People of the book should not have any more freedom, freedom of expression/assembly than say, environmentalists/big bang postulators, or those for who, the equally unproven theory of evolution, is their zealot's bible!
Rhrosty.

As an atheist I favour toleration of religious belief. Toleration of religious belief has as a corollary tolerance of no religious belief.

Rhosty,
The Theory of Evolution is unproven only to the equivalent extent that the Theory of Gravity, or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or the theories on which the computer you use to comment on this item, are unproven.

All medical and biological research is based on acceptance that the Theory of Evolution, based on environmental selection and mutation, is a first class working explanation of what has happened over times past and what will happen in times to come.

You could read the story of the experiment conducted by Dr. Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University. That experiment puts the Theory of Evolution beyond reasonable (arguments sustained by evidenced based reasons) doubt.

Enjoyed the article, thanks for the stimulating read... it is always a good sign in a review when I feel confident of understanding the arguments as though I had read it - the book that is - entirely.

The proposed definition for all religions is particularly useful and helps me justify my inner dialogue of changing the phrase 'my religious belief' whenever someone uses it to, 'my opinion'.

Plus, there is a strange 'religious fervour' rule of inverse proportion. The more emphatically or compulsorily a religion imposes itself upon people, societies, states and the rules of law seems merely to demonstrate a decreasing validity of its tenets and claims.

"If matters of religious conscience deserves toleration, then they do so because they involve matters of conscience, not matters of religion."

The problem for individuals and states is not the 'matters of conscience' until they are expressed as 'matters of action'.

The article assumes that rights, or human rights, are whatever the state says they are.

To name this belief is to see that it is inconsistent with the notion of rights as an enforceable rule of just conduct. It merely asserts that might is right, which is the opposite of an ethical rule, and therefore no basis for human rights.

Therefore I think that, to have a sensible discussion of human rights, there needs to be a prior definition of what and why they are, as well as a definition of the state and why it should be regarded as the fountain of moral goodness, a dubious assumption; otherwise we'll find that there's a "human right" free to ice-cream, a human right to violate person and property for certain purposes as long as it's done by the state, and so on.

Put another way, the article is asking whether the state should use its coercive monopoly to arbitrarily privilege some people as against others on the ground of religion. While it should seem obvious that this is inconsistent with, and opposite to, the concept of human rights, on the other hand, this moral absurdity is implicated in all the state's other administrations of human rights.

Owing to its nature as a coercive monopolist, the state can and often does have an interest in provoking conflicts in society, which it then intervenes in to settle in its own favour and whichever group it suits it to favour.

Worse still, there is nothing stopping the outcome of such conflicted interventions from being declared to be "human rights".

'All medical and biological research is based on acceptance that the Theory of Evolution, '

such ignorance Foyle. Just fits your narrow narrative of life. Don't do 'science' such a disservice.

Humans are "evolving" all the time, it is difficult to "tolerate" religion, the followers remind me of cigarette smokers, they need the "kick", it is not really doing them any good but they just can't give it up.

I am all for freedom for religion. I am even more strongly in favour of freedom from religion.

Who can deny that religious belief is capable of fostering and preserving the most bigoted and uncompromising zealotry? One has only to consider some of the following examples to appreciate that much of religion inspired practice is a threat to secular Western Values.

The intolerance of Wahhabism and other fundamental Islamic sects is well known. Sharia law is to my mind both horrific and barbaric. Intolerance of course is not confined to Islam, for several centuries the Catholic Church run the inquisition. The current Royal commission has made it clear that intolerance and brutality is endemic in many church run institutions such as orphanages. Of note is the extreme intolerance of certain Jewish sects, such as the Sabbath stoning of cars in the streets of Jerusalem.

Religion has the propensity to lay down laws on the permissibility or otherwise of sex and/or marriage. Judaism and Islam provide rules on what foods can and cannot be eaten and on what occasions. Are these rules not an intolerable attack on personal freedom? On the right of each individual to make up his or hers own mind on matters of life style.

What is the evidence for all the prohibitions in the name of God? There is no empirical evidence whatsoever. For that matter where is the empirical evidence that the world is populated with Gods, Goddesses, demons, angles, archangels, or the spirit of the dead?

Let me restate, people may hold whatever beliefs they like, no matter how illogical and ridiculous is their belief system. On the other hand nobody is entitled to foster their belief system on to others. Nor are they, as is so often the case, free to enforce their belief systems on others by means of physical or mental violence

' On the other hand nobody is entitled to foster their belief system on to others. Nor are they, as is so often the case, free to enforce their belief systems on others by means of physical or mental violence '
why not anti green? who gave you the right to make up the laws?

Runner:
I am not making up laws. I am just supporting a philosophical position that grants preference to individual liberty and freedom.

and where might your philosophical position come from anti green? The good of your heart? certainly atheist throughout history have demonstrated the opposite. They even kill the unborn guilt free.

Anti Green nails the proposal succinctly - freedom FROM religion.
A belief in some kind of supreme being removes much of personal responsibility for mankind's thought, words, and actions.
It is disturbing to see how much pressure is brough to bear on free-thinking people to conform to the foibles of religion-driven societies.
Tolerance does not necessarily indicate personal approval.
So should it be with larger groups of society.

A secular state, especially such that reveres objective evidence, is by definition totally helpless in attempting to differentiate between religious and non-religious motives. The state is totally in the dark with no tools whatsoever to get even the slightest clue of what religion is (including that clumsy 4-point scheme mentioned in the article).

Historically, the state was therefore shown to be swayed by those largest and most powerful organisations that claim to be religious, whereas individuals of either small religious groups or having their private religious path, have no recourse to justice and respect to their way of life.

Therefore, as a religious person, I prefer the freedom of conscience to all and sundry over some phoney or ignorant "freedom of religion". Moreover, in order to err on the side of caution, I strongly advocate all human freedoms and the minimisation of laws, just in the case there is a person out there whom the laws of the state deny their religious freedom - even one!

For crying out loud, this is 2014, can't some of you mutts discard this nonsense & superstition ? Religion is crap. I don't have a problem with the superstition as such but keep to yourself, don't annoy the crap out of us with this nonsense.
Let's try just for three years & keep that nonsense out of our schools & see if we're a better or worse society.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with believing. Once some of the nutters come to comprehend that, society will get better.

Why tolerate religion?
I always thought there wasn't much harm in people believing in invisible gods in the sky, as long as it didn't impact on non-believers lives adversely.

However, over here in the West, the Liberal Barnett Govt, in it's infinite wisdom, has offered the Catholic organization St John Of God the contract to build a new PUBLIC hospital in our Eastern suburbs.

Why? Because they gave the cheapest quote?
Yes, but that is because they won't be including public funded abortions, vasectomies, tubal ligations, family planning, fertility clinics or anything to do with 'sins' according to the Catholic faith.
Not only will they not provide these in a public hospital, they also refuse to 'share' any infrastructure in 'their' hospital if the Govt. decides to build a stand alone clinic adjoining the hospital.

Now, that is all very well for their own private hospitals of course, because anyone going there knows they won't be able to receive those 'sinful' procedures there.
However, it is truly a monstrous act to foist their religious beliefs on those who need to go to a public hospital.....and the same goes for our spineless State Govt.

.

Dear Ralph Seccombe (the author here),

.

Thank you for that interesting résumé of Brian Leiter’s book "Why Tolerate Religion?”.

All things considered, of all the people I have frequented both professionally and privately throughout my lifetime, I can only think of two who, I am willing to believe, truly believe(for one) and believed (for the other) that there is a god – the former, an Anglican bishop, the latter my (deceased) mother. That must be a rate of about two in a thousand.

The totality of that thousand would, of course, be included in any census as belonging to some religion. According to the CIA’s World Factbook, for example, 88.33% of the world population belong to some religion, 9.66% are “non-religious” and 2.01% are atheists.

My gut feeling is that there are more people in the world who believe in a god than those who don’t. But I doubt there is much of a margin between the two. And I suspect that most of those who don’t believe in a god probably do not consider themselves to be “atheists” at all but, more than likely, belong to some religion.

In fact, I suspect that the large majority of “atheists” are probably to be found among the “religious” 88.33%”, the 2.01% of “declared atheists” representing just the tip of the iceberg. The true number of “atheists” or “non-believers” is probably closer to something like 40% of the world population, if not more.

As we all know, it is the small percentage of hard-liners among the “true believers” and “declared atheists” who pose problem. They are the “intolerant” ones.

They are the justification for specific laws in order to ensure “freedom of religion” for religious people and for religion to be considered a universal Human right.

Apparently Brian Leiter does not answer his own question “Why Tolerate Religion?”. The Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, attempted a reply in his Blackfriars Lecture at the Australian Catholic University just a couple of weeks ago . It is worth a read :

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/forgotten-freedoms-freedom-religion

.

The basic principle is surely very simple: you can only claim a 'right' to do or be something and remain unmolested when you cannot choose to do or be otherwise. We should not criticise people on the basis of the colour of their skins, their genders, their sexual preferences, their native intelligence or lack thereof, their disabilities or anything else that they didn't choose to have wished up on them. We can and should criticise people on the basis of how they spend their money, the clubs they join, the political parties they support, the posts they wrote on discussion groups, and the religions they choose to follow; because only by allowing free criticism of their choices can we persuade them to make better ones. By trying to ban all criticism of voluntary choices -- as if such a thing were even possible -- you are trying to block the path to improvement.

`<>.Apparently Brian Leiter does not answer his own question “Why Tolerate Religion?”. The Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, attempted a reply in his Blackfriars Lecture at the Australian Catholic University just a couple of weeks ago . It is worth a read :

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/forgotten-freedoms-freedom-religion

<<..In this speech I outlined that I have concerns about the key freedoms of expression, worship, association and property rights. Reasserting them will be the focus of my tenure as Human Rights Commissioner.

It probably seems odd to refer to freedoms we exercise on a daily basis as ‘forgotten’.

But as foundational freedoms, they are being taken for granted and are consequently compromised.

Any compromise is rarely explicit. Instead, compromises occur through the incremental advancement by government of policies with worthy objectives. But they consequently encroach on rights.

The most recent and notable example has been the debate about the limits on free speech resulting from the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and whether it should be unlawful to say something that ‘offends, insults’ or ‘humiliates’; especially in light of the same standard not being applied to other groups within the community. But it is not alone.

In my second speech on the theme of these forgotten freedoms I will address the challenges facing freedom of worship.

But first, some administrative background.
The office of Australian Human Rights Commissioner..>>

..may soon absorb..the handicapped commisioner..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=commisioner+disabilities&

http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2014/05/disability-commissioner-role-uncertain

Individual,

You said "For crying out loud, this is 2014, can't some of you mutts discard this nonsense & superstition ? Religion is crap. I don't have a problem with the superstition as such but keep to yourself, don't annoy the crap out of us with this nonsense."

In light of the above could you give, or give a reference to, a scientific refutation of the miracles claimed to have occurred at Lourdes?

'Now, that is all very well for their own private hospitals of course, because anyone going there knows they won't be able to receive those 'sinful' procedures there. '

actually Susie a heartless murder of the unborn defines abortion more accuratley. Let the industry have their own little dirty slaughter house of shame.

MIRACLE%=ANGEL%?
$lICKNE$$=DEMON$..&..de*Mon$

The abrupt transition from established science to outlandish woo is positively comical. And once the quackery starts, it doesn't stop. You're first treated to a background on all things demonic (boldness added to emphasize the absurdity):
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/published_scientific_paper_blames_schizophrenia_on_demons.html
In our region, demons are believed to be intelligent and unseen creatures that occupy a parallel world to that of mankind. In many aspects of their world, they are very similar to us. They marry, have children, and die. The life span, however, is far greater than ours (Ashour 1989).

Through their powers of flying and invisibility, they are the chief component in occult activities. The ability to possess and take over the minds and bodies of humans is also a power which the demons have utilized greatly over the centuries (Littlewood 2004; Gadit and Callanan 2006; Ally and Laher 2008).

http://new-birth.net/booklet/30_years_among_the_dead.PDF

Most scholars accept that demons can possess people and can take up physical space within a human’s body (Asch 1985). They possess people for many reasons. Sometimes it is because they have been hurt accidentally, but possession may also occur because of love (Ashour 1989; Philips 1997). When the demon enters the human body, they settle in the control center of the body–brain.

Once the groundwork for demons is laid, Irmak expounds on the link between schizophrenia and possession:

There exist similarities between the clinical symptoms of schizophrenia and demonic possession. Common symptoms in schizophrenia and demonic possession such as hallucinations and delusions may be a result of the fact that demons in the vicinity of the brain may form the symptoms of schizophrenia... The hallucination in schizophrenia may therefore be an illusion—a false interpretation of a real sensory image formed by demons... On the other hand, auditory hallucinations expressed as voices arguing with one another and talking to the patient in the third person may be a result of the presence of more than one demon in the body.
Posted by one un

why tolerate religion?..science says energy cant be created nor destroyed[our souls-energie weis a few grams[this was observed scientificly[never REFUTED..but much demeaned because it wasnt replicated with 'wild dogs'..[who barely have self awarness et alone a soul.

4 out of 6 is a PASS MARK
[THE 2 NEGATIVE WERE DIRECTLY BY OUTSIDE INTERFERANCE]
but thankfully this was written before that atheist heist..of proof of god.

we are LIVING ENERGIES CHANGING STATE.
ENERGY CHANGING STATE.*..[only the science illiterate would dare TRY de-bait.]

i sepperate the church/creed\from the man/women..who INSPIRED

http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf

is the radical, extreme, religious personality cult of the prophet Karl Marx, with his Lord & master Lucifer, really a religion? not politics at all, but loony, left-wing theology?

has anybody studied the Psychology literature to see if it ticks all the "symptom list" boxes for psychopaths, sociopaths & radical, extreme, religious cults?

has anybody read the book "United in Hate" ?

has anybody read the book "United in Hate" ?

I have not read it imacentristmoderate but I watch it regularly when the abc mention the word abbott.

Fantastic book Runner, i can thoroughly recommend it.

more questions,

Have more children been "Kiddy fiddled" by atheists, secularists, humanists, feminists, communists, closet communists & left wing theology than were ever allegedly touched up by Christians?

Is child abuse more common in government schools than in christian schools?

Have any left wing lesbians or bisexual women infiltrated Girl Guides, Girls Brigade or the YWCA Young Women's Christian Association?

if they did, would DOCS or any labour lawyers (who infest our entire legal system & DOCS) investigate it or cover it up?

a scientific refutation of the miracles claimed to have occurred at Lourdes?
is Mise,
i'm sure the poor sods who aren't cured or who have disabilities would challenge your proof.
I can not prove nor can I disprove that there is a God such as the one the likes of you try o portray to us. You know that kind of benevolent one that doesn't appear to put a stop to all the crap that some poor people have to cope with whilst the likes of you have nothing better to do than ensure you're seen walking in & out of a Church on Sundays. Monday to Saturday you're busy getting as much as you can to satisfy your selfishness.
Why aren't you spending your money on helping those forgotten by your God ? If there really is a God then the religious will not be his favourite lot, that much I can believe.
Isn't it weird when a disaster occurs & there is one "miracle survivor". It would have been a miracle if there weren't any casualties at all but one out of many ? I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is a miracle.

I'm of the view that if its not a necessity then it should not be imposed by government (or its branches). If there is a case for an exeption in special circumstances the qualification for those circumstances should be measurable and based on relevant criteria.

For instance there is a ban on operating a motor vehicle on public propery. The exception to that ban is a drivers license for the class of motor vehicle involved which generally demonstrates that at some point the holder of the license has had relevant training and was able to demonstrate the skills needed to operate the vehicle.

I've got mixed views re knives in schools (and similar issues), on the one hand I think a ban on children wearing knives in school is an essential due to the safety aspect, on the other hand I can see that children could easily become even more isolated from the mainstream of society because of parents beliefs if the exemption is not available. Pragatism vs philosophy.

R0bert

'Have any left wing lesbians or bisexual women infiltrated Girl Guides, Girls Brigade or the YWCA Young Women's Christian Association? '

actually imacentristmoderate some have infiltrated certain denonominations.

Here we go again, that wonderful subject of religion, of saints and miracles, priests trying to outdo the trannies in dress, male bums in the air, exhaling air, Ron L Hubbard's madness, gold leaf wasted on temples etc, come on folks get in the real world and acknowledge that there is no such thing as God in any shape or form, it is all in your imagination, like Father Christmas to children.

An interesting review of an apparently interesting book. With one proviso.

The question whether or not to legally tolerate religion (or even grant it special privileges like recognising conscientious objections, allowing for garments demonstrating one’s religious affiliation/adherence, providing prayer rooms in public institutions like schools, etc), depends on

(a) what is to be considered as religion for these purposes, and
(b) what organisation, community etc is officially recognised by the state as religious.

Otherwise everybody could found a religion and claim tolerance or even privileges.

As for (a), the author is right that points 3. (belief in a metaphysics of ultimate reality) and 4. (existential facts about life) are necessary to exclude ideological orientations or movements like Marxism. This very roughly agrees with Geertz’s anthropological definition of religion (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816&page=0#124645 ). Also 1. (categorical demands on action or prohibition) is needed as a pointer to what is to be, or not, the object of tolerance or privilege.

However, I do not see the need for 2. (insulated from ordinary standards of evidence and rational justification) which does seem more like an expression of an a priori condemnation of what is to be defined, that goes beyond a mere definition acceptable to everybody. And, more importantly, it is irrelevant to the question as to what, if anything, about religion should be tolerated by the state.

“I tolerate you although there is no evidence for your belief that would convince me” replaces the older “I tolerate you although you do not know the Truth that only I (my religion) knows”.

Both “evidence” and “truth” are uncontroversial words when used in trivial, everyday language. On a higher level, when referring to worldviews, they are controversial concepts - neither of them is used as self-evident e.g. in mathematical physics or contemporary philosophy of science - and are discussed in some very abstract branches of philosophy.

So I think, whatever the book wants to say about tolerance of religion by the state will make sense without injecting into its definition the a priori negative point 2.

Individual,

Save us the rant and just give a scientific explanation to the miracles of Lourdes or give a reference to some scholarly refutation of the claims.
There must be something on the internet.

Is Mise, how can anyone ever refute something that never really happened in the first place?
You can't prove that miracles happen either.

Personally, I think that if there is a god or two out there, they must be truly heartless to allow children to die of cancer for instance, but yet they 'save' some pious adults?

I worked in a hospital many years ago and stood by and watched while several Jehovah's Witness family members prayed over one of their female members body as she died of blood loss after giving birth.
They refused to allow her to have a blood transfusion.
She left six children behind...

That's real religion for you.

She left six children behind...
Suseonlie,
I wonder what kind of God would have been pleased about that outcome, is Mise''s God perhaps ? I always think of when innocent people become victims of some hideous crime or some drunken or stoned driver. If there is such a power that can make these things happen then why can't this be prevented ? What is the reasoning for bringing humans into this world & then let so many become innocent victims if the power is there to prevent it ? I can't fathom it & I bet is Mise can't either.

Not a bad article. But I strikes me as odd to say that religious beliefs ought not exempt someone from state laws, and then spend all that space trying to define 'religious beliefs'. If religious ideals are not going to be taken into account, then why the need to define them? That's like saying 'red heads' are not going to get any special treatment according to the law, and then spend the next five paragraphs trying to define red heads. Why bother?

I'm wondering why the author wants to define these people. He acts suspiciously and raises suspicion. His poor attempts at defining religions seem aimed at portraying them very negatively and show little insight.

For example, the author states that all religions issue categorical demands on the faithful.

Well, speaking as a Christian believer, I don't know what demands he's talking about or how this applies to myself or fellow believers I mix with. Christianity is about the freedom to live a life of goodness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). The only constraining imposition is the Biblical command to love God, and love ones neighbour as yourself.

Next, the author wants to claim that people of faith are substandard with regard to reason, rationality, common sense and science.

How insulting? If he was standing in my presence, the first thing I'd do is challenge him to a game of chess, and see how he handles this form of common sense and rationality. Christians may see things differently to non Christians. But we hold no beliefs which we are not prepared to logically and rationally defend. We "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope we have" (1 Peter 3:15).

And as for science, the author should become more familiar with history. Most branches of modern science were founded by Christian believers, men of faith who were strong in the Biblical beliefs, such as six day creation. Western science was helped to come into being by the Christian worldview.

Suse,

You have a medical background and you should be able to explain away the claims that miracles have happened at Lourdes.
Specific claims are made, surely they can be refuted scientifically?

Individual,

All that I ask is that you, having made claims about religion, just prove (if possible) that the claims about Lourdes are wrong or point me in the direction of some scientific refutation of these claims.

Can't be to hard can it?

is Mise,
You're beyond help, see ya !

miser..is asking..a nurSE/..lol../for the science.
[mate/NURSES..dont know/science...they know\what sisters tell them..[nothing else

if leg broken..let the docter/move it/INTO ITS PROPER PLACE..THEN DONT MOVE IT..TILL GOD HEAls it

ITS FUNNY/a real science could inform re THE AFFECT OF pLACEOBO..[that/works beter than..the poisen//they call medicne..[me-die*sin]

modern medicine..is based on Wholesale fraud/looking for old patents to fix.new problems/THE TEST...OF ANY Medi-sin..is it needs/only beat doing nuthing..

[so you adjust//the numbers/or picK by bias/from bigger numbers[like some studies put..the worse/into the placebo group/knOWING FOR SURE THEY BEAT..;..PLACEOBO

[IE KARMA..3..OUT OF 4 PEOPLe./simply cant keep a cancer growING[BUT AS.*..MEDISIN..MAKES US MORE HEALTHY/THEY GET THE CANCERS TO GROW.*

its funny the miser..<<You can't prove.that miracles happen either./>>,WAS REFUTED../LOL\BY THE SUSS\night nuRSE/BY SIMULAR ADSURDUM

SUSS\quote..<<..Personally,..I think =..>>

ABOUT what/others/tell her to think

<<not thinking..<<,,>.that if there
is a god.or two out there,..they//must be truly heartless>>

GEEwizz BAT-Woeman..god=all heart[all good
is oF GOD...[all hate..is of men/and night nurses]

YOU have no clue..itS god who sustains every*life their living..its you death merchants/who so study death[not health]..who..<<>. to allow children to die of cancer =..>>

REICHE..CURED..all caNCERS*
a CENTURY...AGO..but medical malfeasanc....hides the..free/cure
HEALED-WITH sound..its the one area no research mONEY..is spent on[why?..bECAUSE..it CURES all n..cancers for FREE*..

[INSTANTLY]..THEY SIMPLY;dissolve/LIKE A gall stonE disolved..by catheter/but\vibratory/and\non invasive.

<<..for instance,..but*yet they..>>..absurdum/self-deleted

..is asking a nurSE/lol/for the science\not grasping at stawmen..[STraw-nurse]....[mate/NURSES..dont know science.they know what sisters tell them..[nothing else

if leg broken..let the docter move iT/INTO ITS PROPER
PLACE/THEN..tell..nurses..DONT MOVE IT..TILL GOD HEAls it

ITS FUNNY/a real svience could inform re THE AFFECT OF PLACEOBO..[that/works beter than the poisen they call medicine[ME-DIE/SIN*]

modern medicine.is based on Wholesale fraud/looking for old patents to fix new problems/THE TEST OF ANY Medisin..is it needs only beat doing nuthing...[so you/LAB-ASSISTANT/of real docters..[lol]..adjust the numbers/or picK by bias/..from bigger numbers,,[like some studies put the worse/into the placebo group/knOWING..*FOR SURE THEY BEAT PLACEOBO

[IE KARMA..3..OUT OF 4 PEOPLe simply cant keep a cancer gnrowING[BUT AS MEDISIN MAKES US MORE HEALTHY/THEY GET THE CANCERS TO GROW.*

its funny the miser..<<You can't prove..that miracles happen either./WAS REFUTED/LOL\BY THE SUSS night/nuRSE/BY SIMULAR ADSURDUM

"is Mise,
You're beyond help, see ya !"

I'm not beyond help, I'm asking for it.

Just give me one link to a scientific refutation of the claims of miracles at Lourdes.
You have had a lot to say about religion, can you not find it in your heart to offer me succor in my dilemma at not being able to find any refutation of the Catholic Church's claims of miracles at Lourdes?

Am I to continue to founder along in my lonely quest when there are people, such as yourself and Suse, who could possibly help me?

Excellent article. When it comes to political considerations (i.e. mandated action or inaction), why do we need a definition of ‘religion’ at all? Internationally recognised Human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) speak of freedom of ‘religion or belief’. Almost every nation in the world has signed the UDHR. It is made quite clear this is intended to cover all personal creeds and understandings of the world and one’s relationship to it and to others. This understanding is a personal thing, and we are not entitled to inflict it on anyone else. I think a huge mistake was made in singling out ‘religion’ in the wording of the UDHR right to freedom of ‘religion or belief’. Of course, many governments and individuals refuse to recognise that religion, is meant to be no more privileged than other beliefs.We should only ‘tolerate’ these beliefs, according to the UDHR, to the extent our actions should not impede the same rights of others (this is also specified in the UDHR).

SUSS\quote..<<..Personally,..I think =..>>

ABOUT what others tell her to think

<<not thinking..<<,,>.that if there is a god or two out there,..they must be truly heartless>>

GEEwizz BAT-Woeman..god=all heart
[all good is oF GOD[all hate.is of men[..and.night nurses]

YOU have no clue..itS god who sustains every-life their living..its you death merchants/who so study death[not health]..who..<<>. to allow children to die of cancer =..>>

REICHE..CURED..all cancers
WITH sound..its the one area no research mONEY..is spent on [why?..bECAUSE..it CURES all n..cancers for FREE*..[INSTANTLY]..THEY SIMPLY dissolve/LIKE A gall stonE dissolved..by catheter...BUT..NO 'GOING-IN',,==..

GOD..SOMEHOW..allow children to die of cancer =..>><<..for instance,..>>

no ..in no instance!
i wish you godless heathens
would stOP TALKING OF a good god..you got no iDea of

then you TAKE thyne/atheist bile..
<<>.but yet they 'save.. some pious adults?..>>

THE THEY..chosing these..tHINGS
IS YOUR FALSE GODS/heads\not the true good...[g0d]

<<..I worked..in a hospital many years ago>>

YES/so what/that dont quALIFY ignorance
regarding a thing*,,you claim dont EXIST

you cant haVE IT BOTH WAY$
if god dont exist..he didNT..'allow nuthin/

get it satanist?

<<>.and stood by..>>

cause thats all sTUDENT nurses
and wanna be volentears CAN DO

<<..and watched..>>

waTCHED god struggling/to sustain\her soul
AS/this lifes ending..DREW/MEDICINES BITTER FRUITS[..incompitant medico's..did the real damaGE/old people know hospitals kill MORE CLEANLY/yet its designed to slow kill[attracting demonS WHO love suffering,,[love..others suffereing]

<<..while several Jehovah's Witness/family members prayed..>>

so you..did nothing*

whILE they were/giving god enERGY[the dyING HER/recognition]..
you dID nuthin*..[nitE nurse;LITE..x=curse..thats the key*]

WHILE/others were encouraging.[involved;you judged].
[you may not/have heard;..but;coma patients have awarness/they hearD;the prayer;were comforted..while you mEREly watched]

<<.<<over one of their female members body
as she died of blood loss after giving birth.>>

YES/DOCTERS HELPED HEAPS THERE/didnt they..
clearly..incompetency FROM DOCTORS..[DEATH BY MEDICAL INCOMPITANce

<<..They refused to allow her to have a blood transfusion.>>[AS YOU WERE A NURSE/..in the days pre aids testing..maybe they were BETTER INFORMED?

<<..She left six children behind...>>

AND YOU DEAR GIRl..WHAT HAVE YOU done with yor life gift?..pass it ON>?

<<..That's real>>,,NURSING FOR YOU

That's real religion teaching..for you.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/podcasts/hourtitle2.m3u

Gee! I saw Jesus and a few Angels in the garage this morning,, a ray of light was shining through the window, a miracle, perhaps I can commercialise the whole thing and make my garage turn into that lovely thing called money, will have statues every where. of what I saw, I am sure I will have many come to pray.
Now who believes me, absolutely no one.

OUG, are you trying to annoy me?
That's not very nice is it?
I sincerely hope you never need the services of a nurse in the future..

Is Mise, I will 'pray' alongside anyone if I thought it would ease their mind and give them comfort, because I know religion is needed by many people, especially the sick.

However, I have seen many unexplained 'cures' in my time that didn't happen at the dodgy 'Lourdes' waters.

Just because science today can't explain why some people seem to survive certain illnesses while most don't, does not prove that any invisible god or two 'caused' it.
There are many instances in medical history where someone has made a 'miraculous' recovery, only to find out much later that there was a reasonable explanation for it.

No one can either dispute or support the dodgy claims at Lourdes because none of us has the true details and none of us are aware just how powerful the Catholic Church and it's far-reaching tentacles are....

Suse,

Why do you consider the Lourdes claims dodgy?

Do you have any credible references to this dodginess?

'Gee! I saw Jesus and a few Angels in the garage this morning,, a ray of light was shining through the window, a miracle, perhaps I can commercialise the whole thing and make my garage turn into that lovely thing called money, will have statues every where. of what I saw, I am sure I will have many come to pray. '

probably a result of gw religion Ojnab. I saw Bob Brown speaking to martians one day. Just like drugs, the gw faith seems to spark psychotic events.

Suseonline, i noticed you did not answer my polite question?

i also noticed that none of the other obviously left wing, atheist, or secular humanist commentators ever even tried to answer my question about whether the behaviour, or sociopsychopathy of these groups matches the groupthink of a radical, extreme religious cult.

please try to answer that question, if you can.

such as yourself and Suse
is Mise,
I am at a loss why you expect us to disprove something that you can't prove ? Miracles a Lourdes ? That's a beat up by the Church to entrapp the gullible. How many sufferers do not get healed at Lourdes & why not ? Are they all so bad that God doesn't think they deserve being relieved of their sufferings ? Have there ever been pregnant women with deformed foetuses which were born normal after a visit to Lourdes ?
There may well be unexplained incidences but to call them miracles is simply a step too far. To me a miracle would be if suddenly all the hyprocrites became benevolent, that would indeed be a miracle. Could you see yourself change ?

>>Why do we need a definition of ‘religion’ at all? <<

Because if religion is given some privileges without the terms being clearly defined then anything could claim to be a religion and ask for privileges, or everybody could found his/her own religion and claim. Alternatively, if religion is denied any privileges, and neither the term “religion” nor “privileges” are clear, all sorts of things could be denied to groups of people that the original legislation did not have in mind at all.

>>Internationally recognised Human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) speak of freedom of ‘religion or belief’.<<

It speaks of many other things the definitions of which are tacitly assumed. Because it is a declaration and not a legislation or law promulgated by a governing body that can (or has to) be acted upon.

It would be wrong to equate atheism with Green or left wing philosophy. Marx may well have been an atheist and so may have been most of his followers. I can assure you that I am both an atheist and a confirmed liberal voter. Why I have the view that there is much to be admired in our present Prime Minister and in our current Government.
The philosophical question that I pose is what is the nature of knowledge? How do we know anything for certain? I would suggest that certain knowledge is not available to anyone. Yet we can have strong views on this or that accepting, always one can be proved wrong.
• We obtain information from our senses. Yet we also know that sensory information can be distorted. Optical illusions which work by tricking the brain are much fun. It is for these reasons that statisticians insist upon controls, randomisation and so on.

• We obtain information from our teachers and books, yet we know that falsehoods are passed down from one text to another. With experience we evolve tricks to verify the veracity of what is read, or what our teachers speak in lectures. Yet even after 80 or so years I can still get it wrong.

• Some claim knowledge from faith or revelation. This I dismiss as being too subjective. Physiologically, I accept that by dint of such procedures as prayer, fasting, repetitive chanting, and use pf pharmacological agents and so on one can alter brain chemistry so that you can believe anything.

So I don’t believe in a God. Ok I cannot prove that God does not exist. In the same way no theist can provide empirical evidence for the existence of deity. However, I do assert that that the existence of a God has such low probability as to be of no practical importance in my life.

indy/quote..<<..Miracles a Lourdes..?>>
69 apparently
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Miracles+a+Lourdes&ie

<<..That's a beat up..by the Church..to entrapp the gullible.>>

PLEASE/STATE WHICH ONES

<<>How many sufferers do/not get healed =..at Lourdes..& why not?>>

JEsus as you may know/sayetH;THY FAITH HAS MADE YOU WELL
jesus ALSO;SAID..why cleans.a demON/FROM MAN;IF THEY ONLY RETURN/WITH 7 MORE DEmons..

iNDY/WHAT YOU mISS..IS THAT OUR MINDSET..allows the sickness[mucH SICKNESS WAS MISSDIOGNOSED[like any skin blemmish was caLLED LEPROCY]..REGArdless..if you dont meet the conditions needed to want to bE HEALED[YOU WONT\]

INDY/MANY THINGS GOVT ALLOWS DONE/MAKES US SICK
WE ARE HERE ON EARTH/BECAUSE We have no passions/that earn us heaven/\HELL

<<Are they all so bad that God doesn't think they deserve>>

no..rest assured/that thou\tHE WORLD HATE;YOU
GOD ALONE LOVES UNLIMITED;he was there'KNOWS the egsact reasoning/lets face it/gods ONLY ERROR;IS HE DIDNt make us pefect[but even this is a gift];TO ERR IS HUMAN

<<> being relieved of their sufferings>>

unconciousness;iS THE BLESSING/SLEEP is where goD REPAIRS OUR EARTHLY HURTS

<<>.?Have there ever been pregnant women with deformed foetuses>>

PLEASE DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH
BUT REGARDING THE DEFECT'S..they tried to cheat fact/thus got worse[karma;not gOD][NEVER THE Less..karma/reveals the higher learning[many;indeed all of us are needed;to reveal gods greaer glorY[WE SEE THE PERFECTIONS..by our verry fragility.[some great spIRITS OWE THEIR GREATNESS;TO THeir physical dAMAGE;

SOME SPIRITS OVERCOme;others seem ovecome;that we may earn good karma;in helping them[easing their burdens/fears;pains.

<<..There may well be unexplained incidences..>>
even sUZIEADMITS..WEIRD THINGS..but prefers to sepperate/care\from the detail.

<<..but to call them miracles is simply a step too far.>>

we miss THE MIRACLE/OF OUR OWN REALITY'
the bigger miracles we accept as mundane[the 'AUTOMATIC RESPONSE/SO MUCH VERGES ON MiRACULOUS..[once we realise we cant EVEN SUSTAIN OUR OWN BREATH;CONCIOUSLY.

http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf
please get informed..god..loves us ..knowing all that we are
is what he gave us to be/some earned better roles[THERE are no small roles[only small actors]

how to explain love to someone who only KNOWS DEATH
GOD KNOWs we are imortal/living energies..having..a mortal life experience/cntinueing or eternall business[real life as we sleep/its a matter of sepperating the dreamer..from his dream/this earthy existance is shock theorpy/to force us to oNE SIDE OR THE OTHER

THE WRITINGS SAY IT SO MUCH BETTER THAN I
http://www.ghostcircle.com/ebooks/JSM_Ward%20-%20Gone_West.pdf

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Attributing scientifically inexplicable phenomena to a god is a personal opinion. There are many other personal opinions just as valid. Some consider that it is because they walked under a ladder. Others that it is because a black cat crossed the street in front of them. Yet others because it is Friday the 13th. Or that somebody opened an umbrella inside the house.

More positively, there are those who attribute such otherwise inexplicable phenomena to the rabbit foot hanging in their car, or the horse shoe nailed on the wall over their bed. Others consider they were born under a lucky star. Still others simply cross their fingers …

As Suseonline apparently is or was a nurse, it is not surprising that she interprets so-called miraculous healing as the medical profession does: in terms of spontaneous remission. Many illnesses are thought to heal in this way. Medication is often more for comfort than cure. Spontaneous remissions are attributed even to some cancers and serious diseases.

Most religious people seem to think it’s normal that a common cold should heal on its own, but are convinced it’s a miracle when it’s something more serious. In their mind, there is a dividing line beyond which nature becomes ineffective and the supernatural has to be invoked for healing to take place.

There is, of course, no scientific evidence to support either opinion : divine intervention or spontaneous remission.

The Catholic Church, which is known to be particularly fond of miracles, has adopted the strategy, for many years now, of first allowing science to exhaust its panoply of possibilities vainly searching for an explanation and then waiting whatever time is necessary for all material evidence, eye witnesses, etc., to disappear, before declaring a particular phenomenon a miracle.

The Church has learned its lessons from Copernicus, Galileo and the others and no longer attempts to opposes science as in the past. It now wisely leaves what little is known to science and contents itself with the vast territory of the unknown in order to pursue its own particular interests.

.

.

Dear one under god,

.

You wrote:

« THE WRITINGS SAY IT SO MUCH BETTER THAN I »

I beg to differ. « The writings » may (perhaps) be just as sincere as yours, but, I prefer to read your inimitable transcriptions couched in your own, unique, personal style which, over the years, I have learned to decipher and come to appreciate.

In addition, I am sorry to have to disappoint you, but I must confess that I accord absolutely no credence whatsoever to anybody pretending to have insights on anything to do with so-called “spirits” or “after death experiences”.

Please do not interpret this as a denial on my part of the possible existence of any such “spirits” or “after death experiences”. As a general rule, I try to keep an open mind on just about everything but only accord my belief with the utmost parsimony. I do not believe anything which is just a simple possibility or aspiration or hope on my part. I do my best to avoid taking my desires for reality. I only believe what I am convinced is real.

The so-called “supernatural” is a simple proposition so far as I am concerned. Until convinced otherwise, I consider that it is not real, in other words : not “something which exists independently of ideas concerning it”.

The “something”, of course, does not necessarily have to be material. I just have to be convinced that whatever it is, it is real.

I have yet to be convinced that so-called “spirits” are real and that somebody can have “after death experiences”. Some people may affirm that “spirits” are real and that they have had “after death experiences”. I do not believe it. I consider that either they are mistaken – perhaps they are having hallucinations – or they are acting under false pretences.

Their “writings” neither interest nor amuse me.

Whereas - I repeat - yours do.

.

Banjo,

You really need to read up on miracles, the Church and Lourdes.

Miracles do happen; there are reports of them on the net.

individual,

Witty writing is not your strong point!
If there are reports of miracles at Lourdes then there ought to be at least a few refutations of them on the net.
One can find learned refutations of very many other aspects of religion, why not the Lourdes miracles?

Don't disappoint me; don't be out for a duck at Lourdes.

Is Mise,
What is a miracle ? Latin miraculum ‘object of wonder’, from mirari ‘to wonder’, from mirus ‘wonderful’.
Yes it is wonderful if someone gets cured, does that make the surgeon a miracle ? Or what about the brainy inventor & even more brainy maker of the surgery equipment that enables the surgeon to become the hero ?
At times the body's defence system is strong enough to overcome an illness or even a decease. I think people like you are misusing & misinterpreting the word miracle. You're hell-bent in trying to attach a religious connection to something that is a chance happening in the process of evolution. Why do I say that ? because you pleople always talk about the almighty & benevolent being you call God. Why then does this God tolerate so much misery & suffering if he loves people so much. All I know is that if I had that power there wouldn't be a single human suffering & any bad ones would miraculously disappear from the face of the earth.

Is Mise,

A miraculous healing - of the kind of the 67 recognised by Vatican (out of about 7000 officially investigated) as having taken place in Lourdes since 1858 - always involves some willpower, some faith in the source of healing (c.f. Jesus’ “your faith has healed you”), even when contemporary medicine cannot explain this acting of the mind on the body. God does not brake the laws of nature to reward your faith (e.g. no prayer has yet brought back an amputated leg.) He acts through your willpower, in this case using Mary, Marian devotion, as a mediator.

These are not scientific facts (we cannot explain the nature of consciousness, in particular the relation between your mind and its carrier, your brain) hence science can neither confirm nor deny these interpretations. One can only state (as the Vatican did in the 67 cases) that contemporary science cannot explain them (nobody can predict what science will or will not be able to explain in the future).

For a person who witnessed such a healing in Lourdes, especially if he/she was the person thus healed, this can be a strong boost for his/her faith. However, if your faith depends on science accepting these miraculous healings as scientific facts, then - if I may say so - your faith is based on very fragile foundations.

the failure to acknowlege One's Creator is sheer pig headedness as every where you look design is very evident. To replace it with the idiotic unscientific notion that order came from chaos shows you can have 3 phd's and still be a fool.

BANJO..<<..I..only accord my belief with the utmost parsimony...>>

that/bought-up..some interesting;envisioning...[see/the after realms..;are divided by our PERCEPTION..[interaction]..of our internal reaction..to the realsed extenALS..our senses..bring into our 'consiousness'/awareness..;[AETHERISED-revealations]..these affectivly sepperate[parse=..the sheep from the goats[to ever finer divisions..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=10
so that as jESUS said..each REALISATION/WE manifest;is of itself..very precise/exact;..a constant wonder/ever more miraculous/as we self realise what we are,,chosing to be..THe..realisation..of the beiNG..OF ALL BEING.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=14

<<..comprehention of our sPIRITUS..>>
begins by finding it/within[self],,THEN/all*other\then everywhere.[but it begins withI the bounds of passability/they themselves parse..as much as passed on..or passed over/or inherited.[ITS A SLIPPERY CONDITIONAL/APPLYING SPECIFICLY..TO OUR PRESENT LIVING MOMENT..[AND momentum]

<<I do not believe anything..which is just a simple possibility>>

MY MINDS REELING BETWEEN THE POSSABLE/THE PASSABLE AND THE PROBABLE AND THE IMPOSSABLE..[damm caps]...god is infinate probability..where the imPost'able becomes post*sible..[that we see others do we can do]..or as jesus said/see that ye see me do;you shall do greater,[i rule nuthing out nor in[except the clear sepperation if that real/possable..and than not real;..only made possable/by supending reality.[good grace mercy light/life=reality]..as jesus said the evil was never real..only our belief gave it any semblance/of 'real'..

<<..or aspiration or hope>>

yes exactly..if we believe it/and its not hurting anyone

<<>>on my part. I do my best to avoid taking my desires for reality.>>

but reality..is proven by your recognition
ONCE a desire is recognised..it assumes reality/by the focus of mind we bring..into its 'having',,desirability,if only montary,for that one fleeting micro second/peter walked on the water/not in it.

<<>.I only believe..what I am convinced*,,is real.>>
in hell..the nightmare appears before our minds-eye..untill we dispell the vision
[if wre thinking it/we are feeding its..'qualities/qualifications'..empowering,,its projection?[they feed me a logic..via the senses.but its my own conviction/that sustains a be*lief,,[lief=love]...lovE BEING..be leaf,,not leave

<<..The so-called “su,per*natural”..is a simple pro*position..>>

ITS ACTUALLY JUST NATURAL..forget the super...[THATS the PRE-suppositionAL/POSITIONED\proposition..MATERIALIST PROPOSITION

<<..so far as I am concerned...Until
convinced otherwise,..I consider that it*,,is not real,>>

ie..the super/pro"..position

<<..in other words..>.super*supra*[ra]-naturalis..is<<..:..not “something which exists independently..of ideas concerning it”..>>

most/assuredly..goD..is one
we are as one/one sustaining THE OTHER..we the collective good=god..]i-am=me]..we-the sin..the illusion..god discovering god..by our works..will we know..he/we/me....

SEE/OUR COLLECTIVE\GOOD/TRUE\GRACE mercy..
atonement..[at-one-meant]..by grace/we find..our*self..=..he.

individual,

You cannot refute the miraculous nature of the claimed miracles at Lourdes yet you have no hesitation in ascribing certain traits to my good self.

Where have I, in the present discussion, mentioned God or a belief in His existence?

Miracles do happen of that there can be no doubt and those that cannot be scientifically explained must be attributed to some source.
Some people think that they are of supernatural origin, surely their explanation ought to be given the courtesy of a hearing at least and their claims examined.

Why can I not find any scholarly examination of their claims?

I have appealed for help but none has been forthcoming.

you can have 3 phd's and still be a fool.
runner,
Thank for stating something factual for a change, if only 99% of academics could acknowlege that, we'd all be better off.
You didn't go to Lourdes since your previous last post by any chance ? If you did I might become a convert.

George,

See Wikipedia for a claim of the restoration of an amputated leg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

"According to 17th century documents, a young Spanish man's leg was miraculously restored to him in 1640 after having been amputated two and a half years earlier".

[THAT SOMETHING/POSSIBILITY/WILL WITHIN THAT REVEALS THAT GREATER..CAUSATION..something..that fulfills
all the possibility..inherent is the one..GOOD..[we=collectively=me].

<<..The “something”,..of\course,..does not/necessarily..have to be material.>>

there is..a surety..in physically holding,AFFIRMING,something[you hold it..or you dOnt]..but when your standing..*on water telling yourself..its ice..that unveils/the mateial..as a self imposed illusion..;..[think like..god dreaming..;-=us..

but that means..our..COLLECTIVE..end-dreaming]
equals he=me[i-am]..with-in..all of me[we]

<< I/just..have to/be convinced..>>no
its not..about points/'concludiNG\nor colluding..a final solution.
ITS ABOUT/US..BEING ENERGY..;..SELF AWARE..[THAT ENERGY CANT BE CREATED..NOR DESTROYED]..yet,,is constantly/in the flux..and flow of change..*of state

<<..that whatever/it is,..>>that we..
as co-creators..re-form/in-form..makes form..[per-form]

<<..it is real.,,as we..are/he lives/thus we live\
we live/thus..so doth he.[the collective '..[of]..E'..=we...=he.

<<>.I have/yet to be..convinced/that..so-called “spirits”..are real..>>

thats funny/think..energy/not even..that bump..'in the night'?
that unexplained\HAPPENING/experience..[sue/has them too.;recall the first time..we heard that/death 'sigh'..[its-ALL/in..the timming]

<<>and..that..somebody>>[WE ALL]....
can..[WILL]....have..“after-death experiences”.>>

i have..enough/'stuff'\..others disbelieve/
thus/i determined..i would accord..belief/of\that i hear
i read/that..which affirms..eagerly/attentivly..like loving /lovers

<<>. Some people..may affirm>>NOT/CON*FIRM?....<<>.that..“spirits”..are real..and that\they/have had..“after death experiences”...I do not believe it...[mistaken/perhaps..they are having hallucinations/or they are acting..under false pretences.>>

surely..you..have some amassing..;experiences/others wouldnt believe
tell/me..are you used/to..wasting time telling..lies..[i feel most are ..sincere;..because..i know stuff/more amassing..has happend/to me]..PERSONALY.

your not seeing..*the miracle..WONDER..[try lamb Island..thread.]

INDY..<<..cured,..does/that make..the surgeon a miracle..?>>
the surgen/was born..a miracle..its only fair/they reveal miracles[often we hear/of surgeons/hands..being..'guided'..

BUT..WHO..is breathing;for/him..
making his heart-pump/blood-flow..dna/divided..etc



<<>.Or what about..the brainy inventor>>

who..was/so..focussed..that..spirit..'in-spired..imputed..a co-invention..!

[see/thaT..if we think..any-thng..
more of the same..is given..*[ie we think..its ouR thought/process..its really..communing/with\the departed..and other*LIFE..[mind-reading][TELLIE-Communion-isation]

just reading/the authers-words/brings/the auther

writing..is recording/THE-MINDS/..vibration..[id/
VIBE]..of the..mind&..with like-minds/thinking..same/same.

<<.At times..the body's defence system..is strong enough..>>

if its prepared..or responds,..OR DENIES..
any power/over god's..natural-good

<<..To overcome/an illness>>..like/this..
inner-voicing..from demons*..<<..All I know..>>
WAS..the call....<<..is that if..I had..*that power>>

which clearly..no-one has
for evil../thus..has..res=,,aon-4-being..exists

<<>>there wouldn't be..a single/human suffering>>
so people/will drift into zombie states/become observers\before their time..[see post mortum journal].

<<>.any bad ones..would miraculously
disappear..from the face..of the earth.>>..[god/fore-bids..this]

PUTTING THE EVIL \..ALL INTO THAT..one secure place
where as demons..they link into..the damion web..[read/7\deadly-sins]..damons/feeding off..others thoughts...inspiring,,the occasional huh?-man...

but mainly..an omnipresent dark/vacume..allowed/existance
on its own TERMS...RESPECTING..thE ME..=we=he...there/butt\4/grace=me

the surgen/was born..a miracle
uog,
I picked that one because it's the only one I sort of think I understand from your style of writing. (I'd love to see a love letter written by you) :-)
Anyhow,
It looks as though your definition of a miracle is exactly as my definition of chance. The surgeon's birth was a chance of him having the aptitude to be a surgeon but in your opinion it was miracle. So, the poor sufferer was born with an ailment that required a surgeon or in your words a miracle to rectify him. Was the sufferers dilemma also a miracle ?
I think it was bad luck ! How can a human being come into this world punished from it's very first breath. I thought all Man are born equal ?

Is Mise , why do all of these miracles seem to take place in the Catholic Church only, is it because the priests wear dresses and funny hats? anybody in times gone by could report so called miracles, everybody would have believed in them because of a lack of education, evidently gullible people still believe in rubbish that spouts from the mouthes of Popes and Priests, the only miracle I must of had was to be a good swimmer, bad luck for the millions who didn't make it, must have been the fault of the devil,
Live in the real world and not in make believe.

"Why can I not find any scholarly examination of their claims?
I have appealed for help but none has been forthcoming."

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you... Is Mise.

Try: 'The Bulletin of the Lourdes International Medical Association is published for medical doctors and professors. It is published in four languages: French, Italian, Spanish and English

Contact
A.M.I.L (Medical Bureau of the Sanctuary)
Sanctuaires Notre-Dame de Lourdes, 1 avenue Mgr Théas
65108 Lourdes Cedex. Tél : +33 (0)5 62 42 79 08'

You could even email them via: bmedical@lourdes-france.com

Individual "You didn't go to Lourdes since your previous last post by any chance ? If you did I might become a convert."

Lol! You gave me my first Sunday chuckle with that one Individual : )

Is Mise, I doubt anyone believes all they read on the internet anyway?

Any old religious person can write whatever they want on some of these 'sacred sites'!
How can anyone refute or prove some 'miracles' that the Catholic Church reckons happened years ago anyway?

Are we expected to take what they say as truth when we don't even have 'proof' that a god actually exists anyway, in order to provide these miracles for a few lucky believers?

I think what happens at Lourde's is a disgrace actually, as I have personally seen some extremely ill people being dragged half way across the world to have this water splashed on them, only to be very disappointed when nothing happens, and their precious god apparently decides they aren't worthy enough to heal...

Dear Is Mise,

The following link may be what you are
looking for:

http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles

Why tolerate religion?

Some form of religion has existed in every society
that we know of. Religious beliefs and partices
are so ancient that they can be traced into
prehistory, perhaps as far back as 100,000 years ago
or more. Even the primitive Neanderthal people of
that time, it seems, has some concept of a
supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday reality.
Among the fossilized remains of these cave dwellers,
anthropologists have found evidence of funeral
ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts that were
buried with the dea, presumably to accompany them in the
journey to the afterlife.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it takes
a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors,
or totems; they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied
rituals, or solemn prayer.

We can say that religion is a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred,
supernatural realm. And this phenomenon is of such
universal social importance that it has long been, and
remains a major focus of sociological interest.

In Australia - people are free to follow any religion they
choose, so long as its practices do not break any
Australian law. Australians are also free not to follow a
religion.

Religious laws have no legal status in
Australia. And that is the way - I believe things should
remain.

Foxy,

Thanks for the link, I was already aware of it.

Regarding the last paragraph of your above post,
see : http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/getaus.html#no.4
there is sometimes a fine line.

Dear Is Mise,

Of course there is always a fine line -
depending on whose power you can influence.
Divorce is not recognised by the Catholic
Church - however as we know Princess Caroline
of Monaco -
was allowed to re-marry in the Catholic Church.

BEING/born..IS..a miracle/I..OFTEN/WRITE,..SHORTHAND.
OR RATHER..by..THICK-THUMB'..OR JUST MIND-NUMB..

<<>.a love letter..>>

thats funny..but thats better 'spoken;
[im cautioned about..'putting it int0 writing'..[PLAUSIBLE DENEY-ABILITY.

<<>.your definition/of a miracle..>>

THE MUNDANE=THE MIRACLE..we miss/the miracle..of A
night/the right length/to our sleep CYCLE..no doudt..if we had no cycles/the 'master's..would work/us sERFS....24/7

i love the simpleness..of 8-WORK8SLEEP8PLAY/PLUS/2 SABBATH-DAYS...whichever way..we twist..it..[8-MATE]..IS/just one rotated=\OF/90degrees..gifts/US..infiniTY.

MIRACLES=MUNDANE..COMMON-PLACE*..
present..every second..as specialists will affIRM

mundanE/miracle<<..is exactly as my definition of chance.>>

lol you must be an evolutionist;right?

there is no chance[WHAT ODDS THE MOON COVER EXActly..the sun?
1..to...1..[cause thats the size it had to be to learn/the teachings of this/world

[THERE..are 9 other humanoid races in the universe[we are the only ones;like the angels/demons..who can read[most get their revelation;direct.

<<..The surgeon's birth>>;was preceeded..by 12 sperm/working together..[To tension the egg mem-brain]..so yes;the 13 th one[you/got-in.

then the streak/that made the notch cord..miracles upon miracles

we see[our eyes make chemical messengers/these Messengers connect to other chemicals untill finaly we 'see'..[others till finally we smell/taste..etc

but its not the brain/wot dun-it[its the mind..
deliberate feedback/debated logic..arrived atonly by means of the u=inputs of other/all so god/can\know;thyself[think..that we;like god..can never meet;ourself..like we can meet anyone else;assuming thEIR presence.

yet..you/in your own presence/can never directly;'gaze..upon thyne own visage..directly..we can only know god/by knowing,,'other'..as well as we know the iner of god we are being.

<<was a chance of him having the aptitude..>>

aptitude/be blown..anyone can be trained;to become anything;if they really have the passion;for the right motivation;motivators..preferably with a fellow guide;teacher[i favour;those in books/their patient words can be TASTED;IN CONTEXT/REVEALING LINKAGE BACK TO THEIR VERY THINKING;IMAGRY,,INPUT;THAT INSPIRED/THE WORDS.damm-caps

........<<..Was the sufferers dilemma also a miracle>>
of-course..[heard/of\karma?..god allways gives US/the correct body to gain;ouR LIFES*lessons..[our body form/genes/even race'sex..are all clues[we all chose;to come/here;some tried/to jump/the cue/wanted incarnation;at any price

<<.How can a human being come into this world punished from it's very first breath.>>

think..oF THE beasts..of humanity..does hitler deserve/to try a new life?
how can you learn;sympathy..till you walked a mile;lived a life;in their shoes

:all are saved[in time we all reach/light live..via logic..
<<.all Man are born equal>>

..yes/death alone..;is not..the/only*great leveler
ENDLESS..RE*-*birth...t00*..

the 'e'..['energy']..e*state.

damm/post..limits

TO/QUOTE..ONJAB[Backwards-banjohova]..<<..anybody/everybody would have believed..in them..because of..a lack of education,>>

inane/convolution;..they believe/because they saw/it;with their own eyes/lived;it/thus know-it.[think/how..in a small-town/there are no secrets...thus gossip the miracULE[wonder]

<<..evidently gullible people>>
yet have erant bias..getting it backwards

<<..the only miracle I must of had..>>
its sad to live without wonder and awe/;humility..at least ya got honour..

<<..Any old religious person..>>
indeed any yung godless heathen..
<<,can write..whatever they want..on some of these..'sacred sites'>>

[which sac*red-sites?!]..[generic slight oversight/site?]

<<Are we expected to take..what they say..as truth>>

clearly/thats a throw-away;line
you clearly take/nun-of/it.

but its ok/to question/it.

<<..when we don't..even have 'proof'>>

proof is what/we all are looking/for[proof isnt fool-proof]
someytimes/the story feels as good as the reality[often better]

but/miracle;as sepperate/from god/who dont do miracles]he allows us too do our owm[the fath[and change/of]diet;,,has made you well/

<<.that a god actually exists>>
is sepperate/from..MIRACle..god gives us/the ability\to realise;miracles[JESUS TALKS EXTENSIVLY;OF MIRACLES..IN A/COURSE-IN MIRACLEs.

<<>.I have personally seen..some extremely ill people being dragged half way across the world to have this water splashed on them, only to be very disappointed when nothing happens, and their precious god apparently decides they aren't worthy enough to heal...>>

your/missing;..something..we are sent here;to learn..not to suffer
once/the lesson is learned/why persist..IN STAYING..for the rest..of the play[sure work-mates..are fun//but nothing;..like the joy we get..for a life well lived...[what ever cards we dealt..ourselves..[or other].

Is Mise

Thanks you for the story about the Miracle of Calanda (a young Spanish man's leg miraculously restored to him in 1640 after having been amputated) that I did not know about. However,1640 is two centuries before the Lourdes apparitions.

As you can read in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda the claim (that the leg was actually amputated) is being contested, although apparently not by the young man’s contemporaries, most of them a priori disposed to accepting all sorts of events as “miraculous”, i.e. against the laws of nature, whatever they understood by that.

Perhaps this might help to see what I mean:

In a German commercial a do-gooder felt sorry for a group of Indian women laboriously washing their clothes in the river, so he donated them a washing machine forgetting that it was useless to them since there was nothing to plug it in, no electricity. Some Christian apologists are like that do-gooder, offering arguments (even disguised as “evidence”) not realising that they are useless, meaningless to an atheist who does not have anything “to plug them in”, no faith.

If you have faith, you will concentrate on those who came home from Lourdes feeling healed (certainly many more than the 7000 who asked the Church to investigate their claim) at least mentally/spiritually; if you are an unbeliever you will, of course, concentrate on those who came home disappointed in their naive expectations.

Oneundergod "your/missing;..something..we are sent here;to learn..not to suffer".

I admire your faith OUG, but I don't share it....any more.

What decent god would send a baby to it's parents, only to take it away with some terrible illness a few days or weeks after birth?
What does that baby or it's parents 'learn', other than suffering?

Religion is not tolerated nearly as often as it used to be....

Susieonline, your posts are excellent, I have visited some of these grotto's of miracles in Europe, but all I could see was a lot of commercial junk to be bought, what I do find so hard to believe is that people like Abbott do not question the absolute nonsense that has been pushed down their throat while in nappies, after the last election I find Abbott is far from being a Christian person, a war mongeri looks after the rich, creates titles etc, I am sure if such a person as JC ever existed Abbott would not be on his list to enter his so called kingdom of heaven, people believe in rubbish, don't have some one else's blood, seriously there is nothing after we jump off the planet, it will be the same as before we came,missing no one, likewise the already dead will not miss you or have ever known you, and you them, the gullible believe they will meet up with family and friends but not their enemies somewhere in rainbow land, when will they learn.

.

Is Mise wrote :

« You really need to read up on miracles, the Church and Lourdes. Miracles do happen; there are reports of them on the net. »

You are right, Is Mise. I typed « miracles, the Church and Lourdes» on my Google browser and obtained 909,000 results.

I did not read them all but noticed that there appear to be just about as many which assumed that the so-called “miracles” were due to “divine intervention” or “faith” as there were which contest such an interpretation.

According to my Oxford English Dictionary the word “miracle” has a primary definition and a secondary definition. The primary definition is “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency”. The secondary definition is “a remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences”.

In order to avoid any confusion please understand the secondary definition whenever I employ the word “miracle”.

About 6 million people go to Lourdes each year, some of whom as part of organised tours by clinics and hospices. A visit to Lourdes is often a last resort before the grave. They are mostly French and Italians (roughly 45% and 30% respectively), though people come from all over the world. Their visit produces an income of about $ 45 million a year.

As George indicated in his post to you on page 10 of this thread, the Vatican officially recognizes 67 miracles at Lourdes since 1858. Even if we don’t go back that far, considering that there has been at least 100 million visitors at Lourdes since the year 1990, the percentage of “miracles” is infinitesimal. Conversely, the percentage of failures is overwhelming.

According to George, « miraculous healing always involves some willpower, some faith in the source of healing (c.f. Jesus’ “your faith has healed you”) ». This seems to imply that the overwhelming majority of visitors were lacking in willpower or faith or both.

(Continued ... )

.

.

(Continued ... )

.

That may be true but I suspect that faith is not dependent on a visit to Lourdes and that the same infinitesimal percentage of “miracles” would occur even if Lourdes did not exist – and even if nobody had any faith.

Thanks to your suggestion, Dear Is Mise, I came across an interesting observation on the web by a Catholic priest called James Keller, as well as two web sites which I thought might be of interest to both you and George.

James Keller :

«The claim that God has worked a miracle implies that God has singled out certain persons for some benefit which many others do not receive implies that God is unfair”. An example would be "If God intervenes to save your life in a car crash, then what was he doing in Auschwitz?". Thus an all-powerful, all-knowing and just God, predicated in Christianity, would not perform miracles. »

Here are the links to the two web sites:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26334964

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znkibtJOQgQ

.

>>an interesting observation on the web by a Catholic priest called James Keller …

«The claim that God has worked a miracle implies that God has singled out certain persons for some benefit which many others do not receive implies that God is unfair”, etc <<

The only interesting thing about this might be that this standard and very old objection - based on the naive understanding of God as a person just like you or I, hence to be judged by the standards applicable and comprehensible to us two - comes from a priest, who should know better.

The point is that miracles, under the classical definition, do and have happened at Lourdes.
There is no scientific explanation for them and any doctor/nurse/medical professional et al can examine the records.
There is no waiting until all the subjects/witnesses are no longer around to give evidence.
In evidence of the above are the two miracles attributed to my distant relative St.Mary MacKillop.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/marys-first-miracle-20101015-16nmd.html

http://www.parra.catholic.org.au/news---events/latest-news/latest-news.aspx/mary-mackillop-s-second-miracle-on-australian-story.aspx

The undisputed fact that only a tiny number are cured out of the multitude that visit the shrine at Lourdes is absolutely immaterial to the cures that have been recognized as miraculous.
Some of these cures include the regeneration of nerves, which we are told is scientifically impossible.

I would be very interested to see a scholarly refutation of any of the Proclaimed Miracles of Lourdes.

Surely someone can come up with a reference; I've even tried Richard Dawkins but he seems to be strangely quiet on the subject.

OVER/FLOW..REPLY\NOTES/..here/catch22.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=15
=re-quote..<<..James Keller..:

«The claim =/that God..has..worked..a miracle..*implies>>
...imp-lies..Recognizes/GOD;good\..thus=good

<<..that God..has/singled out..certain persons..for some benefit>>
...is the delusion/as silly..as saying/the singer..is singing..just-4-me

[god*gives..us/all..manifold..'benefits'..FREELY;..AND\if you went saying chance../or\..accident/automatic\reflex-'reaction\automatism..etc..[some..might/hear the singer]..

others get lost..in/the song..[or/the\score
or/the\chore..lets..GIVE CREDIT/..WHERE..THE CREDIT;..BELONGS..[him/wHO\..RIGHTS..all..;wrongs.

..\$-elective/..bene-fit...\de-nied..
<<..which many..others do-not receive>>
..which..too many..others ignore..thus..
<<..implies that God is unfair”..>>

[but/only/by\;selective/blindness
[the radio/dont sing\//*to/you/..its not/the CD*..[SIC]..*singing

. <<eg.crash/rescue>..might*..for example..indicate/a bad person/unwanted in hell/..is best/kept here..in/This prison/of flesh

<<>.then what..was/he..doing..in Auschwitz?">>

Auschwitz/work-camp..worked people..to death/
LIFE WAS SUB-SERVIENT/TO DEAD/CORPORATIST-WEALTH/
many prayed/that\it end..[and it..diEd///BUT..SLOWLY]..

/but..you\seen/those\who fought/survived/only\..by gods..UNSEEN-hand..[ignoring]..*they..*never asked*..for/re-lease..but strength..to endure*

.
<<...Thus..an all-powerful,..all-knowing/and\just God,>>
*..is given/back\...his due.?

where..?..<<..predicated..in Christianity,>>?!?

<<>and their*[OUR]..precious*god..[HOLY-SPIRIT]>>
remains/there..WHERE?..[HERE/;..for us-all/
with-in..us/all

[no fave-routs/OR\FAV-RIGHTS..,,BUT
but..;..*the heart/loves]=..as the heart/that loves/DOES..

MIND DOES..AS/IT DOES/WE DO...TOO,..SO MuCH MORE..DOTH GOD DO..[to/wit]..ALL GOOD.[god=good][at..lower-levels/butt\of truth..good alone=all/holy spirit.]

god=;the sun.[god..[the/sun]..created..[the heaven..and/ear*th]
holy spirit/created..THE sun..[the spirit..[of god]moved..like the waters..and wind..HOT/COLD..DEEP/DARK/VOID..then god said/[to holy spirit]..[loki]..'let..there be light'[and thanks/be,,to passion]..

there was light..[allowing the seeing
;light reveals..ALL..[know-thyself]..REVEALED/BY]THE LIGHT*.

and god/saw that revealed/by his passion[light]..and it was all good[all god].[its all gOOD OR BETTER]..wanna bet?

we speak/of\..the son..or..the sun
we know*[YOU]..whose dimension[UNI-VERSE/realm]..this is?
[thus we dont speak..'gods'..name/;

we each are..SEED/4\..future suns/of the most holy
ONCE WE GROW..[UP]..GET BIG*GER..AND/learn/to..REVEAL/THE\MANY-FOLD;FRUITS..OF/THE..HOLY SPIRITS..DE*LIGHT.

OR/GO BACK\..TO GO..[IE EARTH]..unless your only needing to correct/SORT..OR SATIATE..;a few..HELLISH-'sins'..[god cant see sin/thus needs..ignore;..the sinner]LITERALLY/HIS;LOVE..BURNS-AWAY..sin..

[after..YOUR/sin=gone..\whats-left/?]
[this realm..is..that place...WHERE/..we/as..MERE;SPECS..
[life/minutia\]..EARN/humanity..[more/will-be-a/given../fore-given.

==.SUE..<<....I don't..share it....any more.>>
ITS/OK-SUE..GOD..loVES..us/ALL*..un-c0nditionally

<<..What decent..god..would send..a baby>>

GOD DONT..'SEND..PEOPLE,,desire/want/need]..
a..WANTed CHILD..[or]..the child..wants*..and god delivers/the asked <<to it's=..chosen/parents,>>

and..most;the time/its ok..but\..some..*timid-spirits/face these material/bounds/and scream..god..take me..;BACK HOME..and..]some[..return home.[most wont./freewill/IS SACROSANCT.

[deciding..they/would rather..correct/the\prior-lesson/based-on their last life..[or infinite/many;other[WAYS]..but/god gifts us all; OUR life/THEN\..what we chose*..to/do wIth-it..IS=up-to..us.

<<..What..does/that\baby..or..it's parents..'learn',>>
the lesson/they asked\OR/NEEDED/to\...be LEARNED/TO..FIND\ passion..passiON../4\..DOING..[WE..learned as/we ear*ned..]

backward/onjab/<<..visited some..of these grotto's..of miracles..in Europe,>>..

lol..[with blinkered-eyes]..[GROTTO-miracle..lol..
GROTTY-SNOTTY...[THY FAITH..[YOU..have healed..YOU...THATS..what co-creation/BY/CO-CREATION-ists..

[you/lot]..are here..to
learn../to\..DO*>....with/passion[pass-it-on].

clue*..<<..but..all..I could see,,>..

was ..affirmation/of\what he..wanted/to]see
hahahaHAHA..HA..[SELF CONFIRMING]..GEE..HOW..$U$$?

ITS..All about\knowing/thy masters..;..voice/sign/quality/the finiteness in..infinity..light;..sustaining..life..that life;.chose.to live/by\love ..and logic...
[adjectives;..].of god..are mind/spirit/eternal/infinite/mercy grace light life love logic licence..warrent/obligato'..to give good..[even for..ill]..BEGGING/WE/will..no ill..do not murder..NEVER/make\ILL.]

[FIGURED..IT..OUT-YET?]
do/no\harm=IS=the charm.

[even/if afraid..of\0ther
OTHERS/will...drive/passion/intention../or\..entente.]
LURID$..is only part/of\the story
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=14
fatima/is\only..just now reaching..its fruition;s.
http://redroom.com/member/frank-sanello/writing/jerusalem-syndrome-a-scientific-explanation-for-miracles-like-fatima-and-lourdes

to get..into heaven/first ye..need forgive[yes;..even/thyne\enemies]
hell/is near all hate.BLAME SHAME/DARKNESS SPITE..heaven is only for the forgiven/BY THEM..HAVING FORGIVEN..;..ALL..WHO/SO\THUS SINNED AGAINST/US\..damm/caps/+\..the.,arty-cull-limits..]

individual & anti-green, do you BELIEVE that the behaviour, definition or sociopsychopathy of a radical, extreme, religious cult matches with left wing politics? is it politics or religion?

And try doing some deeper research on the separation of powers & church.

Found this little bit from Richard Dawkins on Lourdes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GH9aHTkRRw0

imacentristmoderate

Sorry, I do not understand your question.

Can some one tell me why miracles are only associated with the Catholic Church, do they have favour with God that we know nothing about.?

anti-green, it is easy, approach or view left wing politics from the point of view of someone with degrees in forensic psychiatry or forensic psychology & criminology. look at the behaviour, speech patterns of loony lefties, their sociopsychopathy.

And it becomes perfectly obvious they are not in political parties at all, but members of a radical, extreme religious cult dogmatically following the dictates of their "holy book, the manifesto" & their prophet Karl Marx.

Ojnab asked,

"Can some one tell me why miracles are only associated with the Catholic Church, do they have favour with God that we know nothing about.?"

No one can tell you that because it simply isn't true; they may well be in favour being the only Christian church that can trace itself back to Christ.

many churches report miracles
i know..mary baker eddie/christian -cience..healed many/
so much so/that\ron hubbard..high jacked..the name..science
baptists are..renowned..etc..fakiers..of india faith/healers/in south america..endless proofs...with those with eyes to see and minds to remember.

dickdorkins;..vidio..highlights..much bias
[like he talks/of all them\germs/from all them sick people
yet fails-to mention..no sickness outbreaks/on record[much like indian holy spots]..

he FAILS..TO MENTION HERD-immunity/he\is not a docter/thus disrespects/mans ability to..get dying people..out..into the WORLD..[ONe last tiME]..hope/that;the joy/heal..who would deney them..simple belief?

why cast stones/no one..from fatima strapped-on..the backpack he raises[even that..was a set up/the kids were asked to do a training exersize..[set up]..and here..is that scummy dorkins..saying its these idiot=religious-zealot's..behind me.

but..here..i am/talking about..a godless\heathen/ignorant of all topics..he speaks..of..[he..really believes..[his creation story]..re the soul[ie the fish]..that dickdorkins..says..[poor thing]..used to drag his eye..in the mud/so the fish with..lol,,'evolved eyes/lol evolved..flat/to keep..its eyes..clean..

[yet/its fry..[babies/baby...;got,,normal eyes..lol.

[its .not much better..than god/mosus/satan..stood\on it.]

point being..people..go to rock/shows/homes\of the rich/fame[even infamy/..point being/we like seeing,,these place/feeling..the vibe..[how many../eally wanted to help..cure themselves][maybe up to 7000[officialy..70/butt dickdorky..says 54?..again who cares.

most just want..out-a/here..[out/from..this hellish-realm.

i went..to canberra..to see blue poles
that\dont mean/i like..boozer art.

what other points..?..who goes/to these places..is;but...[a certain type..[loves;hangings/crusifictions/golf/tennis/cccar\fottsie-ballls....etc
and [they feel]..they got..good value/besides..they feel its cheating..;..we have//these diseases..as clues to..knowing..thyself.

each disease...points to..a certain type/life/learning..
everything..is a sign/teaching\learning..we are here..to learn..to grow a body of works..good enough..to withstand an..infinite/eternity..in eternity

[most of us..only once come here/in human form/from there peers friends acquaintances and..externalized-awaremess/has been awaken/and we found*>>that passion/we love doing.

[ie mean capital p passion...like a cat/loves
its mouse..or like a mother/protecting..her demion spawn.

many/of you walking\talking future gods\had prior incarnation
in beast forms..our behaviours..indicate much/regarding our previous/devious,,nature/and our nurture..it takes/qualified/parents/to raise\qualify..the child/but society\shall form the man.

that ring of fire/in the sky son..is hell..son
the ring..of fire is fueled/by their own..vilest/passion
oh that good..had such passion..if you cant forgive other/begin by forgiving self...your selfishness...[but/then..go-sin/nomore.

[how well did ye love..the living...
find passion.]..well thats..it/post..

That's one of your best, Dan S de Merengue:

>>If he was standing in my presence, the first thing I'd do is challenge him to a game of chess, and see how he handles this form of common sense and rationality.<<

Are you suggesting that only Christians are have sufficient common sense and rationality to play chess?

That might come as something of a surprise to Viswanathan Anand.

But seriously, you aren't suggesting that anyone who doesn't play chess is substandard with regard to reason, rationality, common sense and science?

Are you?

Is Mise, "
No one can tell you that because it simply isn't true; they may well be in favour being the only Christian church that can trace itself back to Christ."

You can't be serious?
Are you suggesting only those worshipping a Catholic god are 'in favour'?

One wonders what this god was actually doing before Jesus was born?
Didn't he/she/it have the powers to grant 'miracles' before then?
If not, why not?

All cultures and religions talk of people and various gods having 'magical powers' in their history.
They are all good fairy stories to pass down to the kiddies, so they might carry on the 'faith'.

I think this subject is getting more and more bizarre as we go along!
I will see you all on another thread.

Interesting question Susieonline " What was this God doing before Jesus was born" the answer is simple Susie, there never was a God or Jesus, so we need not worry any more about such trivialities,

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« I would be very interested to see a scholarly refutation of any of the Proclaimed Miracles of Lourdes. »

I think you will find that most people agree that miracles do occur, whether at Lourdes or elsewhere, “miracle” being defined as “a remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences” (secondary definition, Oxford English Dictionary).

The problem arises when you try to explain why miracles occur. That is when dissension sets in.

When no scientific explanation is forthcoming, the way is free for religion “to attribute the event to a divine agency” (primary definition, Oxford English Dictionary) or to “faith” as indicated by George on page 10 of this thread.

The Online Etymology Dictionary traces the origin of the word “miracle” back to the Sanskrit smerah "smiling," Greek meidan "to smile," Old Church Slavonic smejo "to laugh". It later evolved to the Latin miraculum "object of wonder" (which became in Church Latin, "marvelous event caused by God"). Then from the mid-13c. it evolved to just an "extraordinary or remarkable feat," without regard to deity.

In his Manifesto on Miracles and Revelation (Kevaddha Sutta), speaking of miracles, the Buddha says “I dislike, reject and despise them”. He warned his followers against exploiting miracles to manipulate people and attract new adherents.

Doug Smith, an American philosopher, suggests the following reason for the Buddha’s rejection of miracles :

« Perhaps the Buddha is really saying that these miracles don’t bring people to the dhamma for the right reasons. They are mere circus show; the sorts of things that stun and delight the crowd but don’t really instruct. The real miracle is not supernatural at all. It is the ‘miracle’ of the dhamma : of teaching true wisdom.

Even the attitude of the Catholic church to miracles has evolved over time.

In 1234, Pope Gregory IX established procedures for the Vatican to investigate miracles and the life of candidate saints. Prior to that there was no centralized procedure. The Swedish Church had canonized a monk who was killed in a drunken brawl.

.

No, Pericles. I wasn't suggesting any of those things. I was attempting to highlight an unhealthy bias in the article (a piece that most here commenting seem to have long forgotten.)

It seems to me that everyone here who has commented on the article is in wholehearted agreement. I read the author as saying that governments should tolerate religious beliefs based on conscience similar to other matters of conscience. If so many here agree, it probably follows that he's not saying anything controversial. He may not be saying anything very meaningful at all.

But he raises some interesting anecdotes. It reminds me of the situation in Australia with regard to compulsory voting. The government compels us to vote. Presumably, this is to remind us of our civic obligations, and that we are all responsible for good government.

However, if I cannot stomach either of the major parties, and don't like any if the minor candidates, I'm often tempted not to bother voting. Even by conscience I wouldn't want to vote for any of them, as the preferential system will give my vote to one of those lousy characters. So I'm compelled to go against my conscience.

But not so, if I belong to the church of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because this group feel driven by conscience that they are not to involve themselves in civic government, they have been therefore granted an exemption from voting. In essence, by virtue of a religious exemption the JWs are allowed to avoid a legal obligation to which the rest of us must comply.

Yet I don't begrudge them this. I think within the overall scheme, we are all still free to follow our conscience on this matter. When I don't like any candidates, I can go to the voting booth and have my name crossed off and submit a blank paper.

"When I don't like any candidates, I can go to the voting booth and have my name crossed off and submit a blank paper."

It's still a crime, contrary to popular opinion. If you look in the electoral act, what is required is "to vote", not to get your name crossed off the list.

I think the biggest modern religion or superstition is of course the supposed miraculous powers of the State: it can cure the sick, fine-tune the climate, create real wealth by printing pieces of paper, equalise the genders, fix the Middle East etc. etc. etc. etc.

The method of reasoning is always the same as that of those who reason that rain dances increase crop fertility. If crop fertility increases after a rain dance, they reason it was because of the rain dance. If crop fertility doesn't increase after a rain dance, they reason it was because they didn't do enough. This is exactly the same line as we get, for example, with government's alleged "tackling recession" - i.e. creating wealth - by printing paper. Completely irrational. Yet unnoticed, because it's the State. If you substituted the expression "the Pope" for "the Governor of the Reserve Bank" they would recognise it immediately.

Similarly, we often get left wing people correctly identifying religious thought as circular and illogical, but engaging in exactly the same intellectual methodology when it comes to the alleged benefits of governmental action.

All the same criteria in the definition of religion apply to statism in general, and Marxism in particular. The statists just substitute the State for God, that is all.

ITS..interesting/..i just heard/that all religions..are created/equal
thats a good enough reasoning..till you take into account/that any extreemists[who drift away from their faith]..will be unable to CONNECT..spiritualy..in the next life/with their ancestorial line[but usually its a safe bet/those believing the same things/do the same things..and end up in the same place.

and nuthin ya can do,,about it..preaching
only drives the problem in deeper..many would not be atheist..;if not for meeting a demon..claiming..that faith/but cLearly by their wr0ds/w0rks..be far from it[like i recall belly stoppeD BELIEVING..after hearing a couple of priests disbelieving,[HAVING,,BAD SERVANTS..IS NO REASON T0 DUMp a perfectly good god.

but there yu go/some tink to forgoe eternity;for lies
now belly never..did the schooling..so he dont know the law re enerrgy consERVATION,,[energy cant be created nor destroyed[our mind/nerves=electrical engery..[that equates to arround one ounce of mass[having the godlESS SAY THATS SIMPLY VAPOUR EXPIRATION IN OUR BREATH..dont refute the proofed truth.[ignoring the other test/that proved wild DOGS GOT NO SOUL*

http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf
http://archive.org/stream/talbotholographicuniverse/talbotholographicuniverse_djvu.txt

AND REGARDIng,,speciaL rights,,[sPecial dispensatION]
ALL LIVING DESERVE EQUAL STANDING/re freedoms/duties/protections/rules

but all created fictions,,ie/states\business/trusts/corperations/deptments..etc..[ie persons created/under their CONSTITUTING act..where the living are enslaved to serve the dead corpus/they only have the rights..of those they serve,,[the living right holders doing the serving.

Jardine,
I tend to agree with your last comment. The state is happy to take on a religious role or position. It's not intolerant to religion at all. Rather, it's busy instituting its own form of religion - a type of secular humanism.

The government is intolerant only to certain forms of religion. You get a taste of the intolerance in the article here when the author descends to calling those he disagrees with 'stupid'. He refers to certain religious believers as irrational, unreasonable, lacking in common sense and scientific knowledge. It's name calling at a very basic level.

I wish the author, Ralphe Seccombe, who seems to have contributed to OLO regularly, would come and defend his writing here in the comments section.

'Rather, it's busy instituting its own form of religion - a type of secular humanism. '

Cetrtainly is Dan S de Merengue and what a miserable failure it has been. It actually has more in common with Islam than any other religion/ideologies.

Lourdes Miracle, No. 61 of 67.

"Elisa ALOI

Born on 26.11.1931 in Patti (Sicily)

Cured on 5.6.1958, in her 27th. year. Miracle on 26.5.1965, by Mgr Francesco Fasola, Archbishop of Messine.

This was the last cure involving multiple tuberculous lesions.

Elisa ALOI was nearly 17 years old when her illness began with a white swelling" of the right knee (tuberculous arthritis). In the following 10 years, up to 1958, she developed numerous tuberculous infections in bones and joints. At these sites, fistulae usually occured, requiring in-patient treatment in hospitals and sanatoria. Despite more or less immediate treatment, relapses and recurrences were for ever happening.

In June 1957, in desperation, she went to Lourdes with the Unitalsi Pilgrimage from Sicily.

She did not seem to benefit from the visit really.

But in 1958, she went to Lourdes again in a much worse condition, encased in a pelvis-to-foot plaster cast, with four fistulae drained through it. The dressings were soaked in Lourdes' water during the pilgrimage. Just ten days after she had left Sicily, her surgeon observed and wrote "Elisa ALOI returned from Lourdes completely cured".

The Medical Bureau in Lourdes recognised her cure, and handed her dossier to the International Medical Committee in 1960.

There, Professor Salmon, the recorder, had his report of a medically inexplicable cure adopted by the Committee.

Finally, after the Canonical Commission had given a favourable report, Mgr Fasola, Archbishop of Messine, declared "that the cure from multiple fistulous tuberculosis, which happened to Elisa ALOI, is miraculous" on 26.5.1965.

Some months later she married. Between 1966 and 1974, she gave birth safely to four children, which without any doubt was "the best evidence of her complete cure"

Can anyone point to, or give, a scientific explanation of this reported happening?

Dear Foxy,

<<Although religion is a universal social institution, it takes a multitude of forms.>>

Well, here seems to be the source of the colossal misunderstanding that is expressed by many posts here: religion is not a social institution.

Religion is all about coming closer to God rather than about social issues. Yes, since there are a multitude of religious methods, they incidentally also reflect in a multitude of ways on society, but that's only a side-effect of religion, not its goal.

Sadly there are others who are not religious, but take a ride on the name of God and try to achieve their social goals by calling themselves a "religion" - they should be exposed and condemned.

---
Regarding miracles, if they exist then they are detrimental to religion, because they destroy faith, tending to replace it with evidence.

Is mise, spontaneous healing or 'cure' of tuberculosis is has been noted for a long time.

Here's an abstract of a paper from modern medicine that deals with one aspect of it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20958211

And here's an article that shows that it has been known about for quite some time:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2273842/?page=1

Miracle? Maybe by older medical standards.

Need to go to Lourdes for it to happen?
No.

Bugsy,

Very interesting but neither article refers to such quick cures and neither addresses the case quoted,

Jardine K. Jardine,

To vote informally is not a crime, for to do so one only has to "make" an obvious mistake, such as "unintentionally" giving first choice to two candidates.

Suse,

"You can't be serious?
Are you suggesting only those worshipping a Catholic god are 'in favour'?"
That's not what I said; look up 'comprehension'.

Ojnab,

You said "....there never was a God or Jesus, so we need not worry any more about such trivialities,"

The writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus

Tacitus.
"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Dear Yuyutsu,

The great variety of religious behaviour and belief
makes it very difficult to say exactly what
"religion" is. Many definitions have been offered in the
past, but most of the ones we are familiar with have been
biased by ethnocentirc Judeo-Christian ideas about
religion. These ideas are based on a number of central
beliefs; that there exists one supreme being or God;
that God created the universe and all life and takes
a continuing interest in the creation; that there is a life
hereafter; and that our moral behaviour in this life
influences our fate in the next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular
combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do not
recognize a supreme being, and a number do not believe in
gods at all. Several religions ignore questions about
the origin of the universe and life, leaving these problems
to be dealt with instead by nonreligious myth.

Many religions assume that the gods take little interest in
human affairs. Some have almost nothing to say about life
after death, and many - perhaps most - do not link our
earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.

Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of
Western religious tradition alone.

Emile Durkheim, one of the first sociologists to study
religion, pointed out that a single feature is common to
all religions; a sharp distinction between the sacred
and the profane.

cont'd ...

Oh, you want a scientific explanation of the case actually quoted?

Well, since there may not be much actual investigation, and since medical science of the time had far less diagnostic power as today, you probably won't find one.

However, spontaneous recovery from infections is not extremely rare, and occurs relatively regularly. That the speed of recovery was fast, is remarkable, but again not inexplicable.

The case is not inexplicable, spontaneous recovery from tuberculosis is not undocumented. There is plenty of scientific evidence that says that this case is fully scientifically explicable. Statistical improbabilities or anomalies happen every day, it's the law of large numbers,and they appear weird to the casual observer, however they aren't 'miracles'.

cont'd ...

The sacred is anything that is regarded as part of the
supernatural rather than the ordinary world; as such it
inspires awe, reverence, and deep respect. Anything can
be considered sacred; a god, the moon, a king,
a symbol such as a cross. On the other hand, the profane
is anything that is regarded as part of the ordinary
rather than the supernatural world; as such it may be
considered familiar, mundane, even corrupting. Of course,
the profane too may be embodied by the moon, a king, or
a symbol.

Something becomes either sacred or profane only when it
is socially defined as such by a community of believers.
Durkheim also observed that a religious community always
approaches the sacred through a ritual - a formal,
stylized procedure, such as prayer, incantation, or
ceremonial cleansing. Ritual is a necessary part of
religion because the sacred has extraordinary qualities,
and must be approached in a carefully prescribed reverential
manner.

As I stated in my earlier post we can say, then, that
religion is a system of communally shared beliefs and
rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supeernatural
realm.

The phenomenon is of such universal social importance
that it has long been, and remains, a major focus of
sociological interest.

Bugsy,TRY Numero 63

"Vittorio MICHELI

Born on 6.2.1940, in the Province of Trento (Italie)

Cured on 1.6.1963, in his 23rd. year. Miracle on 26.5.1976, by Mgr Alessandro Gottardi, Archbishop of Trento.

On 16th. April 1962, Vittorio MICHELI, a soldier in the Alpine Corps, was admitted into a hospital in Verona for the diagnosis and treatment of an obscure condition of his left hip. After various tests, ineffective treatment and also a biopsy, the dreaded diagnosis of a malignant tumour, a sarcoma, was made on 4th. June.

For a whole year he remained under the care of the Military Hospital and Centres, although no anti-mitotic, surgical, medical or physiotherapeutic treatment was applied.

Deterioration, both locally and generally went on relentlessly, with total destruction of his hip joint. But he still undertook a pilgrimage to Lourdes with his Diocese in June 1963.

During the pilgrimage, nothing notable happened, except that he bathed, encased from pelvis to foot in a plaster cast.

On his return he appeared to be in better shape, but because he was doing his military service, he was obliged to go back to his starting-point, i.e. the Military Hospital of Trento.

More X-rays were taken there, and in a way difficult to comprehend, they were incorrectly interpreted, being considered identical to his former ones. This accounts for why it was 6 months after the pilgrimage before proper notice was taken of his excellent health, absence of pain, ability to walk and finally "the remarkable reconstruction of his hip" the first signs of which had already been present 5 months before!

Each year since 1963, Vittorio has visited Lourdes. In 1967, the Medical Bureau saw no reason to delay admitting that "it was impossible to give any medical explanation for this cure ".

In 1968, the International Medical Committee postponed its decision, after hearing Prof. Salmon's report. It was only in 1971, a lapse of 8 years, that this Committee confirmed the verdict of the Medical Bureau of Lourdes.

Naturally, Vittorio MICHELI keeps on coming to Lourdes, working as a brancardier in his diocesan Hospitalite".

Regeneration of a hip?

Try putting on your criminal profiler hats, look at the criminal minds of all disciples of atheism, secular anti-humanism & left wing theology.

it is religion, not politics or ideology. they worship/deify/canonise their leaders, their unholy scriptures & demonize all who refuse to convert.

Try reading "United in Hate".

Is Mise, doing a search of stories around Vittorio, brings up some different accounts. Your account says "regeneration of a hip", as if the hip disappeared. Other accounts say that the tumor was large enough to dislocate his hop joint, which made the leg dangle. In the absence of any actual data, I cannot offer a proper scientific explanation. However, hypotheses abound. I have found that people don't like to look too hard at these things when they think they already know what happened...

However, this may be of some interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

ima/quote..<<..Try reading "United in Hate".>>..zionist propaganda

he asks such absurdity/by claiming outlandish stuff[like he started a docerate/re islamb/has a saudi koran\lol..[no doudt in saudi..but we know..im a centrist moderate,..leaves unspoken..*from mossad.

so i added that to the search term/you supplied
and gods demons..[jinn..gave me this]

http://www.maskofzion.com/2010/09/911-israels-grand-deception.html

MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS YOUR KNOWLEGE
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16422&page=9

Those who expect to get healed in Lourdes irrespective of their state of mind (faith or no faith) as after a surgery, are like that English couple who adopted a French baby because they wanted to learn French.

Dear Foxy,

Looking at religion with Westerm, Judeo-Christian eyes is perhaps less of a bias than looking at the phenomenon of religion through Emile Durkheim’s ritual-definition (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4898#130804).

On the other hand, in my opinion, your definition of religion as “a system of communally shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm” is wide enough, covering Durkheimian as well as other perspectives.

Is Mise,
Re “spontaneous remission”:

Allegedly happened in the 19th century, somewhere in the “Wild West”: A train full with passengers was rushing along, while the pious engine-driver was praying. Suddenly an angel appeared before his locomotive, frantically waving his wings, until the driver stopped the train. They found themselves a few feet in front of a collapsed bridge. When he told passengers what he saw, they prayed, thanking God for sending an angel to save them. Only one atheist among them could not believe it, and indeed, found out that what the driver saw was in fact the shadows of a butterfly or night moth caught in the lantern. So the other passengers now thanked God for sending a butterfly (and a pious engine-driver) that save them.

So maybe also in some of the Lourdes healings God uses what can be seen as “spontaneous remission” like that butterfly in the case above.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Thank you for those detailed descriptions of Lourdes miracles N° 61 and N° 63 of the 67 officially promulgated by the Vatican.

I am sure they bring hope to many of those unfortunate persons who find themselves in a similar situation. Perhaps they ask why them and not me? It does seem something of a lottery.

You ask : « Can anyone point to, or give, a scientific explanation of this reported happening? »

That, of course, is sheer provocation. Who could doubt that you know full well that in order for any competent specialist to offer “a scientific explanation” he would need to carry out a full, in-depth study of each case ? And if he were to examine the Sicilian, Ms Elisa ALOI and the Italian, Mr. Vittorio MICHELI, today, it would seem he could only declare them healed from whatever illness they may possibly have had some time in the past.

Presuming there was no cheating on the part of the persons themselves nor on the part of the medical experts involved, he could only conclude that there had been either spontaneous remission or an error of diagnosis of their ailment, due, perhaps, to lack of specialist knowledge.

Who could doubt, also, that you are also fully aware that, for many years now, the Vatican has taken the precaution of systematically investigating each case with the aid of qualified specialists before officially promulgating them bona fide miracles.

By definition, the findings of competent medical experts are exactly the same irrespective of whether they are totally independent or acting on behalf of the Vatican. It is only after the experts have deposed their conclusions that the religious authorities of the Vatican decide whether or not to attribute the healings to divine intervention.

The Vatican’s decision is not based on medical evidence or knowledge but on the lack of them. It is a religious interpretation of the unknown. The medical interpretation of the unknown is spontaneous remission or error of diagnosis (presuming all parties involved to be honest).

(Continued ... )

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The Vatican created the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1603. In his speech to the Academy in 1979, Jean-Paul II declared:

« We cannot but deplore certain attitudes deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science: they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into thinking that faith and science are opposed »

He further declared to the Academy in 1992 :

« A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.

From the Galileo affair we can learn a lesson which remains valid in relation to similar situations which occur today and which may occur in the future.»

Despite those admirable, noteworthy declarations, the Vatican continues to give a very different interpretation to “miraculous” healings from that of the medical profession.

To be quite honest, it should clearly indicate, on each occasion, that its interpretation is purely religious and not that of the medical profession.

Here is a link to the Papal speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences from 1917 to 2002 :

http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv100.pdf

.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for that delightful story about the pious train driver and the moth. As I am not very good at remembering jokes I shall record it on my PC for future reference.

Allow me simply to remark that mistaking the shadow of a moth for an angel is more of the order of an “error of diagnosis” than of “spontaneous remission”.

But, then , perhaps God uses “errors of diagnosis” too, as you suggest he uses “spontaneous remission”, in order to make some of Lourdes healings appear to be miracles.

.

Dear Banjo,

I think not only Is Mise but also others provided here enough material indicating that the Vatican went through very thorough investigations by independent doctors (passing only 69 of the 7000 cases) to make “error of diagnosis” much less likely than “spontaneous remission”, at least in cases of cancer.

.

Dear George,

.

I agree : “errors of diagnosis” are probably less likely than “spontaneous remissions”, but can’t be ruled out – and may not necessarily be detected after the symptoms have more or less disappeared.

The fact that there is an “error of diagnosis” does not mean that the patient does not have some serious illness. The problem is he receives treatment for an illness he does not have and no treatment for the one he does have. That can go on for quite some time before he finally dies or, perhaps, gets better as a result of “spontaneous remission”, if his natural defences are strong enough, despite the double dose of medical neglect and ill treatment.

But that is not the point I was making.

Going back to your amusing story, the way I see it, a pious train driver who looks at the shadow of a moth and thinks he is seeing an angel is a bit like a doctor who looks at the symptoms of one illness and interprets them as the symptoms of another. Both may be said to be making an “error of diagnosis”.

.

Is Mise

"To vote informally is not a crime, for to do so one only has to "make" an obvious mistake, such as "unintentionally" giving first choice to two candidates."

Perhaps so, but to intentionally not vote is a crime.

All
If you look at the history of toleration of religion, it was mostly because people were using religion to fund under compulsion things which are today very commonly funded by the State, such as educating or indoctrinating children (think state schools), religious propaganda (think ABC), promoting denomination-specific religious worship (think Anzac Day), charity (the dole), and promoting things that were holy to one religion and repugnant to another (think abortion). Look at the orthodoxy on global warming, with so many parallels to the traditional Christian orthodoxy: impending cataclysm, man's moral fault to blame, the need for repentance, the reverencing of a monopoly corporation (church/state) as authority and competent to fix it, the unfalsifiable/irrational methodology of proof (biased; e.g. any adverse weather event is taken as proof, but any positive weather event is disregarded), the selling of indulgences/carbon tax; the villification of heretics/deniers. They're even casting the debate in terms of belief! It's virtually a re-run of the original with the State substituted for the church.

Science and education should be disestablished for exactly the same reasons religion was.

Dear Banjo,

In my understanding, spontaneous remission (an unexpected improvement or cure from a disease) assumes that the diagnosis (of cancer) was right. It is a scientific fact with causes unknown, not a human error.

Of course, you can give almost any metaphor an interpretation that suits your view of the matter. Your point apparently concerns the credulous train driver, mine was about God making himself visible to a believer without having to break the laws of nature (anyhow, why should He keep on breaking what he himself “created”?). Of course, the unbeliever sees only the event (the moth or spontaneous remission) that God used to disclose Himself to the believer. The same as a blind man cannot enjoy the sunset, but if he knows enough physics he can analyse and explain the phenomenon.

Jardine K. Jardine,

There are plastic replicas of plants (religious institutions in this case) with properties better than those of the original. Nevertheless, many of us prefer the “imperfect” original rooted in the soil (of history in this case).

LET/THE FIRST/BE;LAST
sickness/healing..isnt complicated/we all have spirits/we entertain/unawares/some bring gifts/blessings[mine]..others bring suckness..it gets/t0 where we cant tell where we begin/end[but there is no end..[see last link/re the healing thing.

BEEN PICKING FAVS/where i have up to 8 posts/to resolve more complicted replies..key/lamb-island page
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=48

last mission/reason for present page..[catch/22]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=11

(Allah doesn't change his word,..6:115,..but he does "substitute" it when he comes up with something better, ..2:106...16:101).HE/SENDS MEN CONSTANT/MESSangers.

Older versions of the Quran..would be helpful in the study of certain words;..(since vowels are often left out of transcriptions) but unfortunately ancient texts are usually either destroyed or hidden from public view by authorities, since they differ somewhat from modern versions - and thus throw into question the Quran's internal claim to be the immutable word of God (although the Hadith plainly indicates that multiple versions existed following Muhammad's death).

The suras of the Quran can be grouped into two distinct periods in Muhammad's life. There is the earlier "Meccan" period, when Muhammad had little to say about violence or "fighting..[reflecting;the spirit;of the location..&*

Estimated Chronology of the Quran

Suras from Mecca..[oasis]LIgHT

96, 68, 73, 74, 111, 81, 87, 92, 89, 93, 94, 103, 100, 108, 102, 107, 109, 105,113,114,112,53,80,97,91,85,95, 106,101,75, 104,77,50,90,86,54,38,7,72,36,25,35, 19,20, 56,26,27, 28, 17, 10, 11, 12, 15, 6, 37, 31, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 88, 18, 16, 71, 14, 21, 23, 32, 52, 67, 69, 70, 78, 79, 82, 84, 83, 29

Suras from Medina..[deserts]DARKNESS

2, 8, 3, 33, 60, 4, 99, 57, 47, 13, 55, 76, 65, 98, 59, 110, 24, 22, 63, 58, 49, 66, 61, 62, 64, 48, 9, 5

but who can tell the diferences
[lest we forget/this Is satans school]
http://patriotrising.com/2014/06/18/amount-fraud-across-board-epic-weve-never-seen-anything-like/

/talbotholographicuniverse_djvu.txt
this is a photo[of the holographic/plate[up-CLOSE]
NOTE THE DOTS
[THEY PROJECT/the whole hologram/equate that dot to you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holographic_recording.jpg

now
try to see..we*..are a LIVING 3D..HOLOGRAM/SIMULI
THE STIMULIE/=DOTS INDIVIDUALY..=US..[WE]..YET CLLECTIVLY/holy gram =ME,,[HE]..THE COLLECTIVE of all true good living loving light[de*light.]

http://archive.org/stream/talbotholographicuniverse

then//try..orignal/page 19..
[electrical pdf/tool-page 31]
http://www.ghostcircle.com/ebooks/JSM_Ward%20-%20Gone_West.pdf

in the officer/page 86/as he walks you through the hologram

next/heal\thyself
http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf

School chaplains are teaching in schools that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes, therefore they must pray to God to rid themselves of this sin. As God is omnipotent he created the problem in the first place,it is like a disaster that kills many people, then everyone goes to church to pray to the God who once again being all powerful could have stopped the disaster in the first place.
We seem to have many writers to OLO trying their hardest to verify this or that concerning miracles that they have happened, mainly reporting from all sorts of details coming from their I-Pad or Computer, anybody can write anything on the sites being quoted, like religion it can be false

Perhaps someone can tell me why all this has happened in the last 2014 years, why did the so called virgin birth take place then, why not 5000 years earlier or even millions of years earlier, why did God wait until then, had something created another God to create the God of the virgin birth 2014 years ago, remembering the world was flat back then by the inhabitants of the time.
Folks if you believe in your religion good luck to you, but there are so many unanswered questions about God & Jesus that I for one do not believe in any of it.
I bet in millions of years time when we have all departed ,our spirits will still be spooking around somewhere, with all the other billions gone before, remembering we who believe in him shall have everlasting life, I don't think so.

A number of key issues are of importance here –

1) Religion MUST first be properly defined – such that we need parameters of size, age etc. [i.e. Is my personal philosophy a religion if it incorporates a transcendental diety? Or is there some requirement to have millions of followers and also that the age of the following must be vast?]

2) How can we recognize when a “religion” has become a culture’s political and social system? Should we tolerate this?

3) The article author Lette seems unable [like everyone else] to find a clear and sound argument for accepting all religions, and for how to decide when a particular practise is bad and should not be tolerated. I recall Mill’s “non Harm” principle which he devised as a way to govern [generally] the liberties and freedoms of all individuals. That is he said that we each should be free and unhindered . . . so long as that action does not harm or hinder another.

4) Lastly – WHY IS ANYONE BOTHERING TO ENTERTAIN THIS NOTION AT ALL? That is, WHY should ANY belief system or philosophy be deemed more important under law etc. than any other? Why also should it matter if my beliefs are only mine; why are millions of people needed before we accept it as equal?

In any case [and most cases] religion is often intertwined with a social-cultural-political system which often also incorporates ethnic/racial identity of the people following. That is very, very dangerous as history of ALL religions shows and also as is evident today in the Middle-East - currently the Shiites and Sunnis again.

tell/the bjona..that we first send those you caled gods[who loved the daughters of man..histry is/only complete\in light of the movements of men-kind/their beliefs ref=liefs fetish/religion.

take jesus time..bjona...if ya siply ate/the wrong thing\your gone
move on/begone,..so in this time/what one ate/was sacred[dining for example took 4 hours/but before anyone could eat/THEY ALL HAD TO RITUALLY WASH THIER HANDS/one dont eat/with 'dirty'-hands,

thats hard law
now/see 4000/5000..of these
who heard/every wurd;of the sernman-of\the mound
all'equally;unclean/with roadcrime/not a handwash-jar[let alone the mandated 7,..to be seen

heck/some-even bought\their/own;;food/they too couldnt eat[neither]
so as the food went arround/the plate got heavier[thats how you feed 5000 clean freak phobics[sic]

now/let double/the odds..[lets sit/them..OPPISITE each other
WATCHING..each other[to see who eats;..UNCLEAN*..so few if any did eat/yet each ate/as much as they needed.

now lets see/these handwash-jars/with atheist eyes
the jars;or like toilets/filthy.UNCLEAN..[now atheist/if a party guest/said its not my time[ie not my host duties/in fact i couldnt care less if you drew up that filthy unclean toilet water-jar/water

now servanTS DO/as human nature does/if it ever GOTout[or put into a holy book/this canna host served his guests toilet water/him and his servants honour would be severly debased

thus the servants raided the masters private stash
simple human nature[now jesus had to repeat it twice/and still his own dont get it[his deciples didnt know the unclean haNDS RULE]..as witness by the shewbread..incident.

the miracle wax rfuted by clue re human naTURE
miraces dont wor/because we get lazy[if god going to make you..BRAND new/why take precautions[many the holy man died from his std demons/proving they became un-enlightend..[its not a destination;..its a mindset/and freewill is the one constant/through-out infinity[for eternity]

energyy cant be created;nor destroyed
[be over joyed;find your passion;live it.

Jardine,

To deliberately not vote is a crime, but is it a crime to deliberately vote Informal?

An informal vote is still a vote but it's a moot point as it is impossible to prove that a crime has been committed without surveillance, which in this case would be a crime and thus inadmissible as evidence.

Those who are moved to write insulting things on ballot papers or to poke pencil holes in them are very safe.

'I bet in millions of years time when we have all departed ,our spirits will still be spooking around somewhere, '

Ojnab slags off at the Christian faith and then comes up with the above comment. Hilarous! Your logic is as twisted that as those who claim that order came from chaos and that your ancestors were monkeys.

Certainly the Christian faith does seem hard to believe at times until you look at the totally idiotic alternatives.

btw Ojnab the Scriptures don't single out homosexuality as sin. It is listed along side fornication, lying, adultery, theivery, drunkedness. The reality is that all people are born with a fallen nature and that includes you and me. Out of the many school chaplains I have known none have taught in schools that homosexuality is sin (even though it is). Is this just another made up lie from the god deniers?

Part of the reason for the virgin birth that you seem to mock is so the Son of God would be born sinless (having not had the sinful nature passed down to Him).

Dear Matthew,

As for "WHY IS ANYONE BOTHERING TO ENTERTAIN THIS NOTION AT ALL?", the reason is because religion is what life is about.
Life is not about society and politics, life is not about material survival or progress - life is an opportunity to approach God.

However, while religion is the foundation of life, the NOTION of "religion" is unworkable.
Indeed, there is no way a secular body could ever define "religion".
Indeed, larger organisations are better equipped to protect the freedoms of their members than smaller ones and individuals.

Therefore, in order to ensure that the state never comes between a devotee and God, thwarting the whole purpose of life itself, everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt that their actions are religiously-driven, thus be free to do whatever they do.

Alternately and more practically, membership in a state (i.e. citizenship) should be optional, not mandatory, so if/when one believes that a state interferes with their religion, one can simply avoid having anything to do with that state and not consent to fall under its jurisdiction.

So would murder and rape become legal? - well yes and no!

For those willing members (citizens), it will remain illegal.
Non-members will not be subject to state-laws, but society/state need not compromise on its security and could still take all necessary measures to defend its members from harmful actions by non-members. Protection of citizens will thus become a matter of defence rather than a matter of crime/justice. In other words, it will be done FOR its members rather than AGAINST those who do not agree with the state. One implication is that the state will not interfere with what it believes to be crimes when neither the perpetrator(s) nor the "victim"(s) are its citizens (or visitors who consented to fall under its jurisdiction).

Dear Foxy,

Distinction between sacred and profane as well as having a belief-system and rituals, are examples of common religious methods. In other words, all being well and good, these are limbs of religion rather than religion itself.

Yuyutstu,

You claim that "religion is what life is about"

. . . that "Life is not about society and politics, life is not about material survival or progress - life is an opportunity to approach God"

This is the main problem with the "religious" mind right there -

Why do you conclude that IF I do not have a belief in God and certain religion that I MUST assume life is all just material and meaningless.

WHY?

Try reading some philosophers starting at Greece and up to now [especially the existentialists] and you will see there that meaning, beauty, purpose and love are all being discussed and defined there WITHOUT the need for a transcendental and unprovable force.

It is precisely when one lets their beliefs of love and universe, purpose and social morality etc., become bogged down into particular ethnic, racial, cultural and historical tribal elements which [almost always] become as the religion's necessary foundation meaning that an outsider may never be welcome.

Yet surely a metaphysical and high purpose thing like religion apparently is CANNOT allow itself to e so ridiculously and wrongly tied down?

This is what leads to ALL religons being bad. That does not mean some elements can be still used and separated as good in themselves.

Is Mise

Yes it's a moot point because although the statute requires an elector "to vote", so in theory it's an offense to fail to vote by voting informally, on the other hand, the prosecution could not
a) get the evidence because of the law making ballots secret, and
b) satisfy the standard of proof from a merely informal vote, for fear of persecuting the moron class for being morons.

However the prosecution might be able to satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt where it was obvious that an elector intended not to vote, for example by an insulting remark.

Yet I persist in feeling safe in writing insulting remarks in my ballot papers.

All
The problem with explaining the existence of religion in terms of religions' own understanding - god stories and all that - is because they are all inconsistent with each other, besides the fact that they are wanting and dodgy in terms of evidence and reason - highly improbable and dubious at best.

Similarly the blandishments of anthropologists that religion is to understand the mysteries of life etc., or to promote social harmony, are all rather general and question-begging.

Evolutionary theory speculates that religion may be sexually selected. Like the peacock's tail, it evolved not because it helps survival per se - witness all those who die for religion - but because it helps reproduction. According to this theory, so long as it helped on average to increase reproductive success, that explains this phenomenon.

There's loads of evidence of religion increasing reproductive success:
- charisma of religious founders and leaders - Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith et al
- privileges of sacerdotal class - Hindu temple deflowerers, confessors extorting sexual favours etc.
- increased sexual marketability of ordinary guys as moral, social paternity etc.

What about that eh?

Dear Matthew,

<<Why do you conclude that IF I do not have a belief in God and certain religion that I MUST assume life is all just material and meaningless.>>

I have not made any such conclusions.

To begin with, belief in God does not prove that one is religious, nor the lack thereof that one is irreligious.

Then there are those who dis/believe in God yet assume that life is just material and/or meaningless: all 8 combinations abound.

<<WITHOUT the need for a transcendental and unprovable force.>>

I have not mentioned a force. God is not a force, if that's what you were implying.

<<It is precisely when one lets their beliefs of love and universe, purpose and social morality etc., become bogged down into particular ethnic, racial, cultural and historical tribal elements which [almost always] become as the religion's necessary foundation meaning that an outsider may never be welcome.>>

I can't see how that's got anything to do with religion. The foundation of religion is our inherent attraction, or yearning, to merge back into the source or essence of who we really are - God. This attraction was present long before any humans, races, cultures, tribes or beliefs existed.

<<Yet surely a metaphysical and high purpose thing like religion apparently is CANNOT allow itself to e so ridiculously and wrongly tied down?>>

Definitely. It's ignorant people who try to do so. It may affect culture, but has no impact on religion itself.

<<This is what leads to ALL religons being bad.>>

This simply means that most behaviours and organisations that most people and social institutions pass for "religion", do not in fact deserve that title.

Dear Jardine,

<<The problem with explaining the existence of religion in terms of religions' own understanding - god stories and all that - is because they are all inconsistent with each other>>

Stories may be inconsistent, but religions are not inconsistent with each other. Anything that brings us closer to God is religion and anything that doesn't, is not.

Some people believe that such-and-such practices bring us closer to God while other beliefs and practices do not, but they fail to realise that different beliefs and practices are more suitable for different people and at different times.

<<besides the fact that they are wanting and dodgy in terms of evidence and reason - highly improbable and dubious at best.>>

"God stories" are not meant to be factual - they are meant to inspire devotees to 'walk with God'. Sadly this was forgotten with the latest fashion of modernism which brought with it the worship of objective evidence. I blame this squarely on faulty religious leaders who took to that fashion themselves and tried to mix up spiritually-inspiring legends with this foreign element of the materially-objective.

<<Evolutionary theory speculates that religion may be sexually selected.>>

So what about monasticism?

The practice of religion weans its followers from the compulsion to serve their genes. Companionship with God is so much more satisfying than human and sexual relations.

This in fact is the tragedy of religion, as those who become deeply religious fail to reproduce, leaving the churches in the hands of those less competent to lead others towards God.

<<There's loads of evidence of religion increasing reproductive success:>>

There may well be evidence that pretence of religiosity increases reproductive success.

Must disagree; one acceptable definition of religion back in RELS 1 was "Religion is a way of life, having rules of conduct and a common belief system and is practiced by a group"

Communism fits this description as does the Labor Party and the Greens et al.

Yuyutsu,

First you seem to be obviously using a definition of "religion" which is not in common use nor in the common understanding of the definition of the term. That is, you use the term to communicate what ‘YOU BELIEVE’ to be the very primordial essence and fundamentals of what “religion” means rather than as most people in all of time have used less strict definitions and instead used the term “religion” to denote exactly what it is we see in the real and actual world as it is in whatever form that may be [less than whole, inauthentic etc].

However you nor anyone else has the authority either morally, intellectually, philosophically nor even in a linguistic sense re its REAL accepted meaning in language . . . . . to pretend to use any term [religion as well] to state that its definitional essence can and does incorporate all those highest of endeavours like intellectual inquiry into existence and purpose/meaning, love, humanity and justice, especially when [as in the case with the term ‘religion’] the word’s actual strict meanings DO NOT as a rule exclude in such a high domain of pursuit more generic, basic and wider in encompassing scope which is achieved ALREADY in linguistics by the terms of “philosophy”.
Who is anyone to make out that “religion” in essence is still somehow ‘religion’ and not just [as is more simple and clear] philosophical inquiry and thought as pure actions and things in themselves.

Thus Yuyutsu, you are wrong in this. Clearly philosophy and just thought are the more general PARENTS of a term like 'religion' which is merely a small derivative of the broader terms.

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
You wrote :

« In my understanding, spontaneous remission (an unexpected improvement or cure from a disease) assumes that the diagnosis (of cancer) was right. It is a scientific fact with causes unknown, not a human error. »

I’m afraid you have lost me there, George. I shall put some thoughts down here with a view to clarification.

I agree that spontaneous remission is an unexpected improvement or cure from a disease (though I prefer the term “illness” which is more global, cf.: http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-illness-and-disease ).

You wrote that « … spontaneous remission … assumes that the diagnosis … was right ».

I see no reason why spontaneous remission could not take place in respect of an illness which was either not diagnosed or incorrectly diagnosed as something else (a human error, if you like). I do not understand why you consider that correct diagnosis of an illness is a necessary prerequisite in order for spontaneous remission to occur.

I also agree that spontaneous remission is «a scientific fact with causes unknown» (though generally thought to have something to do with the person’s natural defence system).

You then observed:

« Of course, you can give almost any metaphor an interpretation that suits your view of the matter ».

I guess that is what we did, George, and, as you suggest, our respective interpretations are indicative of our personal state of mind and world view. As an eminent mathematician with a propensity to mysticism, you seem to have developed an exceptional aptitude for abstract thought. Whereas mine is an untrained mind, more accustomed to jostling with the bumps and grinds of reality than projecting symbolic meaning into it.

Happily, I do, at least, enjoy the sunset even though any attempt I may make to explain the phenomenon would inevitably be somewhat rudimentary.
 
.

Matthew S,

>>A number of key issues are of importance here<<

One of the few interesting posts on this thread that actually addresses the problem of why should the state tolerate religion.

I agree that before tackling the question it should be clarified what, for this purpose, is and what is not religion, see my post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16418#286251 above.

>>2) How can we recognize when a “religion” has become a culture’s political and social system? <<

I presume this refers to pre-Enlightment or Middle Ages, where that religion was Christianity (Christendom) or to contemporary Islamic states, neither relevant to contemporary Western societies, unless one redefines religion as a world view in the widest sense of the word.

>>3) The article author … seems unable … to find a clear and sound argument for accepting all religions, and for how to decide when a particular practise is bad and should not be tolerated.<<

Here “all religions” depends on the definition sub 1., otherwise it could include e.g. all world views. In my opinion, the decision of whether a “particular practice” should or should not be tolerated should be decided from case to case, no sweeping approvals or disapproval just because they are connected with this or that religion (save as temporary left-overs from a Christian past). And not because they are good or bad in some ethical meaning of the word but only in the sense of good or bad for the society as a whole.

>>4) WHY should ANY belief system or philosophy be deemed more important under law etc. than any other? <<

I think the question is not about importance but about how best to run a state, where different people - some more some less educated - subscribe to different world views - some religious some not.

>>Clearly philosophy and just thought are the more general PARENTS of a term like 'religion' which is merely a small derivative of the broader terms.<<

The metaphysical assumptions of a religious world view are closely related to philosophy, but neither is a special case or "parent" of the other.

Jardine K. Jardine,

>>What about that eh?<<

You seem to subscribe to a negative understanding of religion that is based on a couple of sweeping statements, as stereotypical as they have become. This one-sidedness is shared by many (but certainly not all, including scientists and other scholars) and it somehow reflects also the official attitude towards religion of the system I grew up in (Stalinism).

I doubt the society could properly function if the problem of how much of people’s personal convictions should the state tolerate, or even support, was based on this attitude hostile towards alternative world views. That might have functioned with Christianity’s attitude towards other beliefs in the Middle Ages, but not in our Western society, whatever would take the place of Christianity as the officially sanctioned position (secular humanism?).

Dear Banjo,

I think “spontaneous remission” refers to the case where the diagnosis (of cancer) was already established. If that is not the case, the illness might be something for which there are known cures, or is known to recede on its own. So the case of “sponataneous remission” and that of “error of diagnosis” are mutually exclusive.

>>As an eminent mathematician with a propensity to mysticism<<

Not eminent only retired, and certainly with no propensity to mysticism (I only acknowledge that mysticism can be - there are fake mystics as there are fake scientists - a way of contacting or perceiving aspects of reality that are not amenable to scientific investigation.

As for the metaphor of the blind man and the sunset I only offered it as an alternative to the view from the other side of the theist-atheist divide that regards religious insights as hallucinations, mental gymnastics or what you have.

"4) WHY should ANY belief system or philosophy be deemed more important under law etc. than any other?"

Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism etc., should all be deemed more important than Islam to a State as none of those religions preach that religion and politics should not be separate; Islam is a religion and a political system and is a counter to democracy and its aim is world domination and the imposition of its religo/political beliefs on all.
It is the enemy of freedom and human rights

Dear Yuyutsu,

Emile Durkheim, one of the earliest functionalist theorists,
was the first sociologist to apply the perspective to
religion in a systematic way. His study, "The Elementary
Forms of Religious Life," was first published in 1912 and
has since become a classic.

Many of Durkehim's contemporaries saw relgion as nothing
more than a primitive relic that would soon disappear in the
more sophisticated modern world.

But Durkheim was impressed by the fact that religion is
universal in human society, and he wondered why this should
be so. His answer was that religion has a vital function in
maintaining the social system as a whole.

Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their
source, the rituals enacted in any religion enhance the
solidarity of the community, as well as its faith.

Consider such religious rituals as baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings,
Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals. Rituals
like these serve to bring people together, to remind them of their
common group membership; to reaffirm their traditional
values; to maintain prohibitions and taboos; to offer comfort
in times of crisis; and, in general, to help transmit the
cultural heritage from one generation to the next.

In fact, Durkheim argued, shared religious beliefs and the
rituals that go with them are so important that every society
needs a religion, or at least some form of belief system
that serves the same functions.

The cause of much of the social disorder in modern societies,
he contended, is that "the old gods are growing old or are
already dead, and others are not yet born." In other words,
people no longer believe deeply in traditional religion,
but they have found no satisfying substitute. Lacking
commitment to a shared belief system, they tend to pursue their
private interests.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Yuyutsu,

For many years it was widely felt that as science progressively
provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the
universe, religion would have less and less of a role to
play and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more
than superstition. But there are still gaps in our
understanding that science can never fill. On the ultimately
important questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and
the nature of morality.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny the
possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this fundamental
sense religion is probably here to stay.

Foxy, "religion has a vital function in maintaining the social system as a whole,"war after war after war, nice social system Foxy.
Atheism is a belief system that there is no such things as a God I am sure my social function is as good as any religious one, volunteering St John Ambulance, 10 years, Service club 10 years, Cancer Council, it is complete bunkum that religion is the be and end all of what we do in our lives, it is the person, if religion helps to some people, that is great, but being an Atheist is no different to a religious person in your outlook on life.
Everybody who writes on this post will never ever, and I repeat never ever prove or disprove there is such a thing as a God or some such outer space being who created us, even myself, and Runner.

Dear Ojnab,

If you go back and re-read my posts you will
see that I was citing a broader more
inclusive perspective.
Which by the way includes your belief system
as well. Thank you for sharing with us the
work that you do. Doing something for
others is a gracious act. You give something to
others but you also end up getting quite a bit
out of it yourself. Experience of the spirit
breaks through illusions of separateness. It is
radically committed to the natural goodness and
inherent oneness that lies at the center of who
we really are.

Dear Matthew,

This article is about why religion is to be tolerated. If we allow anyone to call anything they like a "religion", if the fundamental meaning of the word is lost and misunderstood, then it's no wonder why some say "let's ban religion, let's not tolerate it".

While the word 'religion' comes from the Latin 'Re-ligare' - to re-bind with God, it's been allowed to colloquially represent cultural phenomena instead, just as the word 'gay' for example has been allowed to describe something else and is no longer understood as 'proudly happy'.

This deterioration, of initially passing some cultural impacts of religion for religion itself then subsequently passing practically any cultural habits for religion, is partly born of ignorance and partly out of disrespect to God. I am unwilling to go along with that and accept this decay as truth.

Philosophy and science are mere human pursuits. While humans are probably the only creatures to conceptualise and follow religion consciously, religion itself pervades nature and does not even require verbal/intellectual recognition. Failing to tolerate religion is a failure to tolerate the most essential force of nature.

Dear Foxy,

With due respect to social and cultural cohesiveness, religion is not there to serve the former or any other material function. If it incidentally does, then give thanks to the Lord without further expectations.

Just as religion is not meant to improve material or social conditions, science is not meant to solve any fundamental mysteries. If, however, you are into gaining material success through understanding the details of this world, then science is the most appropriate tool.

<<Experience of the spirit breaks through illusions of separateness. It is radically committed to the natural goodness and inherent oneness that lies at the center of who we really are.>>

"Natural goodness and inherent oneness" is one name of God, good as in any other system of mythology, so this is a perfect religious expression! thank you for this inspiration!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You.

Matthew,
I still don't see the need pressed by you and others here to define religion. If we say religious adherence does not deserve special consideration by the law, them why does it need to be defined?

I suspect the reason is that there are those who want to define religion so that they can more easily subjugate it, and prejudice and persecute those who hold to different convictions.

I can see an example within the current football World Cup which is being played. There are Christian players, such as the Brazilian Kaka, who were told they weren't allowed to place Christian slogans on their T-shirts that they were wearing under their uniforms. This could be interpreted as a subjugation of their freedom of expression when they, at times, perhaps after the match finished, lifted their shirts to unveil their message. I'm not sure what other players are allowed to write or not write on their T-shirts they wear under their uniforms.

There was also the ban against female soccer players wearing any kind of veil or headgear while playing. This was a ruling made especially against the Arab girls who look at the veil as giving themselves a sense of modesty. This seemed counter productive as it stops girls from getting out and playing the game and enjoying that recreation.

But then again, the international football federation have always been megalomaniacs for power. Before the 2002 World Cup, the Cameroon men's team wanted to wear a uniform with cut-off sleeves (similar to Australian Rules footballers.) They were trying to be avant guard in their dress sense. They were fined by FIFA and told to sew six inch sleeves onto their uniform's shoulders before they were allowed to play.

SO Many lines..on defiing religion[when its of no mind..IN COURT]

QUITE SIMPLY THE COURt cant judge..religious belief
stuff YA RELIGIONS..WE TOLERATE THEM..THEY SERVE THEIR RESONS[EVEN THE WRONG ONES

TAKe the miracle..on page 124..[PAGE 134/ON THE module index/thingy]
http://www.spiritwritings.com/GatewayOfUnderstanding.pdf

HERE WAS A SPIrit/who took possesion/causing sickness
following an adverse chilDHOOD EVENT[A COMMON POINT\..REGARDLESS
THE NEXT FEW PAGES EXPLAIN MUch..[at least follow the conversation[miracle healinG..TO ITS END

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHat that static electric 'treatment'.. IS/ABOUT.
[apparently the static electricty 'TREATMENT'../EXPELS THE HAUNTING/into\other medium/read THE lost soul/CAUSING THE DIS-EASE..[NOT SiCKNESS/NOR\unwellness]..they arnt the same thing.

Dan S you can also have a look at the discrimination of an Indian wearing headgear that does not get taken off when going through customs, but a person wearing a cap is told to take it off actual fact, religion once again comes into the equation

Yuyutsu

"So what about monasticism?"

If all religious in all lands and all ages were monks, or rather were celibate, that would spell the end of my theory.

However the fact that some religious in some lands in some periods have been monks does not dispose of the theory for two reasons. Firstly the theory works on the average over long periods of time. If the average effect of religiosity is to increase the chances of reproductive success and there is any heritable component then, according to this theory, that would tend to explain the phenomenon of religion. The theory is falsifiable and can be tested but you'd need to design experiments, with a control, and test it against different cultural populations. We don't know what the results are because no-one's done it.

However just looking at all the ways in which religiosity does favour reproductive success in so many different ways: charisma, privileges, mate-advertising, paternal contribution, rape, etc. I think it's a fair bet, and a more plausible explanation than speculations about what religions are "meant" to do.

Secondly, the issue is not monasticism per se but celibacy. There's many a monk has used his religious status to increase his reproductive success, which was indeed part of the controversy that gave rise to the Protestant reformation and permitting marriage of clergy in Christendom.

".... the discrimination of an Indian wearing headgear that does not get taken off when going through customs, but a person wearing a cap is told to take it off actual fact, religion once again comes into the equation"

Not only that, but Sikhs do not have to remove their turbans in RSLs where all others must remove their headgear.

Thanks Is Mise regarding turbans, I did not know that at RSL clubs, the other I do know at customs, I was the next person to the Indian, but I do understand if its to do with religion it is allowed, strange.

.

Dear Yuyutsu & Matthew S,

.

Yuyutsu wrote :

« … the word 'religion' comes from the Latin 'Re-ligare' - to re-bind with God … »

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word religion means : « the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods ».

There is no consensus among scholars as to the etymology of the word religion. Also, the version you indicate contains a linguistics error. The “re” of religare is not the “re” meaning "again, back, anew, against". It is the intensive “re” (which gives force or emphasis). The correct meaning of religare is “to bind fast”.

In “Of the Nature of the Gods”, Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), considered to be a model of Classic Latin, had this to say (book 2, section 28, page 71) :

« … for our ancestors, as well as the philosophers, have separated superstition from religion. They have prayed whole days and sacrificed, that their children might survive them (ut superstites essent,) were called superstitious, which word became afterwards more general; but they who diligently perused, and, as we may say, read or practised over again, all the duties relating to the worship of the Gods, were called religiosi, religious, from relegendo “reading over again, or practising;” as elegantes, elegant, ex eligendo, “from choosing, making a good choice;” diligentes, diligent, ex diligendo, “from attending on what we love;” intelligentes, intelligent, from understanding, for the signification is derived in the same manner. Thus are the words superstitious and religious understood; the one being a term of reproach, the other of commendation. »

Here is the link to the English translation of Cicero’s book :

http://archive.org/stream/treatisesofcicer00ciceuoft#page/70/mode/2up

It was some of the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and a number of modern writers who connect the etymology of religion with religare "to bind fast".

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu, Matthew S and Foxy,

.

Perhaps I should add that the « to bind fast » of religare is silent as to what or who it is that is « to be bound fast ». That is open to conjecture.

It could be, as Yuyutsu suggests, for religious people to be “bound fast” with God. But it could also be for religious people to be “bound” fast among themselves. Both versions are equally valid.

The latter version would give credence to the sociologist, Emile Durkheim’s theory that religion has a vital function in maintaining the social system as a whole and that the origins of religion were social, not supernatural.

Foxy gave an elaborate description of this in her post to Yuyutsu on page 23 of this thread.

If I may add a personal opinion, my understanding is that our primeval ancestors imagined that supernatural powers were behind natural phenomena which caused them so much fear and destruction. They had to find some way of placating them, so they invented gods to whom they prayed and begged for mercy, offering animal and human sacrifices. Some of their members were designated to act as scapegoats to be sacrificed to save the rest of the tribe.

This was religion. The process began as a strategy of survival by inventing the supernatural and a plethora of Gods to whom the tribe could appeal. It cemented relationships among the members who had a common interest.

The need soon emerged for somebody to act on a full time basis as an intermediary with the Gods . The role of the witchdoctor became almost as important as that of the leader of the tribe, if not more important.

It seems to me than man has always kept his distance with “God” whom he fears, despite all the talk of “love and devotion”, but continues to maintain his religious identity or, should I say, his “social ties”.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I think “spontaneous remission” refers to the case where the diagnosis (of cancer) was already established. If that is not the case, the illness might be something for which there are known cures, or is known to recede on its own. »

There is obviously a misunderstanding between us here, George. You seem to be referring to some particular case, whereas, throughout our discussion, I have been referring to the miraculous healings at Lourdes in general.

Spontaneous remission is the term employed by the medical profession to describe a patients complete recovery when it is inexplicable scientifically. The patient may have recovered from an incurable cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS or anything else. Whatever illness he had, may or may not have been correctly diagnosed. The fact is he recovered from whatever it was without the medical profession being able to explain how or why.

Who could doubt that state of the art medical science is incapable of understanding and treating certain illnesses and that, unfortunately, medical specialists occasionally make false judgments and incorrect diagnoses.

For the Vatican, the medical profession’s conclusion of spontaneous remission opens the way for it to invoke divine intervention – importantly, without any risk of it being proven wrong.

Also, as you pointed out earlier in this thread, there is often some element of faith in the miraculous healing process, whether it be at Lourdes or elsewhere.

Faith, of course, is the religious term for what the medical profession calls the placebo effect. At Lourdes, the object of faith or placebo, is what is believed to be the “sacred” water.

.

Dear Foxy, Jardine,

David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist, has a good discussion of Durkheim’s vs Stark’s approaches to religion (he prefers the former) in his book “Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society (U. of Chicago Press, 2003). I, as a non-specialist, see the two approaches as complementary, equally insightful views of the same phenomenon.

By the way, Wilson (an atheist) is also a critique of his colleague Richard Dawkin’s evolutionary explanation of religion (as a negative or superfluous byproduct), see e.g. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/#feature, which is also a good summary of Wilson’s views on how evolutionary biology could see religion in a balanced way.

Dear Banjo,

>>Spontaneous remission is the term employed by the medical profession to describe a patients complete recovery when it is inexplicable scientifically.<<

Exactly, this is what I had in mind.

>>For the Vatican, the medical profession’s conclusion of spontaneous remission opens the way for it to invoke divine intervention<<

Vatican does not ask medical professionals to conclude anything, only to exclude error of diagnosis, i.e. curability (by known methods ) where incurability has been claimed by the cured.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Vatican does not ask medical professionals to conclude anything, only to exclude error of diagnosis, i.e. curability (by known methods ) where incurability has been claimed by the cured. »

I find that quite amazing. I have always, perhaps naïvely, imagined that the Vatican undertook a much more thorough and in-depth, specialist, medical study than that.

According to the Stedman's Medical Dictionary, diagnosis is defined as :

1. The act or process of identifying or determining the nature and cause of a disease or injury through evaluation of patient history, examination, and review of laboratory data.
2. The opinion derived from such an evaluation.
3. A brief description of the distinguishing characteristics of an organism, as for taxonomic classification.

The definition does not mention anything about curability.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate a little further and perhaps share your sources with us.

.

Dear Banjo,

Sorry, I am not an expert on these matters, I just used my common sense to say that in case of somebody claiming a “miraculous” healing the Vatican wants to make sure - as much as it is possible - that there is no explanation of the healing known to the medical profession, and assumed that spontaneous remission (or anything deemed spontaneous) is not such an explanation.

If you are interested in details, there are many sources on the internet, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau .

The Vatican has its own set of rules for everything and gullible people worship that religion, after all getting boys to bend over and having a penis or fingers inserted is like playing ring a ring a rosary to them, fairies in the woods doing cures right left and centre are miracles, Wow! white smoke a new Pope ordained by God, what ever next from this organisation, even in money matters they are corrupt, Hallelujah George Pell.

why tolerate religion
cause atheist plagiarize
secular Colonize/aND\DiVIDE.
http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/common-lies-spread-by-atheists/

FROM A VERY Interesting search set

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=m+FARADAY+pagan+ROME

CAN A SCIENTIST SUPPORT RESECTION?
http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CIS/Wright/pdf/Wright_lecture.pdf

the math/mystries..OF THE TRIANGLE
[TIMES 2]
http://www.m-hikari.com/mccartin-2.pdf

koran source texts/BY TOPIC
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/quran.htm

the holographic universe
http://archive.org/stream/talbotholographicuniverse/talbotholographicuniverse_djvu.txt

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

gibberish papers
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

OH WELL/how to read them all

Ojnab, you certainly raised the intellectual level of this thread!

and he has now read Tacitus!!

Thanks George, always great to post as most people, not of the faith see it and all its scandals, would one go into a confessional box and tell another man hiding behind the curtain whose wife or man you have been knocking off, love to get behind the curtain myself.
Reading up on Scientology, seriously what have people between their ears to believe in Ron L Hubbard's faith (rubbish) as per usual celebrities like Tom Cruise and the donation brigade don't have to put up with the crap like the lesser mortals, special rooms etc, having premarital sex is taboo, if you do you will be filmed why you tell a higher person all about what you did, every teensy weensy bit, if not you will be banished to a much lesser part of the establishment for your sin, while every one else enjoys the film.
The fun of religion.

http://www.coldbacon.com/poems/fq.html

In spite of..which..Again,
in spite/of that,..we-call..his\Friday..good.

we..like..to think..That..we/are..sound,
substantial flesh..and blood-gristle/bone

V

So..here..says/HE..am,I..the\middle-way,
having had..twenty-four/years-..Twenty years..largely wasted,

the/years of..l'entre.deux guerres-
Trying..to use/FAINTLY-words,heard..

and every attempt
Is..a wholy..new start,..and..a different/kind-of\failure
Because/one\has only learnt..to..get/THE SENSE/emoting\the better/essence-of words..

UTTERED/better..For\the..thing
one..no longer..has-to say,

or/TASTE/..the way..in which
One..is..no longer disposed..to say it...And/so
each venture..Is..a\new beginning,..a raid..on..the inarticulate,
With..shabby equipment/always deteriorating/In the general mess..of imprecision..of..inner-feeling,

Undisciplined\squads/of..emotion...And\what/there is..
IS..that/what..here now is..to conquer..By\strength
WHEN/submission,..has..already been discovered
Once..or twice,..or several times,..before.

FOUND/by men..whom..one\cannot hope/To emulate
-but..there is/..no competition..we/hearD/by..Deferense/not diffidence
here..is only/the fight..to recover\..\what/..has-been..lost
Andfound..and/lost..again and again],,

we:,each/generation..and now,..under conditions
That seem..unpropitious...But..perhaps/neither..BY ODIOUS-\gain nor UNSEEMLY-loss.[THIS/time.

For\us,..there-is..only..the trying.
The rest..is/not..our business.

Home..is where..one/starts..from...[As]..we grow older
the world/becomes..estranged,..the pattern's..more complicated
MORBID\/BURDENS/Of\..death and living...but/Not\the intense moment
Isolated,..with/no before..and after,....JUST..OMNIPRESEN

Merely/But..a life-time/burning..PASSION-inTO..every moment
And..not..the lifetime..of..one/life\only.

But..WHAT-of/old\stones..that..cannot be deciphered.
There..iS/time..for..the/evening\under starlight,
A time..for the..evening/under lamplight

(The evening/with\the photograph album).
when/Love..is most/nearly..to\being..itself
When here..and\now/WHAT..[OR..IF]..cease to matter.
Old men..ought to be..exploring...\NEW/THINGS.

for/youth\Here..or there/does\not matter
We must be still..and..YET..still moving
Into/worthier/passions\another intensity
For a further union,..a deeper communion

Through..the dark cold..and the empty desolation,
The waveS cry,..the windS cry,..the vast waters..lie
Of..the petrel/and\the porpoise...In my end..lies my new-beginning.

(The..Dry Salvages]
Groaner:..a whistling-buoy.)

those/WHo\do not know-much..about gods;..but..I think/that the river
Is..LIKE..a strong\brown god..strong/silent\STEADY..THEN sullen, untamed..and intractable,..then/LIKE..A POLE-SHIFT..inversion.

Patient..to some degree,..and..at first recognition..as a frontier;
Useful,..BUT/BY\nature..untrustworthy,..as a conveyor/of commerce;LAw.

Then/in\TIME..only a problem..confronting\the builder/of bridges.
The problem..once \solved,.the brown god..is almost forgotten
By the dwellers in cities -ever,..however,..implacable.

Keeping/to\his seasons,..and..rages,
HEALER/destroyer,..AND reminder
Of what\men choose to forget.

Unhonoured,..unpropitiated..bound../then un-resTrained
HArvest captured/By worshippers..of the..energy-machine,..but waiting,..watching..and..only on the surface,..waiting...ALL THE WHILE..RE-UNITING,,into an infinite/sea.

thy breath breaths/droplets/that mix..with the mist
fall-down..AS RAIN..TO EVENTUally/see the sea..YET AGAin.

His..Vaporous/rhythm..was present..in the nursery bedroom,
In/the rank ailanthus..of the..warming-April..dooryard,
presence/In the smell..of grapes on the autumn table,
And..the Leven/LIGHT\circle..in the winter gaslight.

The river..IS THE SEE/seething\within us,..the sea..is all about us;
The sea..is the land's edge..see/also,..the granite SEA,
Into..which it reaches,..the beaches where it tosses
Its hints..of earlier/and\..other creation.

The sea..has many voices,
Many gods..and..many choices

.
 
Dear George,
 
.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau .

Thanks for that.

The Lourdes Medical Bureau seems to operate pretty much as I expected though I remain somewhat dubious of the possibility of clearly establishing the first (and, perhaps, the most formidable) “fact” on the “list of requisites for a cure to be recognized as medically inexplicable” :

“ 1. The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt”.

I can understand the logic behind such a demand but just how the Medical Bureau goes about verifying the “original” diagnosis after the cure has been completed and there are no longer any signs of the illness (the 5th requisite) leaves me pensive to say the least.

As I noted previously on this thread, all that any medical expert could do would be to conclude that whatever illness the person may have had no longer existed. The person’s medical history could possibly attest to various symptoms having been observed by X or Y at some point or other prior to healing, but none of this would be scientifically falsifiable, long after the event, by the Medical Bureau.

It just comes down to a question of confidence (or should I say “faith”) the Medical Bureau may or may not have in the “original” diagnosis. The Medical Bureau would be entirely dependent on the “original” diagnosis, unable to make a complete independent analysis itself with its own medical experts and laboratories after the “miracle” has occurred, and the person is “completely and permanently healed” (requisites 5 and 6).

That, of course, does not mean that a “miracle” has not occurred. Even though the confidence (or “faith”) of the Medical Bureau in the “original” diagnosis may be totally unfounded, the person may, nevertheless, have had a non-identified or wrongly identified “incurable” illness of which he has “miraculously” recovered due to spontaneous remission.

In this case, perhaps some of the Vatican’s declared “miracles” at Lourdes are founded on the popular adage that “two wrongs make a right”.

Happily, it is impossible to know – which is all that matters.


.

AN INTERESTING/LINK-age..
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

* The dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still...

* ..Whatever is known to us by consciousness,..is known beyond possibility of question...What one sees or feels,.whether bodily or mentally, .one cannot but be sure that one sees or feels.

No science is required..for the purpose of establishing such truths; no rules of art..can render our knowledge of them more certain than it is in itself...There is no logic..for this portion of our knowledge.

*..[W]e may fancy..that we see
or feel..what we in reality..infer

Common types..of deception to be/=on..the lookout for include:

*.."Forgetting"..-to tell the whole truth...This may include leaving out important information, facts, or details..that would change the way others would view the situation.

*..Misusing or misrepresenting statistics...[EDIT]..but they are also very easily manipulated.

*.."Fogging" the issue with unrelated information,..*bureaucratic nonsense,..or just incomprehensible gibberish...An example of fogging the issue would be the politician who claims, "The papers misquoted me!"..More than likely,/what she means is,.."I really wish I hadn't said that publicly!"

Fogging can also occur..when you are given a long -winded answer complete/with so much technical jargon and gobbledygook..that you have no idea what.(if anything) has been said, or when your opposition brings up a totally unrelated issue, and tries to steer the conversation onto different,.safer..(for them) ground.

* Telling half-truths. With a half-truth, your opposition takes something that has occurred or a fact that they have uncovered and discusses only the parts that hurt you and help them.

* Telling flat-out lies. People don't play fair a lot of the time, and for our organizations to survive, we have to be ready to defend ourselves. If you have any doubt in the truth of what your opposition is saying, insist that they back up what they said with facts.

Dear Banjo,

>>The person’s medical history could … but none of this would be scientifically falsifiable, long after the event<<

As I said this is not my cup of tea, however common sense would tell me that there are many things that history depends on from written documents, and we accepts them as facts. Official diagnosis from reliable specialists would be one of them, and this reliability is what the Vatican investigations are apparently about. Historical events, including those studied by evolution theories, biological or not, by their very nature are not scientifically falsifiable as are things that can be reproduced in a laboratory, hence falsifiable.

.

Dear George,

.

I think we are basically saying the same thing. Your common sense is something I can safely say we have in common.

I guess it's just the wording of requisite N° 1 which poses problem. In my view, it is illusory to think that the "original" diagnosis could be "verified and confirmed beyond doubt" by the Medical Bureau after the symptoms of the “incurable” illness have disappeared.

More realistically, the Medical Bureau should be required to certify and provide documentary evidence that the original diagnosis of illness was carried out by qualified medical experts, and verified and confirmed by other, qualified, independent experts, prior to the healing.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>verified and confirmed by other, qualified, independent experts, prior to the healing<<

Do you mean to say that a “miraculous healing” should be carefully planned beforehand? I presume that the 7000 minus 69 cases investigated were dismissed exactly because the original diagnosis was not provided by what a posteriori could be seen as "qualified independent experts" (doctors).

THE THOUGHT OCCURS..re wizard of ozz..of that of placaebo-affect

Baum explores the theme of self-contradiction in The Wizard of Oz.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz
The Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion all lack self-confidence. The Scarecrow believes that he has no brains, though he comes up with clever solutions to several problems that they encounter on their journey. The Tin Woodman believes that he lacks a heart, but is moved to tears when misfortune befalls the various creatures they meet. The Cowardly Lion believes that he has no courage even though he is consistently brave through their journey.

Carl L. Bankston III of Salem Press noted that "These three characters embody the classical human virtues of intelligence, caring, and courage, but their self-doubts keep them from being reduced to mere symbols of these qualities."=

By the end of the novel, the characters attain self-fulfillment when they have met their objectives. To convince the characters they have the qualities they desire, the Wizard places an amalgamation>>

READ PLAEBO,,fake/it\till-ya/made\..it..

AN AMALGAMATION..<<..of bran, pins, and needles in the Scarecrow's head to inspire intellect; gives a silk heart to the Tin Woodman to inspire love; and a drink to the Cowardly Lion to inspire bravery.[17]

The character of the wizard supports the theme of self-belief and how important it is. Dorothy and her companions believed the wizard to be powerful and even when they found out that he wasn’t, they continued to ask him to grant them their wishes...[When each traveler meets with the Wizard, he appears each time as someone or something different. Dorothy sees the Wizard as a giant head, Scarecrow sees the Wizard as a beautiful woman, Tin Woodman sees the Wizard as a terrible beast, and the Cowardly Lion sees the Wizard as a ball of fire. The Wizard agrees to help each of them.]

Baum biographer Rebecca Loncraine points out that the story is a critique of power and shows how “easily people who lack belief in themselves can become willing participants in the deceptions practiced by manipulative figures who rule over them,

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/respond-to-counterattacks/respond-to-opposition/main

I like the case of
"John Traynor [who] was lifted into the bath — a physical wreck, covered with sores, a dying cripple. The signed statement of Doctors Azurdia, Finn and Harley testifies that he was suffering from:

epilepsy
paralysis of the radial, median and ulnar nerves of the right arm
atrophy of the shoulder and pectoral muscles
a trephine opening in the right parietal region of the skull — in this opening, about one inch, there is a metal plate for protection
absence of voluntary movement in the legs, and loss of feeling
lack of bodily control
A second time he was placed in the bath, and then he was taken to be blessed during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament in the great square in front of the church. Just as the Sacred Host had passed by, his right arm, which had been dead since 1915, was violently agitated. He burst the bandages and blessed himself — for the first time in years. A strange feeling came into his legs. The stretcher-bearers thought he was having another bad turn. He was given an injection to keep him quiet, and taken back to bed.(continues)

(continuation)
From Cripple to Coal-Man

That was in the afternoon. Early next morning he heard the bells ringing out the Lourdes hymn, and jumped out of bed. He fell on his knees to finish the Rosary he had been saying, and then ran out of the ward, pushed two assistants out of the way, and, in his pyjamas, ran barefoot a distance of some two or three hundred yards, over the rough gravel, to the Grotto....“All I know, he said afterwards, “was that I should thank the Blessed Virgin....I made the only sacrifice I could think of. I resolved to give up cigarettes.”

Soon after that and any time afterwards for twenty years, you could have seen in Liverpool a hefty 16-stone man, in the coal and haulage business, lifting 200 lb. sacks of coal, who was officially classified as 100 per cent disabled and permanently incapacitated. That man was John Traynor. He died in 1943 from hernia, a complaint in no way related to the illness and wounds of which he was cured in Lourdes.

Another group of experts testified, though unconsciously, to the miracle. The British War Pensions Ministry, after extensive investigations, awarded him full disability pension for life. They never revoked that decision.
http://saints.sqpn.com/catholic-truth-society-saint-bernadette-miracles-at-lourdes-the-facts-behind-the-story/

There are many other references to the story of John Traynor and, be it noted, his case was not considered miraculous by the Church.

George,
You say, "Historical events, including those studied by evolution theories, biological or not, by their very nature are not scientifically falsifiable." But we tend to go along with them anyway.

You and Banjo argue about the nature or verifiability, miracles, and common sense. My common sense tells me that reptiles don't magically turn into birds. Amphibians don't turn into mammals. Frogs don't turn into princes. But the secularists believe these sorts of miracles occurred on countless occasions (with the magic ingredient of time.)

The sophistication of the genetic structure does not allow one kind of living thing to magically turn into something rather different. There are limits. Yet the secularists need their version of the miraculous.

I suspect that turbans being tolerated at the airport security check has something to do with how easy they are to take off and put on. Would you want to be stuck behind that person in the line? Still, you'd think there should be one rule for everyone. That's what this article is suggesting.

So I still don't see anyone coming forward with a reasonable answer to my question. Why are so many here (such as the author of the article, Matthew and others) wanting to define 'religion' when we don't want to give the religious any special privileges? Is it so we can discriminate against them?

It's said that he who makes the definitions controls the debate. I think that is true. This may partly explain why some here want to insist that belief in a supernatural being is central to a 'religious belief'.

As the discussion turns to origins, how did we all get here, how did this world come to be as it is, the atheists can claim that their theory (evolution) does not include a supernatural being. Hence, it is not religious. Once categorised as 'non religious', the theory can be dressed up as 'scientific'. It all becomes a matter of categorisation regardless of the evidence, regardless of whether it actually happened like this or not.

There is the creationist view that a supernatural being created the original forms. There is the atheist view that life can be explained by the impersonal forces of matter alone. Both examine and measure the evidence. Did life as we know it arise by purely undirected process, or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design?

But if we define science in a certain way, we can foreclose one of the two possible answers to that very fundamental and important question. The definition can be used to end debate before it begins.

OUG you can insult me me any way you like....you have a nice day.

Iam sure everything I've written was a waste of time:)

Kat

OUG....its we that have reached you, not the other way around.

Kat

All this debate....OUG....its Friday or Saturday depending...please take some time off.

A song just for you....enjoy...and all the best.

http://tinyurl.com/kk8sa6m

It will be all here tomorrow.

Ka

Dan S de Merengue,

>> My common sense tells me that reptiles don't magically turn into birds. <<

I agree and I am sure so do all scientists: The word “magic” does not appear in any scientific explanation of anything. Neither does it appear in the vocabulary of a believer, e.g. Christian - scientist or not - who gives reasons for his beliefs and their eventual compatibility with evolution, gravitation, quantum physics, multiverse or what you have, theories.

Science tries to explain how the physical reality WORKS, not WHY it works like that (including us, humans, as embedded in that reality). The WHY is a question religion - from its most primitive, naive up to the most philosophically sophisticated, forms - tries to answer. There are people, among believers as well as unbelievers, who confuse these two levels - physical and metaphysical - of understanding and/or deny the one or the other its epistemological legitimacy.

>> Why are so many here (such as the author of the article, Matthew and others) wanting to define 'religion' when we don't want to give the religious any special privileges? <<

Because we have to know WHAT we do, or do not, want to give special privileges to.

>> It's said that he who makes the definitions controls the debate. <<

No, he who provides a definition of a term he wants to argue about tries to make it clear what it is that his views are referring to.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Do you mean to say that a “miraculous healing” should be carefully planned beforehand? »

In my experience, anybody diagnosed with a serious illness consults more than one doctor or specialist. He usually consults his general practitioner (GP) or family doctor first, who, if the matter is particularly serious, refers him to a specialist in the domain concerned.

If the specialist diagnoses an incurable illness it is common practice for him to refer the patient to a clinical professor of medicine or hospital professor who may or may not confirm the diagnosis.

Most people leave it at that, accept their fate and follow whatever medical treatment the professor prescribes. Others, if they have the will and the financial resources, fight for their lives. They do not content themselves with this or that professor, they travel to whatever country they have to (often the USA) in order to consult whoever is reputed to be the best specialists in the world for whatever illness has been diagnosed.

If that fails, they may turn to what is known as “alternative medicine” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_alternative_medicine

Others, in their desperation, consult various occult heelers who claim to have supernatural powers. Here is a list of occultists :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_occultists

As a last resort, 6 million every year (mostly French and Italian), make the pilgrimage to Lourdes.

Who could doubt that those who make such a tremendous effort, after having tried everything else, with further suffering and death as their only perspective, do not place all their hope and faith in a miraculous cure ?

Can it be said that they are carefully planning a “miraculous healing” beforehand ? Of course they do. They plan it and prepare for it mentally, psychologically and spiritually with all their might. They know that it is their only hope? Their last chance.

Does it work ? Usually not.

Is it reasonable to let them think that it might ? Perhaps the privileged few who benefited from miraculous healings would have done so without going to Lourdes. I guess we'll never know.

.

Dear Banjo,

I was wondering (sorry for the sarcasm) if you meant that the miraculous healing was planned by the Vatican who should then have made sure that the original diagnosis was confirmed by “qualified, independent experts, prior to the healing”. This is different from the affected person HOPING for a miracle, although I do not think that even he/she finds it a priority to get all the proper documentation so that in case a miracle happens Vatican will have reasons to recognise it as such.

Otherwise, what you wrote is how I see it. You mention 6 million pilgrims per year hoping for a miracle (though I am sure there are many healthy, just pious, people among them as well as just curious ones). I do not know how many people buy a Tattslotto ticket every week hoping for a major win, but the two motivations are probably related. Of course, mathematical statistics can give you the odds of becoming a winner, unlike in the Lourdes case.

>>Does it work ? Usually not.<<

Again, the number of those who did not get what they hoped for, can be exactly evaluated in the case of Tattslotto, not in the case of Lourdes since you have not only those 79 whose healing was officially recognised as being beyond medical explanation, but also those who wanted to have their miraculous healing recognised but failed (7000-79|, those who also felt they were healed but did not bother to have it officially recognised, those who felt their healing was only on the spiritual level, those who were disappointed with not having experienced a miracle but did not talk about it, and finally the disappointed ones who sought satisfaction in telling unbelievers about their disappointment.

One can only speculate about their relative numbers, however if the last group is by far the most significant, why would so many people keep on coming every year? Again, you can ask the same question about Tattslotto.

.

Dear George,

.

I agree

.

Dear One Under God,

.
…
The sea has many voices,
Many gods and many voices.
The salt is on the briar rose,
The fog is in the fir trees.
The sea howl
And the sea yelp, are different voices
Often together heard: the whine in the rigging,
The menace and caress of wave that breaks on water,
The distant rote in the granite teeth,
And the wailing warning from the approaching headland
Are all sea voices, and the heaving groaner
Rounded homewards, and the seagull:
And under the oppression of the silent fog
The tolling bell
Measures time not our time, rung by the unhurried
Ground swell, a time
Older than the time of chronometers, older
Than time counted by anxious worried women
Lying awake, calculating the future,
Trying to unweave, unwind, unravel
And piece together the past and the future,
Between midnight and dawn, when the past is all deception,
The future futureless, before the morning watch
When time stops and time is never ending;
And the ground swell, that is and was from the beginning,
Clangs
The bell.
…

Where is there an end to it, the soundless wailing,
The silent withering of autumn flowers
Dropping their petals and remaining motionless;
Where is there an end to the drifting wreckage,
The prayer of the bone on the beach, the unprayable
Prayer at the calamitous annunciation?

There is no end, but addition: the trailing
Consequence of further days and hours,
While emotion takes to itself the emotionless
Years of living among the breakage
Of what was believed in as the most reliable -
And therefore the fittest for renunciation.
...

I sometimes wonder if that is what Krishna meant -
Among other things - or one way of putting the same thing:
That the future is a faded song, a Royal Rose or a lavender spray
Of wistful regret for those who are not yet here to regret,
Pressed between yellow leaves of a book that has never been opened.

…

(from : T.S.Eliot – “The Dry Savages”)

.

tse/quote,,>>..<<..Where is there an end..to>>..WAR

SE ANZAC/COVE/d-day beach..<<..the drifting wreckage,
The prayer..>>..prayed over the LOST,..OVER<<...the bone..on the beach,..the unprayable..Prayer..at the calamitous annunciation>>..as mankind makes/its wars.

<<..There is no end, but>>
every day/our leaders/sent<<..addition:>>
ignoring THE WOUNDed-CRIES..PROPagandas lies
<<..the trailing-Consequence..of further days and hours,
While emotion takes to itself..the emotionless..>>stillness
compounded/and agrieved/agrivated..with..<<Years of living among the breakage..o=>>..of broken miNDS/..WOUNDED PRIDES/CHILD BRIDES/ans free-rides...

so what/to those blinded/by war fires/
the inner-furies..remnants..<<..of times long past
Of what was believed in..exuberantly/as the most reliable -
And therefore the fittest for renunciation.>>..

HERE THERE SEEMS..the senslessness
of words left unspoken/they have earned/their rest

...

<<..I sometimes wonder..if that is what Krishna meant -
Among other things - or one way of putting the same thing:
That the future is..[BUT]..a faded song,>>of the sham/gLORIES
OF THE COLOURS/OF WARS GORE..<<..a Royal Rose or a lavender spray
Of wistful regret..for those who are..not yet here/to regret,>>forget
the/last/wurd/earthly thought/hope fear/shredded lifeblood/unshed tears many a shed fear/lies within here,<<..Pressed between yellow leaves ..of a book that has never been opened.>>..AS THE REALITY..OF OPPORTUNITY WASTED/LEAVES ITS NEXT SCAR...WHAT ARE WEFIGHTING/BUT OUR OWN INNER DEMONS/WHO CRINGE IN SHAME/FORCING OUR MATERIALISED BODIES/TO DO THE SAME.

LONG NEED WE SPEAK OUT LOUDLY
NEVER EVER AGAIN..the bloodlust drIVES MEN/FIT OR LAME..;INSANE
LET ELIOTS ps tell us..to nar read/from that unholy of books/ho\w to make war..no not ever again/warring is never a gain....its a dead loss/who gIVES A TOSS.

OH DEAR ..so dear/the loss
and we still know not/its full cost.

AND HERE WE ART/still dividing/riPPING OTHERS CREATIONS..appart

Why on earth would you want a cure at Lourdes to stay longer here in this corrupt violent world, when if you are so religious that you are taught that the afterl life is a far, far better place to be in, so why want a Catholic miracle to take place, proves to me the here and now is better than the alternative, but you are religious for goodness sake, why not get to the after life quicker, proves to me deep down you do not beieve in the rubbish rammed down your throat by the clergy.

.

Dear One Under God,

.

« AND HERE WE ART/still dividing/riPPING OTHERS CREATIONS..appart »

We entered not by infraction. The poet invited us in. We broke nothing, nothing disturbed. Just inhabited, rearranged, made our own and gave life … as spring invests the trees with leaves.

Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell
And the profit and loss.

A current under sea

Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
He passed the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.

Gentile or Jew

O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(T.S.Eliot : “Death by Water”)

.

.

Dear Ojnab,

.

You wrote :

« … why want a Catholic miracle to take place … »

There is no such thing as “a Catholic miracle”. Miracles are not created by the Catholic church. Nor are they the property of the Catholic church. There are only miracles. Miracles probably occur more often than any of us are fully aware – despite the communications revolution.

As there is no scientific explanation for them, the Catholic church singles out some very concrete and particularly impressive human experiences which it presents as evidence of “divine intervention” (naturally, of the deity conceived by the Catholic church itself).

This is part of the Church’s strategy of proselytism of new recruits and reinforcement of loyalty of existing followers.

It is precisely the strategy that the Buddha refused to adopt, despite the insistence of his followers, by declaring (on the subject of miracles) : “I dislike, reject and despise them”.

As the American philosopher, Doug Smith, points out:

« Perhaps the Buddha is really saying that these miracles don’t bring people to the dhamma for the right reasons. They are mere circus show; the sorts of things that stun and delight the crowd but don’t really instruct. The real miracle is not supernatural at all. It is the ‘miracle’ of the dhamma : of teaching true wisdom. »

Given the context at the time, the Buddha’s attitude is perfectly understandable. Miracles, magic, superstition and religion were all closely associated. Since then, time has passed and engendered a considerable development of scientific knowledge. The playing field has changed, the winners and losers with it, and the Catholic church has intelligently repositioned itself as a complement of science rather than a competitor.

The Church now waits patiently on the sidelines until science has finished playing its game, cheering and booing with the crowd. It then goes on field to play a completely different game of its own, with its own crowd of supporters though it is not unusual to find quite a number scientists among them.

The new strategy seems to be paying off quite well.

.

Dear Banjo,

>> Catholic church singles out some very concrete and particularly impressive human experiences which it presents as evidence of “divine intervention”<<

The Catholic Church does not “present” these things as “evidence” of divine intervention. It is the Richard Dawkins kind that seek/require universally convincing “evidence” for God, making His existence as obvious as that of you or I. Actually, it is explicitly stated that a Catholic does not have to believe in the miracles of Lourdes or similar places.

Banjo,

"As there is no scientific explanation for them, the Catholic church singles out some very concrete and particularly impressive human experiences which it presents as evidence of “divine intervention” (naturally, of the deity conceived by the Catholic church itself)."

I thought that the concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God predated Christianity.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« The Catholic Church does not “present” these things (miracles) as “evidence” of divine intervention »

This is how the Catholic Encyclopaedia defines miracles :

« … i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God … Catholic theologians hold the view that the opinion of Locke, Trench, Mill, Mozley, and Cox, that the doctrine proves the miracle not the miracle the doctrine, is not true. »

Also, I see on the internet that Pope Jean-Paul II promulgated a document called the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) in 1992 which he presented in the form of an apostolic constitution which I understand is the highest level of Papal decree. The CCC apostolic constitution is called the Fidei Depositum.

Jean-Paul ii declared that it is "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith".

Here are some interesting entries on miracles in the CCC :

156. … the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability are the most certain signs of divine Revelation …

434. … in his name (Jesus) his disciples perform miracles, for the Father grants all they ask in this name …

548. … miracles strengthen faith in the One who does his Father's works; they bear witness that he is the Son of God.

You also note :

« Actually, it is explicitly stated that a Catholic does not have to believe in the miracles of Lourdes or similar places. »

The CCC has this, inter alia, to say about faith :

157. Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie.

160. To be human, man's response to God by faith must be free, and... therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will.

I found nothing in these sources that « Catholics do not have to believe in miracles ».

.

.

Dear Ojnab,

.

You wrote :

« I thought that the concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God predated Christianity. »

That is also my understanding, but the Catholic church modified that concept by recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary who was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, and by introducing the Trinitarian doctrine of God defined as three consubstantial persons.

.

Dear banjo

.

You wrote :Encyclopaedia defines miracle:BUT/QUOTED/IT WRONG

«..i.e.,wonders;..*

..:..performed by supernatural-power/SINGULAR*
*as signs..of some special PER-mission or gift..and explicitly ascribed to God>>

BECAUSEV IT EXUISTED/AS WITNESSED/AND WAS CURED AS STATED/SO THAT THE WEAK/OF\FAITH/WOULD HAVE A SURE FIRM BASE[AS SURE FIRM/AS WE CAN DO WITH THE FACTS/AS WITNESSED;.

STENGTHEN YOUR FAITH/YES..BUT AS..STATED EARLIER-ON
EVERYTHING IS MIRACULOUS/TO THOSE WHO LET THEMSELVES FEEL WONDER/AWE/THAT WE ARE GIFTED///THESE KNOWINGS

<<..Catholic theologians hold the view that the opinion of Locke, Trench, Mill, Mozley, and Cox, that the doctrine proves the miracle not the miracle the doctrine,>>

is true

Also..<<>>the highest level of Papal decree.
>>The CCC apostolic constitution is called the Fidei Depositum.

Jean-Paul ii declared that it is "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith".

of course/there are many levels/our klleaders need feed some milk/others meat.hence thev maNY CREEDS AS WE SORTED/IT OUT

<<..inter alia, to say about faith.:

157. Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of GoOd who cannot lie.

160. To be human, man's response to God by faith must be free, and... therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will.>>

TRUELY GREAT STUFF

<<I found nothing in these sources that « Catholics do not have to believe in miracles ».

THOU SHALT NOT ADULTERATE THE WORD/ONEword
we all guilty of adulteration of the illiteration/translation[let alone the imagry/thing]

Dear Banjo,

These are more or less known positions. None of them contain the word “evidence”. That word was all what my objection was about. “Holding the view”, “most certain sign” etc are not the same thing as “evidence”. The Church does not use that word even when talking of Jesus, including Christ’s Resurrection, although it is bounding on Catholics to believe in them, unlike the Lourdes miracles.

There are many things that the Catechism (that you apparently know better than I) says nothing about not having to believe in.

George,
You object to me describing evolutionary transformations as 'magical'. But I think I have every reason to label such as at least mysterious, if not mystical. For from our observations in the real world, time and again, everyday we see biology reproducing after its kind. Such is the action of genes at work. Yet evolutionists have their theories that this was not the case in times long distant, when biota transformed from one to another: flagellum to flowers, to fish. and eventually to philosophers. I say it's mysterious because its a process we don't see now, a process no one has ever seen, and those who proclaim its truth sound unconvincing, except to the faithful.

Though it's a process unseen (unfalsifiable in your words), it forms part of the creation myth for the secular world. Every worldview or faith, even the secular, needs a good creation myth. This relates directly to the heart of this article, which concerns having one rule of law for all, the religious and the non-religious. Yet often our public institutions will heavy handedly favour one creation account over another.

I ask why are so many here wanting to define 'religion' (other than to discriminate against the religious)? You said it's because we have to know WHAT we do, or do not, want to give special privileges to. Yet no one here is wanting to give the religious any special privileges, not the author of the article, nor anyone here posting. Can you think of anyone? That is the point. It seems the motivation here is religious discrimination.

It's all a matter of categorisation. And here, George, I'd like to challenge your notion of categorising faith as concerning the WHY questions, with science asking HOW things work in reality. That's a pretty shallow perspective for someone of your intelligence. Actually, the Christian faith is terribly concerned with answering questions concerning the nature of reality. It asks what is the ultimate truth to which we must subscribe. God has answered such questions emphatically.

Dan S de Merengue

The book is a guide, and it has become the biggest teaching agent that if read right, teaches us the good part of us....

Now the baby boots have just come off....and if I may....quote..(with each new born baby we see better than our past.

To be strong in this world, you must know yourself...with out it, your just an animal, hence why religion was so important to the human race, hence what this thread is all about.

Knowing you......the best parts of course.

Humans still have a long way to go, but I believe in them.....just give them a chance, for me.

Kat

Dan S de Merengue,

I stated explicitly that I agreed with you concerning "magic", only objected to using it as part of an argument against a theory recognised by most specialists (which I am not and neither - it seems - are you) in the field of biological evolution, some among them theists some atheists.

>> I say it's mysterious because its a process we don't see now, a process no one has ever seen, and those who proclaim its truth sound unconvincing …<<

There are many things in biology, cosmology, particle physics (QM) that are totally mysterious to a non-specialist and to some degree also to a specialist. Neither you nor I have ever seen not only species evolving but also Napoleon or the Bing Bang, however this does not impact on the truth value of what biologists, historians or cosmologists tell us about them.

>> our public institutions will heavy handedly favour one creation account over another <<
Here I agree, although I would use “world view” instead of “creation account” since atheists do not ascribe the term "creation account" to their beliefs.

>>Yet no one here is wanting to give the religious any special privileges<<

Again I tend to agree, but exactly because of that we need to know explicitly what it is that they do not want to give special privileges to.

>> I'd like to challenge your notion of categorising faith as concerning the WHY questions, with science asking HOW things work in reality.<<

This is not my but a rather standard distinction, in a nutshell, between what religion and what natural science are all about. Of course, it is shallow as would be any one-sentence description of the difference.

>> Actually, the Christian faith is terribly concerned with answering questions concerning the nature of reality. <<

Again, I agree, however I wrote “Science tries to explain how the physical reality WORKS, not WHY it works like that” etc, which is a statement about the PHYSICAL world (God’s creation). Your “reality” apparently refers to what others call Ultimate Reality that science has no access to.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« I thought that the concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God predated Christianity. »

I am terribly sorry. I was in a hurry and sent my reply to Ojnab instead of to you.

I realised my mistake immediately but had used-up all my posting credits and had to wait several hours before being able to post again.

Here is my reply :

« That is also my understanding, but the Catholic church modified that concept by recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary who was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, and by introducing the Trinitarian doctrine of God defined as three consubstantial persons. »

My apologies, once again.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … “Holding the view”, “most certain sign” etc are not the same thing as “evidence”. The Church does not use that word even when talking of Jesus, including Christ’s Resurrection, although it is bounding on Catholics to believe in them, unlike the Lourdes miracles. »

I have noticed that the word “evidence” is absent from the vocabulary of the Vatican in particular (but not from the Catholic Encyclopaedia). It is so systematic that it is obviously a deliberate strategy. I observed similar strategies in major organisations during my professional career. For example, the French national electricity company, Electricité de France, never employed the word “risk” in any of its correspondence, documents, publications or communications. Nobody in its organisation was authorised to make any admission or even suggestion of risk under any circumstances on anything.

The burden of proof of risk was left to anybody wishing to invoke EDF’s responsibility which, of course, does not mean that there was no such thing as risk.

By the same token, the fact that the Vatican bans the word “evidence” from its vocabulary, does not mean that there is no such thing as evidence.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines evidence as follows :

« The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid (example : “the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”). Signs or indications of something (example : “there was no obvious evidence of a break-in”). »

It appears, therefore, that “most certain sign” means “evidence”. I find it surprising that the Church should assert the contrary. It is usually more prudent than that.

Also, George, you indicate that “it is bounding on Catholics to believe … in Jesus, including Christ’s Resurrection … unlike the Lourdes miracles.”

Entry N° 156 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) attests that Catholics are expected to believe in the miracles performed by Jesus and the saints. Would you please indicate the texts authorising Catholics not to believe in the Lourdes miracles ?

Link to the CCC:

http://stgabrielparish.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catechism-of-the-CatholicChurch-2nd-Edition.pdf

.

Dear Dan.

<<Every worldview or faith, even the secular, needs a good creation myth.>>

The need for a creation myth comes from curiosity, not faith.

A man of faith should not waste their time and effort on silly worldly questions such as how this world came about. Who cares? the world is here, it's a fact, like it or not - and religion is meant to severe our attachment to it, so that the world doesn't stand in our way to God.

Dear Banjo,

>>I have noticed that the word “evidence” is absent from the vocabulary of the Vatican<<

It is absent from many vocabularies, e.g. in contemporary philosophy (of science) since the term is ambiguous (many languages cannot distinguish it from “proof”), although it is often used by those who are trapped in an 18th century (David Hume?) way of looking at (physical) reality. The word is unambiguous in everyday language but not when talking about metaphysics. So I do not see why the Catholic Church in its pronouncements should use Dawkins’ language when even secular philosophers are cautious about it.

>>the fact that the Vatican bans the word “evidence” from its vocabulary, does not mean that there is no such thing as evidence. <<

The Vatican does not “ban” any word, but if it does not speak about e.g. galaxies it does not mean there are “no such things”.

>> « The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid <<

See my comments on this definition e.g. in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277837 .

>> It appears, therefore, that “most certain sign” means “evidence”.<<

I doubt any respectable court would accept as evidence what I would present only as a sign I am most certain about.

>> Catholics are expected to believe in the miracles performed by Jesus and the saints.<<

Jesus, yes (Bible); saints, not necessarily.

>> Would you please indicate the texts authorising Catholics not to believe in the Lourdes miracles ?<<

There cannot be a text “authorising Catholics not to believe” in e.g. theory of evolution. Only if you ask (e.g. a priest) you will be told that you do not have to, although there are “signs” in favour of it.

Nevertheless, you will find in e.g. http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-should-catholics-believe-about-the-appearance-of-our-blessed-mother-at-lourdes-or-other-places/ the statement “even if the Church does give an official approval to a private revelation, the faithful are not obliged to believe in the private revelation.” And more.

geo/the roc\gorge..quote..Neither you..nor I..have ever seen..not only species evolving..but also Napoleon..or the Bing Bang>>

damm/it\george..i hate/to disagree/but..we all have seen/dawinian eovlution,..wether we know/it..or not..but re/nappy/and/the bling bang/sure\no human/materialistic-eye..ever could\but/

napolian/is..in hell;waiting to meet/any-one.[still]
and the big bang/we all cause/caused\via the atonement/the fall /dis manifest[bang/bling][sorry]

<<..however/this does not impact on the truth value of what biologists, historians or cosmologists tell us about them.>>

yes biologists*..good point/please note sir..how as we gain/ever more/..lets call it accademic bling names..titles/honours..the more narrow the focus of the thesus..and at the genus level/we see much vairiation/within species]

darwin/oliver mendal\they observed dominant/resseive gene/expressions
these all are this thing called evolution[..you may know it better as he has hid daddies face/mums eyes/hair/like great great grandma/natural vairiation/within the genus

big dog/breeds little red dog/we all seen evolution
but as dam says/pigs breed pork/[maybe he sayd it better

>>.“creation account”>>
IS EXACTLY/correct/word
a godless creation account/THEY CANT PROVE/but which simply mendalism/refutes

geo/..<<..since atheists..do not ascribe
the term "creation account"..to their beliefs.>>

the latest=selling/that-its the aliand/dun-it
[but if SO..who begat THE alians?..YET OTHER ALIENS?
TILL WE GET TO ANGELS[WHO FELL FROM THE ATONEMENT/YEP THE ANGELS DUN IT/BY REJECTING GOD

ban-johova..lets ask/atheists
who..what/DUN IT..aliens?
[lets face/it\athiests rejected god/thus the big bling/we got here
it really is satans/atheist/world..ITS THEIR REALM/..

WHATS YOUR WORD/
ATHEIST/for the creation/of woe+man?
this realm/wasnt created/by god..lord satan..wow/who would have think it.

we are..all here/be-cause we too rejected gods grace
fallen/like-as beasts..unknowing/self obsessed-bio-logical\eating/machines\..developing..a soul/accumulating/process\of mind

[once god opens..our/biased-[spliNTERD-eyes..to our PREVIOUS/LIVES.AS ENERGY/evoling away/from..its baser/beastly loGUS.
..

GEORGE..<<..By the same token, the fact that the Vatican bans the word “evidence” from its vocabulary, does not mean that there is no such thing as evidence.>>

I VISITED MY CONCORDance..it says
jer..32;10,..11,..12,..14,..16..
then hebrew..11;1..

of course evidences has 2

JER..32;14,..44
NEITHER WIll have prOOF OR JERRY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN LOST/LitKE THE EXTRA BOOK/ONLY THe cathoholics have..

o me the real key word is evident/the JOKE IS/THERES ONLY 7
evidently/got 2..and the next word..got 3 pages..[gues the word?

its satans realm/i tell ya
even the beast;in the stable/knows his masters voice[we know the right master/by the fruit/but good fruit/bad fruit/grow together til the good fruit do god.

CAUSE AT END TIME WE FORGAVE
but then/with a bang/satanic freewill fell down to earth/manifested all their fears[or god allowed/them/be manifested/that the joke be seen by all[see all creation//fear not one/your here for themall/who ist not my bother?

..<<..Catholics are expected to believe in the miracles performed by Jesus and the saints.<<

Jesus, yes (Bible); saints, not necessarily.>>

FATHER-DAN..IS IT NOT SO..that.jesus..sayeth
ye shal do greater*..meaning..we all are expected/to see our greatness/via the greatness..of other?

Yuyutsu,
Who cares how this world came about? Maybe you don't care. Many people do. The key to understanding anything comes from understanding its origin, and how it came to be. This includes the world and the life it contains.

Who cares how the world came about? God cares. He devoted many chapters, in fact a whole book, detailing the world's beginnings and the first people of faith (as well as those without faith) - the book of Genesis. The rest of the Bible contains more citations referring back to Genesis than to any other book.

George,
It's true that I'm not a specialist in many areas. Yet I'm well read enough to know that the specialists often disagree in areas such as history, evolutionary biology, and cosmology. You would be better off putting your faith in the words of God rather than in the opinion of 'experts', especially when they're not in agreement and you're going to have to choose which of them you're going to believe anyway.

The specialists out there are often in disagreement. It's at this point that the author of the article refers to 'governmental incompetence'. It is not the place of law makers to prescribe for the population their version of history, biology, or cosmology. It's not the job of government to tell us what to think or believe. This is why it concerns me when people here (not necessarily you) are making arbitrary definitions on various categories. If these things are going to be prescribed by law, then the definitions must be philosophically sound.

You say scientists explain how things work in the physical world. If that's true, then evolutionist biologists are not doing science. For evolutionists try to tell how things came to be as they are. They're offering a theory of history, how living things came to be in the forms that they are, and not necessarily how they work, or how they are currently functioning. Maybe we are just arguing about categories and definitions, but that seems to be what this thread is about.

I may not be a specialist in many things. But I have studied some theology. And I would still challenge your notion that categorises religion as investigation of the WHY, while the sciences investigate HOW things work. That's not standard. I said that was shallow. It's beyond shallow. It's just not right. The Bible addresses many concerns about what is what and how things operate. As Cornelius Van Til once said, "The Bible is authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything."

Dear Dan,

<<The key to understanding anything comes from understanding its origin, and how it came to be.>>

Yes of course, but faith is not about understanding.

<<the book of Genesis.>>

Is highly misunderstood when read by contemporary modern people, who assume that the people who lived at the time it was written, had the same interests and inclinations as themselves, more specifically as if they were interested in physical and historical facts as themselves.
- Modern people fail to understand that the book of Genesis was never meant as a scientific and/or historical text-book, but rather as a moral guide.

I read the first chapter of Genesis, along with the first three verses of chapter 2, as a hymn in praise of the Sabbath, effectively saying: "look how God, despite being capable of making such wonderful things beyond what any of you can do, even He rested on the seventh day - and so should you, place a limit on creation."

I also read the third chapter of Genesis as a reminder that life on earth is not a boon or a happy affair, but a curse, born out of man's sinful curiosity to know what he never needed to know. All that man needed to remain in heaven was to have faith, to love God and obey his only command, but he was tempted to become sophisticated and is still paying the price for that.

.
 
Dear Yuyutsu,
 
.
 
You wrote :

«  A man of faith should not waste their time and effort ... how this world came about. Who cares? the world is here, it's a fact, like it or not - and religion is meant to severe our attachment to it, so that the world doesn't stand in our way to God. »
 
That may be so, but every time we walk down the street, placing one foot in front of the other, we have no doubt the ground will support us. We do it mechanically, perfectly unconscious of any risk. The thought does not even cross our minds. We walk without the slightest hesitation.

Why then do we need religion to “detach ourselves from this world” ? It should be as simple as walking down the street.

Could it be that it is not “the world” which “stands in our way to God” but, rather, our lack of conviction that there really is a god - in other words, our doubt ? It seems we do not have the same confidence in God as we do in the ground supporting us when we walk down the street.

If, as you suggest, true faith leads to total detachment from the world - physically, psychologically and spiritually – it must require an enormous amount of courage to have true faith. It is not surprising that most of us don’t make it.

I guess that explains why, despite the fact that some people I know are persuaded they have faith in God, I still cross them in the street occasionally.

Personally, I don’t blame them for not having the courage of their convictions. On the contrary, I commiserate with them - but take comfort in the thought that even if they hesitate all their lives, their total detachment from the world is inevitable.

So it must be for the majority of humanity. Whereas the tiny minority of true believers is already detached from this world and, presumably, in heavenly bliss.

As for the rest of us, the question is irrelevant.

.

 

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for your comments. It’s amusing to see that you already studied this topic a few months ago and that we are both using the same definitions and references.

At least that facilitates mutual comprehension even if we tend to see things from a different angle and end up drawing different conclusions.

The distinction you make between the “evidence” and “evident” also occurred to me. I see it as a key to resolving the “ambiguities” posed by “contemporary philosophy (of science)” and “metaphysics” which you mention. It is also in concordance with the American priest, Rev. William Saunders’ article entitled “What should Catholics believe about the appearance of our Blessed Mother at Lourdes or other places?” which distinguishes between public and private revelation.

The difference is the same in both couples : evidence/evident and public/private. The first couple provides the key to resolving the ambiguities posed by “contemporary philosophy (of science)”. The second couple provides the key to resolving the ambiguities posed by “metaphysics”.

I don’t see any problem with the meaning of the word “evidence”. The problem is that the “evidence” must be readily observable by anyone, what the Rev. Saunders calls “public” - in other words, it must be “objective”.

A scientist, on the other hand, by a “stroke of genius”, may have a brilliant idea which enables him to see clearly something which was previously obscure. It suddenly becomes “evident” to him. For the Rev. Saunders, the religious (“metaphysical”) equivalent of the “stroke of genius”, is a “private revelation”.

Where the two paths to “knowledge” diverge, of course, is that scientific ideas are verifiable (falsifiable) whereas religious (metaphysical) revelations, whether public or private, are not.

Allow me to add that the Rev. Saunders’ article appears to be in contradiction with entry N° 156 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which attests that Catholics are expected to believe in the miracles performed not only by Jesus but also by the saints. The Rev. Saunders classifies the latter as “private revelations” in which he considers belief is optional.

.

Dear Banjo,

<<Why then do we need religion to “detach ourselves from this world” ? It should be as simple as walking down the street.>>

Because of ignorance about our true nature, our faith is flickering, intermittent, so we require methods or techniques to support and strengthen our will-power against the forces of attachment.

<<Could it be that it is not “the world” which “stands in our way to God” but, rather, our lack of conviction that there really is a god - in other words, our doubt ? It seems we do not have the same confidence in God as we do in the ground supporting us when we walk down the street.>>

Certainly so. Ignorance of our true nature is ignorance of God. Instead we believe our mind which tells us that we are a body, thus we trust the ground more than ourselves.

<< it must require an enormous amount of courage to have true faith.>>

Definitely. We often need to be desperate enough to find this courage.

<<So it must be for the majority of humanity. Whereas the tiny minority of true believers is already detached from this world and, presumably, in heavenly bliss.

As for the rest of us, the question is irrelevant.>>

It is not black-and-white. Very few are totally detached - the rest of us are partially attached and partially detached in varying degrees.

SHAKEY/GROUND/banjo..<<....We walk without/the..slightest hesitation...Why then..do we need religion..>>
one walks faster/alone..but life is about smelling the flowers/not following the leaders

why/religate/to..ned religion..[guidence]..to..“detach ourselves from this world”..?>>

its not the attaTCHMENT..its the constant obsession
all of us obsessed[some to the pont/of\non-function..just to earn our lac/in this hell/give a pig a tough\full of pearl/it wil chew/the pearls..to eat/its slop/but god feels/the pigs ned/for slop/thus grants-it

recall the king/who lived as a beast/of\the field[incanated/for 8 years\..he wished/for sa simpler life/wanting just to wander/his own estates..*wish-granted*

<<It should be as simple..as..[WISHING/to\physicly]..walk/down the street...[or to say/yes i did-it;when the wish was only/to visit\then return/like kids that/yet again/cross-over/soon after..birth

<<..Could it be..that it is..*not..“the world”..which..“stands in our way..to God”..but,rather,..our lack of conviction/that there really is a god>>

NICE/TRY..BANJO\.

..BUT ALL/THE DEAD/can realise/gods truth[sadly knowing/suddenly realised great shame,in some..though god was there everystep/its not god/who judges/but the thoughts we obsess about

to try to clarify..if we were together[in spirit-realm]..each word/i formmed;in my mind/would have a physical affect/in the spirit realm[using the physical..metophoricly..ie one that all arround see hear feel;know..[there really is no secrets/in the next]-life

<<..our doubt..?>>OUR PREPAREDNESS/everything..is clearly expressed/in our soul-form[often even faint traces/of our internals/are expressed/seen/

<<.It seems..we do not..have the same confidence/in God\as we do in the ground..supporting us/when we walk down..the street...[THE TRIPPING..WILL HAVE\NOUGHT-D=TO/DO..WIT ME...[SHAKY GROUNDS/ARE THINGS\SPIRITS AVOID.[damm caps]

<<...ormous amount of courage..to have..true faith.>>
NOT COURAGE..BELIEF/AS WE BELIEVE/THUS ITS PRESENTED..till we are ready..to accept/the\truth/BUT WHO VALIDATES TRUE/4\u?=you.

It is not surprising that most of us don’t make it.

<<..some people I know are persuaded..they have faith>>

lol..faith by pers-ed=weighin]..isnt 'faith'
its hope.fear..or some other emotive truickery[GOD KNOWS THAT IN OUR HEARTS/ALLOWS US ITS MANIFESTATION/AS 'our'[read mine]..YOURS-REALITIES

damm-caps

<<.even if they hesitate..?..>>
AS IN AVOIDANCE/or test..delay..avoid..<<..all their lives,..their total detachment..from the world..is inevitable...>>[yes..just like a book/that ends..before our enjoyment..of the book is over...till we open/the next book.

<<..As for..the rest of us,..the question../is/..irrelevant.>>

lol..i see how/you would/think\so..but..your wrong
yet even the wrongness isnt/going..to void the end...LO...THAT REVEALS..THE NEXT BEGINNING..with a bang..a big-bang..[..following the re-joining..[oneness]..atonement,,[at one meant]..that precedes the fall/every time...[the seperation/forms\..the place/we fall.'to'..

/too..damm/free-will...[ie-here].
its..a honey-trap..free/?\..whats..free?

.


..

Dan S de Merengue,

You are right, there things that specialists disagree upon - e.g. whether superstring theory is the best explanation of physical reality, or whether Cornelius Van Til’s views on theology best interpret what Jesus wanted to say to our century, or which version of evolution theory best reflects observed data.

In all these cases if I am not a specialist I cannot offer my common sense to adjudicate between them, because as a non-specialist I probably do not completely comprehend what the one or the other specialist is actually claiming. Nevertheless, there is a difference: Whereas without heavy mathematics one does not understand what the disagreement is about, not so in the other two cases, hence you get all sorts of adjudicators from the outside, who do not understand what it is they did not understand.

>>The Bible addresses many concerns about what is what and how things operate … Moreover, it speaks of everything.<<

Do you really believe that you would find more about e.g. how your computer operates in the Bible than from a computer scientist? I think the computer scientist knows more of this HOW, irrespective of whether he/she believes in God or not. However, he/she will give different answers to Leibnitz’s “WHY there is something rather than nothing” depending on whether he/she believes in God or not.

Dear Banjo,

I came across the Rev. Saunders’ article accidentally, to get you a quote you requested. Remember, I never had formal RE, but what he says is more or less what I heard from many, educated and not-so-educated, Catholics. I think - but please don’t again ask for a quote - that the good old ladies, as much as they believed in the Lourdes miracles, considered it a sin to assume that this belief is obligatory for every Catholic.

I do not understand how you relate the distinction between public and private revelations (a heavily theological terminology to distinguish between what a Catholic/Christian MUST and CAN believe which doesn’t make sense if you do not believe in God) to metaphysics as such. There are many things philosophers can say, which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable and which are not related to any “revelation”, private or public.

>>It suddenly becomes “evident” to him. <<

This does not necessarily apply to the existence of something independent of the scientist’s mind or coming from such source (Rev. Saunders’ two revelations): mathematicians as well have their Eureka moments when it suddenly becomes EVIDENT to them how to solve a given problem. They do not have to believe that this is a revelation coming from God.

>> The problem is that the “evidence” must be readily observable by anyone, what the Rev. Saunders calls “public” - in other words, it must be “objective”.<<

Again, no mention of the word “evidence” in Rev. Saunders’ article, and as I tried to explain in my link, it makes sense only with respect to a group (e.g. the jury) who decide whether it is convincing or not. Only in trivial cases is this group “anyone”.

You could find “evidence” for things which would convince a mediaeval thinker but not a contemporary scientist, and vice versa. Whatever evidence would convince a "Dawkinsian" that God exists would probably not convince an educated Christian that this is the God he/she believes in. And vice versa.

>> I commiserate with them (the believers) <<
For a believer’s reply see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264888.

Yuyutsu,
You say faith is not about understanding. Yet I don't think faith should contradict reason. Faith and wisdom are to be complementary. As it is said in the first chapter of the Proverbs:
"Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge,"

I've often wondered about that line of thinking that says the Bible contains helpful wisdom, while allowing for that same Bible to contain error. This doesn't add up for me.

To take your example, you suggest that Genesis chapter 1 is teaching something about honouring the sabbath. This may well be true, for as it says in Exodus 20:9-11
"You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the LORD your God. ... For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy."

Yet I don't see how this teaching is to be followed if it is based on a falsity. For it says that God has set a pattern for us to follow. Yet if the first part is not true, how can it be the example that we are meant to follow?

I could list many other examples. If there is a lesson which refers back to a previous event, and yet that event never occurred, then how can there be value or credibility in the lesson?

uote..<<..Yuyutsu,..''You say faith..is not about understanding.
Yet I don't think..faith should contradict reason...Faith and wisdom are to be complementary...>>

,,<<..As it is said in the first chapter of the Proverbs:
"Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge,">>..

oops hang-on/yES ONCE/BUT ITS WRITTEN AS WIsdom 7 other times
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=fear+of+god+beginning+wisdom&

dan?..<<..>>I've often wondered about that line of thinking that says the Bible contains helpful wisdom, while allowing for that same Bible to contain error. This doesn't add up for me.>>

dan/its about freewill/not prejudging the slinters\in each others eyes
its about allowing te tares/and the wheat\to but briefly meet/here[in satans-realm]..;

<<..in six days the Lord made the heavens,..the earth,..the sea,
and..flora/fauna/micro-biota\micro-beast/bacteria/fungi-slime..

<..everything in them; but on the seventh day\he rested.>>

WE MAY KNOW/THEN..BY THEIR SIGN,,

<<..That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath
day and set it apart as holy...Yet I don't see how this teaching is to be followed..*if it is based on a falsity...>>

THE BIBLE IS BEST READ AS A HOLO-GRAM/WHERE EVERYTHING..IN IT=IS AS IF/NOW..that we know as if by hind sight the work/and its fruits[see demons get much out of the book/at a lower-level'to be sure'..yet/angels see only the light/knowing error isnt,,'of'..god/thus not ever 'eternaly'..real.

<<>For it says that God..has set a pattern..for us to follow...Yet if the first part is not true..how can it be the example..that we are meant to follow?>>

a man/begins..as a seed..yet in that seed is infinite potential
life is a maze/everytime we see the door/its a wall/but once we turned/the corner..huge undreamed of vistas/get revealed/every end=a new beter beginning/there are no wasted steps/no small parts\only small actors.

<<..If there is a lesson..which refers back/to\..a previous event, and yet that..event..never occurred,..then how can..there be valueor credibility..in the lesson?>>

im sorry dan/its called the 67 BOOKS [SORRY BI=2=THE TWO/BOOKS]
BUT MATE/NOT THE 70 TEACHINGS..its about our human naturE/ALLOWING US INTO THE MINDS OF THE SCRIBES/damm caps\and thus they entry into ours.

via words we can talk beyond death/how amasing is that
please test me on those you think refute/these things is why i live for.

Dear Dan,

It is useless to try to understand the bible through a modern mindset.

If the bible were to be written today, then of course it would be written differently, but it was written thousands of years ago, before the world became obsessed with objective facts and evidence, which we now take for granted in a similar manner for example as angels and daemons were taken for granted earlier.

The world is the world, no doubt, but the importance or significance attached to it, is a human trend, all in the mind. In itself, other than what man assigns to it, the world has no importance (no "importance" or "significance" particle was ever detected by science!).

I fully agree with the original verse from proverbs which you quoted - "Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge", though the word used in proverbs is not "fear", but "Yir'ah", a word that can be deliberately understood on three different levels: the lowest is 'fear', the middle is 'awe' and the highest is 'seeing [the Lord]'. It also used the word "chochmah" - 'wisdom', rather than knowledge. Wisdom is much more profound than information and knowledge.

Yuyutsu,
"Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge". You accept the scripture but say that in the ancient Hebrew the word fear could mean 'fear', 'awe' or 'seeing' the Lord. The word translated as 'knowledge' could possibly mean wisdom.

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them." Now for this scripture, how many ways can this be interpreted? I don't want to be sarcastic, but do you think the ancient Hebrews couldn't count to six? The message contained in these sections seems inherently clear.

Words can only be stretched so far.

Go ahead and kill me......I have a BCC cancer.....2 years on.....what are going to do..kill me twice........you all still have a global problem....with or without.

Science has always been my love....and it always will.

Like lve always said........toworrow is where your minds should be..

Now Iam not dead yet.....i dont know what to say

DAN/quote..<<..Words...can only/be\stretched..so far.>>

CAN/..I..TAKE THECHALLANGE..

yu/new quote..<<..."Fear of the LORD
is..the foundation/of\..true knowledge".>>>

WHAT/IS\THE......FOUND,ATION../OF\...BAD KNOW-LEDGE?
the know*ledge......./4 THOSE\..WHAT HAVE..NO EAR..[*4*]..FEAR

<<..You accept-the scripture..but-say that
in..the ancient Hebrew..the word..fear/could mean\'f*hear-SENSE/',>>

THERE ARE/MANY/FEARS;..my bigger fear\is/the damage/
i do/do..unto..other/its..like issuing/a\check/with your mouth.that can be collected./at call[anytime;..in the next after/life-time.

now..do i..fear wisdom/or knowledge;..no\as angels/have ways..of getting need/to know\to those/needing..to know/tHOSE..NOT KNOWING\.DONT NEED TO,

I DO.STAND..IN..'awe'..OF THOSE/WITH.FLOWING FONTS
OF tried.and true wisdom..knowing is like/people.knowing sports scores/its knowing/but.its not/.know'ledge...[even though/yet again..we feel awe/they\can recall.any of that knowing

so i .fear/not god/but what\me knowing/of god may-do/hurtfully to other..i...stand in awe/of/and everyone=is unique/own hands/own eyes/own face..fingerprints/smell/taste/loves/hates/hopes/dreams/companionship/faiths/lusts..tastes/i fear....knowing/yet fear not wisdom

i wish/to see wisdom/cause im sick/of\seeing knowing

the seeing/is like/a\holographic plate/to see his creations/is to look upon him/look....into any face/he IS IN.. THE EYE/looking right back[its sad/i cant look\at anyone

as<<..for 'seeing'..the Lord...The word
translated..as...'knowledge'..could possibly/mean wisdom.>>

KNOWLEDGE/NEEDS BE APLIED/SUPPLIED/BY\WISDOM
yet.we cast pearl/before\whine.

now/ben..:..
but..first..ONE DAY..[FOR GOD]..IS-NOT/LIKE\.A DAY;.FOR MAN
lets go back/to/when/big-bang/;,,time-began.

deep/dark-void/timeless\
this the first darkness/plus the first day=the first 'day'[as in a stage]..see that the big bang created time/but vastly distorted time.recall our time is the measures/of a day/of a moth..years/in the time..before/time..god measured his time/progression/by the cOmpletion/of the stages called daze..

[really you/had to-be there]/LOL\
much...like the\afterlife/is one\long day..the post/big-banG/satan fall/created change/gods*days.are measured by change[just/Like we have the.*dark-ages/god has\the first day/..etc

<<."For in six days/stages..the Lord\SATAN/..made the 1/sun,[suns]
2/the earth[planets[,the sea-waters][flora,...and everything in /fauna/*them."...

THINK/BEN/WHAT/YA\GOING T0..TELL A HOLY-MAN/....WAY BACK WHEN
we\had food/plants[FIXTURES]..;.before god//created/life/..[FUNGABLES]

<<....Now for/this scripture,....how\many ways
can this.be interpreted?>>>

well/god"said":"...'sort/of\dont leave room to debate
your saying;.god didnt said?..[thats sad]

<<..I don't want to be sarcastic,...>>
i dont/mean\to,..be..but what do you say to fisure-men/or sheeple?

<<...but do you/think.....the ancient Hebrews
couldn't count..to six?>>THE ANGELS/THE DEMONS/.its about essentials

i think god.created daze/.....like=these/days
but why?

<<..The message contained...in these/sections\seems inherently clear.>>

i like to think.....so/
we have..let there be light
they have...a big bang

we have eve/they have the 6 lucies/
we have noah/and his sons

they HAVE THE MAN/CREATION-STORY
[ALIANS/created;men..lol

[but who created/these alians]
SATAN-CLAUSE?.santa claws/THE\estar rabbit..

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I do not understand how you relate the distinction between public and private revelations (a heavily theological terminology to distinguish between what a Catholic/Christian MUST and CAN believe which doesn’t make sense if you do not believe in God) to metaphysics as such »

I was camparing your reference of “metaphysics” to the Rev. Saunders’ “philosophy of religion”. Indisputably, the two terms are different. Nevertheless, metaphysics considered in its broadest sense of “anything that lies outside the realm of the physical sciences” covers much the same ground as the philosophy of religion. Both attempt to offer an explanation of how and why anything at all, and mankind in particular, exists in the world.

Metaphysics and religion are related, therefore, because religion often attempts to provide a metaphysical understanding of existence.

I admit that it is stretching the point a bit to accommodate the comparison but I do see a parallel between the two couples : evidence/evident (philosophy of science) and public/private (philosophy of religion of the Rev. Saunders).
.

You noted :

« … no mention of the word “evidence” in Rev. Saunders’ article … »

That is correct. I was not suggesting that “evidence” was interchangeable with “public”, nor that “evident” was interchangeable with “private”. Each couple remains inseparable and each couple applies in its own particular realm and not in the other realm: philosophy of science and philosophy of religion.

What I see as common between the two couples, each in its particular realm, is that the intellectual concept is the same in both cases. If the essence of the concept were to be extracted and expressed as a “couple” common to both realms, objective/subjective comes to mind.
.

You then remarked :

« You could find “evidence” for things which would convince a mediaeval thinker but not a contemporary scientist, and vice versa. »

True, but the concept of “evidence” remains constant. It is our vision of the world which has evolved.

Evidence derives from the Latin evidentem/evidens (perceptible, clear, obvious, apparent), which derives from videre (to see).

.

Its nice to see both are educated and with wisdom.


Kat

Dear Dan,

I understand that it is very difficult to look outside the square and step out of the modern mindset.

In modern times, "truth" is related to objective evidence. We take for granted that what our senses are telling us, is more or less so, especially when everyone else can see the same with their own senses. We consider it important to know the "what"s and "how"s of the physical world. We are in fact indoctrinated to think this way and only rare 'heretics' like me see it differently.

This doctrine of modernity affects the Christian and the secular alike. While commonly, the secular/atheist simply discards the spirit as nonsense, the Christian attempts to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance in different ways.

But this was not always so.

Perhaps you could for example look at aboriginals (those who still live in their traditional ways) - for them, Dreamtime is more important than objective facts, for them this is the highest reality.

So it was likely true, as well as sacred, in the ancient Hebrew's Dreamtime-equivalent that the heavens, the earth, the sea and everything in them were created in six days, but the idea to translate this to the material world as we know from our senses and science, to mix up and confuse the spiritual with the physical, could only arise in the modern mind. Sadly this misunderstanding had cost Galileo his head - but others lost even more: they lost their faith, unnecessarily.

.

Dear ORIGINS OF MAN,

.

You wrote :

« Go ahead and kill me......I have a BCC cancer.....2 years on.....what are going to do..kill me twice........you all still have a global problem....with or without.

Science has always been my love....and it always will.

Like lve always said........toworrow is where your minds should be..

Now Iam not dead yet.....i dont know what to say »
.

If there is anything any of us can do here to help in any way, ORIGINS OF MAN, please feel free to communicate it to us. I, for one, shall do my best to do whatever I can and I am sure I am not alone.

There comes a time when we all need a helping hand. Even if it is just to know that somebody is there with you who cares, even though we may be miles apart.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>Metaphysics and religion are related, therefore, because religion often attempts to provide a metaphysical understanding of existence.<<

I agree, related, but not one reducible to the other. Religion is more like that “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist, a philosopher (metaphysicist), an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven).

>>each couple applies in its own particular realm and not in the other realm: philosophy of science and philosophy of religion<<

Maybe so, but both philosophy of religion and philosophy of science have their own reasons to avoid the term “evidence”. Also, misunderstandings arise during translations from languages that do not distinguish between “proof” (depending only on pure logic but empty of contents) and “evidence” (building on some facts that have already been established as evident).

>>the concept of “evidence” remains constant. It is our vision of the world which has evolved.<<

Maybe so, but as I tried to explain, what is and what is not accepted as “evidence” not only evolves with time but also depends on whom this “our” refers to: everybody, when talking about everyday things or on a popularising level, not so when talking about world views. See my last example with Dawkins and his missing “evidence” for God, whom a believer assumes to be self-evident (like e.g. the assumption that there is something like "time" that nobody will ask evidence for) and will derive from that assumption a different vision of the measure of evidence for this or that than Dawkins.

Even in science you can talk about “evidence” more in experimental sciences - where popularisations do not depend very much on your philosophy of science you approach them from - but not so easily in theoretical physics that tries to describe the very nature of (physical) reality, c.f. my reference to Hawking-Mlodinow in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464 .

For instance, writers of popular science rejoice about having found “evidence” for the Higgs boson, but physicists are happy only about having found a crucial experimental confirmation of their standard theory of elementary particles.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>Sadly this misunderstanding had cost Galileo his head<<

It certainly did not cost his head only his freedom to move around. And not freedom to think, as demonstrated by his contribution to a reconciliation between Christianity and emerging sciences with his metaphor of the two Books God wrote.

sir/frenchie bacon
“God has,/in fact,\written two books,*not*just one.
Of course\we/are all familiar/with the first book\he wrote,
namely/celestial-Scripture's[pooRLY/CONVEYED\to/this\satans-realm\.....But\he has written/a second book/he\called creation.”

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/twobooks2.htm The American Scientific Affiliation is a fellowship of scientists who are Christians/and one-of/our main shared/interests\is /he relationship between our views of nature (as studied in science) and our views of God,scripture,\humans,/and life (\studied in theology).

Understanding and FaithA s+udy/of theo-logy-and-sci*
silences/science can/be useful-in two closely-related ways\,/when we ask:

1) "What are the relationships (historical, sociological, psychological, philosophical, theological) between science and Bible-based Christian religion?", and our goal is improved understanding.

2) "What are the mutual interactions between a person's faith and their views of science/religion relationships?", and our goal is improved faith and quality of living.

What is the connection between understanding, faith, and quality of living? Christians must live by faith, by trusting God's character and promises. If our Christian faith is affected by anything, including our views of science-and-Christianity, it will affect the way we live.

If we think there is conflict between the claims of science and the Bible-based principles of Christianity, this perceived conflict — regarding creation questions, divine action in providence and miracles, or in other ways — can be a challenge to the quality of personal faith and Christian living.

*But if we increase our understanding and decrease our perception of conflict, we can improve our faith and the quality of our Christian living.These two questions are examined in Religion-and-Science for Understanding & Faith.Is there inherent conflict between science and religion?Is scientific thinking consistent with a Bible-based Christian worldview?

*When we carefully study the two books of God,/can we-find harmony in what we learn?/Or is harmony\impossible because there is inherent conflict\between the information*in-bibed/with-in scripture and natures codes/remain\twain/

?If theology (based mainly on studies of scripture)[its/missed/the living-essence/not-captured/in\mere-dead/word

the living-god=active/good.omnipresentgood/nmercy-grace/eternal
and science\(based mainly-on/physucal-studies/of living]nature) are incompatible, useless/arcane/theories;both

then we cannot combine their knowledge/in a harmonious way,
so conflict/between theology ]peer based;ignorances/bias

& science/per/pre-vieuw/pervieuw/licebnce

same/same/same/
shame/sham/slam*
(and "warfare" between advocates of theology/theory
physical-]practical/acrtural[non-theo/heretical/theologie.&
true/observational/notational/replicationable faulsifiable/testifyable[amasing teachings og god satan leaves scatterd in the dusts/honest-

science?)[is inevitable.]
im heading bush/now.where can we share/photos?

Dear Yuyutsu,
You accuse me of being overrun by the 'mindset of modernity'. You should question whether this isn't rather more applicable to yourself. I am simply reading the Hebrew Scriptures within their own context. I'm not reading anything into it that isn't already there.

If you're feeling 'cognitive dissonance' with regard to vast age evolutionary account not squaring with the straight forward Biblical creation account, then that's your issue. You needn't put it on me.

I don't feel dissonant. I think the Genesis creation account is quite straight forward. I don't see a reason to compare it to the Aboriginal dreamtime. The Hebrew mindset with regard to the timing of creation is quite linear. At the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There were specifics completed over six days, and history then flowed from that. The current year dated on the top of any Jewish newspaper is 5774, which dates from the time of creation.

If faith means anything, it has something to do with believing the words of God. I'm not sure who you're referring to when you talk of people 'losing their faith'. It's definitely not me. I think I have a strong faith, and well grounded in solid Biblical teaching.

Who are those losing their faith? There are those who are trying to hold onto a vast age evolutionary account in one side of their brain, and reconcile that with a straight forward Biblical account in the other side. The two don't reconcile. Some people can simultaneously believe contradictory things in different parts of their brains. For others, it causes dissonance, and they lose their faith. They realise that if the modern evolutionists are right, then the ancient Hebrew writings are wrong. They stop believing in the Word of God. (I agree with you that it is unnecessary.)

If the ancients are wrong about their history, their writings cannot hold credibility for faith and morality. For the Bible is a consistent whole (it's not dissonant): the New Testament is dependent upon the Old, while also being a fulfilment of the Old.

dan/quote*,'Who are/those\losing/their faith?-There/are those/who are trying to hold\onto a vast age-evolutionary-account\in one side/of their brain,.and reconcile\that/with..a straight forward/Biblical account\in.the other side.>>

one cannot/seve/two masters
if/one\cannot\explain/your theory/its best/the\relate/whichever fable/they\most/simply\ascribe/TO

<<.The two...don't reconcile.>
i dont see/why-not/science\sees not difference
kids dont care/so what-is\belief*in god/or belief in\science/fools will..claim/equal/master\*/over both\arnt being honest

nar/the twain/be*met/but h\ere[in satans-realm]
OR..RATHER\THE MANIFESTATION/OF SATANS\..DELUSIONAL FEAR/RENATIONALISATION/AND COMFORTERS

<<<<.simultaneously believe \contradictory/sthing>

I MOSTLY*AVOID LYING/thus i\believe-most things/people\say they did/but..my former wife/well\she dont believe\much/so its/not much use/explaining\too much/indeed-anything.

<if the\modern evolutionists\are right,/then
the/ancient-Hebrew\writings are wrong.>>

0ver*-thin*King/its importancE
they\swallowed/the warm-bloOded/cold =BLOOD/fish../LOL\..becoming a wolf/*..then returning/to\the sea..to become*BALEENE*..whales[it just needs proper/telling-what\twaT/begot*wh0t?

lest-we\forget/the fallen angels/were\THOUGHT/TO-BE\imortal/thus death/isnt serious/to those energy cannot-ever\be destroyed/..[thing is-its clear/that/there were*many*lokies/crossbreeding[inbreeding] /with\the-genes/of\a sow/that\inbred/till/it made adam

[then adam..[Xy].the sterile hybred/]F1].wanted/what/the-beasts/got
[so/they\..took/out\*/the tiny[troublesome,'y'/..and doubled up..on the GOD-GENE/*\;XX'

but\then/his sister/begot/and\guess what/the apple thing..[over\5 ways under/mosaic\law/was eve able-to/be forgiven..

[ie man forgiving-foolishness]as brother/he could forgive/hIS\SISTER/AS FATHER/HE/CAN\FORGIVE/THE-DAUGHTER/AS HUSH-BAND/FORGIVES/WIFE\AS MAN/FORGIVES*/WOMAN's/foolishness/[

SATAN ASKS/EvE..WAS IT\GOD WHO-DIDST...FORBID
AND NO.[for/eve\it..was/adam.

[KNOW/the-one\who forbade/was*.adambe-.cause\he made*whole-thing up/..then hid/the proof[..thats why\woman alone\have/the gift of co-creation

</They stop believing/in the Word/of God>

my /beloved/grand-child...said/I DONT\BELIEVE\IN/GOD GRANDAD
I SAID..THATS OK DEAR/..HE WILL NEVER/STOP believing\in you

(I agree\with you/that it-is\unnecessary/who believes/what
if ya/cant prove-it\ya got\nuthin-but/faith..[BUT/IM NOT\STANDING BEFORE G*\/D..TO SAY/I didnt try/to tell ya)al/

<<.If..the ancients/are wrong\about their history>

so what/shakesA$pear/translates/..ditto many bible-themes
who\cares/its a body/ofthought/advice\peoms/law..so-what/i-luv-it.

<<,their writings\cannot hold/credibility\for faith/and morality>
[i was\a/bad dad]/my kids/are great/parents/THEY\didnt\learn-it/from me*

<<>=For/the Bible is a consistent whole...(it's/not dissonant)>

its complete/in...what it represents/FROM/HEAVENS/FERSION[INCLUDESMUCH/FROM\HELLS-VERSIONS.

but its/our interaction/with the/dead words/that\either/join the letters/or/the reality..[its-a\great-divination/device]

<</the New Testament\is dependent-upon the Old,>

of course/but\..thats the big-clue..[as-to..his miracles]
iE /THE RITUAL/OF\CLEAN-HANDS/and\fixety\HARSHNESS/of creed-RITUAL/rite/.\over the living-savior

who wasn't as\Aggressive/SLAYER/as predicted
[when jesus/knew\it wasjohn/or\how.joseph/is-a parental ideal[for/training-LEADERS.[get-em/yung/wink]

<<while-also/being a fulfilment\of the Old.>

ahhhh meneh

but/then again/jesus preceded.\many things/..with/..;....because it was/WRITTEN/prophesied.\[john the offspring/of two high priests/was to be the-one]

HE DID/HAVe/an\87/YEAR-OLD/MUM.
I LOVE/THE/TWO/JUXTAPOSED/THE-VIRGIN/THE AGED/HIGH-PRIESTESS/WHO WILL/GOD CHOOSE.

[FOOLED/EM-ALL*]
BOTH/GOT\ANGELS*.DAMM-caps.

Dear Dan,

I never implied for a moment as if you lost your faith.

I will stop here, not because I agree that the bible is a text-book about the material world, but because I am the last person to wish to disturb yours or anyone else's faith. I am very happy that by God's grace you follow the moral and spiritual guidance of the bible and even a hint that interpreting the bible from a different angle might remotely shake your faith is unpalatable for me. I could not forgive myself if you lost your faith because of me.

May God bless you, may the Holy Spirit continue to guide your steps by day and by night.

Dear Yuyutsu,
I'm sorry you want to leave the discussion at this point. It was you who said certain people lost their faith. I was merely asking who. Who is it that you're referring to? (I never thought you were referring to me.)

I like to come to OLO discussion forum to try and have robust discussion with intelligent people. I would hope that we could challenge and inspire each other to deeper thought and perhaps deeper faith. So I'm sorry you feel to leave. Maybe we're just mis-communicating or talking past each other. But I'd prefer if you'd address some of the concerns I've raised.

I see the Bible as making real propositional claims about real issues: a real God who relates to real people in their relevant times and places. For sure there is a spiritual component, but it doesn't concern nebulas ideas that dance around in your head. The Bible is a text that relates to the material world, our world, here and now. It has related to millions of people, inspiring conviction and faith for thousands of years.

I hope it is not too hot for you to handle.

Blessings,

Dear Dan,

When one bases one's faith on material or historical facts, one plays on the devil's (figure-of-speech) turf, where temptations and pitfalls abound.

Why should a counter-proof be allowed to shake one's faith?
Why should one jeopardise their eternal life for a morsel of fruit from the tree of knowledge?

Better stay on the straight and narrow. Better love God unconditionally and sing His praises: who cares how long it took to create this world? who cares whether it was even created? Are such physical/historical questions going to determine or have any impact on your relationship with God?

Yes, the bible inspired conviction and faith on millions of people for thousands of years, but conviction was merely a means in the service of faith, not an end by itself. In earlier periods, this method worked, allowing people to arrive at faith through this method of conviction. So long as it worked, so far so good, but we should realise that these were different times and today, due to the prevalence of modern science, conviction has become more of a burden instead of leading people to faith.

Peter Sellick suggests that in our era, the best method to attract people to God is music and art. He may be right and I also support whatever other methods help people to divert their attention from the world and turn it to God. I don't think that intellectual knowledge or understanding of facts is suitable for this age, which is already obsessed and saturated with facts. This was just a method, which suited past eras.

Please remember that we are not here in this world for the purpose of understanding how this world works - We are here to serve God!

TSU/QUOTE/.<<>.\,,<<..Why should..a counter-proof>>

misstransllation..[why should a counter evidence/or a balance-point
..<<..be allowed to shake one's faith?>>

some build on shakey/foundations[like mosus did miracles[yet tey built te golden calf/for child sacrifice/even in the desert[or a messiah says eat[with dirty hands/because its not what men/put into their mouths/that maketh/man;..unclean[but that which issues forth from it

lol like counter-statements/averments of act

<<Why should one jeopardise..their eternal life for a morsel of fruit from the tree of knowledge?..>>

we cant/all will taste the eternal fruits/some just want to touch all bases[whats the use rushing to perfection[if ya still want do do/a\little bit of sinning[especially once you find out sex is amasing/a true union/..but whats the rush/first into heaven/but what about the rest of gods creation/who reject/love/grace/mercy?

im plannen on spending lots of time;in hell
i see/this satanist material-mercahantilismc\s/realms
and/to be frank/id rather be in hell.

<<>>>>Better stay on the straight and narrow.>>

why/dont god love the repentant sinner[once we fgo/and sin no more/we still can fall from great height/not as great as satans/fall...[yet]

but we all shakll fakll/many times
like we fell short in the past/like peter.

<<..Better love God unconditionally>>
god/never said that
infact..<<..and sing His praises:>>

he is PARTICULARILLY FED UP WITH/the useless begging whining about demon-central[israel]..pathetic/our begging made god sick/its like dennis the menis[except god would never say what i say/he is just that way/joy in your hear/sings to god without uttering a word/he loves passion/cm-passion..contented satisfaction

<<>.who cares how long it took to create this world?>>

if god himself told/me..i would still ask for a little proof/too
but 5 days or 6 stages who cares[the important/thing..is darkness/preceeds the dawns/light[our/de-light]

<<>.who cares whether it was even created?>>

satans fall created/it/but..your right/who cares
wether/its created/it looks random/till you find the logus/logic.[sic*]

nothing/ha/ any impact on your relationship*..with God?\
he/is our father/we are his children[our relationship/with;our wholly father/is-one/to\one-[the personal omnipresent/good.of\grace/and]mercy[infinite/omnipresent]..loveradiating light/that life lead logicly/to learn/to\love..life/in\the/light.

<<>>We are here/to serve God!>>

no/we/are\serfved/as we de-seved/by\the living good..[god]
who/leads-you.must/serve\or/de-serve/u.