.

TOO MANY GODS SPOIL THE BROTH !

.

Abraham detested looking after the shop in his father's absence and lied to his father when he returned, pretending that it was the large idol that smashed all the others.

His father was furious and kicked him out of the house, and good riddance, but simple folk in the Middle East in those days were quite superstitious and swallowed the boy's story lock stock and barrel.

As "One above god" can surely attest, miracles never cease. Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus endowed the one large surviving idol with official status for his own political ends and spread the good news throughout the Roman Empire.

Euorpean colonial powers then rammed it down the throats of numerous African, South American, and Asian savages as a purely humanitarian gesture in order to save their otherwise worthless souls.

Regrettably, however, one god is a bit short for the 1.1 billion Indians and one too many for the 1.3 billion Chinese.

Oh, and the lid just blew on the Catholic pressure cooker as the temperature literally shot way beyond the tolerance limits guaranteed by the intelligent designer and manufacturer, due, unfortunately, to excesive world-wide paedophile activity by the clergy and their acomplices, cover-up agents, supporters, aiders and abetters (if you know who I mean).

All this just goes to show that too many gods spoil the broth - even when there is only one !

.

as the thread/has reached a level..of loving stasis..im reluctant to stir the pot any longer..

but being me..see little purepose..in posting so little

i must be gratefull to squeers..for subdueing/a reactive reply..into a thoughtfull one...

i should try to correct..the issue of many gods..but that is i guess...thats a reflection..of just how low...those who cannot concieve the one..[living/loving/logus..who stands alone...in loving all]..has fallen

how low/the measure...of those tricked away..from loving the one..[good god..of grace and mercy]..has sank...

lest we forget..the true measure/of god...is not of good alone...but by the virtue..of giving/..sustaining..us all/..our lives..

to wit..our creator...who alone is god...

even the bible..is shakey/on the issue...the one/god/of creation..is soon replaced/with lord..before even ..the 4 th chapter of genesis..and the lord..is not god

the lord/..is the lord of these realms..and god is god/creator/sustainor..of all living/logic/love//light[gracefull/mercyfull/eternal/immortal...the...[one]

there are many 'god'/like...lords in these realms...i could name/a few..just here/in these forums...but those who cannot concieve absolute love...shouldnt use a plural..for a noun

science provides no first/life..has not created life...but just like the/clever monkey..he claims to be...can mimic..gods acts of creation

science cannot make..life..even by turning life into dust..

jesus...[who also wasnt god...yet lived the love...that/those who know our creator/..those who/know the creator/good..know god/to be...

but..as witnessed..in the new covenant/new/test-i-ment...even he failed..so high a measure

we well know..the lesser-loves..but can all..seek/to atain the higher/loves..but no matter/no..marter..how much we try...the flesh is weak...

yet we..[alone/amoung all the meat/living]...have the ability..to see signs..to hear the thoughts/..read the deeds..of the dead...past

we alone/ammoung the mortal flesh...can read...in word
the actual/living words/thoughts/beliefs...
..hates/fears/hopes..of those...........long dead...

we must not be tempted to try/
to/make their words..into saying......what they did not say

darwin clearly wrote..evolution/species
...he could have wrote/genus..but didnt..

[those unable to certify..paddy/melon..beyond 10 million years..
must clearly state...they dont know.../..not speculate..beyond their knowing...

evolution..is only/science/faulsifyable/fact..at species level...not into genus/family..etc

evolution is taking from good..that gods alone

what you put into word..can come back..and bite you
in time others read...[and judge]..

only one wont judge..that one..is good/..is creator....is god

we each stand/..on great shoulders...often on dead/words
and should resist..the urge..to use their words..to justify..our works

i/am...
trying..to/love you all/

This is the second part of my post on P43 26/05 1:04:47 and addressed to david f;

Part 2
Whether our Universe exists on the back of a giant elephant who stands on the back of a giant turtle who himself stands on the back of a giant turtle...........or whether it's an ineffable god does the supporting, no matter the eloquence of one's argument, it's either turtles all the way down to infinity or it's ineffable gods all the way down.

Davies gives no attention to this issue, at least not in the treatise that Trav linked to.

Another point I planned to make [and I may as well make it here], was that in proposing the imponderables and the deistic approach to science, Davies [and his supporters] frequently lament our inabilities in grasping hold of the spiritual/divine aspect of nature and ourselves, yet he [and they] expatiates at great length using the same means that he and his supporters denigrate as a major limiting factor, the human intellect.

If all that our intellects can conceive of is in and of nature and the laws of nature, then we are indeed still babes at our mother's breast. An independent life is still a long road into the future and our genetic diversity is not infinite.

The wilful and self-indulgent delusion of religious faith becomes triviality when considering our distant future..............
Will we create new genetic diversity and direct our own organic evolution, or will we take the path into inorganic and artificial intelligence?
In the latter, considering that the brain is the source of mind, preservation of mind before brain death may not be a contentious issue.

Oliver writes
"Extropian1,
I don't think one has faith in science. Qualified trust, perhaps."

There is a misunderstanding and it is my fault.
It seems to have arisen here in my post on P43 26/05 1:04:47 herebelow

I was, however, more concerned with the argument made by Paul Davies in the link provided by Trav on P46; In fact, science itself must be taken on faith, as the legendary atheist physicist Paul Davies explains in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html). Wherein I found a number of contentious issues raised by Davies for which there were significant alternative views.

There are two errors in the above para.
Trav's post is on P36 24/05 7:38:11.
It contains this passage; In fact, science itself must be taken on faith, as the legendary atheist physicist Paul Davies explains in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html).

It is disappointing that bold, italic, underline [among several other very useful choices] are not available to members. I am therefore reduced to using quotation marks.

Correctly presented then, my original para should have been seen thusly;

I was, however, more concerned with the argument made by Paul Davies in the link provided by Trav on P36 24/05 7:38:11; "In fact, science itself must be taken on faith, as the legendary atheist physicist Paul Davies explains in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html)." Wherein I found a number of contentious issues raised by Davies for which there were significant alternative views.

It can be seen then that I am quoting Trav anent taking science on faith.

I regret that I have misinformed members through my carelessness.

I hasten to affirm my great confidence in science and its method. In writing this I am reaffirming also my supreme confidence in the human intellect and our five senses. They are the only means by which we know what we know and it will be thus into the forseeable future.

In deliberating so I am reminded of Bertrand Russell's salutary lament that having read the christian bible, he found not one word in praise of inrelligence there.

INTELLIGENCE!

in what seems a good topic...i wont say redirection...

Extropian1..quote..<<Will we create new genetic diversity and direct our own organic evolution,>>being a compounded question..i will compound the reply

sadly...there are many mutagenes,,,deliberatly...and willfully placed in our food/water/air...seeking to induce mutations..to do just that

in the main..they are aimed at destroying...mind..or rather the ability to reason/think...[their aim..is to produce the perfect/soviat-man....

a party loyalist drone...who dont own anything..who works when there is a need for labouring...who cannot think for themself...[let alone others..who follows the party line...mindlessly...who works till the day they die...at work..having done little origonal thinking

the elites...do-not seek to evolve...themselves..only the worker drones

<<or will we take the path into inorganic and artificial intelligence?><<..yes they love the idea..of the greatest minds..in a bottle...are cloning the neo/man--in a flask...seek an ape like servant..will not give up their delusions of grandure


<<In the latter,..considering that the brain..is the source of mind, preservation of mind before brain death..may not be a contentious issue.>>.sadly your decieved...[as are they

[the brain..is not the source,..of mind...anymore than a computer is a source of thought...

no doudt they will make...in time...a bio-logic..that appears to contain mind...but this mind..will lead direct the mindless..into the darker realms..of human/being

im certainly glad...my time is near

i know what man/kind...has been...
and dread..that it is planned to become

as near as i can see..it appears..like/as
a dante vision..of the lower hells...

but freewill indicates it need/not be so..but their planning is well advanced...

i hold hope..
but with little expectation

only love can prevent its realisation