Having female priests (they don't even have the decency to call themselves priestesses :)) makes anything possible. We have one in Adelaide who pops up on talk-back radio every now and again who calls herself Father Joan!. I repeat: when Christianity goes secular, there is no need for it.

Meanwhile refer to the essays posted on Spencer Gear's long essay.
Then add these two references too:

On the nature of the "fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden" essentially childish (even infantile) mommy-daddy good luck parental deity ideas that mis-inform the kind of religion promoted by Natasha

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

The Spiritual Gospel of Saint Jesus of Galilee

http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm

Related essays on Reality as Indivisible Conscious Light via
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/broken.html

Plus essays on the Feminine Principle or SHAKTI
http://www.beezone.com/shakti/TheShaktiHerPlaywithAdiDa.html

Not much SHAKTI to be found in institutional patriarchal religiosity!

strangely enough those who hate Christ the most claim He does not exist. Just look at Australia's top rugby player being sacked for believing in a 'fairytale'. The god deniers know that the resurrection of Christ is evident that all men (and women) will be judged by the Resurrected King. Many of the same fools that deny their Creator virtue signal their man made gw nonsense while worshipping 'mother' earth.

Christian-ISM as a would be world conquering power-and-control-seeking cult is of course the most "successful" Scapegoat vector/vehicle.

It is also very much the leading-edge Western manifestation of the at all times and in all places dramatized World Mummery.

This reference introduces both the literary masterpiece The Mummery Book, and the Scapegoat Book too. The Scapegoat drama is at the root of Western civilization (in particular).

http://www.adidaupclose.org/Literature_Theater/index.html#mummery

And the bombings of Churches in Sri Lanka reinforces that religious extremists have a dark side

Their belief in fairies have fangs on.

Sectarian violence between religions continues in the less educated, more "God fearing" countries.

People who believe in some kind of supreme being are placing the responsibility for their own actions in that being - not taking personal responsibiltiy for what they think, say, or do..

You're wrong Ponder.

From what I've seen among Christians, the idea of personal responsibility is held throughout the culture of Christian perspectives that I am aware of. Though I can't speak for other religions that believe in God, I can say that your wrong on your conclusion for Christians.

There is a debate that I see pop up among Christians that circles around being saved and whether that salvation can be lost or not; about being chosen by God versus choosing God; about obedience and legalism versus mercy and everlasting grace.

The debate that is concerned with your comment is the accusation that one side of several of those topic are claiming that it's ok to sin. That our actions and our responsibility is not part of the equation. I bring this up because this accusation is not accurate. From what I've seen no one thinks this way and argues that by not focusing on legalism and obedience they are for opening the gates for a sinful and unrepentant lifestyle.

What you've proposed in saying there's no personal responsibility is doing the same thing. It's stretching one possible rationale for believing in God, and thinking that your not accountable anymore; then assuming this idea is actually held by those who believe in God.

Find an example of a person who believes in God and doesn't believe in personal responsibility, and then we'll go from there. Until then, I'll just say you're wrong, due to never seeing what you've described as a held philosophy.

To me religion, the belief in some supreme being, there to look after them, is simply the invention of weak people, who are not enough to face this big & often nasty world by them selves. The thought that they have only a very few family friends to help them handle their lives is too much for them, & they invent an all powerful ally, & call them god.

With recent killing events, & the thought of millions who have died most horribly of disaster genocide & famine over the centuries it is very hard for me to believe in a beneficial "god", & if a god is not beneficial, why have one.

Then we have the hate. If yours is an all powerful god, why do believers feel threatened enough to hate the believers in other gods. Surely you should simply feel sorry for these misbelievers, who are bound for hell according to your belief. It can only be the fear that their god may be true, & yours may not be, that causes all the waring between creeds.

I simply thank god that I am not a believer!

To Hasbeen

God being an invention is a good starting point for any explaination to explain away a belief in Him. But if God is real then that kills the explaination completely. Even if it has more to the explaination to explain about the people believing in God.

I'm telling you that He is real. The thing to do after that realization is to figure out who God is. What is from Him. And if He is good or not.

Spoilers for you. He is good too. I wish I knew why there is so much evil in the world. Why it is broken as much as it is. But not knowing the explaination doesn't change the sitution of God being real. He is.

Here's a starting point on looking For God. Look at the brilliance and diversity of life on earth. If you have the ability, study one point of it closely. The study of anatomy was a good point for me in that direction. Then consider that focused study and compound it by the diversity of life in the world. God is the most reasonable explanation. He should therefore be at least a consideration for continued search for Him in anyone's life.

U r in pretty 'good company Has been. With Stalin, Mao, Idi etc. We have choice to go to grave with fellow degeneratives or go to be with Christ the merciful King.

Ponder,

"People who believe in some kind of supreme being are placing the responsibility for their own actions in that being - not taking personal responsibiltiy for what they think, say, or do"

Seems that you should ponder a bit more, and also get Grammarly (it's free).

Another thought bubble from a one dimensional bore, with no idea of the human need to embrace the metaphysical.

The secularists creed at least try's to include it in, with works from their own guru witch doctors, but always fails to match the challenge presented by the theists proven track record.

Dan

All that study to be awar5ded a doctorate Natasha and you still did not learn that there are believers and there are adults.

Hasbeen,

<< To me religion, the belief in some supreme being, there to look after them, is simply the invention of weak people, who are not enough to face this big & often nasty world by them selves. >>

That’s your opinion! You provided no evidence but you gave reasons for not believing in ‘some supreme being’:

(1) << With recent killing events, & the thought of millions who have died most horribly of disaster genocide & famine over the centuries it is very hard for me to believe in a beneficial "god">>

Read Genesis 3 and discover what happened when the founders of the human race, Adam & Eve, decided to do it their own way and chose to sin against God. Our actions have consequences, as we see with the genocide and famine.

(2) <<If yours is an all powerful god, why do believers feel threatened enough to hate the believers in other gods. Surely you should simply feel sorry for these misbelievers (sic)>>

The teaching of Christianity is NOT to hate believers in other gods. A teacher of the Jewish law asked Jesus: “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:28-31), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A28-31&version=NIV.
<<I simply thank god that I am not a believer!>>

When you stand before Him at death, you won’t have that view. See Mark 12:30-37, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+12%3A30-37&version=NIV.

Why don’t you address the content of the article?

Because we are a nominally Christian society the various forms of media feature all the usual suspects telling us that the brutal murder of the Radiant God-Man Jesus on awfully-bad-Friday is supposedly "good news". This includes the director of the outfit that Natasha is associated with.
Such claims are of course bunkum. They are certainly not based on any kind of real experience or reality-based reports of how the death-and-dying Process really works, what death requires of us, and how the individual and collective denial of death saturates every aspect of our culture.

http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/laughingmanmag/vol2no3deathdying/welcomesisterdeath.html
http://www.beezone.com/death_message.html

Old Man,

<< All that study to be awar5ded (sic) a doctorate Natasha and you still did not learn that there are believers and there are adults.>>

What a degrading way to put down a woman who has a PhD in English literature from the University of Cambridge.

Your comment tells us more about you than Natasha.

How about addressing the content of her article, rather than dumping your presupposition on her.

In respect of the discussion about whether there is a God or not I would like to add my thoughts from a small blog article I wrote some time ago. As a Christian I do believe in a Supreme Intelligence that gave rise to the Universe and our part in it. I do believe we were part of that creation and have been given a free will to accept or reject the responsibilities that arise. I would argue that this Supreme Intelligence is inferred by Science. In faith I believe that Christ was who he claimed to be and that he did preach the gospels as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who were witnesses to his resurrection.

https://johnl-jlreflections.blogspot.com/2017/08/beliefin-supreme-being-inferred-by.html

Aren't we all in the same boat?

The belief or presumption as if we can discern and know the truth using our human senses and mind, belongs in the same category as fairies, or dragons, or flying spaghetti monsters.

Our senses evolved for the purpose of sustaining the human genome: finding food, finding procreation-partners, avoiding predators, protecting offspring, developing tools, etc. Our brains were developed for the purpose of collating the information from our senses. This meant that they were biased to focus on the objective aspect of the world rather than on Reality: any mutations that could help us to discover and know the truth behind or beyond it all, were defeated in the game of genetic survival due to their "unnecessary" waste of resources... Dreamers tend to be eaten by tigers.

.

Dear Natasha (the author),

.

I am inclined to agree with you. If we want to escape this hum-drum life into a fantasy world as Alison Milbank suggests, we either have to create it ourselves or immerse ourselves in the imaginary worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien and the authors of the bible – in which many Western Europeans apparently place their faith.

You indicate :

« Religious people generally bristle at the charge that their cherished beliefs belong in the same category as fairies, or dragons, or flying spaghetti monsters. They’re quick to distinguish a faith they experience as rational from mere fables »

They are perfectly right in doing so. Religious belief has nothing to do with fairies, dragons, or flying spaghetti monsters. Nor are they mere irrational fables.

A worldview, according to terror management theory (TMT), serves as a buffer against death anxiety – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 5 :

« According to TMT, cultural worldviews provide individuals with a sense of meaning, personal significance, and life continuity, which protect them from the terror resulting from an awareness of their mortality. The horrifying awareness that people may be nothing more than walking digestive tracts – ultimately insignificant, finite, and expendable – is a bleak view of reality that, despite all efforts of sublimation, can never be completely ruled out ».

I think it was Heidegger who said that “the idealism of transcendentalism gave way to existential angst a long time ago”.

Notions such as transcendental aspects of reality, the supernatural, deity, etc., are currently the object of research by neuroscientists or neurobiologists, working closely in association with psychologists, sociologists, philosophers and other specialists.

The reason being, of course, that such phenomena are possibly to be found, not in any observed reality, but in the minds of those who believe in their existence, due to their personal biological, neurological and psychological processes.

Whilst awaiting the results of that research, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some details of the “historical, evidence-based reasons” of your belief “that Jesus rose from the dead”.

.

How many people here believe in Bigfoot?
What about Dogmen?
How about the Chupacabra?
- Well that does exist!

Check him out, he looks like a little Aussie marsupial.
- the Yanks are completely clueless -

Mythical El Chupacabra Finally Captured! For real what is it!
http://youtu.be/feqt97XVEUc

- There might be better physical evidence that Bigfoot exists than supernatural beings, but what do I know -

In crisis we fear death and have a tendency to call out to God for help. Many will not believe in God but when the end is imminent they will pray.
This results in hope. It also helps to release the last remaining energy left in the body and mind to fight off death longer in the belief that a higher power may intervene. What happens then is a rescue comes or the condition subsides and the person gets better. The tendency then is to praise God for the help received and to begin believing.
What this demonstrates is the ability of someone in a crisis to use untapped potential to overcome adversity.
I think this was a process of natural selection in humans that grew over thousands of years to give us brain cells dedicated to providing this behavioural response in a crisis. It is not too far fetched to suppose that' like our navigation ability that we have located in our brains cells dedicated to seeking outside supernatural assistance in times of need. In some people this will be more developed than in others as is our ability to navigate the streets of our cities.
This ability also causes problems.
It has led to power seekers taking advantage to harness it for their own purposes. Historical figures have claimed these powers are external to us and we should become totally beholden to supernatural beings with supernatural powers that only priests and others in the religious power structures can interpret and thus place themselves in positions of power over others. These ideas are delusional, created by storytelling and sophisticated sales techniques using hypnosis such as suggesting that people can live on after death and is a huge industry feeding off gullible people.
People ought not to be blamed for reaching out to a higher power. Only those that have not experienced terror criticise believers. What is needed is better research to understand how these spiritual behaviours can be harnessed more productively for our good and prevent sociopaths seeking the control of people by peddling delusional thought control.

Runner: "Just look at Australia's top rugby player being sacked for believing in a 'fairytale'."

Folau is not being persecuted for his beliefs but for using his position within Rugby Union and Rugby Union owned and operated venues for propagating hate speach. With fame comes responsibility. Folau is a figure of influence within a world-wide sport. The question is whether he is entitled to use the venues and opportunities provided by that sport to propagate religious divisiveness and to cast aspersions upon the life-styles of many fans and players, in full awareness of the authority his fame is imbued with. He is indebted to a large degree to the sport and the opportunities that organisation offers for that fame. It wasn't ALL his own accomplishment. He had a lot of help from the beginning.

Now he claims exemption from his responsibility to act always in a manner that is in the best interest of his sport. Thousands of high profile sportsmen have done it without raising bigotry, controversy and division but by holding as private any religious beliefs they may have had. Devoutness and the divine are easily kept separate from sporting accomplishment to the detriment of neither.

Runner: "The god deniers know that the resurrection of Christ is evident that all men (and women) will be judged by the Resurrected King."

Millions of god-demiers hurl this sanctimonious drivel straight back at you, with a perfection of conviction obviously denied to you and your ilk. What they know is that you are a charlatan with a meanness of demeanour that only the faithfull nurture as high virtue.

Pogi,

<<Folau is not being persecuted for his beliefs but for using his position within Rugby Union and Rugby Union owned and operated venues for propagating hate speach (sic). With fame comes responsibility. Folau is a figure of influence within a world-wide sport.>>

The Anglican bishop of Grafton, the Rt Rev Dr Murray Harvey disagrees with you: He "branded the religious statements of Australian rugby union player Israel Folau as hate speech", http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/bishop-brands-israel-folaus-relious-comments-as-hate-speech/11095702.

They are 'religious statements' according to the bishop

What Folau said is essentially straight from the Bible:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV).

He did not state it on the rugby field but in a public post on Instagram, a medium outside of rugby. Why have the media taken ONE sin from the list - homosexuality - and excluded all of the others mentioned in Folau's post and in the Christian Scriptures?

The Spiked website considers Folau is "the Aussie rugby player ... being punished for his Christian beliefs", http://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/17/the-persecution-of-israel-folau/

ABC News, Brisbane Qld, 15 April 2019 reported Folau 'would be prepared to walk away from rugby union. "I live for God now," he told The Sydney Morning Herald." Whatever He wants me to do, I believe His plans for me are better than whatever I can think. If that's not to continue on playing, so be it.

"In saying that, obviously I love playing footy and if it goes down that path I'll definitely miss it. But my faith in Jesus Christ is what comes first", http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-15/israel-folau-handed-rugby-australia-breach-notice/11003574

Tony Max,

<<Historical figures have claimed these powers are external to us and we should become totally beholden to supernatural beings with supernatural powers that only priests and others in the religious power structures can interpret and thus place themselves in positions of power over others. These ideas are delusional, created by storytelling and sophisticated sales techniques using hypnosis such as suggesting that people can live on after death and is a huge industry feeding off gullible people.>>

Could these be your fantasies and delusions about religion?

Pogi,

2GB’s Alan Jones stated that Rugby Australia is on “the wrong side of common sense”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S0ISi4SRJs.

OzSpen: "2GB’s Alan Jones stated that Rugby Australia is on “the wrong side of common sense”.

Whenever I disagree with Alan Jomes I'm more at ease with my own line of reasoning.

You may post authoritative references until hell freezes over but inevitably your strivings highlight a smugness of conviction that is totally unrelated to the truth of the issue. Folau's motives stem from the selfish imperative to be seen to be as close as he can to his god in contrast to the reader whom he is addressing. He will grovel to his cerebral pathology because it makes him feel closer to this contemptible figment and further apart from those to whom he evangelises. He is a dangerous fanatic no different from Islamic State followers and, given free rein, would incite fellow fanatics to build a theocracy

His hatred of human frailty would see self-abnegation and groveling servitude became institutionalised as the norm and a virtue to be striven and longed for but never achieved. In Hitchens' words a celestial North Korea or a New Caliphate. He is drenched in a megalomaniacal conviction that humankind has no future outside of cerebral self-flagellation and abject subservience

He insults humankind by his very existence and odious presence. He can have only one ultimate allegiance and in this he rejoices. The death of sin and this unholy life in exchange for spiritual perfection in the company of his god for eternity.

Thousands of prominent sportsmen and women feel comfortable in their faith without insulting their colleagues by the issuance of threats against life and limb. They are no less convicted in their beliefs than Folau yet don't feel threatened by those whose convictions differ. In modern society, Folau is not entitled to be not offended by others' beliefs. If he is offended then it is he alone who makes that choice. The target of his hatred is not to be held responsible for the fear and hatred that fills him. No amount of feigned altruism can justify his attitude. Retaliation against Folau by concerned citizens is justified unquestionably

To Pogi.

Are any of your accusations towards Folau justified? Or are they only there to justify your hostile position against Christianity.

Put it another way. Did Folau tell you anything of these things that you accuse him of doing or being? Has he promoted killing or beheading that he is the same as ISIS? Does he hate humanity, or show any signs of hatred by his actions? Or is it out of love and concern that he warns publicly the consequence of hell. (Without talking to the man or seeing his actions to help or harm, neither love nor hate is an accusation that can be given merit. It is as baseless as saying he is the same as ISIS). Did he actually threaten anyone?

The problem with lying to yourself is that usually you believe it. In a topic titled "fairies at the bottom of the garden," the issue of lying to yourself about religious people or the religion itself should be a worth while tangent into the topic.

(Continued)

(Continued)

On the topic from the article. The second page of the article has a few interesting points on how the non religious regularity view the religious. Here's some quotes from the article. Take a hard look at the first two quotes. Change and be better then that Pogi.

<<There are a few options for responding to this metaphysical jumble. One is to lump it all together in order to dismiss the lot, as the writer Kurt Andersen does in his Atlantic article on “post-truth” thinking in the age of Trump. He excoriates his fellow Americans for their “promiscuous devotion to the untrue”, and proclaims himself one of an embattled minority he loftily calls “the solidly reality-based” >>

<<Equating religious dogma with conspiracy theories with any old supernatural belief may be satisfying – but it does mean being forced to conclude that most of your fellow citizens, and most humans who’ve ever lived, have been loonies. (Some may not consider that a downside.)>>

<<Second option: we can focus on where to draw the line between supernatural beliefs that are “reasonable” and those that aren’t – where warranted faith ends and the lunatic fringe begins. I would argue that we have a moral obligation to do this for our own beliefs; but in approaching other people’s, it may be less constructive.>>

<<Finally, we can opt to bend our attention back on itself – on the phenomenon of faith in the first place. It’s striking that humans are so prone to Milbank’s “desire for the supernatural”. We can be thrilled by the wonders of the cosmos and the little joys of our daily lives, yet still we yearn for something more. We can suppress it in ourselves and belittle it in others, but it tends to take its revenge, one way or another.>>

Pogi,

<<Folau's motives stem from the selfish imperative to be seen to be as close as he can to his god in contrast to the reader whom he is addressing.>>

Do you understand Folau so well that you KNOW the source of his motives? You are sure jumping to a questionable conclusion.

<<He will grovel to his cerebral pathology because it makes him feel closer to this contemptible figment and further apart from those to whom he evangelises.>>

That is a contemptible Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy of erroneous reasoning. You've tried to make 'the argument look ridiculous' by misrepresenting Folau's beliefs as part of 'cerebral pathology'.

This is your argument of exaggeration that compares Folau's belief in sinners going to hell at death in your attempt to ridicule his views. It is not a good argument and shows your desperation in committing this fallacy. See an explanation of the fallacy at:
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule.

<<He is a dangerous fanatic no different from Islamic State followers and, given free rein....>>

To the contrary, his Instagram post was essentially a quote straight from the Bible:
"Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

<<would incite fellow fanatics to build a theocracy>>

False again! By his Instagram quote, Folau demonstrated he is not a fanatic but a follower of Jesus. He is not fighting for a theocracy on this earth. He knows the Kingdom of God will NEVER be established in this sinful world. Israel is being an obedient child of God who warns sinners of their eternal destiny.