Yes, wonderment at indecipherable mystery! So retreat into scripture and worry not if the whole thing has been repeatedly rewritten and revised to fit a narrative, that confers control!

Interpreted to decide who shall go to heaven and hell and who can sin with impunity? As all their sins have already been paid for.

It's a real mystery indeed that anyone with a still functioning cerebral cortex, can swallow any of this patent bunkum, let alone embrace it, as advocated by Paul, the way a mind conditioned slave embraces their lord and master?

A cannot err master, the very foundation of a cult!

Followers? A manifestation of the stockholm syndrome?

If there is a trinity? Then it is us as mind, body and spirit?

And born of water?

we are around 50% water and we are flushed in this world on a stream of water when the waters break!

To reach unto the kingdom of heaven, you must be born again and again and again until you get it! Literally!

Allegedly, here was a plain speaking man who not only didn't mince words, nor speak in riddles, but went to some pains with homespun homilies,[parables,] to make his meaning plain!

And just did not need folk/control freaks, conferring hidden meaning to plain speech, and given his audience, was almost to a man, illiterate, needed to be!
Alan B.

*...To have an experience of the Spirit is to have an experience of God. Without the Spirit we are left with theory, there is present for us no "God with us"...*

This is where the theory breaks down…in physics there is no “present moment”.
We live in this physical world in the echo of the past. From the point of view of philosophy, we can only hope for the future!

Christian religion extracts us from the physical realm, and plants us in another realm not yet experienced: A realm or dimension, without physical boundaries of time. Eternity.
The spirit bridges the gap between the two realms.

Alan B.
I do wonder whether you read my essays since your comments seem not to relate to their content. Instead, you give us your old worn out objections to anything theological. I think you should put them aside and engage more.

Thank you Peter, this is the best article of yours which I read, may God bless you.

There you go again Sells trying to tell others what and how to think!?

As for endless regurgitation of a timeworn phantasmagorical and very obviously unquestioned belief system? That's clearly your particular forte!?

It's written, an unexamined life is hardly worth living? Nor should one blindly accept all that is written in scriptures as gospel? And also unquestioned!?

Not for nothing is it writ large, know the truth and the truth will set you free! And anybody searching for it in dogma and ideology Sells, needs to examine their belief system and the often fact free, conclusions that underpin that!

Otherwise, the flat earth society/fantasy land and real magic beckon!

And not a problem, always providing you don't fill young impressionable heads with your fantasy, before they develop critical thinking.

None of which seems to trouble you or any of your endlessly asinine unquestioned, he said she said, scholars of mythology, essays!?

And these same folk remained silent, many of them, when Rome tried to have Galileo excommunicated for the heresy for claiming we revolve around the sun as did all the other planets in the then known solar system!

Read as many obviously misguided scholars as you like, it won't set you free from inculcated fantasy?
Alan B.

Just where does the Trinity come from originally? The original or Base for a Monistic Religion is in Aten in Egypt. A singular God. The life giving Sun. In the Worship of the God Ba-al is the reincarnation of the Apis Bull, or the Son of God. In the Exodus a number of possibly persecuted Religions left Egypt & in 40 years Wandering these Religion melded. In Judaism there is an underlying notion of an unknown Spirit that guides people. Later the multitude of Gods were amalgamated into one God by King Ahab. If I remember correctly. Although not all Israelites gave up their "Other Gods."

Along comes Emmanuel or Yeshua ben Miryam/ben Pandrea/ben Mamzer/ha- Notzri, (aka Jesus). (That's; Son of Mary/ Son of a Roman Soldier, possibly Augustus Caesar/ A Bastard Son, (raped by a Gentile)/ the Nazarene.) The Legend has it that He went to Southern India & studied Hinduism, had a disagreement with his Teachers & went to Northern India to study Buddhism, before returning to Israel bringing with him some of the things he learnt while he was away. Medicine, Trinity, Peacefulness/Calmness/Meditation, which he taught to his Disciples.

Hinduism has a Trinity. (Brahma, Vishnu & Siva) How convenient & look haw closely they resemble the Christian Trinity in essence.

Sells
And the Spirit ruach of God moved on the face of the waters.
Jesus said " I will send the pneuma."
" Father into thy hands I commend my pneuma ".
Jesus gave up the pneuma.
Stephen said " receive my pneuma " and fell asleep.

Pneumatic tyre-pressure keeps the chariot rolling along and without it, tyres perish .

The trinity as never part of esoteric Christian philosophy, but like most of what is now christian philosophy. Is invention or borrowed straight from locally popular paganism! i.e. A sacrifice at an altar!

Early Christians had no such sacrament, but rather met in one and other's homes to share a meal!

When that was suppressed they met in catacombs and secret places!

Moreover, they built no giant edifices to glorify God, but met in a designated member's home or hovel or the aforementioned catacombs to break bread in commemoration and comradeship.

Churches replete with celibate priests, leading a solemn service, came much much later along with larger and large edifices, replete with plundered and stored treasure!

St Patrick was allegedly responsible for the first version of the trinity, (borrowed from the then popular, pagan druids) and explained by him with a shamrock, with three quite separate leaves, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Three distinctly separate parts, yet a one connected whole and as such a complete plant/entity!?

I hope that's enough engagement for a nit picking Peter? Who seems to think this stuff is actual intellectual debate?
Alan B.

I think it's intellectual debate. There's the word juggling and circular reasoning : if there's a Trinity then the parts are a Trinity which proves intellectual is inter- "between" , leg- "collect, gather"as in Trinity has a leg to stand on like Rolf Harris of 5 years standing . 1+1+1 = 1 , any fool sees that.

Sells,

I nice essay that I (and apparently also Yuyutsu) could enjoy, however the other reactions that have now become obligatory raise again the question whether this is the right forum for something intellectually (and spiritually) that specialised and demanding for outsiders.

Anyhow, would you agree that a Catholic could take it - especially the last couple of paragraphs - as an expression (even argument) in support of Francis’ Amoris Laetitia (http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf) against his critics, notably the authors of Dubia Letter (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-of-dubia-cardinals-letter-asking-pope-for-an-audience) and Fillial Correction (http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English.pdf)?

jayb, Alan B

There is also the Trinity Knot of the ancient Celts, which pre-dated Christianity and continued well into the Christian era, especially in the Celtic lands not conquered by Rome. It represented the Mother, Maiden and Crone.

Belief in the Trinity, can be ... complicated or confusing, and Christian perspectives do have different thoughts on the matter. Some to disagree with the concept, and others to shed a different light on the topic. However the main topic of the article seemed to be not about the Trinity as a whole, but about the Holy Spirit specifically.

When pressed, the core elements of the Trinity are God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Even if a person disagrees if they are all one (in one way or another), these three are very much present in our world.

I don't quite know if I agree with Peter Sellick's ideas of the Holy Spirit. But I do see the merrit of a discussion regarding the Holy Spirit.

To those who see all of this as "fantasy land" stuff. I'd recommend you open your eyes and wake up. The best you can do (if you don't ignore the world around you) is to not be conclusive about what exists in world that are the spiritual or supernatural. But to those who pay enough attention, it should be plain as day. There is something out there. God or a greater conscience force of one kind or another. Pay attention to see at least that much, and then when you find the hints that God exists go seek Him. Find out if He is a force, or is God. Good luck and please open your eyes.

The equality of Spirit can be tested by substitution :

Spirit's God moved on the face of the water. The Spirit said "I will send Jesus" and "Jesus , into thy hands I commend my Father".
Stephen said "receive my Jesus".

Word-juggling has limits as when a priest sends the Pope to a new parish.

The Trinity is bunk. Unitarians are closer than any other Christians to figuring it out.

George,
I would hope that in discussing the Trinity that I do not stray from the path that the early Church laid down. My thoughts should be accepted by all Nicene Churches. This is a matter of the dogma of the Church. However, there is a break with the Roman Church on issues that I do not regard as dogma but have been derived from natural law as the opposers of Amoris Laetitia have pointed out. If you read my article about gay marriage and the Church you will get the drift.

Great to hear from you again.

Peter

The early Church owned some high-rises and investor flats in Rome and then 1/3 of Europe. An Australian runs the Bank of Holy Spirit which empowers the works of charity. Handling money is a breeze and winds of change help the liquidity flow. The almighty dollar is dogma and money speaks , Pell knows that. However the $ sign is not a t or T or even X nor the Russian T with diagonal tree branch . The Holy Spirit banknotes are not co-equal and co-eternal with Pell , Francis or Peter the fisherman who sold fish for twelve denars when pneuma blew on the Sea of Galilee.

I've never contested a creative force nor spirit!

Just the interpretation of both that then confer power into clearly unworthy or unchosen hands?

The holy spirit was supposed to confer the power of J.C. On his apostles? As they chose who should replace him at the helm of their new non Jewish belief system?

And made apparent by miraculously conferring the instantaneous power of tongues! So that folks from around the known world who couldn't understand each other? Understood at least one of the speakers?

At least that is how I understood it from early unquestioned catholic indoctrination.

This Miraculous force allowed the laying on of hands to result in miracle cures and marvelous remission? That started and ended with the apostles, given they were never again able to meet in the quorum necessary to pass on this miraculous gift!?

Moreover, after the first council of Nicosia, where Constantine the Great, a pagan sun worshiper, took effective control and allegedly appointed his own bishops as heads of the roman and constantinople branches.

That then did a Sunni and Shiite and fought each other for centuries. For both domination and validation of their version of their truth?

Thus we saw the foundation of the church of Rome and Orthodoxy?

And armored Popes at the head of marauding bloodletting armies spreading the word with force of arms and monstrosities like the infamous spanish inquisition and the burning at the stake of saint Joan of Arc, and far far worse! All done in God's name!

And apparently guys like Peter think this history gave them some sort of moral authority? Even as Cardinal Pell faces his accusers in the dock?

Some of the reformed Churches have said, that early prophets predicted that the christian church would become a stye in the eye of God?

And given their history and apparent corruption? Possibly correct?
Alan B.

More naive speculative nonsense from Sells.

Never mind that Christian "theology" does not take death fully into account. As an example the naive self-serving nonsense about the "trinity" does not have any equivalent to either Siva as the transformer and destroyer, or the terrifying visage of the blood-thirsty bitch KALI.

For Christians in particular and all us too in our dreadful sanity the death of bodies is a philosophical and "theological" matter that causes untrust, distrust, and hell-deep fear, a matter that fills us with philosophical and "theological" propositions that are Godless, Ecstasyless, Blissless.
As a matter of fact, the cosmic domain is just like Mother Kali. Exactly so. It is full of death, full of moment-to-moment process and changes.
Ecstasy requires trust and utter acceptance of death!

Hence the contents of this reference: http://www.beezone.com/death_message.html

Furthermore the cosmic domain/display is quite literally a Light Show a Dance of Unpatterned Joy.

We have to begin to Dance because all there is, is Dance. All there is, is Dancing Light. All there is, is Love-Bliss, even in the form of all of these seemingly solid manifestations conditions.
Furthermore the cosmic domain is quite literally a light show.

Seems to be a lot of people on "Magic Mushrooms" at the moment.

Dear Jay,

«Seems to be a lot of people on "Magic Mushrooms" at the moment.»

Yes, especially for believing that the world is real and that whatever our distorting senses and mind tell us is indeed so.

Not_Now.Soon,

What makes you think atheists are missing something and need to “open their eyes” and “wake up”?

<<The best you can do (if you don't ignore the world around you) is to not be conclusive about what exists in world that are the spiritual or supernatural.>>

I don't think many atheists would be ”conclusive” about the supernatural; not any more than they would be about Russell's Teapot, at least. However, the time to believe something is when there is reliable evidence.

<<But to those who pay enough attention, it should be plain as day.>>

How so?

To Sells (Peter?),

I apologize for sounding nit picky. But there are a few points that I'd like to hear more on what you mean. On the point of the Holy Soirit obviously not being a person, if you can explain what you mean or why that would help. Both God and Jesus I count their own person, so based on the discriptions in the gospel why wouldn't the Holy Spirit be the same way? The second point on the stories of the bible being just stories and not real. I don't understand how you can be a Christian and not hold that God can perform the miracles described in the bible.

Those are the two points I'm sorry to nit pick about. The rest concerning the Holy Spirit I think I need to read again and then reasurch the links George gave. It's important to have the Holy Spirit and to listen to Him. So with that in mind it's a great topic to bring up and shed light on what it means to have the Holy Spirit, or even what the Holy Spirit is.

I expecially agree with the last paragraph and the sentence after it. That neglecting the Spirit sterilizes our desire; and that to have an experience with the Spirit is an experience with God. All else is theory. Fully agree.

"Calling the trinitarian entities "persons" is obviously metaphorical since they are not persons as you and I are persons. . How does a non-corporeal entity act with intention in the world? We may as well say that the trees and the mountains care for us. Attempts to describe the event of the resurrection of Christ in terms of cause and effect reduce it to an event that exists in the world contrary to what we know about how the world works. "

God is dead , long live the Church.
"Maya means "appearance, not mere illusion". . the root of the word may be man- or "to think", implying the role of imagination in the creation of the world. In early Vedic usage, the term implies, states Mahony, "the wondrous and mysterious power to turn an idea into a physical reality"... other possible roots of m&#257;y&#257; include may- meaning mystify,.
Jan Gonda considers the word related to m&#257;, which means "mother" serving as an epithet for goddesses . Maya here is the maker’s power, writes Zimmer, "a mother in all three worlds", a creatrix, her magic is the activity in the Will-spirit."

If God's Creation is a metaphor , mystery and illusion then Sells thinks he writes text . Sadly he won't be resurrected to meet the corporeal mother in heaven , the only person left standing with any spirit.

To Alan B.

[I've never contested a creative force nor spirit!]

[not a problem, always providing you don't fill young impressionable heads with your fantasy, before they develop critical thinking.]

Sure sounds like contesting any spiritual forces. But perhaps I don't know your meaning as well as you meant it. Be streight and not two faced, or a crooked tongue might just be contagious and those you talk to will speak on simular levels to not say what they mean and stick by it. Either way, if you at least acknowledge a spiritual side of the world, that's at least a start.

[Just the interpretation of both that then confer power into clearly unworthy or unchosen hands?]

The proplem in this though is that we are all unworthy, but not all unchosen. No one is more unworthy on this the anyone else. We have an astute opservation as a common phrase with this in mind, "nobody's perfect." However even though no one is worthy, God still grands us a place in His plans, even to teach His wisdom. This is just my observation, perhaps you've never seen this.

To Jayb. Are you the only one who doesn't know? Seems most others here have theories to explain the spiritual elements of the world. How can you not be even aware of them?

To AJ Philips. We've discussed this in length before. Open your eyes. When we discussed it before one point you made was a weak portrayal of answered prayer (one example of spiritual experiences). If you can not address the matter as it actually is without a false critism of it, on the matter of prayer, then what hope is there in discussing it in the broader sence of spiritual experiences as a whole.

I'll say it again. Open your eyes. Christians aren't the only ones who have spiritual experiences, nor are all spiritual experiences good ones but you will deny them anyways? Because they are not reasonable? Or because you aren't as reasonable as you think?

To Nicknamenick. If you have nothing to say, then don't say anything. Talking with nothing of value doesn't make you clever. Neither does mocking with no sence make you greater. It only shows you as a bother, like an annoying fly. Be humble therefore for your own sake. Better to be silent and take in observations, then speak and show you know nothing.

//The second point on the stories of the bible being just stories and not real.//

'Just stories'? There's naught wrong with stories. Stories are important, and meaningful, and the best ones are truthful even when they're fantasy. As Neil Gaiman puts it so beautifully in his poem 'Locks': 'We owe it to each other to tell stories'. Amen.

http://endicottstudio.typepad.com/poetrylist/locks-by-neil-gaiman.html

As for being not real? Obviously some it is just stories: the parables are explicitly just stories used to illustrate a moral point, and that's OK. Clearly, some of the miracles in the Bible are just stories.

Have you read the book of Jonah? A man gets swallowed whole by a large fish, interpreted by some as a whale, and survives just fine and gets spat up again three days later?

The Bible isn't a science textbook. It is ripe with allegory, metaphor, and all the other good things that make a great story. It's not meant to be taken literally.

After all, 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' tells pretty much the same story, and it features magic furniture, talking beavers, and Father Christmas. Oh, and explicit references to witchcraft and black magic... but for some reason the sort of Christians that hate books always go after Harry Potter rather than the Chronicles of Narnia.

Dear Nick,

'Maya' is derived from
'ma' (= negation) + 'yat' (= which is).

So it means "that which is not", "the not what it is", or how we perceive reality as opposed to the reality itself.

Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, we did have a lengthy discussion. However, you were unable to counter my point that there are more rational explanations for experiences.

I had provided no false criticisms. All my criticisms were relevant and still stand, which is why I was surprised to see you here telling atheists that they should be opening their eyes to something.

So, again, what is it? Because the fact that many people have spiritual experiences is evidence of nothing. Given what we know about neurology, it would be surprising if they didn't.

Not_now soon, (the man with an eschatological name!)

You sound like you have led a sheltered Christian life if you are not aware that there are many biblical scholars and theologians who do not take the miracle stories as descriptions of actual events. You also seem to fall into the trap of tritheism when you isolate the persons of the Trinity. I thought Toni Lavis' comment was on the money.

The church has become a ghetto because outsiders rightly see belief in non material beings that nevertheless can influence the material. This is a very modern phenomenon that is at odds with the way the early Church expressed itself. It dates back to Isaac Newton, an Arian heretic who could not accept the results of the council of Nicaea that the Son was of one substance with the father.

NNS: Christians aren't the only ones who have spiritual experiences, nor are all spiritual experiences good ones but you will deny them anyways?

People with Mental Illnesses have spiritual experiences. To quote a great Comedian, "The Devil made ne do it."

NNS: Because they are not reasonable? Or because you aren't as reasonable as you think?
,
No, they are not reasonable. To quote the Rock Man, "You sees what you wanna see & you hears what you wanna hear."

NNS: To Jayb. Are you the only one who doesn't know? Seems most others here have theories to explain the spiritual elements of the world. How can you not be even aware of them?

I don't have to have a Theory on something which, "isn't." Oh, alright. It's a Boogie Man Story & there ain't no Boogie Man.

Yuyutsu

It seems that mAyate is " measure" . mayate "exchange" < ma "go"
PIE me "devise skilfully " > maya "illusion" from Greek metis etc.
mAyAtmaka "consisting of illusion.essentially illusionary".

Tagalog mayat "corpse".
Australian Gamilaroi maayirr "wind". These two seem linked to this:
"In ancient Vedic literature, maya literally implies extraordinary power and wisdom . In Buddhist Tantra, the practitioner takes on the form of a deity in an illusory body (mayadeha), which is like the magician's illusion. It is made of wind, or prana, and is called illusory because it appears only to other yogis who have also attained the illusory body."

The Holy Trinity
Divine spirits. For they are not human
The divinity or holy trinity is supposed to be God. not human.

There is one divine spirit that exists in equal essence across the universe
That is not included in the Divine trinity of the Christian religion because it has been
excluded.

The divine trinity should be the Father, Mother,Sister,Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit has to be the essence of the entities or else they can’t be divine and must only be human. I think that is what the writer of this article is trying to say and I agree with that. However, the female essence is as prevalent and dominates just as much across the universe therefore without inclusion of the female divine spirit the Christian version of universal divinity,is flawed. The universe cannot function without the female divinity.
It’s existence cannot be said to not exist because it so obviously is everywhere in the cosmos as much as the male

Therefore it is.:- "In the name of the Father,Mother,Sister, Son, all of the holy spirits.

To Sells.

I'll admit, I'm not the most scholarly. With the differing views of the Trinity verses nontrinity perspectives (among other topics) being named, debated, and criticized by doctrine and theology scholars, the debates are a bit much. But here is what I can share. Miracles happen in today's modern world. I see no reason to doubt they occured when Jesus walked the earth, or before when God showed He is in charge. If a scholar says miracles don't exist then I'd counter that I'm not the one sheltered but he is. Also to note, not all bible scholars are Christian. Their doubt in God does not fill me with the assurance that the title of scholar is worth the merit it assumes for itself.

For the Trinity. There is enough debate to fill many pages (again as scholars and bible students try to understand), but there is more focus on God and Jesus then on the Holy Spirit. In my opinion a talk about the Holy Spirit is a worth while topic. And as I said before, I agree that an experience with the Holy Spirit is a moment with God.

Take my critism or my questioning if you want, but I'm not against your last two points in the article. And I think a talk about who and what the Holy Spirit is, is a worth while conversation.

To AJ Philips.

[However, you were unable to counter my point that there are more rational explanations for experiences.]

Look again. It was a lengthy discussion. With a word count limit it is easier to condense a critism and doubt towards an argument, then it is to explain and justify. I countered your points and moved on to the next point. To the best of my ability I addressed your points fairly without resorting to short replies that don't address much.

As for the experiences .... Your counter point is mostly a short "there are other Explainations." With the wider diversity of experiences that counterpoint just doesn't hold up. Look I get that my experiences aren't all healing ministry wow and wonderment. There is one experience in that boat, and it holds credibility. But to the others they are an accumulation of experiences that are diverse enough to not be justified by a simple "your imaging things," or "it was a coincidence." That said don't take my experiences if you don't want. Consider a few that I've heard. A man in debt recieves a large sum of money by a person who says they felt or heard God directing them to help the man out. That type of experience happens often enough even though it is still rare.

Here's a bottom line point to consider though. There are more spiritual experiences to show that either God or something is out there. These experiences might be less prevalent then say cancer (you probably know several people in your family or a friend's family that have dealt with cancer), but spiritual experiences are more prevalent then homosexuality. (Unless you are part of the homosexual community and know others through simular likes, it's likely you only know a few homosexuals. Those who've had a spiritual experience are quite common. And they are diverse enough to not be easily challenged by one explaination.

If you say they don't know what's real or not, or it's all in their head, what grounds do you have that homosexuals aren't just making it up too, and don't really know if they can be streight or not. Are you saying that the magority of people have mental lapses and don't know what's real or not, but you and those you who support your ideals are sane and trustworthy in judgment?

Don't be a Hippocrate, instead go with the easy answer. Experience trumps understanding and rationel. If one doesn't agree with another, then experience holds more weight. This is true with both homosexual attraction as well as spiritual experiences.

[I had provided no false criticisms.]

Look again. When discussing answered prayers , you address the phenomena of answered prayer to a guy who loses his keys and eventually find them, making the prayer to find them meaningless. Tell me that is not a false criticism! Tell me this is a counterpoint to an experience I gave you explaining how I found my keys! Go on, tell me it's not false. Nor is it a weak representation of prayer in general.

All this assumes that there is a God to start with.

Then, I suppose, one can debate anything, even the existence of the Easter Bunny. Debate is debate.

Weather or not there is a God is another question, let alone that the God is Three Gods, One being Human, another a Vapour. What exactly is the Head God? Is he/she also a Spirit? Then, there is the seating Hierarchy question. The Head God sits in the Middle, of course. The second, in rank, (Jesus) sits on the Head Gods Right, the Lesser third God (Holy Ghost) sits on the Left. Yet all the Gods are supposedly to be considered as equal. So how can that be, given the seating arrangement.

Then there is the Question of just who get the most Publicity. That being Jesus, the Human. The Holy Ghost, the spirit, rarely rates a mention, as does the Head God also. Now I would have thought that the Head God would have to be the one that gets the most Worship & attention, but he doesn't. Strange that. One could say that The two Spirits don't get a mention because they are Spirits & Jesus, being Flesh & Blood, is more worthy. But he's dead therefore now a Spirit also.

All three should get equal time, but they don't. They should get recognised as one entity, but they don't. All very confusing.

Jayb writes: "All this assumes that there is a God to start with."

Precisely! All this talk of a Trinity is meaningless until it can be demonstrated that, not only does a god exist, but that this god is this
god of the Bible.

--

Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, indeed it was a robust discussion. However, at no point did you successfully counter any of my points.

<<As for the experiences .... Your counter point is mostly a short "there are other Explainations.">>

Not quite.

My point was that there are more RATIONAL explanations, and you were unable to provide an example of where one should opt for the less rational explanation.

<<With the wider diversity of experiences that counterpoint just doesn't hold up.>>

How so?

<<A man in debt recieves a large sum of money by a person who says they felt or heard God directing them to help the man out.>>

How would this be evidence of anything supernatural?

<<There are more spiritual experiences to show that either God or something is out there.>>

How do they do this?

<<If you say they don't know what's real or not, or it's all in their head, what grounds do you have that homosexuals aren't just making it up too, and don't really know if they can be streight or not.>>

Because we know that sexuality exists. We cannot know that anything supernatural exists. Your analogy is flawed.

<<Are you saying that the magority of people have mental lapses and don't know what's real or not, but you and those you who support your ideals are sane and trustworthy in judgment?>>

No.

<<Experience trumps understanding and rationel.>>

Perhaps, but you still need evidence for your interpretation of these experiences. And you still need to explain how supernatural explanations trump rational explanations. You have still not done this.

<<… you address the phenomena of answered prayer to a guy who loses his keys and eventually find them, making the prayer to find them meaningless.>>

This is a gross over-simplification of what I said. Please go back and re-read what I had actually said.

I believe we can communicate with each other without speaking.

It is not something that we can always do at will, but it definetly exists.
It could account for some of the coincidences attributed to God.

I have had people answer me when I have only thought something in my mind.
People close to me have rung the phone at the exact moment I needed their
help. Is this long distance mind connection or some kind of universal divine
presence.

Could be both operating at different times, and in different situations.
The two might even be connected and work in tandem.

.

Dear Peter,

.

The theological concept of the trinity clearly reflects the macho mentality of the time and which, regrettably, a large proportion of humanity continues to perpetuate.

The monotheist religions of all denominations are largely responsible for this situation. From a doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral point of view, I find that unacceptable.

The trinity, as evidenced in nature, consists of « mother, father and child », penetrated - as Pope Francis pointed out in his “Amoris Laetitia” (to which George kindly posted a link) - by the « joy of love ».

No need for any complicated mysticism, nor, as you suggest : to « allow some slippage in our adherence to an understanding of cause and effect as in Newton's laws of motion » or, to state it more simply : a stretch of the imagination !

The rule of the Church so far seems to have been : “the notion of God is complicated and impossible to apprehend … therefore it requires an explanation that is just as complicated and impossible to apprehend” - or, in other words, "if you think it's simple, then you simply haven't understood" !

If that is the case, then I, personally, prefer to wait and see …

.

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish."
- Section X of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, David Hume

http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.php#E10

Jayb
You're bringing logic into this? Like Isaac Newton?
Where Father and Son have names in Newton's Bible of King James the Spirit is the exception . No ranking , no family line, no teachings or even speaking one word. Even Satan gets a few lines spoken to the first man , to God in Heaven and to Jesus. Angel Gabriel speaks, angels roar like thunder but silence from the Spirit. And it's not even called God the Holy Spirit in any Bible . The answer is blowing in the wind.

nnn: And it's not even called God the Holy Spirit in any Bible.

You're right. There is no God the Holy Ghost. Sooooo..... The Holy Ghost must not be a God. Just a "Hanger Oner" in the Trinity.

Like the third wheel in a group or a Couple's bothersome girlfriend who won't disappear for ten minutes.

Or maybe the V8 under the bonnet .

Israel drives on the right side with Dad steering and the Son sitting to his right .

//Or maybe the V8 under the bonnet.//

Jesus built my hotrod:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yss0_6C22lE

"When the former Cardinal was elected Pope in March, he chose seven cardinals from the Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia plus one Vatican official as outside advisers.. this group – dubbed the “Vatican Eight” or “V8” – showed that Francis was reaching out .
Cardinal Pell did explain the purpose of the V8. Field Marshal Montgomery had a core of middle-ranking officers who worked with him in Headquarters mostly on motorbikes” .

//Cardinal Pell did explain the purpose of the V8. Field Marshal Montgomery had a core of middle-ranking officers who worked with him in Headquarters mostly on motorbikes//

Now I want to see a hotted-up popemobile, with Monsignor Stig behind the wheel. What sort of god wouldn't protect his chosen representative on Earth from whiplash and other complications of excessive G-forces?

The Roman Catholic Church: manufacturers of the First V8 Inquisitor. Doing doughies for Jesus. I can see this catching on...

.

Dear Peter,

.

Further to my previous post (page 7 of this forum) :

In his post-synodal apostolic exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia”, of March 2016, this is what Pope Francis had to say about the traditional and ever present machismo, or what he terms “male chauvinism” :

« I certainly value feminism, but one that does not demand uniformity or negate motherhood. For the grandeur of women includes all the rights derived from their inalienable human dignity but also from their feminine genius, which is essential to society." (paragraph 173)

...I would like to stress the fact that, even though significant advances have been made in the recognition of women's rights and their participation in public life, in some countries much remains to be done to promote these rights....There are those who believe that many of today’s problems have arisen because of feminine emancipation. This argument, however, is not valid, “it is false, untrue, a form of male chauvinism”. The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear, and within families there is a growing reciprocity. If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women's movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women." (paragraph 54) » :

Once again, here is the link previously posted by George on page 2 of this forum :
.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf
.

Unfortunately, he makes no mention of the fact that the theological concept of the trinity clearly reflects traditional macho mentality which the Church continues to perpetuate.

Unless, of course, we should infer from his remarks that he considers that the divine trio is also guilty of what he calls “male chauvinism” – an “old form of discrimination” which should also “disappear” amid our “rejoicing” of the “equal dignity of men and women” – or should I say “gods and goddesses” – or are they exempt ?

That’s an interesting subject of theological research don’t you think ?

.

Dear Banjo,

God Himself/Herself has no shape or form or gender and cannot be described at all, but as human weaklings who are on their early to middle stages of their journey towards God, are yet unable to relate to God directly and need to be inspired by more tangible representations, they create and select the most personally-appealing forms to worship.

The choice between gods and goddesses thus depends on what is most appealing to the devotee's heart.

It appears that in the male-chauvinistic Middle-Eastern culture where the Abrahamic religions developed, especially before the time of Jesus, women were not much appreciated or admired, thus the Abrahamic god was portrayed as male/Father. This was reasonable and fine for them, but today when women are more highly regarded, some devotees can be more inspired by goddess forms.

God cannot be divided, but His/Her functions in the world can, in many ways. The Christian Trinity is one such valid way.

Similarly in Hinduism, God's functioning in the world was divided along the lines of creation, preservation and dissolving, which are respectively represented by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. However, these functions cannot be performed without their corresponding feminine aspects: Brahma's consort is Saraswati, the goddess of wisdom and learning; Vishnu's consort is Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and fortune; and Shiva's consort is Parvati/Shakti, the goddess of power.

The Holy Spirit provides wisdom, prosperity and strength, thus the Christian path already has a perfect feminine form to worship.

I cannot but conclude with this prayer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zasyz-tJkOg

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>The Holy Spirit provides wisdom, prosperity and strength, thus the Christian path already has a perfect feminine form to worship.<<

I agree, and perhaps this extends also to Judaism:

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Yahweh moved upon the face of the waters.

I am being told that in Hebrew Ruah Yahweh (the Spirit of Yahweh) is of feminine grammatical gender. I got this answer from a theologian when I asked him about the Yin aspect of the Abrahamic God.

Hebrew ruah is female in grammar.
Stephen Hawking said time can run backwards then he reversed that - it only runs forward . Another paradigm is that females become pregnant following male input , not preceding female-projected zygosis. Maybe people think that gods are made in man's image / woman's image . Napoleon said thank you when a person told him it's a fine day , like John Denver was responsible for making one .
However , the majority view inclines to God getting credit or at least claiming it as a male. A man-cave has male stuff and the male God's Spirit is testosterone with attitude . New Jerusalem is a cube with 12 gates and Peter has keys and it's Christ's bride . He's a Lamb and is subject to the Father as a wife is subject to husband . So the Father has a female universe

Actually, the word 'Ruach' (spirit/wind) is on a list of 20 exceptional Hebrew nouns that can be both male and female.

There are very powerful nouns on that list, including: 'sun', 'time', 'universe', 'way', 'field', 'aspect', and 'abyss'. Interestingly also 'tongue' and 'knife'.

Countries and war-ships can be female in grammar and cyclones were.
French "north wind" is male le vent du nord or female la bis. It powers wind-turbines for female l'electricite in power-station male
marteau-pilon . Greek pneuma is neuter in grammar. Bank-notes are male billet de female banque.
Italian spirito is whatever you choose.

.

Dear Yuyutsu, Dear George,

.

Yuyutsu wrote :

« God Himself/Herself has no shape or form or gender and cannot be described at all … human weaklings …create … the most personally-appealing forms to worship … gods and goddesses … depends on what is most appealing … »

Am I right in interpreting this to mean that “god is simply a figment of the imagination” ? If so, I could not agree more !

If, on the other hand, you are convinced that your description of “God” is based on fact, then perhaps you would be kind enough to let me have the relevant references. I cannot understand how I could possibly have overlooked such an important discovery. So far, I am only aware of concepts and "revelations" of religious believers.
.

Yuyutsu continued :

« … before the time of Jesus, women were not much appreciated or admired, thus the Abrahamic god was portrayed as male/Father … »

I regret to have to say that that is a gross understatement, Yuyutsu. Women were not only considered to be inferior to men, they were considered to be their legal property and often treated as their servants or, even worse, their slaves.

In my previous posts, I indicated that, much to my regret, the monotheistic religions continue to perpetuate this macho attitude, the Christian concept of the trinity being an evident example. I also regretted the fact that, as recently as March 2017 ( not just “before the time of Jesus” as you suggest), Pope Francis denounced “male chauvinism” and declared that “the equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear”, but mentioned not a word about the Catholic concept of the trinity.
.

Finally, I understand that because you believe that the “Holy Spirit” provides “wisdom, prosperity and strength”, you both consider that its gender is necessarily female.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me the reason for this believe as I must confess that it has never occurred to me that those attributes were exclusively female.

.

>>Am I right in interpreting this to mean that “god is simply a figment of the imagination” <<

Gravitation is differently experienced by a six years old, differently by a construction worker, differently modelled in Newton’s theory (as an instant action at a distance), differently in Einstein’s theory, differently when one considers (hypothetical) gravitons, etc.

Is one right in interpreting this to mean that “gravitation is simply a figment of the imagination”?

Reference:
" 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." He expanded on this in answers he gave to the Japanese magazine Kaiz&#333; in 1923:

"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)".

.

Dear George,

.
It’s nice to hear from you again.

You ask :

« Is one right in interpreting this to mean that “gravitation is simply a figment of the imagination”? »

As the little scientific knowledge I possess is fairly basic and a bit shaky, please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the force of gravity is a natural phenomenon of which nobody in his right mind doubts the existence. If he did so, it would be a conscious act, perhaps in order to commit suicide - not because he doubted the reality of gravitation.

Also, as I understand that it is a physical phenomenon, I feel sure that qualified physicists are capable of analysing its effects scientifically, detecting its presence and measuring its force. Indeed, I understand that there is a consensus within the scientific community that gravitation is not considered a simple hypothesis, concept or “revelation”, but rather a well-known law of nature.

The same thing cannot be said of “God”.

The different concepts you mention are simply various attempts to explain the phenomenon of gravitation. They do not question its reality.
.

On the basis of our present knowledge – unless, of course, Yuyutsu comes up with something I ignore – I think the best explanation is that “God” is a figment of the imagination. But, naturally, I am speaking for myself. I know that you have your personal reasons for your religious beliefs and, no doubt, Yuyutsu has his. Peter Sellic must also have good personal reasons for practicing his religion.

In other words, as I have no personal reason to adopt religious belief, I see “God” as a figment of the imagination. Whereas all three of you probably have very good personal reasons to believe in “God” and do so even though you may never “see” him, or as Yuyutsu might say: even though he may not exist.

That said, one should never underestimate the power of human imagination and inventiveness. Here is just one example among many others :

http://www.strandbeest.com/

.

.

Dear nicknamenick,

.

If Spinoza’s pantheism equates to “chance and necessity” (which I sincerely doubt) – then why not ?

.

Yes why not? God wrote on Moses' stone tablets like the Caesars. Capt Cook was in Botany Bay , they say , why not?

Dear Banjo,

>> It’s nice to hear from you again.<<

Thanks.

>>but rather a well-known law of nature.

The same thing cannot be said of “God”.<<

I agree. Laws of nature are not supposed to depend on the observing subject. Not so when considering Reality as such (not merely as what science can explain) that includes also the subjects, as individuals or as a communities.

>>The different concepts you mention are simply various attempts to explain the phenomenon of gravitation. They do not question its reality.<<

I mentioned different “attempts to explain” the experience that Newton saw as the action of gravitation. So are various religions and their rationalisations (theologies) attempts to explain those experiences that various people (not all, especially not in the contemporary West) in various cultures and at various stages of maturity found as "real", i.e.pointing to something beyond the person making that experience. An average person centuries before Newton would not understand what "phenomenon of gravitation" and its “reality” was supposed to mean (although they understood that unsupported objects would fall to the ground).

Western Europe, apparently on its way to islamisation, is a good example of what happens if a culture sees its own religious roots as merely figments of imagination thus creating a religious vacuum that another culture, another religion, is filling in. From the point of traditional West its fate is not that unlike that of a person who considers gravitation a figment of imagination and jumps out of a tenth floor window.

Dear Banjo,

«Am I right in interpreting this to mean that “god is simply a figment of the imagination” ? If so, I could not agree more!»

Well gods, with a small-'g' are a figment of our imagination, yet they can be quite useful as representations of God to direct and inspire our fickle minds to move towards God.

«If, on the other hand, you are convinced that your description of “God” is based...»

Description?? I would be stupid indeed to attempt to describe God when the human mind cannot even begin to imagine Him(/Her/It).

«they were considered to be their legal property»

Unfortunately for them, such male-chauvinist-pigs who think of women as property, are unable to see God in women and so they needed to depict their gods as masculine. Indeed the Jews had to depict a harsh disciplinarian male as their god, but this was the best that these barbaric tribes were able to have at the time: it was better than nothing and it did carry them that much along the road to God.

Ancient Middle-Eastern mythology was already aware of the feminine aspect of God, but it seems that the ancient Jews mostly suppressed it. This improved when Jesus reminded his disciples of the feminine Holy Spirit, the comforter, which can roughly be described as the feminine aspect of God's footprint in the world.

«because you believe that the “Holy Spirit” provides “wisdom, prosperity and strength”, you both consider that its gender is necessarily female.»

In Genesis 1:2, "and the Spirit of God hovers above the waters", the verb "hovers" is in the feminine tense!

I already pointed the similarity between the Christian understanding of the Holy Spirit with the confluence of the three Hindu goddesses which respectively provide wisdom, prosperity and strength.

Towards the end of the road, just as the wealthy cannot enter heaven with their gold, even the wise cannot recognise God with their minds. All concepts must be abandoned at the door, including masculinity and femininity, but until then concepts may be useful.

Yutsie: This improved when Jesus reminded his disciples of the feminine Holy Spirit,

I surmise that this was because Jesus exposed himself to other Religions. Especially Hinduism (though not strictly a Religion) & Zarathustraism which have Trinities. Most ME Religions have Trinities, even the Egyptians.

Yutsie: All concepts must be abandoned at the door

That's 'cause ya dead. In the words of the WHO, "This is The End..., my friends, the end." From "The Apocalypse Now"

If the texts are taken as gospel , then Adam had free choice in naming animals . Then probably the early Hebrew was a variable dialect of Semitic related to the Aramaic which Jesus spoke. So can we conclude that God selected the vocabulary and gender of nouns? Consistently the terms expressed are simple everyday names and the idea of "wind . breath" is precise and informative. The concept of "father" and "son" is accessible to everyone even children and clearly different from "wind" which is certainly not "goddess" or "mother" and so on.

nnn: If the texts are taken as gospel , then Adam had free choice in naming animals.

Adam didn't write down any names of anything. Pity.

nnn: Then probably the early Hebrew was a variable dialect of Semitic related to the Aramaic which Jesus spoke.

What language did Adam speak. He probably only needed a few words seeing there was only Eve & him. Like, "Woman!... cook food!... now!" & Eve to Adam. "I've told you & told you & I'm telling you again,put the bloody dinosaur out of the cave & clean up those little mistakes it's done. Now!"

Oh! I know, they spoke "God."

No Jayb anything can be debated. The premise is that the text is the topic.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Western Europe, apparently on its way to Islamisation, is a good example of what happens if a culture sees its own religious roots as merely figments of imagination thus creating a religious vacuum that another culture, another religion, is filling in »
.

Indeed, I understand that Islam is progressing and expanding around the world at a much faster rate than most other religions, but, apparently, not for the reason you indicate. Those in the West who see “God” (rather than their “religious roots”) as a figment of the imagination, are turning away from religious practice altogether.

They are not just switching from a non-Islamic religion (Christianism, Judaism, etc.) to Islam. They are switching from a non-Islamic religion to no religion at all. Islam is not “filling in” a gap left by other religions, as you suggest.

As Prof. Riaz Hassan of the University of South Australia pointed out in an interview at the 15th Annual International Conference on Islamic Studies (AICIS) in Manado, Indonesia, in September 2015 : "in 50 years’ time, Islam will be the largest religion in the world". This expansion will be due to the combination of three factors :

1. The higher birth rates in the predominately Muslim (underdeveloped) countries
2. The receding birth rates in the predominately non-Muslim (developed) countries
3. In the predominately non-Muslim (developed) countries religion is less and less practiced

As I am sure you are aware, the largest Islamic population in the world today is in Indonesia, but in 50 years’ time, due to the differential in population growth, Indonesia will slip back to third place as follows :

1. India
2. Pakistan
3. Indonesia
4. Bangladesh

Here is the link to to Prof. Hasan’s interview :

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

I see no reason to believe that "Western Europe, is on its way to Islamisation" as you suggest. Indications are that it is simply turning away from religion and placing its faith in its own capacity to face-up to reality and forge a safe and pleasant future for its future generations, with confidence.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Description?? I would be stupid indeed to attempt to describe God when the human mind cannot even begin to imagine Him(/Her/It) »
.

Well, I’m afraid that is exactly what you did, Yuyutsu - perhaps unwittingly - when you declared in your previous post :

« God Himself/Herself has no shape or form or gender … »

I don’t know where you got that information from. You did not quote your source. But it is definitely a description of some sort.

If you consider that it is impossible to describe “God”, then I think it would be better to simply say that you do not know anything about him/her : who he is, how he is, where he is, why he is, or even if he is … same thing for her, if he is a she – though you indicated in your previous post - somewhat confusedly - that « God Himself/Herself has no … gender » !

Now (in your latest post), you state that « the human mind cannot even begin to imagine Him(/Her/It) » !

How right you are, Yuyutsu. I couldn’t agree with you more !

.

We can't be sure of the gender of posters here but have their posts as evidence that someone is active . Apart from appearance some info can be drawn including the electrical grid resembling Spirit used by the maker of information .

Dear Banjo,

>>Indications are that it is simply turning away from religion and placing its faith in its own capacity to face-up to reality and forge a safe and pleasant future for its future generations, with confidence.<<

You make me nostalgic, because this is exactly what I learned at school in Stalinist Czechoslovakia some seventy years ago. Perhaps related to this is the fact that some of the most vociferous defenders of "our Christian heritage" against islamisation can be found among Czechs and East Germans, who have the highest proportion of atheists in Europe. They namely know the difference between Christian religion (that they can live with) and a post-Enlightenment civilisation begot by Christianity (that they want to defend), but they do not see a similar distinction in Islam.

Anyhow neither you nor I will live to see how Western Europe will look in a century or so, i.e. which one of us was right in our prophecies.

Dear Banjo,

I think we discussed this already:

While no positive description of God is possible, one can still state what God is not.

Regarding where I got the "information", I infer it because it would simply constitute a logical contradiction if we attempted to attribute God with any qualities, including gender, shape, form, or even existence.

While it is possible to know God, it is impossible to know ABOUT God, since knowledge can only be obtained about objects, which God is not.

Now you agree with me that the human mind cannot even begin to imagine God. Great - but that is not to say that it is not worth the effort to try anyway. If you try, then instead you get gods and goddesses (with a small 'g', yes we already concluded that they are figments of your imagination) and worshipping them can still be a worthwhile and powerful technique because they serve as a focal point to direct your love and devotion to God toward and to turn your attention away from the temptations of the world.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« You make me nostalgic, because this is exactly what I learned at school in Stalinist Czechoslovakia some seventy years ago. Perhaps related to this is the fact that some of the most vociferous defenders of "our Christian heritage" against islamisation can be found among Czechs and East Germans, who have the highest proportion of atheists in Europe. They namely know the difference between Christian religion (that they can live with) and a post-Enlightenment civilisation begot by Christianity (that they want to defend), but they do not see a similar distinction in Islam »
.

Yes, I can understand that and appreciate what you are saying. You will recall that I responded to your previous remark : “… if a culture sees its own religious roots as merely figments of imagination …”, by commenting as follows :

« Those in the West who see “God” (rather than their “religious roots”) as a figment of the imagination, are turning away from religious practice altogether »

The distinction between non-belief in the concept of “God” and the reality of one’s “religious roots” is paramount. Religion is a fundamental element of the culture of most, if not all, of humanity – including the most fervent atheists. Religion and what humanity considers to be “natural law” (the law of nature), have largely contributed to our social mores and laws.

We can reject the concept of “God”, but the only way to completely reject religion is to refuse to respect the rules of society (with the risk of ending-up in jail) – either that, or extract ourselves from society and live the life of a hermit, in total seclusion.

Life in society, in itself, is a form of religious practice. Society has assimilated religion and all law-abiding and respectable citizens live by it. Those who do not, live in a parallel world, outside of mainstream society – at their risk and peril.

In fact, life in society is, for some people (including some ardent church-goers), the only really true religious practice !

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

As for the Czechs and East Germans, defenders of "our Christian heritage", who you indicate are against Islamisation, I see that, according to Wikipedia :

« Religious conversion has little impact on Muslim population, since the number of people who convert to or leave Islam are roughly equal ». Here is the link :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

If this is, indeed, the case then, like El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, in the 17th century, it would seem they are fighting windmills – unless, of course, like the rest of the civilised world, they are not fighting Islamisation, but radical (or should I say “political”) Islam which, I think we all agree, would be perfectly justified.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« While no positive description of God is possible, one can still state what God is not … Regarding where I got the "information", I infer it because it would simply constitute a logical contradiction if we attempted to attribute God with any qualities, including gender, shape, form, or even existence »
.

Of course, we can say whatever we like, Yuyutsu, but remember that in many animist religions, God may be lightning or thunder, a river or a mountain, a tree or a rock. Perhaps in your religion you can decide what God is not but that may be just your own personal concept of God – or, as you say : an inference on your part – but an inference from what ? A religious text, or a certain number of reliable, independent (non-religious) sources ?

Also, from a purely rational point of view, I do not see how you can be certain of what something is not if it is impossible for you to know what it is.
.

As regards the rest of your post, the only (hopefully) intelligent comment I can make is that I see it as yet another manifestation of your religious faith – no less admirable than that of George which I also admire.

.

Dear Banjo,

«but remember that in many animist religions, God may be lightning or thunder, a river or a mountain, a tree or a rock.»

What people (animist or otherwise) say about God makes no difference regarding what God actually is or is not.

The difference between, say, animists and Christians, is only in the choice of gods and goddesses which they use as a technique to represent God; in other words, in the particular object(s) on which they focus their devotion to God.

- And as long as and to the extent that gods and goddesses help people to build their character and devotion to God and reduce their attachments to the world, this is very good.

«but an inference from what ?»

Pure logic. For example, if you assume that God is omnipotent, then could God create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it? Such paradoxes arise from the mistaken assertion as if God was an object. Objects are obviously subject to the rules of logic, yet (unlike gods and goddesses, trees and rocks) God is not.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I understand that the precise number of religions in the world is not known, but it is thought to be about 4,300. Each has its own theory of “God, Gods, Goddesses, and other supernatural entities”.

Judging from the details you provided in your latest post, your particular “God” appears to be somewhat narcissistic, to say the least. You write, for example :

« … they focus their devotion to God »

« … gods and goddesses help people to build their … devotion to God and reduce their attachments to the world … »

I also note that you say he is not logic :

« Objects are obviously subject to the rules of logic … God is not »

Well, if that’s what you want, Yuyutsu, I guess that’s the way he has to be.

After all, he's your "God", not mine.

.

BP: We can reject the concept of “God”, but the only way to completely reject religion is to refuse to respect the rules of society (with the risk of ending-up in jail) Society has assimilated religion and all law-abiding and respectable citizens live by it.

I think the opposite is truer. Society invented God in order to control its citizens there-by enforcing the Rules of Society. "If you don't behave the Boogieman will get you. You can run or hide but the Boogieman always knows where you are."

Yutsie:
The difference between, say, animists and Christians, is only in the choice of gods and goddesses which they use as a technique to represent God;

Peoples represent Gods/Goddesses as objects to show a particular aspect of a God/Goddess. Eternal = Mountain, Strong = Elephant, Punisher = Snake, Wise = Owl, etc. That's why there are so many representations of Gods/goddesses, especially in Hinduism & the old Pantheism Religions.

As with the Trinity. God the Father represents the Over-all System, Jesus represents the seen world & the Holy Ghost represents the unseen World.

Dear Banjo,

You have got a point in saying there is a difference between belief in God and awareness of the religious roots of one’s culture. So instead of

“a good example of what happens if a culture sees its own religious roots as merely figments of imagination”

I should have written

“a good example of what happens if a culture sees God, who was the raison d’être of its religious roots as merely a figments of imagination”.

I refered to this distinction in

“They namely know the difference between Christian religion - (i.e. others’ belief in God that they can live with) and a post-Enlightenment civilisation begot by Christianity (that they want to defend), but...”

As for islamisation - e.g. along the lines of Houellebecq’s Submission - as I wrote, neither of us will see when, in what form, or whether at all, it will happen. Anyhow, the “vacuum” that is being filled in was meant to be on the sociological (population’s prevailing cultural preferences that even in post-Christian Europe are Christian), not psychological (personal conversion of individuals) levels.

.

Dear Jayb,

.

Thank you for those interesting comments. Allow me to make the following remarks :

You wrote :

« Society invented God in order to control its citizens there-by enforcing the Rules of Society. "If you don't behave the Boogieman will get you. You can run or hide but the Boogieman always knows where you are" »
.

My understanding is that, indeed, rulers always have and continue to use religion in order to control their subjects. However, as regards the “invention” of “God”, here, in my view, is how it happened :

« It appears that we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago. Life in those early days must have been quite terrifying, not only before we developed intellectual faculties superior to other biological species, but even long after we were able to employ them. Nature, for no apparent reason, often became terribly aggressive. We found ourselves subjected to violent hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, snow storms, bush fires, as well as the occasional devastating meteorite. We had no warning and no explanation for any of it.

It is not surprising that little by little, due to the development of our intellectual capacity to conceptualise, we gradually replaced our instinctive reaction of terror to these natural phenomena with logical, supernatural explanations. Animist religions, which continue to be largely present today, attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature. The concept of anthropomorphic gods soon followed. Human characteristics such as reason, motivation, personality and the possibility to communicate were attributed to the animist gods.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.
Having invented the supernatural, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept. The strategy consisted in contacting whichever god we had attributed to a particular natural phenomenon and begging him to spare us from his wrath and protect us from harm. If prayers, worship and acts of submission failed to produce the desired result, we offered animal and human sacrifice.
This strategy for survival is what we call religion today. The person or animal we offered to the gods in exchange for the salvation of the rest of the community is now reputed to be a scapegoat. The Christian religions integrated the concept into their dogma »
.

This is an extract from an article I wrote seven years ago.

.

Dear George,

.

Many thanks for your clarifications.

I just have one remark I should like to make about the revised version of your phrase :

« a good example of what happens if a culture sees God, who was the raison d’être of its religious roots as merely a figment of imagination » :
.

I don’t wish to quibble, but, as we have no way of knowing if there is a “God” or not, if you don’t mind, I should prefer the following formula :

« a good example of what happens if a culture sees the concept of God, which was the raison d’être of its religious roots, as merely a figment of imagination” »

“God” or no “God”, believer, agnostic, atheist or just plain, ordinary person (such as myself), we all have religious roots imbedded in our culture.

Conclusion :

“God” may never have existed but the concept of deity lives on into the 21st century and the practice of religion will probably continue long after the concept has been discarded.

.

Dear Banjo,

>> a good example of what happens if a culture sees the concept of God, which was the raison d’être of its religious roots, as merely a figment of imagination” <<

I could live with this revised version. It is a deeper philosophical (semantic) question, whether God or concept of God (electricity or concept of electricity, even horse or concept of horse, etc) can or cannot be a figment of imagination. Is it a unicorn or the concept of a unicorn that we all agree is merely a figment of imagination?

>>“God” may never have existed <<

This is like saying "God may not be green". God, as the concept is thought of today, is independent of time, colour and other attributes that belong to the physical world.

[As for time-independence, allso, mathematics (and mathematical physics) deal with entities where it does not make sense to say they may or may not have existed: The Mandelbrot set exists, a perpetuum mobile does not exist - in both case no reference to time.]

Dear Banjo,

«“God” may never have existed but the concept of deity lives on into the 21st century and the practice of religion will probably continue long after the concept has been discarded.»

Here are some things that we can indeed agree on.

1. God never existed and cannot exist, because if He did, then He would be reduced to just another object and many logical paradoxes would ensue. Existence itself is only conceivable within God, including Time, the laws of physics and even the rules of logic. God cannot be subject to any of those petty things.

2. I do hope that the concept of deity continues to live well into the 21st century and beyond, because though God is not a deity, belief in deities is still a great religious technique.

3. The practice of religion is a feature of Time itself and thus indeed does not depend on concepts. "Whenever" time flows, whenever anyone or anything is under the illusion of time, in their struggle to awake and shake up that illusion they gravitate to return to God - and that constitutes religion, be it conscious or otherwise.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« It is a deeper philosophical (semantic) question, whether God or concept of God (electricity or concept of electricity, even horse or concept of horse, etc) can or cannot be a figment of imagination. Is it a unicorn or the concept of a unicorn that we all agree is merely a figment of imagination? »
.

My understanding is that anything which may be detected, identified and evidenced by scientific observation and submitted to detailed scientific analysis is real. This is the case of electricity and horses. They are therefore not considered “merely figments of the imagination”.

To the best of my knowledge, “God” and unicorns have never been detected, identified and evidenced by scientific observation and submitted to detailed scientific analysis. Until such time as they are, they are to be considered concepts only, i.e., “merely figments of the imagination”.

There have been countless reports in the past, of people around the world having observed UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects), in some cases backed-up by photographs, videos and radar detection etc. A notable incident occurred in 1978 near Turin in Italy when two young hikers saw a bright light, one of the hikers temporarily disappeared and, after a while, was found in a state of shock and with a noticeable scald on one leg. After regaining consciousness, he reported having seen an elongated vehicle and that some strangely shaped beings descended from it. Both the young hikers suffered from conjunctivitis for some time.

Most UFOs are later identified as conventional objects or phenomena (e.g., aircraft, weather balloons, clouds). Some of them are not identified, either because of lack of evidence or because no conventional explanation can be found despite extensive evidence. Some people consider the latter cases as possible observations of extra-terrestrial space craft.

I do not. As I have frequently stated in the past, I am only prepared to accord my belief (or faith) - in the absence of material evidence - when I consider that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence or a credible (independent) eye-witness, or both.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Although I try to keep an open mind on everything, I do my best to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum as they tend to cloud my vision. In any event, I consider that my beliefs are not eternal and that there is no absolute truth.
.

You also wrote :

« As for time-independence … »
.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me there, George. I do not know any life form capable of living outside the present. As I see it, we are all prisoners of the present, incapable of moving back to the past or forward to the future. We spend our whole lives in the present, from the cradle to the grave. Living in the past or the future only seems possible in science fiction, which, again, is “a figment of the imagination”.

Should I understand that the Mandelbrot is also a figment of the imagination, or simply not a life form ?

Perhaps I should not have asked that question, because I shall probably not understand the answer.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Here are some things that we can indeed agree on … »
.

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to be able to agree with you on something, Yuytsu, but, unfortunately, I’m afraid I do not have the key to the understanding of your esoteric mysticism.

Please excuse my ignorance. I am just an ordinary person who has never ventured beyond the vast realm of reality, which, in itself, is more than I can ever hope to explore completely, let alone comprehend.

.

Dear Banjo,

You obviously misunderstood my TECHNICAL (semantic?) question of whether one should speak of SOMETNIG or a CONCEPT OF SOMETHING as being or not being a figment of imagination.

I think we agree on what is the difference between between us two as far as the basic world-view presuppositions (about what counts for reality) are concerned, no need to defend yours. I was not attacking it or trying to convert you.

Mathematical entities are the best example I can think of where we all agree they “exist outside of time” (and agree with Eugene Wigner about their nevertheless “unreasonable effectiveness” in understanding and handling the physical world).

I mentioned the Mandelbrot set as an example of such, not as an example of a life form or figment of imagination as you seem to suggest.

.

Dear George,

.

You point out :

« You obviously misunderstood my TECHNICAL (semantic?) question of whether one should speak of SOMETNIG or a CONCEPT OF SOMETHING as being or not being a figment of imagination »
.

You are quite right to call me to order, George. I did not misunderstand. I overlooked that point. Sorry about that.

The OED defines “imagination” as “the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses”. Whereas it defines “a figment of the imagination” as “something that someone believes to be real but that exists only in their imagination”.

I guess our mind constructs “concepts” of everything, but when it constructs a concept of something which does not exist, that particular “concept” is “a figment of the imagination”.
.

You explain :

« I think we agree on what is the difference between us two as far as the basic world-view presuppositions (about what counts for reality) are concerned, no need to defend yours. I was not attacking it or trying to convert you »

I totally agree. Sorry to give you that impression. It was not intended but simply due to my previous oversight as avowed above.
.

You then precise :

« Mathematical entities are the best example I can think of where we all agree they “exist outside of time” (and agree with Eugene Wigner about their nevertheless “unreasonable effectiveness” in understanding and handling the physical world) … I mentioned the Mandelbrot set as an example of such … »

Yes, I understand what you mean, but that is an existentialist problem I am incapable of solving.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

As I tried to explain in my previous post, the only “time” I am capable of observing is the present. Events are different. Some have already occurred. Others are yet to come. But neither you nor I, nor anybody else – nor any other life form – can live in the past or in the future.

So if “time” is the present, the next question is : “how long is that ?”. An instant ? Then it’s no time at all. But if we consider we live constantly in the present, then the present may be defined as the lifetime of each individual.

However, the birth of an individual is not the beginning of life. It is its continuance. Living cells are constantly renewed, some more frequently than others. Life is relayed by the individual members of each species, in exclusivity, to the next generation of the same species. Life is a self-sustaining process that shows no signs of ceasing.

Perhaps it could be argued that the present is not just limited to the lifetime of each individual but to the process of life itself. In this case, as long as there is life there is time. No life, no time. No past, no present, no future.

Therefore, before we can conclude, as you suggest, that “mathematical entities … exist outside of time” we must determine if “mathematical entities”, as such, exist in nature, independently of all life forms.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think they do. According to the OED, “mathematics” is defined as :

« The abstract science of number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts (pure mathematics), or as applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied mathematics) »

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for an interesting post. Already Augustin of Hippo said “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.”

Maybe you are right that my sentence in question should have “concept of God” as you suggested. After all, every concept is a product of imagination (the concept of dog as well as the concept of unicorn), so the accent is on “figment” which entails the verb “exists” that is closely related to what is considered “reality”. Different philosophers see this differently, and apparently so do we two.

I wrote something about that in www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464 trying to show that the concept of reality is not simple even when one restricts oneself to physical reality. I illustrated this on the three “worlds” of Roger Penrose - physical, mental, and mathematical - that are interconnected by three enigmas.

In particular, there is no unequivocal answer to your question of how mathematical entities “exist” - they are certainly related to our mental processes (do mathematicians discover or invent them?) and also to the physical world - nature, as you call it - with their unreasonable effectiveness.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for the link to your article on “The nature of reality”. An interesting (and amusing) intellectual exercise …

.