Jardine - do you really think that the contents of these two websites are in any sense supportive of the suppressive, even totalitarian plotics of the now world dominant technocratic state, aka Eisenhower's military-industrial-"entertainment"/propaganda-complex?
http://www.dabase.org/not2p1.htm
http://www.beezone.com/news.html
Indeed it seems to me that the 70 or so bullet points featured on the first reference are very much stark in-your-face descriptions of the dreadful situation created by the technocratic state.
The author was writing and warning us about this in books published in 1978,1980,and the Orwellian year of 1984.

This quote from the book Culture Against Man by Jules Henry was featured in the introduction to the 1984 book.
"In Western Culture today one must make a distinction between the culture of life and the culture of death. In the minds of most people science has become synonymous with destructive weapons, i.e. with death ... Where is the culture of life?
The culture of life resides in all those people who, inarticulate, frightened, and confused, are wondering "where will it all end." Thus the forces of death are confident and organized while the forces of life - the people who long for peace - are, for the most part, scattered, inarticulate, and wolly-minded, overwhelmed by their own impotence. Death struts about the house while Life cowers in the corner."

This essay comes from the 1984 book: The Transmission of Doubt
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index.html
This essay is featured in both the 1980 and 1984 books
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/asana_of_science/index.html
The original version of this essay was published in the 1978 book.
http://www.dabase.org/p5egoicsociety.htm

Dear Foyle,

Ignorance of the world, through indifference to its temporal phenomena and submission to God in heart, soul and all of one's resources, are all that's worth achieving in life. A theology that aids people in getting there, has done very well indeed.

(of course, a theology that brings about ignorance of God and/or submission to anything other than to God, is a total failure)

Religion can only be measured by its level of success in bringing people closer to God, not for example by the social or material success of its followers - I don't go to a financial adviser for spiritual guidance and I don't bask in the dust of the feet of sages for financial advice.

Dear Jardine,

Well said, but religion isn't any less rational than other patterns of thought - it simply has different goals than, for example, the irrational pursuit of material/economic success (which is also shared by the state).

Thanks Yuyutsu

Daffy
"do you really think that the contents of these two websites are in any sense supportive of the suppressive, even totalitarian plotics of the now world dominant technocratic state, aka Eisenhower's military-industrial-"entertainment"/propaganda-complex?"

Doesn't look like it, but appearances can be deceptive. I can't really say because it depends how the authors had in mind to implement their proposed global co-operative forum? States do it by claiming and exercising a monopoly of force. Libertarians propose to do it by a general ban on the use of aggressive force. How do the proponents of the GCF propose to do it?

Daffy Duck,

You wrote: "Never mind that the presumed "resurrection and ascension" of Jesus did not happen - could not have happened.
Furthermore, beginning with the fabricated origins of the Bible every minute aspect of the Christian religion whether narrative, theological, doctrinal, dramatic, artistic etc etc is an exercise in cultic idolatry".

You have unloaded your presuppositions on us:

1. Are you against an investigation of history to determine whether Jesus' "resurrection and ascension" could or could not have happened? Instead, you take the dogmatic stance, that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus "did not happen". Are you telling us that one who has been an historian at Macquarie University, Dr. Paul Barnett, did not know what he was talking about as an historian when he wrote the following? "The earliest letters by Paul, written in the early 50s, assume without discussion that both the writer and the readers believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, Paul simply appeals to their certainty about Jesus' historical resurrection as something to clinch his argument about their coming future resurrection, which some of them were doubting" (P Barnett 1997. Jesus and the Logic of History. Leicester, England: Apollos, p. 129). In this chapter on Jesus and the Spread of Early Christianity, Barnett examined the alternative theories on the resurrection but they were not plausible when compared with the fact that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

2. You are an anti-supernaturalist or naturalist when you dogmatically assert that the resurrection and ascension "could not have happened".

3. "Fabricated origins of the Bible" doesn't sound like presenting us with evidence on the origins of the Bible, but you have given your dogmatic opinion.

4. So, in your dogmatic assertion, "every minute aspect of the Christian religion ... is an exercise in cultic idolatry". My, oh my, what opinionated expressions you are dumping on us. I need more reasoned views from you to even even begin taking your points seriously.

Dumping presuppositions is not a way to do that.

Are you telling us that one who has been an historian at Macquarie University, Dr. Paul Barnett, did not know what he was talking about as an historian when he wrote the following? -
"The earliest letters by Paul, written in the early 50s, assume without discussion that both the writer and the readers believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, Paul simply appeals to their certainty about Jesus' historical resurrection as something to clinch his argument about their coming future resurrection, which some of them were doubting" (P Barnett 1997. Jesus and the Logic of History. Leicester, England: Apollos, p. 129).

In this chapter on Jesus and the Spread of Early Christianity, Barnett examined the alternative theories on the resurrection but they were not plausible when compared with the fact that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 7 March 7:28am

That "both the writer/s [of the Pauline epistles] and the readers believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead" is irrelevant as none of those writers or those readers really knew the facts ...

Galatians 1 NIV - 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

There is increasing discussion today, in various forums, that the Pauline-writings were written in the 2nd century or later, after Christianity had been more established.

McReal,

I so much appreciated your response. Some of your points are valid and I could address them. But did you notice the methodology you used in your response?

The thrust of my letter was Daffy's presuppositions. You did not address these but presented your own view of some of my content. This is really using a red herring logical fallacy to divert attention away from the presuppositions I had raised.