Dear Peter,

You wrote: "Thus, they were not included in the canon of the bible because of their historical accuracy or their doctrinal purity but because they had been helpful for bringing the congregation closer to God, the aim of all worship."

The aim of all worship is not to bring the congregation closer to God. My daughter attends a Buddhist Sangha every week. They do not mention God as that is not a concept recognized in their faith. There are religions, and your religion is only one of many. There are theistic religions and non-theistic religions. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. All theistic religions do not regard Jesus in the same light. The theistic religion called Judaism excludes the New Testament.

Christianity is one of many religions. Not only should we recognise what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, but we should recognise the forms of human worship which belong to neither.

This article underscores the reason less and less folk attend Church or belong to organized religion.

Esoteric Christians believed and worshipped differently than the Constantinians that followed and claimed that they with their Constantine imposed pagan rituals and beliefs and their Constantine approved bible are remotely Christian.

Or that their bible is mostly fiction with some very important books left out on Constantine's say so! Can read what they like in edifices that early Christians didn't have or need to worship their God!
Alan B.

david f, Thursday, 26 May 2022 11:32:03 AM:
"They do not mention God as that is not a concept recognized in their faith."

If Buddhism is a non-theistic religion (devoid of an uncaused, invisible all-powerful governing agent that is worthy of worship), where might an interested reader find the faith element in your daughter's adherence?

What is faith for both of you in this context?

Ha Ha Mr Sells.

I’ve always considered the teaching of Scripture from the pulpit, as an extension of Freudian dream interpretation; not so much what the story tells, but what it hides..there is the answer.

A huge amount of hiding goes along with Christianity; especially its intrinsic connection to its Jewish origins.

Christ was a devout Jew, so was Paul. Paul was obviously capable of reading and writing; there is no evidence Christ had the same access to education, especially as a carpenter.
Paul was capable of study from text, was Christ? Doubtful!

To conclude as you seem to, self enlightenment is an inferior choice to a sermon from scripture as a higher rank, lacks a bit!
Even at the end of the Middle Ages, most were illiterate, and the preaching was invariably from a Latin text. Sounds more like Roman Catholic indoctrination to me also.

The reformation was actually enlightenment to the uneducated masses, freedom from church indoctrination of the past, and a chance to think for themselves, and ask questions which beforehand were unthinkable. Then came the printing press!

Dan

Dear Pogi,

Every tribal people as far as it is known has a creation story. The Australian Aborigines have the Rainbow Serpent. The idea of one god was probably first posited by the Egyptians. Ra, the sun, was worshiped. God is a human invention.

Buddhism is one of the world's largest religions and originated 2,500 years ago in India. Buddhists believe that the human life is one of suffering, and that meditation, spiritual and physical labor, and good behavior are the ways to achieve enlightenment, or nirvana.

I believe in no religion. I accept the scientific account that the universe came into being some 13.8 billion years ago, and the earth is about 4.5 billions years old. Human beings have existed in something like their present form for about 200,000 years. I feel no need to believe in the existence of any supernatural entities.

Sells, Christianity would be a more credible religion if God was removed from the equation. After all, where was he when Jesus was being crucified. He was conspicuous by his absence.

It should be pointed out that the bible is totally a book of fiction.
None of it is real.
NONE of the events and characters ever existed.
The Harry Potter novels are more realistic.
All religions are a delusion, reading from fables does not make them real.
Reading from the bible from the pulpit is enduring this delusion.
Most people go to church because their parents went to church, without thinking about the possibility of it being real.
Tax exempt status supporting these delusions is counter productive.

Great article - thank you Peter!

Are the books that you read in your Church truly Scripture in themselves, or is it the way you read them, the Holy Spirit which rests on you that makes them a Scripture?

The Old Testament as such is not a religious Scripture - it is the national book of the Jews, a mix that contains history (including some ugly parts), mythology, lore, social norms and customs and yes, some religious teachings as well. Still, as the Glory of God is present everywhere, a gifted preacher can distill its content and present it as pure water for the soul.

But then you may as well read Shakespeare or John Milton in church because they too, when read in the spirit or worship, can be helpful for bringing the congregation closer to God!

---

Dear David,

Buddhism does not mention God, fair enough, but it brought many closer to God nevertheless, without them needing to hear about supernatural entities.

Nirvana and union with God are one and the same, they just view the same ultimate human goal from different perspectives.

«I believe in no religion. I accept the scientific account that the universe came into being some 13.8 billion years ago, and the earth is about 4.5 billions years old.»

Most religious people accept that account too.

«I feel no need to believe in the existence of any supernatural entities.»

That actually, is a good sign of spiritual progress.

Who said, anyway, that God is a supernatural entity?
Can you find me any text in the Bible that makes such a silly claim ("God is a supernatural entity")?

That perception may be useful for beginners, but when describing advanced spiritual aspirants who die and then return to earth to complete their journey, Shri Krishna says:

"Indeed, they feel drawn toward God, even against their will, on the strength of their past discipline. Such seekers naturally rise above the ritualistic principles of the scriptures." [Bhagavad-Gita 6:44]

Such seekers indeed often hold atheistic views, yet are beloved of God.

We all have dreams too.
David

Thanks Peter Sellick for the article.

Peter Sellick contends:

“An obvious example is the reading on Good Friday of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 commonly known as describing the suffering servant of Israel. Who could hear these verses without thinking of Christ?”

Well me for one. The reference includes verse 52:13 which states:

Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
    his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
    and his form marred beyond human likeness—

Sorry, but there is no evidence that description matches that of Christ at all, certainly no mention of such an appalling and disfigured features in the New Testament.

Scapegoat themes are rife within the Bible as are the midrashic tendencies to actively weave current events of the time into the tapestry of Jewish mythology/history. There is little wonder that the early Christian writers employed the same techniques. To in any way contend that Isaiah was prophetic of Jesus requires a leap of faith available only to those who have committed to the religion. To expect it to resonate with the rest of us is a bit silly.

A bit late but why not check out this reference re what Saint Jesus of Galilee taught and demonstrated while he was in a living-breathing-feeling bodily human form.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/birthday_message/index.html

Check out this reference too:
http://www.beezone.com/adida/firegospel/the_fire_gospel.html

Hi SteeleRedux

I agree that the author of 2nd Isaiah was not forecasting the death of Jesus when they wrote of the suffering servant. Some Christians may interpret the text that way, but I don’t think that is what Peter is arguing. Rather, Isaiah helps the church to understand Jesus’s life and death as part of a pattern of salvation history.

There are clear parallels between the events of Jesus’ life and the story of the suffering servant. Like the servant, Jesus is approved and commissioned by God, carries God’s message, faces growing opposition, does not protest or retaliate when threatened and abused, and is humiliated and killed. This apparent defeat is mistakenly read as a sign of failure and of God’s disapproval, but paradoxically it is actually through suffering and persecution that his mission of reconciling people to God is achieved. He is vindicated, and his mission revealed as a success. These similarities led the early church to interpret parts of Jesus’ story through the lens of Isaiah.

So while Isaiah almost certainly did not have Jesus in mind when he wrote of the suffering servant, the New Testament’s writers may well have had the suffering servant in mind when they wrote of Jesus. Perhaps the closest parallel is in 1 Peter 2:22-25 which seems closely patterned on Isaiah 53.

Dear Rhian,

You put: "There are clear parallels between the events of Jesus’ life and the story of the suffering servant. Like the servant, Jesus is approved and commissioned by God, carries God’s message, faces growing opposition, does not protest or retaliate when threatened and abused, and is humiliated and killed."

Indeed, but that could be said of more than one of the prophets. Amos for example was said to have been felled by a club by the son of the king and took two days to die, all this after being exiled.

The suffering martyr is a potent but well worn thread of the biblical literature.

And I agree: "the New Testament’s writers may well have had the suffering servant in mind when they wrote of Jesus" more so in the later works and gospels. The suffering of characters like Job and Abraham are also relatable.

It really is damn fine literature isn't it.

Posted by david f, Thursday, 26 May 2022 3:01:12 PM, who writes: "My daughter attends a Buddhist Sangha every week. They do not mention God as that is not a concept recognized in their faith."

And my question prompted by the last word of your assertion quoted immediately above: "where might an interested reader find the faith element in your daughter's adherence?"

I know little to nothing of Buddhism as a formula for living one's life in order to attain perfect enlightenment and peace but was surprised by your choice of word to describe such an experience as a faith-based concept.

Rephrasing the question I asked: Was your descriptive an ill-considered mistake or is there a significant faith component in Buddhism?

Could this quote: "....the Mahayana (the Great Way), which held that the Buddha was more than a great spiritual teacher but also a savior god. It was believed that he had appeared in perfect human form to relieve suffering with the message that, by performing good deeds and maintaining sincere faith, everyone could reach nirvana through means less strict and arduous than in Theravada"
<https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub355/item1336.html> figure in your reply? I confess to becoming so interested in this issue that I sought answers for myself.

Dear Pogi,

There are different schools of Buddhism. There is no predominant one. Those who recognise Buddha as analogous to a God are a minority. I feel that is Buddhism corrupted by a western view, but that is just my opinion. I feel that Christianity with a God made flesh is a corruption of Judaism, but that is also my opinion.

Regarding the multiplicity of faiths I agree with the wise Hindu, Vinoba Bhave. He advised one who is dissatisfied with one's faith to look deeper in it rather than look for meaning in other traditions. If one cannot find it there it is nowhere. I believe it is nowhere.

The problem of Spinoza's god is it doesn't have a human or cultural face. God as a representation of divine humanity surely needs one. The same for rulers- people need something to aspire to. This is one reason for the greatness of the Queen.

Don't forget that man made God in his own image.
David

Dear Canem Malum,

Harsh as it may sound, it is not for me or you to pick and choose how God should be. The ultimate reality is God, not humanity - humanity is not divine and God is not there to represent humanity any more than He is there to represent buffalo-ism.

The Queen is indeed great, but even Her we did not get to choose, how more so God.

One more thought:
The Queen is so great because She does not intervene in our lives - She needs not do anything, just to be there, sitting calmly on Her throne, then people look up to Her and improve their ways. In that sense one could say that the Queen represents God, but certainly not the other way round.

---

Dear David (VK3AUU),

You say "Don't forget" as if you were present at the time - were you?

Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 26 May 2022 4:52:00 PM: "Nirvana and union with God are one and the same, they just view the same ultimate human goal from different perspectives."

Unfortunately it can be asserted with equal authority that black is white when viewed from a different perspective, with the latter having far more support from the sciences than your nirvana/god opinion. Ecumenism has become childish in a society so much better educated than it was a millennium ago. Mahayana buddhism's purpose in deifying Buddha and easing the entry to nirvana has all the characteristics of a marketing ploy to attract followers. In similar fashion was "born again" contrived by the christians. How do you reconcile the trinity claims in christianity with Sidartha Gautama's personal embedding himself in humankind, repudiating divine origins, promoting self-abnegation, humility, respect for all life and ultimate union with the life-force? Buddha shares much more than you and your ilk will admit with Albert Einstein and perhaps with Baruch Spinoza, Kung fu Tze (Confucius of the Romans) and the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu than with christianity, hinduism etc.

"Most religious people accept that account too." Considering the bloody, brutal disgusting behaviour that besmirched their path to scientific truth, I would be highly timorous in claiming credit of any kind for religious people.

Yuyutsu said- "Dear Canem Malum,

Harsh as it may sound, it is not for me or you to pick and choose how God should be. The ultimate reality is God, not humanity - humanity is not divine and God is not there to represent humanity..."

Answer- With the greatest of respect Yuyutsu I suspect that the Anglo and European understanding of God is very different from yours- certainly very different than mine and the view of my family and extended family.

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

"Yuyutsu in the Hindu epic Mahabharata was a son of Dhritarashtra with Gandhari's maid- The word yuyutsu is an adjective formed from the desiderative stem of the verb root "yudh" (fight, wage war), meaning "wishing to fight, bellicose.""

Given that you have taken the name Yuyutsu it suggests that you may descend from the Hindu diaspora- I apologize in advance if you aren't. Anyway Hindu Gods appear to have views similar to the ones that you expressed. I've read about them but consider them very much in conflict with the views that have come through my descendants.

Perhaps there could be some remote links between Hindu gods and Norse, Greek, and Roman gods- but factoring in the realities of their environment over thousands of years and hundreds of generations.

As you said- "Harsh as it may sound"- I believe that some cultural values can't be reconciled but that doesn't mean that I don't wish you a happy life in your context

We need to be careful of ethno-morphising (cw anthropomorphise) concepts from another cultural ethnicity as the principles may apply in a different context and perspective.

Pogi said "Buddha shares much more than you and your ilk will admit with Albert Einstein and perhaps with Baruch Spinoza, Kung fu Tze (Confucius of the Romans) and the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu than with christianity, hinduism etc."

Answer- Thanks Pogi for your intelligent comment.

I suppose you would expect that Judaism (Einstein/ Spinoza) would be closer to the Chinese (Buddhism (originally from India), Taoism (Tao Te Ching), Confucism) than the Western Traditions (Greek, Roman, Nordic, Anglo). Judea is located between China and the West even though theoretically Christianity is part of the Judean Tradition.

Dear Pogi,

My statement which you quoted does not speak about either Buddhism or Christianity.

There is the reality of that state of being which Buddhists refer to as "Nirvana" and there is the reality of that state of being which Christians refer to as "Union with God".

That reality, that ultimate state of being is one and the same. It includes the end of suffering as well as eternal joy.

Further, that state would still exist and remain the same regardless whether Buddhism or Christianity were ever invented.
What else Buddhists and Christians believe in or not, is completely besides the point.

---

Dear Canem Malum,

«the Anglo and European understanding of God is very different from yours»

Perhaps, but this does not change the reality of God. Picking and choosing how God should be does not change that reality.

«The word yuyutsu is an adjective formed from the desiderative stem of the verb root "yudh" (fight, wage war), meaning "wishing to fight, bellicose."»

What is most important about the Mahabharata character of Yuyutsu, is that though he was born to the blind King Dhritarashtra, thus automatically posted to fight along his evil sons on the side of evil, just when the big battle was about to begin, he defected and crossed over to the opposite camp of the righteous Pandavas. No matter where one was born and into what circumstances and family traditions, one can always turn their back to unwholesome upbringing and kins, choosing the good instead.

There are no "Hindu Gods". There is only God. What Westerners wrongly refer to as "Hindu gods" is best translated to English as "angels".

«some cultural values can't be reconciled»

Possibly, but I was referring to reality itself, not to cultures.

Canem Malum, Sunday, 29 May 2022 9:56:18 AM writes: "The problem of Spinoza's god is it doesn't have a human or cultural face."

Your implication that Spinoza ignored a glaring truth that negates the integrity of his entire divine realm is not only pompous, it is without merit, for your "problem" is a contrived opinion revealed to be exactly that by your next breath: "God as a representation of divine humanity surely needs one."

Surely, you must realise that the gods of which we speak are whole, entire, devoid of incompleteness or need. How could you answer thus and not realise your perfidy in a previous post to Yuyutsu wherein you wrote: "Answer- With the greatest of respect Yuyutsu I suspect that the Anglo and European understanding of God is very different from yours- certainly very different than mine and the view of my family and extended family." Wherein lies the reason and responsibility for this.....in the gods or humankind?
In the gift of free will or simply unreasoning human perversity? Surely you have noted that humans are accused of employing their free will whenever events can be counted against them and whether in fact their free will was involved or not? Is humasnkind capable of thinking and acting minus the facility of free will?

The term "divine humanity"in your context is perplexing. For theists, gods represent the supreme state of everything. Humankind is the exception at the insistence of said gods.

"I suppose you would expect that Judaism (Einstein/ Spinoza) would be closer to the Chinese (Buddhism (originally from India), Taoism (Tao Te Ching), Confucism) than the Western Traditions (Greek, Roman, Nordic, Anglo). Judea is located between China and the West even though theoretically Christianity is part of the Judean Tradition."

Your supposition is indicative of a superficial approach to an intelligent conversation. Surely you can do better but cannot arouse the enthusiasm. Or perhaps you can find too little solid ground to tread.

Thursday 2 June 2022

Judaism has little connection with either Einstein or Spinoza. Spinoza was excommunicated by the Amsterdam Jewish community as they thought (and I believe correctly) that his ideas were a heresy and not consistent with Jewish belief. Einstein did not believe in a personal god, and the Jewish idea of god is intensely personal. Neither Spinoza nor Einstein are representative of Jewish belief.

Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 31 May 2022 12:48:29 AM, you write:

"There is the reality of that state of being which Buddhists refer to as "Nirvana" and there is the reality of that state of being which Christians refer to as "Union with God"." much more commonly referred to as HEAVEN. Contriving special names for your divine states to fortify your argument is a common theistic device and shames the theist. In addition, it should be noted that despite your striving you have repeated your assertion with different words and managed to be somewhat patronising about it simultaneously.

"That reality, that ultimate state of being is one and the same." A plain assertion is insufficient. In my previous post to you I described several difficulties and incosistencies and you have done nothing whatsoever to address them. I brought you facts and you reply with barely relevant repetition and assertion

"Further, that state would still exist and remain the same regardless whether Buddhism or Christianity were ever invented." More baseless, wishful assertion. You resort to the convenience of conceit because to you it is plausible. Was it that great physicist Carl Sagan who brought home the truth to the contenders, "That which is asserted without evidence shall be likewise dismissed", or words to that effect?

But are you asserting that this MCP exists somewhere as a realm independent of all religions and that the religious leaders up to today have been lying to the faithful that the christian heaven, say, is not the be-all and end-all of human existence? So far, my friend, you are leaving too many questions unanswered for your assertions to acquire any credibility. That you ignore genuine enquiries pertaining to genuine issues and leave the fabric of your faith in tatters and shot with gaping holes reveals a faith hardly worth considering.

And blaming others for your inability to present a cogent and credible evidence-based system of belief reveals more of your inadequacies than any that your readership may suffer. Do you understand why you don't as least try?


Friday 3 June 2022

Dear Pogi,

No, I was not referring to heaven.

«In my previous post to you I described several difficulties and incosistencies and you have done nothing whatsoever to address them.»

In your previous post to me you bombarded me, out of the blue, with all sorts of criticisms against Christians, Buddhists and some of their beliefs and behaviours. I am not an advocate for either Christianity or Buddhism, nor am I getting paid for this, so why should I waste my precious time on addressing such issues?

«But are you asserting that this MCP exists somewhere as a realm independent of all religions»

I am not familiar with the term "MCP".

Let me reiterate:

Buddhists stress the existence of the state they call "Nirvana" where all suffering permanently ceases.
Christians speak of the existence of a state of Union with God which is filled with eternal joy (some of them might confuse it with "heaven", I didn't).

Yet I claim (according to Hinduism) that there exists this achievable state of being which is BOTH - the permanent cessation of all suffering AND the attainment of absolute eternal joy - thus that [at least about this particular point] there is no conflict between Christianity and Buddhism.

It is just wishful thinking in both cases.
David

"In your previous post to me you bombarded me, out of the blue, with all sorts of criticisms against Christians, Buddhists and some of their beliefs and behaviours."

Your estimation of my post amounts to wild exaggeration, deliberate misinterpretation and an astonishing disregard for the truth. I wrote nothing AGAINST christianity and nor did I of buddhism. I pointed to the irreconcilable differences between them and how it makes nonsense of your fanciful opinion on ecumenism, that a Multi-Cultural Paradise (an MCP) has prime control over the whole kit and kaboodle of all supernatural realms.

" nor am I getting paid for this, so why should I waste my precious time on addressing such issues?". That you lament not being paid for your posts and time/effort invested demonstrates the depth and severity of fantasy that has overtaken you.

"Let me reiterate." If I had the power I would assuredly not. Your preference for monotonous repetition as a substitute for a meagre serving of evidence additionally demonstrates the poverty of your witness.

"Yet I claim (according to Hinduism) that there exists this achievable state of being which is BOTH - the permanent cessation of all suffering AND the attainment of absolute eternal joy"

Congratulations. Your CLAIM is easily recognised as such, as a forlorn hope to fill a gaping hole of hopelessness that encompasses your universe. Your fears of being finite and destined for oblivion upon death are those of a 5-year old locked alone in a darkened room. There is a tiny place in your brain that knows this is the way of all flesh but in abject fear you'll commit to the preposterous rather than see life for what it really is. It is, like all other life, unsatisfactorily brief for nearly all the objects that are infected with it. Humans get one go at it, like all other life-forms.

Saturday 4 June 2022

Dear Pogi,

«I wrote nothing AGAINST christianity and nor did I of buddhism.»

You wrote:

1. "Mahayana buddhism's purpose in deifying Buddha and easing the entry to nirvana has all the characteristics of a marketing ploy to attract followers."

2. "In similar fashion was "born again" contrived by the christians."

3. "Considering the bloody, brutal disgusting behaviour that besmirched their path to scientific truth, I would be highly timorous in claiming credit of any kind for religious people."

«I pointed to the irreconcilable differences between them and how it makes nonsense of your fanciful opinion on ecumenism»

While there exist undeniable differences between Christianity and Buddhism, none of the differences you mentioned is to do with the achievability of the state of permanent cessation of all suffering and attainment of eternal absolute joy.

«that a Multi-Cultural Paradise (an MCP) has...»

I mentioned neither paradise nor culture.

«That you lament not being paid for your posts and time/effort»

I never expected financial gain, but what about being paid some minimal respect?
Knowing in advance that I have no hope for any (as you said, "I would be highly timorous in claiming credit of any kind for religious people."), why should I be wasting my time and effort answering your bothersome questions?

«this is the way of all flesh»

Indeed so. All life-forms end with death, humans included.

Had you been a rational investor, then you would bet all you've got on that which has some chance for infinite eternal fruits rather than on finite things which you already know for certain, will end with a total loss.

Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 4 June 2022 9:17:41 PM writes:

"I mentioned neither paradise nor culture."

You cannot help being a pompous arse when matters of your teligious faith are concerned, can you? Multi-Cultural Paradise is most apt as a definition of your unity with god construct. I accept your own pretty pictures and define them within my experience of theist slipperiness, that collection of human dishonesty dressed up as apologetics and ecumenism.

"I never expected financial gain, but what about being paid some minimal respect?"
I accord you all the respect that is deserved by an intellect that I strongly suspect is being wasted. That others take the time and effort to engage with you on varying degrees of disagreement is a distinct measure of respect. If some are more caustic, abrupt and forthright, then, in my case at least, I reflect the respect that has been directed to the thinkers, doubters, skeptics and gainsayers over the millennia who suffered ghastly retribution at the hands of the faithful of all kidney who committed their exquisite imaginations to the infliction of pain on those who were committed differently and who deserved the "minimal respect" that you today have the temerity to demand.

Treating your ilk with considered mercy and willingness to forgive and overcome resentment is itself a form of disrespect to the millions who suffered. Mercy is a suspension of justice and justice is genteel revenge.

"....why should I be wasting my time and effort answering your bothersome questions?"
A penetrating question in itself and one we should treat with respect. I recognise that there can be several levels of response. I commit to unalloyed honesty in answering but I prevail upon you, in order that I keep my commitment, that you answer your own question before I. I further commit to answering as if I had asked.

Sunday 5 June 2022

Dear Pogi,

As you wrote nothing of essence, I am gratefully relieved of any further time-wasting duty to respond to your post. I thank you for that.

second post

"Indeed so. All life-forms end with death, humans included."
But in the natural world DEATH is extinction/oblivion. For the theist it is merely change, a new start and an eternal continuation of conscience - the very soul of religious thought and its raison d'etre. It is an acknowledgment of human terror of the unknown and a bowell-evacuating fear of being alone and defenceless therein.
If we fail to grow up and face reality then it is distinctly plausible that humankind will face an inexorable opposition to inflicting itself upon the Universe. We handicap ourselves unreasonably if we expect gods and ghosts to be our vanguards into the next great frontier. Science, logic, rational thinking will, we have learned from bitter and sweet experience, always prevail despite the odd falter. Of the thousands of gaps from which science has expelled gods throughout history, no gap existed where religiom expelled science.

"Had you been a rational investor, then you would bet all you've got on that which has some chance for infinite eternal fruits rather than on finite things which you already know for certain, will end with a total loss."
If you insist on inflicting allegory of the most inane and obvious character on your posts and expect an interlocutor to be impressed, then he/she will be impressed but by the disingenuous and woefully limited imagination that you apply to this often useful linguistic device. I was a rational investor in the Australian mining boom. I gleaned enough spondooliks from the SUN's centrefold Golden Guide every Friday afternoon wherein the sport of kings received an intense analysis of its entrants and the conditions that prevailed track-wise, that I bought a set of taxi plates and spent a joyous 23 years driving, the best sequence of years in my life. I always apportioned my "investing" to the knowledge I could bring to it. Over the years I doubled my income 4 weeks out of 5

4th & final post

But enough of that.
There is another issue I would broach with you: "Had you been a rational investor, then you would bet all you've got on that which has some chance for infinite eternal fruits rather than on finite things which you already know for certain, will end with a total loss."

Did your teenage daughter or sister write this for you?
It's immaterial whether you believe me or not, but I chose to refute your mistaken allegory to discover how moderately I could express my ire, by not trading insult for insult.

Upon being a theist I'd bet my pelf on "some chance for infinite eternal fruits." What chance? And for IEFs? This scenario is born in religious faith, has no evidence for support and defies every rule of probability. Only the pompous brain-dead would enter into such a wager. SORRY - no bet.
Upon being an atheist and skeptic I'd wager my coin on finite things, but this one I know for certain will return a loss! SORRY - no bet.
That, for my meagre erudition, makes me a rational investor

Sunday 5 June 202

Hume, a wise philosopher said, "Reason is the slave of the passions." I believe that is true. However, the wiser we are the better we can cloak our passions in the garb of reason and avoid being pilloried. All the foofaraw about God, the afterlife and such is nonsense. If I were wiser I could better cloak in reason my awareness of the fact that all of our belief is nonsense. If we could prove our beliefs were the product of reason we might not need to cloak our passions. I say 'might not need' because most human beings are not susceptible to reason.

Humans are creative animals. We created God.

Dear David,

«Humans are creative animals. We created God.»

Can you be serious?

Puny humans, you say, who cannot even maintain the peace among themselves and are susceptible to viruses and so much more, created God, no less, then that God in turn created them (also the viruses)?

And wouldn't this imply that God exists, or at least existed at some stage? - not a notion you subscribe to, I believe!

Could your statement perhaps been a case of "Reason is the slave of the passions", an anti-religious passion in this case?

Or were you rather referring to the "God-particle" which humans created in their cyclotrons?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are a nice man sincere in your belief in what I think is foolishness. Enjoy your life.