Dear George,

Religions and ideologies are syncretic. Religions take concepts from other religions, and ideologies take concepts from other ideologies. It goes beyond that. Ideologies take concepts from religion and vice versa.

Both religions and ideologies are forms of belief employing narrative. One example - Marxism has taken a particular narrative from religion. Joachim of Fiore, a medieval abbot, proposed a three stage history - the period of the father where humans lived in Edenic peace, the period of the son exemplified by conflict and finally the period of the Holy Ghost where humanity lives in the millennium and peace reigns again. Joachim's narrative has pervaded Europe thought, and one variant was taken by Hegel who saw history in stages proceeding to an apotheosis with the Prussian state as its embodiment.

Marx was a left Hegelian who took certain concepts from Hegel and put his own spin on them. His first stage of history had primitive communism with tribal people sharing their possessions. This period ended with the original sin of private property, and the new period was characterised by class conflict. Eventually humans will reach the apotheosis of the classless society where humans would live in the peace and security of advanced communism.

The narratives of Joachim and Marx are analogous. Although Marxism doesn't postulate a deity as such, 'historical necessity' presiding over the process is a quasi-deity.

Marxism is not a religion, but the religious antecedents of Marx’s view of history are evident.

Dear Dan,

" 'Let's assume that a supreme being set in to motion a self-creating (perpetuating?) universe.’" - Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 12:13:25 PM

"Oliver and Severin" V=Let's assume that a supreme being set in to motion a self-creating (perpetuating?) universe.’
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 12:13:25 PM

"Oliver and Severin, The statement above is not adequate for logical discussion. For if a supreme being set into motion a self creating universe, then it wouldn’t have been self creating.

The statement above is not adequate for logical discussion. For if a supreme being set into motion a self creating universe, then it wouldn’t have been self creating."

The statement coveys that the alleged God, set aside our measures of creation of space-time and causality... God allowed the universe to be "timeless". If this not possible (illogical as you say) and a timelesness is a condition of the unbounded universe (as Hartle-Hawking posit, with Planck Time (Plank-Wheeler constants)being a merely an apparition or special case, the explanation for the universe is found within self itself: There is no need for a Creator as there was bo Beginning.

Many arguments about Trinity address the members Being with the Father from the Beginning. Being alluding creation (or begetting actually). Levering your own logic: How can a timeless God be begot: self creating?

(BTW: I was trying to show what a Theist might think to oppose the direction modern is headed.).

Dear david f,

I think we have already been into what people, e.g. anthopologists, call religion and what ideology (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645). They are certainly related.

I agree also with the rest of your post, although it is only marginally related to what I referred to as adding insult to injury: not religion (in whatever sense) but atheism (today it would be more appropriate to call it anti-theism) was explicit in my Marx-Leninist teachers’ ideology and, worse. Yes, you can call it religion, (especially if you identify it with ideology), but that is not how they themselves saw their “scientific world-view” that we were required to make our own. University “entry exams” during the Stalinist period did not include requests to renounce capitalism or some politics, but “belief in God”. (Because of my mathematics I was exempted from entry exams.)

Dear Dan,

>>if a supreme being set into motion a self creating universe, then it wouldn’t have been self creating.<<
That was so in the past, however today you can think of many algorithms that automatically “self-create” the output, while the programmer remains in the background. This is not to claim that the Universe is merely the output of a super-program, nor that its Author “just sits in the background” (deism).

Dear George,

Sorry to confuse. Penrose uses the terms "weak" theory and "strong" theory, general, I think. On that basis, it was I whom suggested, it Hartle-Hawking was a "weak" theory (though not expert). Weak theories have "some" support. Herein, I was saying that a theory with a "little" support is prima facie to be regarded over a theory with no support (if one dismisses all scripture and religions as cutural-social phenomena) and sits with a comparison between (pioneer) science and the "raw" belief in God, as explaining existence. I hope this is not too tied-up in knots :-).

I see Occam's razor better applying to a finite self-serving universe of x complexity, than a there being an infinite(X complexity) God creating x. The co-efficient (God times the archeture of the universe(x)) + the universe (x)is more complex than the universe alone (x). Likewise, the universe alone is less complex than an infinity complex God.
- What is more complex the set of all irrational numbers (infinite)or the set of irrational numbers, plus four integers, say, 7,3, 6 and 2. I appreciation the last metaphor is not perfect, put tries to illustrate my point.

I know I am still to reply to other issues and will do so.

Regards.

DEAR/aj...i..totally agree..
that religion..needs to..die...
BUT..see...KNOW...dead/..is not dead...

one of/..my issues with..'religion'...is
that..they have..decieved the simple...even in..that

even worse..made..the all-living/
all-loving good/god..[of grace and mercy]
..into an egotistic-end/time mass-murderor...

a judge/for gods-sake/
certainly...for/their own ego-advantages...most surely

i look forward/..to reading..your considered words..but..i suspect..we mostly agree..with the problem...how-ever would differ..in..the solution

jesus revealed...that much/..we call sickness..
is caused by external agency..[to wit...lost-souls..not knowing they are dead...hauntings

if religion..was/to..totally disappear..this would only increase

see that/..those hearing-voices...
really do hear voices..[sadly i dont]..

further that/.these voices..they are*..hearing..have an inner/and external cause...

the less/sensitive...have their haunting-visitations..in dreams

regardless..if ..the church dosnt know/
dosnt educate us..about the full matter's.. of spirit..
mankind...is doomed...

only the most-vile/evil...seek an endtime..day of judgment...

sadly..many so-called..'believers'...reveal they dont get god...IS..
grace/..mercy

simply by..
casting dispersion/division/spin and stones...we condem all

where jesus mess-age is clear...simply..love god/good...
and love..neighbour/..by doing good-works...for..them...all

serve god..by serving other..

if only..the church could..preach the truth..not the creed
but sadly/the truelly vile of..spirit/haunts..even..the most holy..

if only people..would get that/..a
ccept that the spirit..dont die...
and certainly..can comunicate/inter-act..with this realm

but what good..is the truth..
if others can simply say your nutts

if godless..can mask/behind a thin veil..of deception

we see..the clues..all about

if one says..he drinks blood...we realise
either..a loose-screw..or a goul...

yet doing..the drinking of wine/blood..in church...calling it jesus/blood..dosnt make..us see..bleeding obvious

who adorms their temple..with corpses..
clearly is into imagry/..adulterating jesus message[and commandments

..but..we mindlessly accept..on faith..this is a sign of god
not godlessless..it truelly is..

[how perverse]..

we could next..recall
as children..getting blamed..for others works...

somehow..in our simple-minded childlike-innocence
thinking another..can remove..our stain/will of sin

take this..to the absurdity..of the most-holy-christ...
dying for our sin..and see how..deliberated/creed/absurdity leads..the simple into ever more/sin

IF ITS..IN OUR NATURE..to love to/sin...
being forgiven..dosnt remove..our imp-ulse..to want to sin...

those accepting that jesus can wash-away..sin
is true...for the truth..is god dont judge

but..he cant wash-away
our..will to sin..

thus its/like where..removing/excising one demon..
sees the return of 7...more..

simply forgiving..is useless..without the will..to repent/sin's temptations

anyhow..i go read..your words

Oliver,
Jesus, as God the Son, was never created. Rather, he is eternal (John 1:1, In the beginning …).

“There is no need for a Creator as there was no Beginning.” If there is timelessness, and no beginning, and no need of a creator, then why are we speaking of God as creator? Wouldn’t he be unemployed?

George,
You say that a programmer can create an algorithm that can create an output by itself while the programmer sits in the background. Yet you do not want to imply any parallel with this and deism. How so?

Are we saying that God made the world in such as a way as to make it look as if he wasn’t involved?

How does that align with the Psalmist who declared, ‘the heavens declare the glory of God’? Or when St. Paul suggests that God’s invisible qualities and divine nature can be CLEARLY SEEN through the things that GOD MADE, what do we think he was looking at or referring to?