What has Israel got to do with the here and now?
What do we really know?
The three fundamental realities are that we are conscious beings and that there is a beginningless and endless process of beings, things, thoughts etc etc arising to our conscious awareness.
True Religion begins with a profound investigation into these two fundamental realities.
It has nothing whastsoever to do with a mythological Israel or any other place in the past.

And the third fundamental reality is that we inevitably die and ALL of our knowings disappear in an instant. See The Dual Sensitivity at: www.dabase.net/dualsens.htm

This essay titled Real God Cannot Be "Proved" or Believed or "Known" or Perceived or Even Doubted www.dabase.net/rgcbpobk.htm addresses the nievity of belief in historical god-ideas.

Hi Peter (& Tigerlily)

Tigerlily (post 10:01:38 AM 3/2/06)

Now here's a typical example of someone who doesn't know what the definition of "religion" is. Whatsmore, there is blatant intolerance in accepting & understanding another point of view. "Religion" is a "belief". You obviously haven't studied any other beliefs.

Israel may have very little to do with your Eastern & Humanistic philosophies, but the Jews & Israel have much significance to the Judaic, Christian & Islamic cultures & religious beliefs.

Who said that "True Religion begins with .." anything that you said? You do, that's obvious. So do those who think as you do. But those who disagree with you have a whole different slant on life & thinking. There are over 9000 worldwide religions to investigate. Maybe you ought to go into a study of a dozen or so who don't think as you do.

As to Israel: 2-billion Christians varyingly see Israel as integral to the "end times". The 1.8-billion Muslims hate Judaism & Christianity & see a different outcome through Islam.

Hinduism has about 800-million practitioners; Buddhism, under its two basic sects, about the same number; then you have Taoism, Confusionism, Jainism with about 3-million adherents, Sikhism with maybe 12-million, Parsism with 150,000, secular Humanism, Marxism, Nazism, etc. And don't forget to investigate the "Shark-god religion" of New Zealand. Once you've looked at the outer 'shell'of say one of these worldwide goliaths, then you could investigate the doctrines & dogmas which delineate the various denominations that have sprouted from the main observances.

With a more rounded understanding of worldwide philosophies you might not then make narrowistic generalisations which are denied by most of the world's population.

Finally, the tendency for globalistic relativism has created many of the 'problems' that we have currently on earth. Rarely do we acknowledge absolutes, preferring to postulate over 'subjective' values. Someone has to be wrong in all this. Maybe it's you?

Cheers to all (who join this posting)

Hello whoever is reading this

Just some thoughts. Are Catholics liberal or fundamentalists (they do not belive in a literal interpretation of the bible but are seen as arch conservative).


In the times before the words liberal and fundamentalist were invented what were people who held corollary positions called and how were they viewed by contempary society.

How far is too far when it comes to asserting dogma?

Surely any attitude or behaviour that threatens to overide the two greatest commandments must be held suspect.

I wonder if Buddy actually read the two essays that I pointed to on my first posting.

The Dual Sensitivity 1. www.dabase.net/dualsens.htm

Real God Cannot Be Proven 2. wwww.dabase.net/rgcbpobk.htm

The "experience" of "israel" is as real as the experience of living in Springfield where Homer Simpson "lives" or the "place" that the participants of "reality" TV "live".

Catholics are both (either/or). It is only in the continually splitting sects of Protestantism where we find the real radicals.

TigerLilly, your post was so boring and trivial that I doubt anyone will go to any website you suggest.

The reletivism spoken about above refers to liberals, we should remember that it is these post-modern ideas that are a threat to the whole world (witness the view that equal time is given to scientists who say no as to scientists who say yes to global warming, despite a huge majority ascribing to the yes, the post-modern media sees its responsibilities as to show all viewpoints equally, no matter how likely they are).

The fundamentalists are often just really stupid people. The american fundamentalists for example do not even notice thier idolotrous notions about thier supposedly god-like country. They should be termed followers of Americanity, not christianity. But I say again they do not threaten our whole world as the reletivism of the liberals does. They may kill a few, for a few years, but they will fade away like all the other idiot based ideologies of the past. How could you believe that america is such a great country anyway?

What this discussion does show, is the need for a moderating, stability encouraging hierarchy for the church (as in catholicism). Ps. I am not a catholic.

The actual article is alright, I think his point about education is correct. All Christians should be expected to obtain a degree (at least) in theology so thier views are not damaging to the rest of the church. Just as I believe that all citizens should have to prove they understand democracy to an acceptable level before becoming citizens.

Liberal/Fundamentalism is a simple dichotomy. Too simple. A sixfold division of Christians is much more informative. (1) Fundamentalist (2)Evangelical (3) Liberal (4) Charismatic (5) Sacramental (6) Orthodox/Eastern. That is a spectrum as each category shades gradually into the next. It is useful becuase only in the last category does it approach the issue on a denominational basis.
Many controversies are generated by oversimplistic labelling; eg it is entirely wrong to consider the Anglican Diocese of Sydney as "fundamentalist" as critics from within that denomination (and others)claim- the most recent being Muriel Porter in the Griffith Review. Fundamentalism reads a text without any cultural sensitivity and applies it dogmatically and simplistically to the present situation. You only have to look at the distinguished evangelical scholarship coming out in the tradition of Karl Barth showing and developing the proposition that revealed truth stands on an altogether different footing to rational truth, to distinguish fundamentalism and evangelicalism. This article seems to take an intellectual divide from philosophy, rational truth, and apply it to divisions in Christianity, revealed truth. It's not comparing like with like and this is the basic (not "fundamental"!) flaw in the article.