue were handed leaflets by men wearing balaclavas and Russian flags informing them that they were required to register themselves and a list of their property as well as pay a registration fee or they would face deportation, have their citizenship revoked, or have their belongings confiscated...
http://investmentwatchblog.com/cia-director-quietly-visits-kiev-as-20-greystone-mercenaries-vanish/

ITS TYPICAL..[LIKE GAYS BASHING GAYS TO SAY WE GAYS ARE BEING BASHED
[the ruski flags was the give away..pro dis-info intel go away]
http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Dangerous_Neocon-R2P_Alliance/34583/0/38/38/Y/M.html
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/dear-nato-lying-russia-simply-incompetent/

oh dear dangle a plan..any plane/plan..
how lame/[redirection]..high level defection?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/mysterious-american-plane-caught-parked-at-airport-in-tehran-iran/

or how about gettinG PEOPLE AFRAID..POLICE KIDS...NOT BANKERS?
http://intellihub.com/landmark-case-sees-pirate-bay-user-hit-5-year-sentence/

ANOTHER seed
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/video/tom-sullivan/girls-only-ukraine-imposes-travel-restrictions-russian-men
fruit
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/video/tom-sullivan/female-russian-journo-beaten-while-covering-chaotic-base-siege-ukraine

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/advice-democrats-recovery-23374907
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2014/37_of_voters_fear_the_federal_government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ADdToI9Akw
the ape/HORSMAN..a pox-o/lips
http://www.bobtuskin.com/2014/04/18/ebola-virus-in-africa-outbreak-is-a-new-strain/

18 DAY INCUBATION BEFORE SYMPTOMS?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/2014-04/18/c_133273774.htm

77% of the Mumps patients got Mumps,
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/06/vaccine-failure--over-1000-get-mumps-in-ny-in-last-six-months.aspx
they got it FROM the vaccine!
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/measles-witch-hunt-anti-vax-parents-burned-at-the-propaganda-stake_042014

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/corruption-mainstream-media/

curious..we are about to be raked over the coals
and were talking about fiction[CREED]
WHEN JESUS SAID ITS ABOUT GREED..lol

we are missing the bigger picture
this guy is another ex banker*

recall ukrane=BANKER/became pres
GREECE GOT A BANKER....BELISCOINIE[italy] GOT REPLACED BY ...A BANKER

seeing a pattern//here?
nsw gets its own banker

yet..here is a book/that began as a fiction
but research turned up so much..truth..it became a classic

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=presidents+bankERS

Prins lays out a long history of the relationships between U.S. Presidents and bankers that date back to Teddy Roosevelt and JP Morgan.

understand?

THE system IS GOING FULL ON
TO discredit an enemy/any enemy..simply trying to reveal truths
[20 war vets die each day?..their making their problems go away

trouble WITH FICTIONS/THEIR OFTEN BIASED IN FACT
it needs distractions[re-actions.MENTAL activations/diS-motivations..

IF/it can get on screen/to instill fear..OR HOPE
WHATS YOURS SAYING?..[HERE IS SOMETHING I SAID EARLIER]
REGARDING FALSE FAGS
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/index.php
AND SET UP STINGS/OTHER THINGS

http://rss.infowars.com/20140418_Fri_Alex.mp3

Dear All,

I wish you all well during the spring solstice in the Northern Hemisphere and the winter solstice in the Southern.

Dear OUG,

What you see on the net may be true. It may not be true. Skepticism is in order.

.

Dear david f. & One Under God,

.

Thank you, One Under God, for that spectacular pyrotechnic display of anti-propaganda propaganda. It is always interesting to confront opposing points of view, even if neither correctly reflects reality. At least it has the merit of alerting us to the fact that the version presented by the mainstream media should be regarded with circumspection.

That well-known political theorist and fourth president of the United States (1809 – 1817), James Madison, reputed to have been the “father of the American Constitution” and author of the US Bill of Rights, is quoted as having observed:

« As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain circumspection and distrust, so there are qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. »

Unfortunately, Madison did not provide us with the key as to how to differentiate between instances "which require a certain circumspection and distrust" and those "which justify a certain portion of our esteem and confidence".

I have to admit, One Under God, that, like my PC, my conscience seems to be programmed to fall into “slumber” mode after a few minutes of inactivity. It needs somebody like you to jolt it awake occasionally.

.

And thank you, david f., for your heart-warming wishes of well-being for the spring solstice in the Northern Hemisphere and the winter solstice in the Southern.

Please receive mine, most sincere, in return, for you and yours … as well as for all those living on the equator.

.

happy festivis..no not really happy easter[not really]
happy..solstice..[or is it heavy.. harvest]here is usualy cut off the topic by thOWING MY MIND OPEN..WITH THE REDIRECTION DIRECTIVE OF ANYHOW

look up and see the damm caps is back..a/how..

<<..Unfortunately, Madison did not provide us with the key as to how to differentiate between instances "which require a certain circumspection and distrust" and those "which justify a certain portion of our esteem and confidence".>>

thats usually taken as a given..for 'believers'..i say believers because many dont really believe/buT HOW MADISON KNEW WE SHOW OUR BELIEF[D/CAPS]..is by our works

a.h...yet again/the bible reveals.the way..['even a beast in the stable/even a slave in the field/..*knows its masters voice..[eg if you now your mASTER..is living loving grace..in word and deed..its kinda hard to get fooled by an abusive tyrant.

but when abusive tyranny is thrown over the good..
we hide the masters voice from hearing..NORMALLY I WOULD JUST KEEP LETTING GO THE GOOD VOICINGS IN MY MIND/damm caps]..or let vent a few words i know cant be of one serving the good..and give serrvice to the inspiration of my spirit guides.

oh/no..here we go ..yet again..see that science cant explain mind
spirIT HAS SHOWN ME HOW MIND WORKS.[dc]..it works as revealed in the word/by the fact..[hard fast fact]..of think..it...and more of the same..will be a given.

my guids say only 3 readers got that/so they will normally keep me bashing my finger against things they call keys.and i type arround 4oo.to..600..more words/but im my inbox..i have 10 UPDATES ON MY TOPICS WATCHING[DC]..and keep running over my topic limits

i try to post topic..but im not doing beginning a topic right
their too long my gilded guides try to tell me/and your replying your own question that small still voice replies..

and what about the thoughts you previously posted cries another/why keep putting pearl before swine..when the swine are calling for the end time/because they feel we will hang em high..MAKE EM CRY..SO THAT THEY WANT US DEAD..BUT..[DC]..dead aint dead said fred/most wont even notice the change

to them they will simply thing wow..how come everything is working well..so well they dont realise their gone..to hell...[im just trying to say we can get better than we gave..it all is hooked into.that one person..who's soul we save

as you gave it will be given
you ignore that still quite voice at thyne own peril

god is love life light logic..we give back to god..by living our works to the good.[REALLY SEEING NO EVil../really seeing...[no evil]..

really..only by DOING NO EVIL
cast the evil/vile/live/veil...from your heart
its not hard...know thyne masters voice/..and serve as he deserve

know the watchers are listening
demons claim their own..GOOD NEED CLAIM NOTHING..as it allready holds the sacred HIGH ground..HAS THE LIGHT BEHIND HIM..AS HE KNOWS THE LOVE LIGHT SHINES FROM WITHIN .

DC..471 FREAKING WORDS..DC/dc..oh well the anger only attracts demons
so i cut it rather than edit it/which will add far more words...damm mike just told me off..
http://whatreallyhappened.com/podcasts/hourtitle3.m3u

listen before 8 am tomorrow..new boadcasts put up about then
[no wait/johan he dont do a sunday version..no new broadcast till tuesday..too much info jo..

so?
better than not enough..but i need trick questions
show up these know it all spirits..THEY DONT KNOW ANYTHING.. dc
but they wil only make me look it up..its not fair i tells ya...np really its fine..try to break me..im still unsure i should go to the nimbin mardigrass..to ask for help with my court case..6 may

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=11

And Jesus said to his disciples "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" "Again I say to you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a neadle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" -Matthew 19
Perhaps the scholars of religion on OLO can tell me if the richest people on earth "The Royals" will have no hope what so ever of entering that kingdom of God, that is if your believe what is written in the bible, I look forward to the excuses.

ojnab..we need to think carefully..

the queen..is the only one.[logicly]....who can change/one quarter of the world..simply by decree..[little known is all the armed forces/

judges police..etc are sworn..to serve and protect her/her heirs and suc-CEASORS,,[IE US/

HER real/WEALTH IS..IN..us..HER PEOPLE/
great people/reflect great leaders..our lands..our WILL AND our RESOURCEFULNESS..under hrh protections

a great queen can rule..for her people
the[should she so chose],,to rule for and on behalf of a free commonwealth/globally..then..act/with urgency..over night..[AND THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN]..sooner rather than later/..as the many debt bubbles burst.

now..set.the scene..matthew

but first..Chapter..19;30..But many..that are..[CURRENTLY]..first..
shall be last;..and the.least/last shall..[FINALLY]..be first.>>

THIS DIRECTS..THE TEXT..AT/HRH/Her heirs/DUTY
TO/for..on behalf-of..our..eternal-fathers..mortal/living heirs..[us].

some/believe/alternatly
The Twelve Apostles..will judge the house of Israel.



NOTE/CONTEXT..
3..The Pharisees also..came unto him,..tempting him,>>
Much like any/leader...gets tempted..[adulterated]

he divides/roles..of governance/like to marriage
<<..made them male and female,>>

he/shows..new/ways..
<<..they twain shall be one flesh>>

he blesses..the new..<<
>.What therefore God hath ajoined together,..let not man put asunder.>>

7.REBUKES/ISRAEL
<<>.11..But he said unto them,..[THUS]..All men cannot receive..[COMPREHEND]..this saying,..save they..

to whom it/is given.>>[ISRAEL/POPE/HRH..ETC]

12.For there are some eunuchs,..[EDITED]..
He..that is able to receive it,.let him receive it.

CTD/POST LIMITS...PERMITTING

THEN/HE COMFORTS/THE INNOCENT..
13/israel/dont..get it

14..But Jesus said,..Suffer little children,[for who is not a child/of the father/ie who is not living mortal heir/of the eternal immortal omnipresence?]..<<..and forbid them not,.to come unto me:..for of such is ..the kingdom of heaven.>>

then/16..[edit]..Good Master,.what good
*thing..shall I do,..that I may have...eternal life?

17edit/[to emphasise/gods qualiry]..Why callest thou..me good? there is none...good but one,..that is,..God:>>

then replies..the reply..<<..but.if thou wilt enter..into..[eternal]-life,..[simply]..keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him[EDIT].do no amurder,..not commit adultery[OF MOSUS COMMANDS..NOR ADULTERATE/CAMANDMENTS]..]..,Thou shalt not steal,..Thou/shalt not..bear dfalse witness,..Honour thy father and thy mother:..and,..Thou shalt love..thy neighbour as thyself.

20..asks/what else

<<..21...Jesus said unto him,..If thou wilt to/be perfect,>>

ie those..to whom much/was given[hrh]..if they wish to be perfect<<..go and sell that thou hast>>

IE THE POWER/TO ISSUE COIN/HER FACE ON ALL COIN HAS BEEN DEEBASED
,..<<..and give..[mere coin]..to the poor,..and thou shalt have treasure..in heaven:

<<>.22.But when the young man....heard that saying,..he went away sorrowful:..for he had great possessions.>>

but hrh..need sell nothing
needs but decree/and it must be so..[aor else why have one?]

s the rich kid left..<<23..¶Then said Jesus..[unto his disciples], Verily I say unto you,..That a rich man>>who runs away..from his duty/to me..<< shall hardly enter..into the kingdom of heaven.>>

24..And again.I say unto you,..[for such/as..him]..It is easier for a camel..to go through...the eye of a needle,..than for a..rich man to enter..into the kingdom of God.

25..then..who/can be saved?

26..But Jesus beheld them,.and said unto them,
With men..[materiality]..this is impossible;.but with God..[spirit]..all things are possible.

27..¶Then answered Peter..Behold,..we have forsaken all,
and followed thee;..what shall we have..therefore?

28..And Jesus said unto them,..Verily I say unto you,
That ye...which have followed me,..in the regeneration
when..the Son of man*..shall sit..in the throne[stool]..of his glory, ye..also shall sit.[upon twelve thrones,..[stools]..judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

of course/there are many..other..ideas
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=camel+needle+eye

..lets TRY AGAIN TO.AMUSE NABOJ/QUORE..<>Perhaps the scholars of religion on OLO can tell me if the richest people on earth "The Royals" will have no hope what so ever of entering that kingdom of God,>>

WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE
im reasonable certain..i couldnt get into heaven
[without a lot of work]..all our lives have karma..every thing has karma

in the officer..when he is in the lowest hell/just pre the re-incarnation pits..his good deeds/works..were manifested spoiritually to him as a chain/extreemly fragile chain/that yet got im out of the ream of few return..to sattain the next realm

but to try to reply..her royal magesty/has led a life under guidence
of advisers that include her husband/there is no doudt many WISE SPIRITS/BEHIND THOSE ADVISERS..like wise there are some realy evil demons/that advise/decieve misslead etc

now hrh wont be judged on any of that
ony on what she wills..in her heart/his heart/your heart
there are no secrets.in the next realm/for example my life ight earn me instant asention into heaven/but in there i reject heaven.i can fall back into hell

jesus spend some time in hell/most of us do
because life attatches its hangover into out lives
and these must be worked throyGH..IN THE right place

her roal highness knows many/many more know her
she will be welcomed..anywhere she goes/in the lowest hell theyt will love her for this/in the highest heavens they WIL LOVE HER FOR THAT/but if she hates herself..she will chose exactly/that

there isnt a judge that punishes us
think/once god has forgiven you/in fact never accused you..it SORT OF SETS OFF SOMETHING INSIDE OF YOU..and you try to live up to how he saw you..and in time even the worst..has found a much better thenm/just as you will no doudt one day find even better..WITHIN/you

<<..that is if your believe>>

i believe to know
but the less i know/the ore i trust that my guies suggest
[and there are equally de mons OF THE DARKNESS..who guide me as do those of the logic and the light..BUT THE THINGS..I NOW KNOW..BELONG TO ME