The juxtaposition between man, science and God is the nuclear weapon.

That alone will render every living creature valueless.

And maybe that is why God created the cockroach , the final indignity for mans existence, to be superseded by a cockroach.

How mad is this world?

Don’t vote for your own annihilation.

"How mad is this world?"
So, so true.........

The "creator"-God or the mommy-daddy Parental Deity idea is a rather childish and even infantile idea which is actually quite terrifying in its implications. It is entirely dualistic and as such implies that human beings are separate from The Living Divine Reality.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html
http://www.adidacontroversies.org/tacit-certainty-real-god

By contrast this book which was also published with the title Reality Is All The God There Is describes our situation
http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings

See also http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds38.html

If the aim of creation was history, then how come the memory of history is so short-lived, an infinitesimal flicker in the vastness of eternity?!

I also disagree with Barth when he says: "Do not look for the work of God in nature, His fingerprints will not be found in the rocks or the DNA or in geological eras."

- Why, do look for God everywhere, especially where it pleases you, including in nature, rocks, DNA or geology: there is no place where God is not, so best try to first find God in the things that personally attract you most.

"Our problem with understanding God as the creator and sustainer of all things is that the discussion misrepresents the being of God in terms of a single, personal, supernatural being who may act in the physical world. Christians should protest that this is not the God they worship on Sunday mornings."

It is indeed primitive to misrepresent God as some supernatural being, indeed that it not the god we worship on Sunday mornings or at any other time, but our fundamental problem with understanding God is that understanding requires a mind and intellect, whereas no finite mind or intellect can possibly grasp the infinite.

Sages and prophets tell us that we can know God, not that we can understand Him.

Failing to understand the purpose (if any) of creation need not be considered a failure, but rather a built-in feature: we are not equipped for it because it is not a part of our calling (and why should it be?).

Any time is good for welcoming God - welcoming does not require understanding.

The greatest story ever told is just that, a story. A never proven story adjusted to fit the narrative of a saviour.

And reviewed revised and rewritten time and again to give alleged, bible backed, moral authority to "the church."

In the "story", Jesus was born into a world already created, moreover he never claimed to be God, just an instrument for a Father who worked in him. Believe what you will but do not claim an unproven story as factual.
Alan B.

The following could be seen as negative criticism of the article.
It seems to me the article is meant to be factual?
As such, it should be logical and down to earth?
But it strays in to the realms of fantasy far too often?

I would like a clear statement at the start outlining the aim of the article.
Then follow this with supportive statements.
Even address alternative views if that helps with an explanation.
But I am left feeling it is all just another rambling fictional account of something or other.
Was it meant to be like that?

Better to keep in mind a few basic concepts?

A belief is not a fact.
A belief is an idea which is thought, more likely than not, to be true?
As such, the evidence supporting the validity of the idea will outweigh an alternative?
So is there evidence?
When the only evidence available is totally man-made, and otherwise does not occur in the natural world, should we take that as serious proof?

Whatever happened to truth?
Why is seeking truth so inconvenient for some?
Are truthful persons somehow less human?
Are their lives rife with contradictions and turmoil as a result of a desire to understand?
I see the opposite as being true.

I acknowledge that escaping in to a world of fantasy can be mentally rewarding.
Otherwise, the works of Conan Doyle and others would be a total waste?
But we need only a temporary cessation of reality.
Not a permanent one.

Dear Peter Sellick,

You wrote, "It is an item of faith for natural scientists that the world had its origins and processes within the bounds of natural cause and effect."

It is not an item of faith for the scientific view of the origins of the world. There is scientific evidence from astronomic observations, rates of decay of radioactive substances, fossils etc.

It is an item of faith for the religious view of the origins of the universe. Faith and the creation stories promoted by faith are the product of people who do not have the benefit of or the knowledge of science. They cloak their ignorance by accusing scientists of operating on the same kind of ignorance. The first sentence of your article exposes your ignorance. May you examine the evidence and be enlightened.

Dear David F.,

«It is an item of faith for the religious view of the origins of the universe.»

I rather describe such behaviour as faithlessness: why would a religious person care to know the origins of this universe in the first place? Such a person is not truly interested in God - they may say the are, yet they still like to play around in the mud of this world, they still secretly have faith in this world, believing it can bring them lasting happiness, believing it to be true (and God to be false)!

Dear Yuyutsu,

You asked, "Dear David F.,

"why would a religious person care to know the origins of this universe in the first place?"

Because the religious person may not be brain dead and wishes to know more than what is taught within his or her religion. Your religion may have cut you off from a desire for knowledge. The desire for knowledge does not always conflict with a religious attitude.

Quotes from Hillel, the elder.

"What you yourself hate, don't do to your neighbor. This is the whole law; the rest is commentary. Go and study."

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

"The shy man will not learn; the impatient man should not teach."

"Say not: “When I have free time I shall study”, for you may perhaps never have any free time."

Hillel did not limit learning to Torah or any particular area, and I don't see why I or anyone else should do so.

Einstein said, “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions ..."

Believers in God can maintain that learning more about the universe is learning more about God.

Dear David,

«The desire for knowledge does not always conflict with a religious attitude.»

A desire for worldly knowledge beyond what is required to serve God and do His calling (as is the impractical desire to know the origins of the universe), competes over one's attention. Not the actual knowledge of course, only the desire to obtain it.

One cannot serve two masters simultaneously.

Alternately yes, and indeed most of us are neither completely religious nor completely irreligious - our attention keeps wavering and alternating between God and the world.

«Einstein said, “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions ..."»

If noticing the harmony helps one to concentrate on God, then that is good... until they notice some disharmony, some ugliness and cruelty, which as we know, exists too: would Einstein turn away from God at that point?

«Believers in God can maintain that learning more about the universe is learning more about God.»

True, I concede. I have not seen that possibility. They would be naively mistaken, but that situation is possible and it is this child-like intention which counts.

Again, what would happen to them when they discover the ugly and cruel aspects of the universe? Will they conclude that God too is ugly and cruel?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Unfortunately you remind me of a man I used to work with. He had been an officer in the navy and asked me, "What is your need to know?" when I asked a question not confined to my immediate task. Some of the military are concerned with secrecy so they wish to confine a person's knowledge to that of their immediate task. Some religionists such as St. Thomas consider curiosity a vice. They believe one should confine one's questioning to that which is useful in the pursuit of one's faith. I believe curiosity is a virtue, and any attempt to limit human curiosity is a tyranny on the human mind. To say to a human, "You must not question in certain areas" is to cripple that human. I wish to be a free person. One characteristic of a free person is the mind of that person is free to go where it will and investigate where it will. The type of religion that will limit that capacity is crippling and, I believe, evil.

Dear David,

I oppose any form of external constraints on what one may or may not investigate.

As one matures, becomes disappointed of what the world can offer and wants God badly enough, their curiosity will drop by itself, effortlessly. There will be no sense of loss of freedom, it is like when a girl grows up, gets more interested in peers and forgets about all her companion dolls that till then were so precious to her.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Duly noted.

As human knowledge expands, then the concept of God needs to expand to accommodate that knowledge. Just as human knowledge is becoming more complex, the being that the religious claim is responsible for all knowledge has to evolve in complexity to accommodate that belief.

Just as one could say to a blind man; "You are fortunate, for you cannot see the horrors and evilness of the world." One could equally say; "You are unfortunate, you cannot see the beauty and goodness of the world". Both statements are equally true, but the first is negative and limited, but the second is positive and unlimited. If you talk with an absolute believer in God, you soon come to a point where the believer will curtail the conversation by declaring; "It is my belief in God that is my faith, and nothing else matters." Well, ignorance is bliss! (for some).

It is my opinion that faith (another word for ignorance) is giving God a bad name.

The anti-Christian Essendon football club - who knows how sincerely - has apologised to Andrew Thornburn for forcing his resignation because the Christian church he belongs to had expressed views held by millions of Christians.

Christian, Lyle Shelton , asks, "would it have happened had Thorburn not pursued legal action against the club?"

Probably not.

Shelton also suggests that Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, should also apologise for calling Christian views an "abomination" at the time.

The celebration of Christmas in post-Christian and Woke Australia is hypocritical for a majority of the population.

According to Census data about 44% of people identify
as Christian today making it Australia's most common
religion ahead of those nominating "no religion" at 39.9%.
Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism were among the most common
non-Christian religions. A 2021 survey found 3 in 10
Australians said they would go to church at Christmas if
invited by family and friends.

The Christian based holidays endure strongly in Australia,
but they are becoming more and more celebrations of
family and close relationships, which perhaps is not a
bad thing in changing the way we see things and in
changing to become a more encompassing nation -
celebrating together.

If it took "GOD" 6 days to create the earth, there is no way he could have created the universe.

Apparently the heathens running the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney have replaced their annual. Nativity Scene with aboriginal art this year.

Out with Christianity, in with identity politics.

In the People's Republic of Victoria, Catholic when convenient Chairman Andrews, who was very scathing, almost hysterical, about Thornburn's church's beliefs (mainstream Christian) on homosexuality and abortion, has given $5 million to the Islamic community to ensure that "everyone across our state knows about the works of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him".

The silly mutt must be oblivious to what Muhammad and his followers think of homosexuality and abortion, and what should be done about it. They really put Christians in the shade.

What kind of a comment is that to be made by a
Christian at Christmas time?

Diversity is what makes the state of Victoria great.
The Labor government is investing money to fund
an Islamophobia campaign to stamp out racism against
Muslims in Victoria. Their announcement forms part
of Labor's promise to deliver initiatives that support
multi-faith communities in the state.

They are backing multi-faith communities not just by
words but by actions.

Victoria's Islamic communities are an integral part of the
state. The government is making important changes so
Muslims can live freely and safely knowing the government
has put the right safeguards in place to protect people.
All people, not just a select few. That's what good governments
are supposed to do.

Hi Foxy,

The Forums bigoted haters, we know who they are, unfortunately these old chaps with one foot in the grave, can't but help themselves, other than spew hateful bile about all kinds of minorities. You show remarkable restraint when dealing with these reprobates, I tend not so. Other than give them a "clean slate" every New Years, which usually expires before 'Epiphany' there's not much more I can do.

Dear Paul,

I know that many people have a problem with Islam
Most tarring all of that group with the same
brush is wrong. And to criticize the
Victorian government for trying to not discriminate
and be inclusive towards the multi-faiths that make up
the state - is also wrong.

Hi Foxy,

Just yesterday my wife was talking to a lady in her 70's, she told how for years she has not had contact with her daughters family including the grandchildren, this is because they are members of some way-out Christian sect which doesn't believe in Xmas, and forbids contact with "blasphemers". The lady in question is heartbroken because of this.

p/s These religious nutters are not in some far off land, they are right her in Brisbane somewhere. Like political extremism, religious extremism is just as dangerous.

Dear Paul,

If only we could put aside our prejudices and learn
to live and let live. I watched the Aboriginal Woman's Choir
sing last night - in their own language. It was very moving.

Less than half of Australians are Christian (43.9%). There are a few Muslims (3.2%) and a few Hindus (2.7%).

Religion does not rate very highly in Australia. Not enough to warrant comment, really. A big victory for the Left.

Not much hope for the Christian movement with its own invention of a Christ to match the onward march of the Roman Empire.

Maybe a bit more honesty about this point would add the proper ingredients of a believable human centric religion.

Till then, we’ll await the rainbow rulers to blow up St Mary’s Cathedral, as a victory sign before the start of the next Gay Mardi Gras from its front doors.

Let us all celebrate the birth of the believable Christ.

Religious institutions continue to play a large role
in Australian society. For example, primary and secondary
schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities and of course
charity organisations are owned and funded by religious
organisations.

Christianity is currently still the dominant religion in
Australia, introduced by British settlers at colonisation.

There's always been a degree of religious diversity in
the country. However, it wasn't until the abolition of the
White Australia Policy in the 1970s that non-European
communities were able to significantly establish themselves
and grow in numbers. Since then the country has been
growing in the diversity of non-Christian religions.

We can be proud of the high degree of religious freedom
and religious diversity

Why the hell would anyone be proud, or even accepting of religious diversity. It is a sure recipe for a Kosovo type catastrophe in the future.

Dear Foxy,

«Religious institutions continue to play a large role
in Australian society. For example, primary and secondary
schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities and of course
charity organisations are owned and funded by religious
organisations.»

Schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, even charity organisations I believe, need to pass some periodic (annual, bi-annual, etc.) accreditation process to check whether they still provide what they were set up to provide.

But what about religious institutions?
They may have done so in the past, but are they still providing religion for their congregations and God-seekers?
Had there been an appropriate periodic accreditation process, many churches, I am afraid, would not pass the test which would allow them to continue to call themselves "religious". They could still run as social clubs...

Religious wars accompanied the invention of monotheism by nature intolerant.. Swinburne wrote a poem in the voice of a Roman who was saddened by the Roman proclamation of the Christian faith.

Hymn to Proserpine (After the Proclamation in Rome of the Christian Faith)

Vicisti, Galilæe.

…O Gods dethroned and deceased, cast forth, wiped out in a day!
From your wrath is the world released, redeemed from your chains, men say.

New Gods are crowned in the city; their flowers have broken your rods;
They are merciful, clothed with pity, the young compassionate Gods.
But for me their new device is barren, the days are bare;

… [He comforts himself with the thought that Christianity like other religions will pass. I derive similar comfort]

Yet thy kingdom shall pass, Galilean, thy dead shall go down to thee dead.
Of the maiden thy mother men sing as a goddess with grace clad around;

…

Ye are Gods, and behold, ye shall die, and the waves be upon you at last.
In the darkness of time, in the deeps of the years, in the changes of things,
Ye shall sleep as a slain man sleeps, and the world shall forget you for kings.
Though the feet of thine high priests tread where thy lords and our forefathers trod,
Though these that were Gods are dead, and thou being dead art a God,
Though before thee the throned Cytherean be fallen, and hidden her head,
Yet thy kingdom shall pass, Galilean, thy dead shall go down to thee dead.

{He can escape the grasp of Christianity and the intolerant world it ushers in by the sleep of death]

I shall die as my fathers died, and sleep as they sleep; even so.
For the glass of the years is brittle wherein we gaze for a span;
A little soul for a little bears up this corpse which is man.
So long I endure, no longer; and laugh not again, neither weep.
For there is no God found stronger than death; and death is a sleep.

[Read the entire poem for its sheer beauty]

Dear David F.,

First, thank you for the beautiful poem!

It is logically erroneous to conclude that just because one, two or even three monotheistic religions (if indeed they are religions, rather than say, a national movement disguising itself as a religion) are intolerant, that intolerance must be in the nature of monotheism itself.

Hinduism is far more monotheistic than the Abrahamic religions (because the latter only believe in the unity of God whereas Hinduism believes in the unity of everything - not only that there is no other God/gods besides God, but that there is in fact nothing else whatsoever besides God), yet does not share (as a religion, I am not speaking about Hindu/Indian nationalism) a similar intolerance towards other religions.

Shri Krishna says in the Bhagavad-Gita:

"Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form.
Endowed with faith, the devotee worships a particular celestial god and obtains the objects of desire. But in reality, I alone arrange these benefits." [BG 7:21-22]

Dear Hasbeen,

Having religious diversity gives us a richer
and deeper understanding of different cultures.
The whole point is to try to promote
an ability to understand the point of view of
people with different religious or philosophical
convictions.

It teaches us to embrace tolerance,
understanding, acceptance, and a willingness to
move beyond our differences,

Religion for example has historically influenced Indian
society on a political and economic level. There is a
sense of pride associated with the country's rich
religious history as the traditions of Hinduism,
Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism all emerged out of India.

In the Balkans, religious identification is part of
national identity. Kosovo was part of the long conflict between
Ottoman Turks and Southern Slavs. Australians don't have a
single religion. Religion is not part of our national
identity.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I’m glad you like the poem. One thing I like about religion is the beauty of some of the associated music. Bach, Rimsky-Korsakov, Bloch, Tchaikovsky and others give me a feeling akin to awe. Unfortunately the airwaves are cluttered this time of year with cutesie-poo pop music and a lot of banal hymns to an insecure deity needing praise. There’s Rudolph, the brown-nose reindeer. The reindeer in front stopped abruptly. Children’s shows sometimes are most inventive. I just spent some, enjoyable time watching Paddington Bear.

However, Swinburne suits my present mood. I consider faith a vice. Demand proof, and if proof is not available, reject what you are asked to accept. In civilized countries one doesn't get tortured or burned at the stake for questioning.

What Foxy says.
Alan B.

Yuyutsu,

I feel that your concerns about Australia's religious
institutions on the whole are unwarranted. Australia is
a secular country with a very high degree of religious
freedom and religious diversity. Although the state and
religious groups are maintained as separate entities
religious organisations have done, and continue to play
a very large role in Australian society.

As mentioned earlier their primary and secondary schools,
their hospitals, their aged-care facilities and their
charity organisations are owned and funded by religious
organisations and are of great value.

Even King Charles in his pre-recorded message paid tribute
to religious organisations praising them for their work
during the UK's ongoing cost of living crisis.

He ended his speech by referring to a previous visit to
Bethlehem the town where Jesus was born and "the power of
light overcoming darkness."

"It's this life-light and with the true humility that
lies in our service to others that I believe we can find
hope for the future."

"Let us therefore celebrate it together and cherish it always."

His message ended with a rendition of - "O Little Town of
Bethlehem," performed by the choir of St. George's Chapel.

In my life I try to understand reality, and for me it is the lasting reality of character - it is the change, influences, and the actions I have made during my life. My physicality has been borrowed from the natural chemistry of creation as I have gathered and consumed and returned to the cycles of life. The reality of God is revealed in character, attitudes, and actions in whose image we are. The birth Of Christ Jesus is the very expression of the character of God - the Word- because of his actions for righteousness. His life reflected the purpose of God in the Earth in sacrifice for others.

Mary, his mother was trained in the school of Hillel and Jesus was schooled in the same attitudes, especially toward a faith that encompassed all nations.

Multiculturalism, diversity, CRT -have no practical use whatsoever. They are just feel-good ideas, dreamt up by guilt-ridden white people. Because of the weakness inherent in these ideas, and the acceptance of the lie that white is bad, non-white people are now putting-the-boot-in into us, saying the most racist, insulting rubbish about white people - and getting away with it.

Would a bunch of bloody idiots you Lefties are.

I'll try hard not to preach but really - who of us goes around
feeling guilty? Who of us thinks that white is bad? Or that
someone is putting the boot into them? Those kind of feelings
to most of us would be somewhat paranoid and unhinged to say
the least.

Who do we know personally that goes around spouting racist,
insulting, rubbish? Well I guess we've all encountered
these swamp monsters who lean towards the dark instead of
the light. Thankfully, these people are in a minority in this
country.

As for pigeon-holing people into Left and Right categories?

Most people's views aren't set in concrete as a rule. Most
people are rational and their positions on things can be
mixed - leaning towards being more broad-minded on some
issues while being conservative on others. We have to allow
for individual differences - views are so subjective. We
should not tar everyone with the one brush. Telling them
"You're a Leftie," or worse. Look at the whole person -
instead of the views they may have at a particular time.

I remember telling an elderly lady - "But your views were
different on that yesterday." To which she smiled and
replied - "I was in a different mood then!

Dear Foxy,

«I feel that your concerns about Australia's religious
institutions on the whole are unwarranted.»

I have not written specifically about Australian institutions.

My concerns are that some institutions continue to be called or thought of as "religious" or "a religion" long after they ceased serving the people with religion, thus can give religion and God a bad reputation, causing people to say things like "religion is poison" based on behaviours that have nothing to do with religion.

«Australia is a secular country with a very high degree of religious
freedom and religious diversity.»

Wonderful, but does it include the freedom to mislead/defraud people by claiming a religious status for operations that are no longer religious (or never were, like Scientology)?

«Even King Charles in his pre-recorded message paid tribute
to religious organisations praising them for their work
during the UK's ongoing cost of living crisis.»

His Majesty is not an expert on spiritual matters and can be misled like any ordinary person.
The organisations he praised may indeed be praiseworthy, but it does not automatically make them religious.

«His message ended with a rendition of - "O Little Town of
Bethlehem," performed by the choir of St. George's Chapel.»

That is beautiful indeed, but not automatically religious.

---

Dear David F.,

«I consider faith a vice.»

Faith in physical matters is indeed a vice.

Based on the verse, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test as you did at Massah." [Deuteronomy 6:16],
the Talmudic Rabbis concluded that it is sinful to rely on miracles, that whenever there is a material danger one should only take material evidence into consideration.

Faith is crucial in spiritual matters, but religion has no role, and indeed no interest, in describing the material world: those who care about material facts should investigate them using material science.

«One thing I like about religion is the beauty of some of the associated music. Bach, Rimsky-Korsakov, Bloch, Tchaikovsky and others give me a feeling akin to awe.»

Wonderful, but whether it is indeed religious-based needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I consider faith in spiritual matters a vice. I believe one should demand proof for any statement whether in the material or spiritual realm. I think the inventions of spiritual matters are nonsense - god or gods and associated rubbish. I enjoy beautiful music and really don't care whether it is religious or not. If insights are valid it doesn't whether they arise from religion.

As far as giving God a bad reputation God has been called the most unpleasant character in all fiction. In Joshua God calls for genocide. God, the stinker, has given himself a bad reputation. If one wants to lead a decent life and follow where reason leads one can start by eliminating such nonsense as a belief in a god or any other supernatural manifestation. Be kind and question.

Foxy

Don't worry about it. You really don't need to comment on my posts - or anyone else's, even the topic, if you don't like it. We all know that you don't like seeing opinions different from your own, and that you are obsessed with telling everyone that freedom to express opinions is really just for you and the two other posters with ideas similar to yours. Your claims to tolerance and belief in diversity are a sham. Stop pretending.

ttbn,

You amaze me, at one time you were saying in a backhanded way that; "unhealthy comments", those that didn't agree with your opinions and beliefs, should not be permitted on this Forum" It appeared that you thought it would be a good idea if you should have the position of a 'Forum Moderator' as well. I'm sure you'll say I was reading you wrong, maybe I was.

Dear David F.,

«As far as giving God a bad reputation God has been called the most unpleasant character in all fiction.»

Yes, I'm aware that people have called God by so many bad names, including "fictional character". One main reason is ignorance, the second in attempt to avoid their responsibilities, the third is their wish to domineer the world themselves.

«In Joshua God calls for genocide. God, the stinker, has given himself a bad reputation.»

Oh Joshua, Joshua... that ancient Putin... modern forensic research indicates that the local people of his period (who weren't even Israelites), worshiped Joshua as a god. The Biblical book is a moderated version of his exploits where the name of the Hebrew god was inserted in many places to cover up that embarrassing fact.

Bad reputation indeed, except that it was the vile acts of men, not God.

«I consider faith in spiritual matters a vice.»

Indeed, nobody can deny such personal statements.

«I believe one should demand proof for any statement whether in the material or spiritual realm.»

When one demands a proof to, say, the General Relativity Theory, they are told that to understand the proof they must first study mathematics and physics in university for that many years. Geniuses may do so in a year, diligent students in five and average people of I.Q.100 may not complete that study in a lifetime.

Material proofs require material science: when someone attempts to prove material statements with spiritual knowledge, you rightfully laugh.

But when it is the other way round, you seem to unreasonably demand material observations for proving spiritual statements and also such proofs that people can get in 5 minutes.

Either project, one can either have faith in the Einsteins and sages or devote their lives taking the long way to find out for themselves.

«I think the inventions of spiritual matters are nonsense - god or gods and associated rubbish.»

gods or gods do not exist, but can still be quite useful on the spiritual path in the same manner as 'i' (the square-root of -1) is useful in mathematics.

What Paul 1405 says.
Alan B.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I made a mistake. Goodbye,

David

ttbn,

Practice what you preach.

And every now and again give it a rest.

It would be healthier for you.
And for us all.

ttbn,

I certainly don't need you to tell me what I can or can't
do on this forum and whose posts or discussion topics I
can either introduce or comment on. Also if you post
nonsense you should expect to be called out on it.

If you don't like what I post you have the choice of
either not reading my posts or you can improve your own
behaviour. I'm not the one obsessing here. You are.
And your disdain of tolerance in diversity leaps out from
each and every one of your posts.

Get rid of the preconceived stick up your butt.
It's Christmas!

If you start with an absolute false premise like "Christ was born in Bethlehem 25th December 1AD" then anything added to the story is also false, Sheppard's, mangers, Inns, stables and Wise Men etc etc are all untrue as well. You can pepper the story with a little fact, Herod, Bethlehem etc.

There is a strong argument that the whole nativity story was an invention to give legitimacy to Christ as the Messiah. The strongly held belief at the time was the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and come from the 'House of David'. I think the marketing genius of Christianity Saul of Tarsus (St Paul) played a very big part in establishing the accepted version of the birth of Christ to give legitimacy to Christ as the Messiah.

The woman could never be accused of being original: just repeats back the same accusations made against her. I particularly like the bit about her 'not needing to be told what she can do or can't do'.

Oh no the Xmas Turkey is here now, no crack-pot political party for you to join?.

The only crackpot party there is the one you belong to, Paul, and I certainly would not be joining anything that would have someone like you as a member.

ttbn,

You're a crotchety old thing and always shall be.
And your time on this forum is limited. So don't waste
it by not tolerating what you dislike.

Foxy

For someone who claims to be educated, your English isn't up to scratch. "Shall" is used in the first person; you really should have said "will".

In your first lecture to me, you revealed that you don't know the difference between the noun 'practice' and the verb 'practise', either.

But, hell: you just go on making a fool of yourself. I have decided that, in the New Year, I SHALL take notice of the only sensible and useful thing you have ever said - "you don't have to read my posts".

Given that you and your boyfriend seem to have skipped your mid-twenties when you brains should have fully matured, your advice to ignore your posts is probably right.

ttbn,

Instead of consistently finding fault with me
try being mature enough to tolerate your dislike
towards me instead of nit-picking.

Still, I suppose I should be flattered that I've been
able to provide so much comfort for you to find
something that you can be so passionate about.

You're welcome!

Many, many years ago some smart Alec thought of exploiting superstition & called Superstition Religion !
The rest as they say is history !

.

I guess Peter’s question is : “What is God for ?”
.

I’m inclined to reply :

God is …

1. for want of a better explanation

2. solace for fear and existential angst

3. hope

4. social control

5. justification for war, terror, murder, torture, rape, and other crimes

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

There is no need to guess and try to read the author's mind instead of his article.

Peter's question is:

"If the purpose of creation is history does that not leave nature, the universe, out of the relationship between God and humanity?"

In short, "What is the world for?"

And his answer is:

"It is true that the world is the sphere of cause and effect, but it is also an essential part of the redemption of all humankind"

The meaning and purpose of life is something that
science is not equipped to answer. For that purpose
religion will continue to be a part of our world.

Hi Foxy,

Back in 1983 a team of scientists, theologians, academics, nobility and down right lunatics lead by his esteemed excellency Monty Python, were through careful analysis and down right tomfoolery able to come up with "The Meaning of Life" DRUM ROLL! ....AND THE ANSWER IS "42" YES FOXY THE MEAN OF LIFE IS INDEED DRUM ROLL!....42!

Armed with this great knowledge ny on 40 years now, man has managed to live in peace, harmony and might I add, with a great deal of serenity. YES as Darryl Kerrigan would say "FEEL THE SERENITY".

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Would you please explain how “… the world is … an essential part of the redemption of all humankind" ?

Many thanks in advance.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«Would you please explain how “… the world is … an essential part of the redemption of all humankind" ?»

I can try, but since I am not a Christian myself, my idea of redemption may be different to the author's.

Essentially, this comes down to the story of Goldilocks and the three bears:

Father-Bear's porridge was too hot, Mother-Bear's porridge was too cold, but Baby-Bear's porridge was just right, not too hot and not too cold.

So some other worlds, like heaven, are too nice, too pleasurable, so nobody there cares about and makes any effort towards their salvation. Other worlds, like hell, are too horrible, one suffers there so much they cannot even think about their salvation.

But this particular universe with this particular planet Earth, is just right, it has the right mix of pleasures and pains, it is our field of action where we toil to get results, where we experience free will, where we have the opportunity to experiment and learn, to struggle and eventually find the value of doing good and keeping away from evil, then from there discover the way out back to God.

A prisoner in a golden cage is busy admiring their cage.
A prisoner in a Russian torture chamber only writhes in pain awaiting the next strike.
But a prisoner in, say, a modern Australian prison has all the time to constantly ask, "how do I exit this place?".

The exit is right here, in this universe, on this planet, in that regard we humans are even more fortunate than the angels!

Dear Paul,

I loved Monty Python.

Ever watch "Horrible Histories on TV?"

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks for sharing your interpretation of what the author meant by his statement that “the world is … an essential part of the redemption of all humankind”.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing exactly what the author, himself, meant, nor of how Peter Sellick interprets what he meant by the statement.

Your guess is as good as mine. I’m afraid we’ll never know.

I should add that I find significative the credence Peter accords to Karl Bath’s statement that “The aim of creation is history".

Peter explains that God only has a historical interest in his creation : “Do not look for the work of God in nature, His fingerprints will not be found in the rocks or the DNA or in geological eras. God reveals himself in history …”.

In other words, God does not intervene in his creation.

That appears to be consistent with the Christian doctrine of “by your faith alone you will be saved” (i.e., not by any direct or indirect intervention of God ).

From this one may deduce that miracles are of one’s own making – or purely fortuitous.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

As I already wrote in my first post here, I disagree with Karl Barth's statement that "The aim of creation is history".

According to my Hindu view, God does not need to "intervene" in nature because nature and everything in it is ALREADY God, because there is nothing but God.

Accordingly anything we see, anything we experience, every moment, including the fact that we are able to experience, is a miracle, so miracles are the rule, not the exception. If our mind is pure and unclouded by our material notions and desires, then we can find in the rocks and DNA not just "God's fingerprints" but God Himself!

«That appears to be consistent with the Christian doctrine of “by your faith alone you will be saved”»

By your faith alone you will make consistent efforts to purify your mind, thus be saved.
But to have that unshakable faith, you need God's grace.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Yes, Yuyutsu, thanks to our long and countless exchanges here on OLO, I have now come to understand some of the basic Hindu concepts and beliefs.

.

Hi Yuyutsu and Banjo Paterson,

A great thought provoking discussion. Throw this at you, and I would appreciate both of your opinions, thank you in advance. Has humanity misunderstood "God" and the reality of "God" completely. The notion of God the 'Sky Father' a physical being, or God as a abstract sprite existing within the universe, both being totally wrong. Rather should we think of "God" as being within ourselves an inseparable part of ourselves. Put it this way, was Buddha right when he said the ultimate goal for us is the attainment of "enlightenment" and once reaching that state of nirvana was he saying we had become "God". All of us are "God", yet none of us are "God".

For centuries man could only understand God within his own reality of a physical world, therefore God had to be a physical being. Then scholars tried to explain God in a non physical sense, such diversion might have got one branded as a heretic, with very unpleasant consequences. Today most believers still cling to the notion of God as a physical/spiritual being, any other concept is beyond the ordinary persons comprehension, and therefore simply a matter of faith, without understanding.

Dear Paul,

YES.

In broad terms, you got it right!

While I could dissect your description and point out some nuanced inaccuracies, you got the big picture correctly and made me very happy this morning.

Thanks Yuyutsu,

To stand up and declare; "THERE IS NO GOD", would get one branded an atheist, when one actually means there is no God in the physical sense. Like I believe "God" exists within each and everyone of us, and is inseparable from us, which is an abstract concept and very difficult to explain. The majority of believers are unable, or willing, to explore a difficult abstract concept of "God". Most believers are comfortable with God as a physical or spiritual being separate from oneself.

Possibly Jesus was trying to explain himself as "God" in the terms I have presented, but it was a "bridge to far" for his followers and disciples and when he was no more, they simply continued believing in God as a physical and spiritual being, with Jesus added into that mix as part of that continuing belief in God.

I think Buddha understood the abstract concept of "God" 2 short YouTubes about 14 minutes in total, Buddha and God or no God..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9GXI_9DXF0

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

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

As Wikipedia puts it :

« Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws, or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, which at some point in the future will [probably become] countless. »

Nobody knows if there are any gods or even a God. Apart from Buddhism which has not adopted the god hypothesis, each religion has its own concept of a God or gods.

Here is what the Australian Buddhist monk, the Venerable Shravasti Dhammika, has to say on the question :

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

There is very little conversion from one religion to another. The growth or decline of each religion depends almost exclusively on the fertility rate of its population. Religious affiliation is more often a question of inherited social and cultural identity than of the personal conviction of the individuals that make up the population.

It is interesting, Paul, that you should quote the Buddha as having said :

« the ultimate goal for us is the attainment of "enlightenment" … »

I, personally, had an experience like that several years ago. As I recollect it, I had first heard of God when I was 5 years old at Sunday school, a year before primary school. I was so impressed to learn of this mysterious, invisible character called God with all his invincible, magic powers, I have vivid memories of it still.

My parents had me baptised when I was a few months old. I was later confirmed as a Christian and served as an altar boy for many years. Some of my close friends were Bush Brotherhood ministers of the Church of England. One of them was my religious instruction teacher at primary school.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

He later became bishop, then archbishop, and was elected primate of the Anglican Church of Australia where he served for 10 years before retiring. We have remained very close friends all these years and, no doubt always will be.

My interest in the mysterious and fascinating figure of God never left me and I was determined to get to the bottom of the mystery. I spent most of my spare time researching the question with the expectation that I would eventually become convinced that there really is a God of some sort, whether physical, spiritual, or otherwise.

Exactly the opposite occurred. I had what I can only describe as a revelation that hit me quite unexpectedly. I experienced a sense of fulfillment, of enlightenment – what I imagine the sort of elation a scientist might experience when he makes a major scientific break-through of some sort :

I realised that it was the survival instinct that nature had attributed us with that prompted primeval man to conceive of the existence of supernatural spirits (powerful, invisible gods) that animated nature and caused awesome and sometimes terrifying and destructive natural phenomena. This conception which we call religion allowed them to plead with the gods (prayer) and make offerings and sacrifices, including human sacrifices, scapegoats (the forebears of Jesus), to placate them and obtain their indulgence.

In other words, as they had no other way of defending themselves from severe droughts, floods, bushfires, lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, and the occasional terrifying meteorite, etc., religion was conceived as their only possible strategy for survival in which they fervently placed all their hopes and faith.

Though we have no way of knowing precisely when all this occurred, it is estimated that mankind separated from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about 7 million years ago and that anatomically modern humans appeared in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago, which gives us a rough indication of the time scale for the origin of the god concept.

In the absence of any further evidence, I consider that all the rest is pure speculation.

.