While an avid discussion of the political and social agenda abounds, the place of solitude as a means for the individual to work for peace in a chaotic world is rare. Thomas Merton gave a clear example of the way in which solitude coupled with concern and writing can contribute to peace and redemption, and it is this kind of solitude I solicit. As we dwell on the wake of a Tsunami, it may be usefull to ponder that while action will clear the physical wreckage, the psychic damage will take generations to heal, and in that, still solitude may play a simple part

To often appeals to theodicy and theological explanations of tragic events become terse simplifications, doing little justice to the unfathomable. We feel obliged to "say something", much like the friends of the ancient Job. Not often enough are biblical approximations of inexplicable suffering cognisant of Job:

[(Job 1:1-3) In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. He had seven sons and three daughters, and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.]

And yet it was this righteous and blameless, God-fearing one, this innocent, from whom all was swept away. With all his family bar his wife dead, all his property lost and his own physical wellbeing afficted beyond the beyond, he still grasps at a reverence of the infinite and our small place in it:

[(Job 1:21-22) "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.]

I really don't know what I'd do if I had everything swept away.

This is good, well said.....some recognition of the bankruptcy of Secular humanism and secularism in general.

"Finally, I think he loathed himself for subduing the very faith he thought religion denied us. Like many other estranged men, he shouldered Nietzsche’s hazardous scepticism: “No! Come back, with all your torments! All the streams of my tears run their course to you. Oh come back, my unknown God. My pain! My last happiness!”

So, what does a protestant conservative evangelical former missionary have to say to 'explain' these awful events ? I have a simple answer.. when it comes to Tsunamis.. its rather down to earth.

"He who buildeth his dwelling on low lying coastal land, when knowing of the possibility, should not blame God, when they come."

Simplistic ? offensive ? I don't know, but one thing I know, that without God, we are left with the quote from Neitzche above. Too many off us ask 'where was GOD !!!!! when such and such happened"? but where were WE, when we had the opportunity to worship him, have fellowship with His people, be renewed in our hearts and minds and wills and reshape our society as we are called to do, as salt and light. Where did we go when we had the opportunity to live the last 20 yrs of our lives for HIM, rather than satisfy ourselves with all this worlds goods not caring enough to give Him even one day a week or even an hour or 2 of that week.

Its so easy to point to the nearest natural disaster and use the old furphy "If God is all powerful, and all Loving" how could this happen ? well.. rather than try to answer that, I refer the reader to begin at Genesis and finish at Revelation, then talk about it. Take the trouble to understand what God has said to us, how we should live, and conduct our lives. Its amazing how things will fall into perspective. Lets not hide behind some bad experience or event to justify our lack of interest in or committment to our Creator.

Possum, that was bordering on the mystical.. and as I saw it, was a projection of our post modern western world view on how to understand events such as the tsunami. I seriously doubt that a lot of societies other than ours look at it that way, they kind of pick themsleves up and move on. Look at the Rape of Nanjing.. the chinese still buy Japanese cars by the shipload..

It seems one of our most practiced arts is that of morbid introspection. Withdrawing,contemplating.. grasping.. etc. meanwhile the next rice crop is needing to be planted.. or we die of starvation. We have so many things which insulate us from the daily realities that others face, that we have time to 'ponder in quietness...about peace' ?

My sister in law has just faced the sad loss of her only son in Borneo. He was 10 yrs old and they tried for a boy 5 times before he was born. Then.. only for him to reach 10 and be burned alive in a house fire, along with a daughter.It happened because of a candle which was knocked over .. they are all Christian. How do we cope with that ? Do we look for "God answers" ? Not really, we just tell her we don't understand, we never will in this life, we surround her with love and help her to recover.. It Happened not because God was not there, but because a candle fell over.

Come out of that 'quiet' room mate.. engage with the world as it is, and lets all change it, preferrably in the Spirit of Christ.

Why not judge God?If we think God is doing an awful job,tell him/her.Why should we be scared of a being who is doing a crook job.I don't care about burning in hell for eternity,I am free and beyond that bullshit forever.

Yes lets not have a secular society let's outlaw all religions.

If God doesn't exist, then clearly there is nothing to fear from something non-existent. If he does exist, then I somehow doubt his views, reactions, opinions and preferences would be concluded or determined by our beliefs. What people believe about me doesn't necessarily determine what I am, so too what people believe about God doesn't necessarily determine who he is. What if God exists and what if he disagrees (like we all do here!)?

Arjay. I'd be happy to judge God - I'm just not quite sure of the criteria. It can't be on the basis of death, given that comes to us all. It can't be death of others for the same reason. And I don't think it can be happiness, as that feels as though it is something I am responsible for. I can relate to confusion, but again I can't bring myself to believe that is unreasonable. We are frustrated because we have missed something ....

Good point Normski.. here is a story

In my early years, I was taught at the feet of Gamaliel, he was the foremost teacher of the time. I learnt about the Law, and how it should guide all of our lives. I became passionate about it, far exceeding my peers. I guess u could say I was 'magna cum laude' of my profession. Then.. I noticed some irritating people, they had ideas which were a direct threat to all that I stood for. I decided that I would DO something about them, and with the full support of the Government, I began to hunt them down, I was merciless, I watched as some of them were beaten to death, without the slightest sense of compassion. I felt nothing, except the sweet peace of 'another one bites the dust' in those days we didnt have gas chambers or highly efficient crematoriums, but they would have been a great help in ridding our beautiful society of this defiling scourge. Who do these people think they are ?????? How DARE they threaten our foundations and social structure. I was so passionate about this, they made me the 'Reinhard Heidrich' of the day.. implementer of the 'final solution'...and I gave my all to this noble goal.

But one day.. as I was heading to a major population centre, with orders to arrest and eliminate groups of these sub humans, a great light shone, blinding me and I heard a voice, "Saul..Saul.. why are u persecuting me"........

BOAZ

Dear Arjay, Kenny and Co,

you are very quick to come up with opinions and knocking the idea of a god! I pointed out to you in other posts that your beliefs show mind-blowingly blind faith contrary to known experimental science and are thus illogical. I challenged you to come up with facts and logic to support your ridiculous religious (faith-based) mythology that there is no god.

The response? Nil. Cat got your tongue? Surely you can give a logical facts based answer? Maybe you can't!

Sorry Kenny,

I missed your posting, elsewhere, which vaguely responded to my post. But it does NOT answer my challenge. So I'll spell it out again.

You seem to think that your atheistic opinions are right and that religious opinions are stupid because they need faith.

But both atheism and religion require faith. My challemge to you is to face up to the facts - admit that maybe your beliefs are based on faith more than on facts and logic. Now you can believe whatever you want, but I think you need to consider whether your belief is based on fact and logic or not. You did not respond to these issues -so I'll push a bit more rather than leave you lost.

I think I can argue sucessfully that atheism and atheistic evolution are logically more ridiculous than creationism. Yes I am a Christian and I do believe in creation by the LORD Jesus Christ - but if I am wrong in fact and logic below then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that.

One of the most fundamental laws of experimental science is conservation of matter and energy. Logically then, we must conclude that the universe is eternal. But another fundamental law of science is the increase of entropy (disorder) and inevitable heat death of the universe. Logically then, since we exist, the universe had a beginning. So those logical conclusions from science contradict each other. The known facts give a clue that the cosmos must have originated by other rules out there which we don't understand. I say that God did it - and that is at least logically compatible with the law of cause and effect. Others just say that as yet unknown laws did it. Currently the big-bang says nothing turned into everything for no reason against the known laws of science - that's impressive faith.

But what about life? No experiment has shown that life comes from dead stuff - it comes from pre-existing life. Now the simplest known life is incredibly complex and has all the cell-machinery with the cell programming in computer-coding-like programming in the DNA. Creationists have faith that a god created life - which is logically compatible with cause and effect and the experimental fact that life only comes from life and that information only comes from pre-existing intelligence.

Atheistic evolution must believe that somehow dead stuff collected the information programme and the machinery to run it and (miraculously?) became a living cell. Whatever the mythological evolutionary story used to 'explain' life, one needs massive faith to believe it. Given simple life, somehow, what next? Nothing! because evolution has NO demonstarted mechanism necessary to get the NEW information necessary to go from klunge to Kenny via who-knows-what. Not a single mutation has been observed to add the sort of info that turns Kludge into Kangaroos, or chimps into Kennys. All known 'beneficial' mutations involve a LOSS of function. Then natural selection, which really works in forming genetic subsets for new species, ONLY culls information - it does NOT create new info. So evolution is actuall proven to have all the mechanisms and characteristics of devolution towards extinction. Which is what the fossil record shows!

You are free to have faith in evolution if you like that sort of argument. But don't try and claim that you are on high ground of logic and fact. In my opinion I have demonstrated that such beliefs are contrary to logic and fact and rely on ignorance or blind faith.

So please stop and have good think. The evidence of this world arguably point to there being a god. The Bible says that there is one God who sends the rain and the tsunamis on us all and our lives will end at some stage and then we face the real judgement. This life is just a trial run. God bless your search!

Well said Percy :) God willing, if we keep it up, our unbelieving friends will finally wake up one day and say "Opps.. it IS just a myth"
It's just been a process of gradual socialization that has shaped the minds of post moderns, and they dont even have the capability (or the will )of tracing the progression of ideas and philosophies thru the arts and media that socialized them to the point where they will identify the specific individual who has, by his/her forceful expression of ideas, made them a victim of his/her deliberate and willful ignorance and rejection of the Almighty. (e.g Neitzche, Sartre,Jaques Derrida)

They fail to recognize their true enemy, and instead cry out that such thinking is their 'own' and not related to how they have been shaped and moulded.

Painful but true :)

PEACE
BOAZ

I think Percy makes some very convincing arguments, but in doing so contradicts himself in a big picture sense - why would one suggest that a leap of faith is the basis for one's beliefs while in the same instance argue (ie reason) a case for such? Its like saying I cannot prove my faith, but sit here and listen while I do (or at least argue against yours).

The only thing worth arguing about is why argument is, ultimately, futile. We can only be saved by the irony ...

Intempmore .. not a bad one :)
You would notice my own approach after a while that I tend to withdraw from the 'agumentative' way, and tend more to focus on the 'Gospel'. I know from experience, - only that can change hearts, and minds. The main value of the argumentative and debate we indulge in is where it can reveal our hidden presuppositions and cause us to confront them. At that point, we may be able to see clearly that we are not 'far from the Kingdom'
Regards
BOAZ

Humans have this need for religion because we are basically insecure beings,which is understandable.Chimps have no such desire.Only when our consciousness reaches a certain level do we have this compulsion to believe.I've been on the other side and it is harder not to believe.This is our way of making sense of the universe.If there is such a supreme being of consciousness why reach out to such insignificant creatures such as humans, whom we would consider to be bacteria on our skin to be ignored or eradicated.

If there is a God surely his rules are those of the universe,of physics,maths and biology.I don't see these in any Bible or Koran.
In many ways aetheists and agnostics are more religious because they search for truth ,have a set of values and morals without a golden handshake at the end of life.A religion of agnostics and aetheists wouldn't be a boring affair either.It would grow with the discoveries of science.

Arjay
I agree that humans have a 'need' form something greater than themselves in order to help relate to the cosmos. The only problem with this in regard to the JudaoChristian faith, is that people who just have a 'need' to invent a God, for the above reasons, usually invent one who will ACCOMODATE all their own desires and passions.
The God of the old testament was continually sending prophets to His people to call them BACK from chasing after 'such' gods...
Jesus said many things which were difficult to accept
John 6:60
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

So, the faith revealed in the Scriptures, is not one which can fit into the 'mould' which you expressed. It is from the Almighty.
BOAZ

Solitude does not imply withdrawal from the world, but coming to terms with it in a way that preserves the human psyche intact.
Rather than feeding the fires of "burnout", all those who are active in the movement for solving social and political crises will need time out at some stage.
Solitude is about transcendence, not escapism.
Trauma counselling is common but expensive, and impractical on a massive scale, only the human need for peace, found in many faiths, will provide a really practical solution to healing the wounds of the subconscious minds.

Quite nicely said Possum...
pretty much agree with that, but would urge deeper consideration to the reality of Christ Jesus who said "He comes to me will never thirst"... He feeds our subconcious also... and He Himself also 'withdrew from the Mulititude to pray' at times :)
BOAZ

Arjay, you have expressed my POV exactly. I too search for truth. I don't see too much of that in formal religion. I don't need to quote religious texts to be a decent person. If there is a superior being I'm sure it would prefer that as creatures evolve to self awareness it would want them to take responsibility for their actions. Formal religions present God as a being that requires praise and constant adulation - this sounds very immature and very patriachal to me. A superior being would want its children to grow up.

RINGTAIL
I look with interest at your description of God. I actually would figure that if we are to know anything about the Almighty, it would only come from the Almighty Himself. i.e. revealed truth.
If you are searching, please search in the Old testament. Try reading from Genesis 11 onward. See how different the God of the Bible is, from the 'gods' of the surrounding nations. Try to extricate yourself from the idea that 'you' can define Gods job specification from your post modern cultural view point, and let God speak for Himself. If only you realized how predictable your expressed view is in terms of how it has been shaped by various modern philosophies, rather than by original and objective thought. I dont mean to sound overly critical in saying this, but it just stands out so obviously.
Decent person ? .... I almost have a coronary when I read such stuff. Decent as defined by ...???? you... society ? and if society changes and regards murder as a cool thing.. or the molestation of little boys etc... u will define yourself by 'society' ? I sure hope not. "Decent" is either culturally defined or it is what God says it is. 'Love Him first, and love your neighbour as urself". Anyone who 'quotes religious texts' if they know their stuff is not quoting it to show they are 'decent' but that they are forgiven sinners.

Keep searching :) "seek, and you will find, knock and the door will be opened"
BOAZ

Boaz, I recall from my Sunday school bible classes that Jesus was loving, kind, tolerant and inclusive of others. I have not observed any such qualities in any of your postings. All I have received from you is a patronising and scathing condemnation of my beliefs. In return, I send to you love and well being. Good luck in your life quest, may you find that which you seek.

RINGTAIL
I'm not 'scathing' intentionally.. but I sure will make points when they need to be made.
Your sunday school teacher may have given you an idea about Jesus, but does it stack up with the only source of information we have about Him ? All u said about Him was correct, except that he did not 'include' the Pharisees, and he said a few things which immediately alienated large numbers. "This is a hard saying" etc..
So, dont feel 'attacked' engage and if u see weakness in my points.. go for it. I dont mind being contradicted or disagreed with.
peace
BOAZ

Boaz, you got me there I only remember the nice things about Jesus. Guess He was just as intolerant as anyone else then. Oh well. I'll just continue to comment as my conscience tweaks me. Oh, I still don't need to quote a religious text to do a bit of good in this world. I don't quote. I do. As in volunteer work to help others. And a bit provocation for the religiously greater than thou provides some entertainment as well. Thanx for your response.

Good on you Ringtail :)
the people Jesus was intolerant' to were those who represented structural hypocracy. Those who profited most in prestige and wealth and power based on exploitation of the Torah. Those who had turned it around from a book meant to set men free, into a book of unbearable rules and sub rules. Many wearing a 'religious' badge today would rate similar condemnation from Him. I quote, because as they said about Jesus "Who is this man, who speaks with authority, not as the scribes". Jesus was a social revolutionary who hung out with hookers and bar managers and tax collectors, fishermen and terrorists .. quite a range.
I feel awful if I came across as 'pounding a pulpit' to you .. I was trying to raise some awareness about 'why' we think the way we do.
My bark is much worse than my bite :)
BOAZ

I have read this article a number of times before posting here.

I feel sorry for Mark Christensen in his loss.

Not because of his fathers death - everyone dies and we have to accept that, in the natural order of things, parents will die to be buried and mourned by their children.

However, when someone dies at their own hand, that is a greater tragedy. A person taking their own life is abandoning and leaving a scar on their family and their friends. They are failing those who lookup to them as role models and disrespecting those who love them.

To the matter of secularism.

I turned away from organised religion when I heard a pastor talking through his backside about something he had no idea about and then ordained his view with the authority of his vestments.

If the difference between a secular society and a religious one is to be found in the authority and power of the churches and the clergy - Then keep us secular!

The credibility issues alone show too many of the clergy to be a bunch of self-serving hypocrits who have split their time between lining their own pockets and either perpetuating the greatest travesties and abonimations on innocent children - or worse - covering up for those who did.

So secular - yes and keep it that way. Society has moved on from the "authority of the church" just it has moved on from the "divine right of kings".

As for God -

God is there - I believe that he believes in a hands off policy - knowing that he gave us freewill and ingenuity. He does get involved - selectively when he needs to but does not make life "Easy" because - if it were easy then, where would be the challenge or the opportunity for spiritual growth which we all need to experience to become complete individuals?

COL good, now I have an idea of your inner workings, thoughts and personal history, and something positive might actually come out of it.
Your comments about the 'organized' religion echo my own feelings believe it or not, but in spite of how my views may have appeared, I am in now way suggesting that the 'authority' of an organized church should be the answer to all our social and political woes.
The power and abuses .. all that u mentioned.. I concur with completely.
I'll try to respond more later.. am under pressure with an urgent job at the moment.
Regards
BOAZ

There is an unofficial agreement amongst internet bloggers and others who conduct discussions in this medium, that an argument comes to an end the moment one party compares the other to Hitler. This is a well-observed convention, to the point that it has a name - Godwin's Law.

Similarly, all intelligent discussion on religion comes to a grinding halt when someone - yes you, Percy - tries to support his contention that God exists by defying non-believers to disprove his existence.

"I challenged you to come up with facts and logic to support your ridiculous religious (faith-based) mythology that there is no god.

The response? Nil. Cat got your tongue? Surely you can give a logical facts based answer? Maybe you can't! "

The best argument that I have found - in both logic and "faith-based" argumentataion - I discovered on Razorskiss.net, and goes like this:

"Mission: Prove a negative, absolute statement.

The task is to state that there is absolutely no god, and that the concept of god is absolutely false -then, to prove this statement: NO GOD =1

First, we have to make a couple definitions. A CANNOT be A and NOT A, at the same time.

To say there is NO God is an absolute statement. So, if you say that there is NO God, No God = NOT A. If you say that there IS a God, God = A. A cannot be A, and NOT A at the same time, remember. So, the mission is to prove that A =/= A - but A = NOT A.

If A = god, and NOT A = No god

A cannot be A, but MUST be NOT A, in order for NOT A to be true.

NOT A and A are not equal, and cannot have the same value - so, we must accept that NOT A =/= A.

In order for NOT A to be a true statement. A MUST be false. In order for NOT A to be accepted true, the axiom of "A =/= NOT A" MUST be accepted - thus, absolutes must be accepted, in order for there to be NO god. No is an ABSOLUTE statement - thus, A MUST be false, and it MUST be accompanied by a proof, for the statements GOD = A , and NO GOD = NOT A, to be logically true.

So, it is established that "No God", and "God" are mutually exclusive.

"No God" is a negative value - so, the mission is to prove a negative. God cannot exist, and there must be proof of God's non-existence - or there is still a possibility of A equaling A.

To prove that A = A, however, is still pretty hard. It's an axiom, like 0=0, or 1=1. To prove that God = A, requires that Not A also be proven false. So, on the other side, we're also stuck.

But, we've proven that it's impossible to "prove" God's existence, or non-existence - and, we HAVE proven the existence of absolutes. So, it's now possible to use absolutes in our argument,s henceforth. A, forever after, CANNOT also be NOT A - thus, unless you invalidate absolutes altogether, and thus, any scientific method, you're stuck with absolutes as an axiom. So to accept that A cannot be NOT A did absolutely nothing but prove absolute exist.

So, if a statement is unprovable - how can it be absolute?

It can't.

So, the basic statement Atheism is founded upon is based upon belief, to put it bluntly - yet contains an absolute statement - which, in order to be undeniably correct, would have to prove a negative - something which has NEVER been done in the history of logical thought.

So, in order to back up that absolute statement saying there is NO god, you would have to prove a negative - but, how do you prove that the negative of something which you say does not exist, does NOT exist - without recognizing it's existence?

On the other hand, any Religion has only the burden of evidence to bear - not the burden of proof - because all religions are based upon faith in the unprovable - not an absolute statement of fact. If you believe something, you believe IN something. You have no need to prove the non-existence of a thing - you just have to prove a thing exists. Also impossible, but not because of logical impossibility - but factual impossibilty. Noone, but the God believed in, can know ALL the facts - so, it's unprovable. There is evidence, of course - which an Atheist can never have - there CAN be no evidence of the NON existence of something - because there would be nothing to see, if the thing which does not exist - doesn't exist.

Existence is either believed, or disbelieved - but it is never known, with complete certainly."

Hope this helps

I think our beliefs are very much determined by our experiences. It then becomes a question of what experiences we allow ourselves to become subject to, what we will in essence submit to, and what we become convinced of.

I also think that the manner in which we express our beliefs, 'walk the talk', as it were is critical to persuasion more than any apparently neat logic.

Jesus did not first and foremost come to deliver a proof of God's existence. He came to deliver proof of God's love.

Life-changing belief really has to be just that - life-changing.

Pericles.. man..I just about needed to take some heavy duty tablets of ANY kind to stumble my way through all that logic :)

Story time: I was down at the rubbity the other day, n me shop steward mate Paul dropped by, we were having Kareoke, but no one could sing real well.
So, Paul, being the character that he is, jumped up and said a few words. The builders laborers just want less work and more money. Those Bosses only want more work and less to pay, but I told em all to rip down to Trades hall and we can sort this out, I gave em a real good serve about justice and being fair.

First letter to the Corinthians
22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Story is not well connected to the verse, but I can't imagine Paul standing there in the Areopogus at Athens mumbling on about A and "not A" :) After all, the guy was involved in the first version of the 'final solution' until he got zapped with a light and a voice.
I guess thats why he didn't worry too much about the logic of it all.
He just knew he had been called.
BOAZ

Boaz, sir, you protest too much.

Your response clearly shows that you followed the logic entirely, you old fox you. But the piece was in fact directed at dear old Percy, who had earlier - and I might add, quite charmlessly - demanded precisely this kind of logical "proof".

You either "believe", or you don't. As it happens, I don't. But I have many friends who do, and I consider them sane and intelligent people. Mostly, they accord me the same courtesy.

What concerns me is the attempts by believers and atheists alike to use a natural world event as evidence either for or against the existence of a god. If even the most elementary (and I am led to believe that all that A... NotA stuff is very elementary) logic fails to either prove or disprove the existence of, well, anything really, is it not blindingly obvious here that we are dealing with beliefs, and not "facts". Whatever they may be.

It seems to me that the stance taken - for or against the existence of a god, using the tsunami as evidence - says more about the fears and doubts of the arguer, be he believer or atheist, than it contributes to sound argumentation. Poor Rowan Williams, for one, seems to have the sort of faith that is shaken by events, a rather odd trait for one in his position, I would have thought. While on the other side of the fence sit atheists who seem to feel it necessary to use the disaster as evidence to support their case, when all it does is to illuminate their uncertainty.

But please, don't let your faith make you smug. It's not a good look.

Pericles.. nicely said
as a passionate conservative evangelical ( I think in leftish secular speak that resolves to 'right wing bible bashing, pulpit pounding hyper fundamentalist extremist moron")

my view on the Tsunami, expressed elsewhere in some other topic is...

"He who buildeth his home on low lying coastal land, while knowing of the rare but real possibility of a Tsunami, should not be blaming God when one comes".

And ur quite right, our position is based on faith. Very reasonably based faith I would add, but yes, faith.

I hope and pray that you will one day (soon) come to know the 'One' who by faith we live for :)
BOAZ

Pericles,

The challenge has been avoided yet again.

I asked for facts and logic to SUPPORT the atheistic evolutionary mythology re origin of life and cosmos. I didn't ask you to prove that God didn't exist.

As you quoted me in yout last post (but I have added EMPHASIS) "I challenged you to come up with facts and logic to SUPPORT your ridiculous religious (faith-based) mythology that there is no god." Later I said "I think I can argue sucessfully that atheism and atheistic evolution are logically more ridiculous than creationism."

I then argued that case and said "In my opinion I have demonstrated that such beliefs [atheism and evolution] are contrary to logic and fact and rely on ignorance or blind faith." And the immediate context re "such beliefs" was:
"Atheistic evolution must believe that somehow dead stuff collected the information programme and the machinery to run it and (miraculously?) became a living cell. Whatever the mythological evolutionary story used to 'explain' life, one needs massive faith to believe it. Given simple life, somehow, what next? Nothing! because evolution has NO demonstarted mechanism necessary to get the NEW information necessary to go from klunge to Kenny via who-knows-what. Not a single mutation has been observed to add the sort of info that turns Kludge into Kangaroos, or chimps into Kennys. All known 'beneficial' mutations involve a LOSS of function. Then natural selection, which really works in forming genetic subsets for new species, ONLY culls information - it does NOT create new info. So evolution is actuall proven to have all the mechanisms and characteristics of devolution towards extinction. Which is what the fossil record shows!"

I asked for facts and logic to support the atheistic evolutionary mythology re origin of life and cosmos. The challenge has again been avoided.

PERCY me mate :)
your last post was quite powerful.. but if I can add a brotherly prod, was just a tad like Moses "I'll show u rebellious Jews.. u want water ????? OK...I'll GIVE you water.. *WHACK-WHACK*.. on the rock "
(When it was mean't to be a touch).
We want to see that promised land of renewed lives and hearts. I have to discipline myself on this score too... the weakness of many of these atheistic faith positions is quite a juicy target for those of us with a thinking perspective on those issues.
Perc.. more Labrador and less Pit Bull :)
(In Him) BOAZ

Percy, listen to your friend Boaz. You are approaching this in an intemperate and somewhat overzealous manner. Step back for a moment, and allow that a non-believer might have thoughts and opinions too.

I did not comment on your follow-up post, because it simply regurgitated a couple of tired old creationist and "intelligent designer" arguments which have been debunked so many times I didn't want to bore everyone else. So I chose to use the abstract language of logic in order to say something that I considered really simple: believers believe, non-believers don't. The corollary is that applying logic to try to support an argument based upon belief is about as appropriate as watering your roses with engine oil.

You said, and I quote: "In my opinion I have demonstrated that such beliefs [atheism and evolution] are contrary to logic and fact and rely on ignorance or blind faith." What I attempted to point out is that any application of logic will find your arguments as empty - or put more charitably, as convincing - as those presented by the atheist, simply because you would be using inappropriate tools - logic and facts.

I have no problem with the fact that you and I live in totally different worlds, but this is a matter of choice. I choose to accept the world at its face value, without the need to invent an entity to whom I ascribe some form of responsibility for its existence, shape and content. You choose to believe that all this could not exist without it being the will of such an entity. I consider this to be an easy option - a cop-out, if you will - for people who choose not to continue to think about life, the universe and everything. But I don't blame you, or think any the less of you for doing so; life is plenty full of other issues and concerns, and it is comforting to be able to park the big questions.

That is my opinion, and I would be happy to defend it and debate it with you, and point out how it helps when facing life's traumas, small and large. What I will not do is to fall into the trap of trying to justify my position using logic, which - as I tried to illustrate earlier - can only fail to "prove" anything that is based upon belief.

Pericles
'your turn' :)
Your composition is truly graceful. One could easily be seduced into thinking it points to something gratifying and wholesome and meaningful about the world and that by avoiding the 'copouts' of "creative entities" we can all do very nicely thankyou very much.
The idea of intelligent design, has not been 'debunked' many times. When one looks at the devopment of the various attacks on the theory, one can see equally 'speculative' and at times it appears dogmatic steps in peoples thinking. I've just updated myself on the 'state of the debate' as best I can from what appear to be reasonable reports of the main criticisms of the ID argument. So, I feel quite at ease that the arguments have not been so debunked. Challenged yes, debunked not so. (sources would be welcome to show otherwise)

One problem with your position P, is that it leads directly to another one of the "old faithful" arguments for God, the 'moral' argument. One is faced with the ultimate 'choice' of a moral universe or an amoral one. May I be adventurous and suggest that your 'amoral' one will lead by 'social evolution' to NAMBLA (do a search please) and any number of more unpalatable manifestations of such a view. Not that this is intended to 'prove' anything about God, as much as our 'need' for that belief. Personally, I find no reason to believe simply over that predicament, because I feel belief should be reasonable and be very much on the side of the winning balance of probabilities. Taken as a whole, the Old and New Testaments, particularly the life of Christ, and of immense importance the conversion of Saul, and added to this the 'a man with an argument is always at the mercy of a man with an experience' approach, may I testify to you now that as sure as I'm writing this here, I have in my 56 yrs of life experienced the outpouring of Gods healing power ONCE. But it was a once that one rarely speaks of out of fear of ridicule, or of appearing as some kind of "Well, there I was, I had this awful headache, and the pastor prayed for me and I was slain in the spirit and VIOLA ..it was gone.. ITS A MIRACLE " kind of thing. I prefer to keep in close to my heart, because of the abuses and misrepresentations of money minded Televangelists. If u dug around, you would find numerous such examples as mine. The point I'm making, is that the belief which thus far eludes you, by choice, should not be a choice which is made in the face of examples of God in Christ showing His reality and power in daily life. John, in his gospel reports "Jesus did many other things, which are not recorded in this book, but THESE are recorded so u may believe and in believing, have life in His name" (20:21) so there is a place for the miraculous in regard to faith, in confirming that what is said is true. With so many charletons and Benny Hinz,'Leap of Faith' types (Did u see Steve Martin in that movie ? )
around, it is easy to lump all claims of the miraculous into either that category, or of some psychological explanation. But I suggest, the Christian faith, would have died out long ago if this was the case. One of the most powerful images or stories from the NT is in John where the man born blind is interrogated by the Pharisees they said ....

“Give glory to God by telling the truth,* because we know Jesus is a sinner.”

The formerly blind man replied...

25“I don’t know whether he is a sinner,” the man replied. “But I know this: I was blind, and now I can see!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is where the rubber meets the road.
If not for this, we are left with Nihilsim and the likes of politicized groups like Nambla for all who are brave enough to face up to the logical ramifications of the rejection of the Divine and moral. I recommend a very important movie, not bedtime viewing, but philosophically I class it as one of the most important of our generation. "Intensity" Starring John McKinly Jr. It has one pivotal scene, where the heroine is tied to a chair and the 'bad guy' and her have a dialogue.. most instructive.

I'm trying to be 'sage like and wistful' in mood as I write :) hope it comes thru.
BOAZ

Does Atheism struggle to find a moral basis upon which to condemn NAMBLA? I hope more than most of us condemn it even if we don't strictly agree on a moral/theological basis for doing so...

Norm.. the thing I note, is that they are doing exactly the same thing, same strategy, same methods, as the gay lobby did some decades back. They just haven't to my knowledge invented a word to use as a negative accusation against all who disagree with them yet but I can see one coming "Namblaphobia"

If they were not pointing to the American psychological association for support, and icons of American History; and people like Grace Pettitgrew not exactly standing up to condemn such stuff..(that I've seen).

She made some comment that 'some societies practice beastiality' without making a judgement on it in one of her posts.

Atheists have no recourse except to an idea of 'universal morality' existing in all of us, but a quiet talk with a cultural anthropologist will quickly scotch that idea I think. (i.e. that such a morality is universally common) The closest would be the sense of 'right and wrong' being culturally relative and that we will do that which enables us to survive and propogate and enjoy.

You mean "people and cultures can do whatever they like as long as they don't do it to me and the people I don't want them to do it too..."?

Good morning Mr Boaz.

I'm not sure what your threshhold is for debunkment, but what I have seen certainly worked for me, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If you or Percy feel uncomfortable with that, or would like to trade arguments on the topic that's fine by me, but I think we will find there would be too many recursive loops involved for it to be either nourishing or satisfying. Still happy to give it a shot though.

A few minor points of elucidation though, if I may, on your interpretation of my last post.

The intention was not to outline a scheme whereby we could extract "something gratifying and wholesome and meaningful about the world". If my words are at some level capable of achieving this, I suspect that it would be at a very personal level, where an individual suddenly says "ah, yes, that makes sense". But this can only be, I contend, at a very personal level, and I would not intend or expect my thoughts to be widely accepted by any measurable constituency.

And the remarkable aspect of this is that the individual concerned might well have entirely misunderstood the meaning I had intended to convey. Or, put another way, if we had been in the same room and conversing on the topic, I might have been in a position to respond "well actually, that's not quite what I meant." Has this ever happened to you? I'm sure it has.

This was the background to my earlier comment about poor Mr Williams' reaction to the tsunami. It spoke volumes about him as a person, and his beliefs, and how he relates to those beliefs. Let me remind you for a moment of this reaction, which he chose to write down in an article that was published in the London Daily Telegraph. "The question, 'How can you believe in a God who permits suffering on this scale?' is therefore very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't - indeed it would be wrong if it weren't."

To me, this is a personal statement from an individual who experiences moments of doubt in his faith. I draw no other conclusions, such as "UK Prelate Denies God's Existence", which was I'm afraid a typical journalistic reaction at the time. I also am of the view that in his remarks to the effect that the tsunami was part of god's warning that judgement is on its way, Mr Jensen said more about his own moral compass than about his faith.

One more thing and I'm done. I have this tiny, tiny suspicion that by keeping an open mind on the subject, and accepting that "[t]here are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in [my] philosophy", I am free to continue to learn. You have no idea how much I value that freedom.

Boaz, I forgot one small item from your post that needs attention.

You managed to co-opt the term "moral" to your cause, leaving me only that loaded word "amoral" to work with. That was very presumptuous of you, and from a discussion point of view, quite naughty.

You are saying that atheists are by definition amoral. I'm not sure you justified that connection anywhere.

To then imply that all roads atheist lead to NAMBLA was a touch insulting.

Sage and wistful? Not in my book.

I was just asking what moral justification can be found to condemn NAMBLA, and if there is a moral justification, is it based on absolutes about human rights and if it is based on absolutes on human rights what is the origin of such absolutes.

David BOAZ says about me, "...She made some comment that 'some societies practice beastiality' without making a judgement on it in one of her posts."

Excuse me, but I said no such thing. Are you starting to tell barefaced lies like Timithy, Boaz, or are you just desperate for attention? You muddle-headed wombat.

GRACE.. humble apologies if I got that one wrong.. if I mis attributed.. I recall that remark totally.. I'll check further.
I love the wombat comment
BOAZ

Norm.. thats the dilemma.. there is only one source of 'absolute' truth and thats from God in the moral realm. But this requires faith, so its only absolute to those who take that step of faith. I freely admit this.

If one rejects the scriptural accounts, then the only alternative is the one I outlined previously (or an alternative 'religious' view) which boils down to 'make it up as u go' kind of thing.. to suggest that there are abiding principles outside of God to which we can all appeal is a faith position also, which would require a consensus, and unfortunately with morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam around.. it is rarely achieved in the natural world. Would the USA be any different were it not for its roots in the Judao Christian values ? Look at China, Japan, North Korea, Libya, Sudan.. only held back by power relationships. I'm taking a rather simplistic view here I admit..but hey.. with only a few paragraphs before the boredom meter hits on 10.. I can't avoid that.

GRACE !! yes.. I found the remark...and now I know why I confused it with you.

"Human societies do practice bestiality, sadism and so on. A role for the social scientist is to determine the extent of these practices in a stated society."

was stated by anti-green !! not you, your post was below it, and I mis read. Sorry about that. Unreserved apology.

Pericles.. no insults intended.

"You are saying that atheists are by definition amoral. I'm not sure you justified that connection anywhere."

I surely am not saying that 'atheists are amoral' in the social sense, they have morals, are quite nice, reasonable, friendly etc.
But my point was to show that the 'valid universal foundation' for such social morality is lacking. Indeed there are come common naturally observable things like self preservation, propogation and gratification, in fact, I think all human behavior can be shown to be an expression of one or more of those. This understanding of human nature does not suggest that 'stealing' is wrong. Its a good example of all 3 of those drives working together.

But stealing is either 'unpleasant and annoying' (for the victim) or its 'wrong' (for the perpetrator, and the victim)in the moral sense. It can only be wrong in the ultimate sense of right and wrong if a greater power than us says it is.

Mr Boaz, as I learn more about you from your posts on other threads (you can see that I don't get out much) it is becoming clear to me that you are a teller rather than a hearer, so I won't expect anything of substance from you in future. My loss, I know. But I couldn't leave without some form of mild rebuke. You said:

"there is only one source of 'absolute' truth and thats from God in the moral realm"

and you obviously believe it. That's fine, until and unless you post it as an incontrovertible truth, and draw from it inferences that can by definition apply only in support of whatever discussion you are having at the time, in this case:

"to suggest that there are abiding principles outside of God to which we can all appeal is a faith position also, which would require a consensus, and unfortunately with morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam around.. it is rarely achieved in the natural world."

My problem is that I can see in just this one sentence inconsistencies, non sequiturs and straw-man arguments which, to me at least, are simultaneously fundamentally unconvincing and somewhat patronizing.

I write the above in the sure and certain knowledge that it will not - cannot, in truth - upset your equilibrium in any way, shape or form. Have a wonderful day.

pericles
re your previous post about 'threshold of debunking' etc.. yep..I'd be interested in a summary of what u have and some url's I can also read up on.
And your comments about Mr Williams were sensitive and caring.

Percicles.. slow down.. I just finish one posting and your reply is there :) I'm trying to work.

Don't despair at my stubbornness.. if u see some ,what was that. "non sequiters' .. illuminate me.. no one would be more happy than I to have any holes in my position revealed as a source of further reflection on the matter..
So, pls give it a shot.

Ok Mr Boaz. I promised myself I wouldn't, but you did ask so nicely.

Inconsistent. You state in consecutive paragraphs that "there is only one source of 'absolute' truth", but immediately go on to "suggest that there are abiding principles outside of God to which we can all appeal is a faith position also, which would require a consensus". So, which is it? Absolute truth by definition admits of no other form of truth, but you immediately move on into the field of moral relativity - my truth is truer than yours. A position that would immediately allow truth to become open to discussion, not being absolute any more.

Non-seqitur. "Unfortunately with morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam around [consensus] is rarely achieved in the natural world". What on earth does the concatenation of these folk prove in this context? I could equally validly state that "with the different cultural histories of China and the US, consensus is rarely achieved". A lack of consensus doesn't follow (non sequitur) the random introduction of three villains, who are neither necessary or sufficient conditions.

Incidentally, did I mention Godwin's Law?

Straw man: (you are very fond of this one, and have obviously become adept in its usage over time) "This understanding of human nature does not suggest that 'stealing' is wrong... But stealing is either 'unpleasant and annoying' (for the victim) or its 'wrong' (for the perpetrator, and the victim)in the moral sense. It can only be wrong in the ultimate sense of right and wrong if a greater power than us says it is"

You set up the straw man "human nature does not suggest that 'stealing' is wrong", then proceed to knock it over with the greater power. Claiming that stealing is not wrong is of course a nonsense, and can be dismissed with any number of examples other that the presence of a greater power.

I don't despair at your stubbornness, since I do not see it as my aim to convince you of anything. I am here to learn rather than teach.

In the Larry King's interview (CNN on Jan 7 2005) a panel of six spiritual leaders offers their insightful views on the Dec 26 Tsunami disaster but none offer a plausible explanation for the causes.
Reference to the interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/07/lkl.01.html

The Muslim scholar Maher Hathout agreed that the tsunami was not a punishment thrown down by God. He said: ‘It was an accident.’

If we accept the possibility of the slightest, smallest, most insignificant accident, then indeed we must believe in a universe in which accidents are not the exceptions but the rule?

Once we accept that idea, then we must accept the idea of a random accidental universe, in which we are at the mercy of any accident in which mind or purpose have little meaning. In which we are at the mercy of all random happenings.

In such a universe, the individual has little hope for he will return to the non-existence that he came from. He has no control over his destiny and can be swept aside at any point by random fate over which he has no recourse.

The only answer to this is to realize that we form physical events - individually and en masse. We form and create the physical reality – including the Dec 26 tsunami

MWT....
Did u actually say anything there ? :) I'm not being sarcastic. Were u just saying 'stuff happens' ? I tend to agree to a point. But I would take the position that in the realm of nature/human/Divine interaction, there are moments when God, in providential action, includes us or overules us or events. When it comes to natural disasters in regard to general humanity, I'm of the view that 'stuff happens' and we need to be aware of avalanches, tidal waves, earthquakes etc when we decide where to build our lives and homes.

I dont see any point in living a lifetime of pretty much excluding God, and then suddenly looking for answers for disasters in our 'holy men'. Even lives lived in total committment to God, should not be saying 'why me'? in such situations.

Dear Pericles ..
ur response is appreciated. I come for two purposes, to teach and to learn, and to interact in ways which cause both me and other participants of the forum to reflect on our views. (as I suspect most of us do) My age and life experience of multiple cultures, languages and political conditions and anthropology entitles me to teach on some matters, not on others. I would not delude myself on matters that I'm not in any way qualified to speak on. Classic example-rocket science, or higher maths, or chemistry etc. In some of these cases, I can just pass on 2nd hand info that I've managed to glean and have a reasonable grasp of. I come to learn how to better put, the things which I desire to share. To be a better communicator.
If wish to speak on "The impact of the Christian gospel on slavery" I can speak with great confidence as my wifes grandparents used to be slave owners. I can introduce you to former slaves if u like. (indigenous Bornean culture)
Now, to your points. "Inconsistency" I'll just tackle that one point in this post, because it has shown that biting off too much in one post can be overwhelming and voluminous.(the other points) When we feel ok on this one, we can go on to others.

1/ "Absolute Truth".
I claimed that there is only one source of it in the moral realm. "Revealed Truth" is what I'm referring to there. To use a bit of old english, "Thou shalt not ...." etc There are a number of commandments of this type. This kind of claim does not exlude all other truth, but it rejects 'contrary' truth. e.g "Murder is ok....'sometimes'. ( I would not consider killing to defend a woman being raped as 'murder') "Adultery is ok ....'sometimes'.

2/ "Abiding Principles requiring consensus."
Note my word at the beginning "to suggest..." ; I am claiming that any moral principle outside of a revealed one, can only work when the community has a consensus that it is 'valid' and acceptable. Such principles only 'abide' as long as the community opinion leaders allow it to do so. e.g."It is 'right' that we enslave our enemies, it makes our work load lighter and expands our community, and weakens our enemies". This is viewed as a moral 'right' by most isolated traditional communities who practice such things. If some members of that community suddenly started setting the slaves free, they would be regarded as criminals. I was not trying to suggest that 'there are' abiding principles, other than this kind. I was in fact claiming that outside of God, ALL morality is relative.

I then went on to say that "due to" people who have a strong sense of personal manifest destiny and dominant personalities, not to mention rather large armies. These are the people who usually decide what will be regarded as 'right' and 'wrong' in the communities that they rule and they will proceed to socialise the members of the community along those lines. What happens then, is that most of them will actually begin to think and live according to those dictums. (as long as they don't mean suffering of that community) Anyone who demonstrates a contrary view would be sanctioned and disciplined.

By the way, u say u come to learn.. but the very way u express things is a lesson in itself. So, u have a teaching role as well. We all need the mild rebuke of our fellow pilgrims and yours are welcome.
With that thought in mind, I would like to leave you with a text from the 'good book' :)

23. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds.

BOAZ

I still have a major stumbling block with your concept of absolute and relative. Until we can breach this barrier, I think we can lose the rest of the dialogue.

"I claimed that there is only one source of [absolute truth] in the moral realm. 'Revealed Truth' is what I'm referring to there. To use a bit of old english, 'Thou shalt not ....' etc

If "Thou shalt not kill" is absolute, where does it allow for "I would not consider killing to defend a woman being raped as 'murder'" Your words, in context.

Since this "absolute" covers ground as wide and as deep as abortion, capital punishment and vegetarianism, I'd appreciate your view on how relatively absolute this one might be.

Dear Pericles
now we are getting somewhere .. good.
Actually.. the translation "shall not KILL' is not as good as it could be. I draw your attention to Jesus statement "If you eye sins, gouge it out" "If anyone would be my disciple, he must HATE his mother, father etc etc" Hebrew Idiom speaks in stark contrasts. It does not mean 'KILL' in the total sense of the word, if it did, then the punishment for various infringements of the Law (where death is prescribed) could not be true. "You shall not MURDER" is a more accurate translation of the intended meaning there.
Now. before we go down the path of possibly thinking that I am saying, (or the bible) that moral limits are prescribed in such detail that "a" is ok but "a+ or - .001" is not (to use your little friends :) I'm not suggesting this. The Jews had actually worked out something like 613 or so further sub commands (which fleshed out the 10 major ones) which they felt every Israelite must comply with to be fulfilling the Law (they STILL believe this today)
Jesus summed up the WHOLE law in 2 phrases "Love God" "Love your neighbour" .. or.. "do for your neighbour that which you would want him to do for you" The areas of life you mentioned can be addressed by the 2nd. The first is what gives 'absolute' authority to it.

U know, I just noticed that last little catchy phrase "how relatively absolute this is" ... I suppose now the crunch is, "its absolute for those who are in covenant relationship with God" in simple terms. 'true" for them.

My whole point is summed up in a standard illustration I use, about 2 guys on an Island with limited resources. That is the sum total of their world. They know of nothing else. One (a democrat) says to himself, "I'll call so and so, and discuss with him the careful sharing of resources which will maximize both our lives and enhance our lifestyle." The other, (probably a redneck) says "Hey.. this guy is in my way, I'll just kill him and have it all". Now, which one is 'right' well in a Godless world neither, nor are they wrong. Our sentimental sensibilities will immediately say "The democrat was right" but ulitmately... is it not possible that in view of how other cultures view such acts, our sensibilities may have been more shaped by our Judao Christian sense of fair play rather than an instinctive human quality of 'niceness' ? You see, given my belief in God, there is just no other place I can go in terms of morality than this. There is no way shape or form where I could suggest otherwise for how I should treat people.I dont want to be someones slave.. so I wont make someone my slave. etc etc. Although sometimes I wonder if I'm in fact a slave to the Commonwealth bankm -it owns more of me than I do.

I hope this helps in understanding my view. Keep going, I dont mind being criticized.

Boaz, I'm sorry if you see this as criticism. I posed the question because I think it is an important one.

But your reaction to my question has left me in even more befuddled than before.

What you have described surely invalidates for all time the concept of an absolute truth - or perhaps more precisely, the concept of an absolute truth that can be expressed accurately in the English language.

If the translation is imprecise, then it can only be an approximate truth, which you have chosen to interpret in a particular way, e.g. it's ok to kill someone if you have a good reason. (Sorry, I paraphrased just a little; you were more specific about the circumstances i.e. the guy who was about to rape your sister. But the underlying reality - a rule has been interpreted - remains).

Frankly, you'd be a lot better off with the Lacan faction, where context is all-important to meaning, and altogether subjective to our own preconditioning and experiences. That way, you could happily see your way to interpret all ten Commandments, in a fashion and shape that meets your own requirements..

Pericles, I wasn't saying ur comments were criticism, I was simply putting u at ease if u felt like I needed a verbal biff :)

What u say takes the discussion to a deeper level again. The subjective side of the use of language ..exactly. I dont dispute this. Context is ALWAYS crucial in obtaining meaning.
But acts like "murder" are pretty easy to define. "Adultery" is not difficult to comprehend. Using Gods name in a disrespectful way is not hard to detect.

So, I'm learning in all this how best to put my thoughts about the subject, and your incisive analysis is most helpful. The concept of how we even define words, which is itself a dynamic process is crucial also for this discussion.

Having said that. The concept of 'absolute' perhaps is better attached to the 'idea' than its specific expression ? "Love God" ..ok..'how' ? that was defined in the Old testament in terms of obedience to the Law and happy and cheerful obedience to certain rituals and the ceremonial and social life of the Israelites. It also included rejecting the pagan deities and the associated practices.

Ultimately it will boil down to the existence of a culture, a place and a time. With an available language of the day, into which God spoke/revealed Himself. I guess I'm driving at the fact of God's self revelation as being the 'absolute' aspect.

Moses encounters a burning bush, he goes to Mount Sinai, receives the commandments etc . He hears God. Abraham is called to "Leave your country and go where I tell you, you will be the father of many nations" When u look at the actual covenants between God and Abraham (Genesis 12 and following) Its all about the establishment of the Nation which was to be the vehicle of blessing to the world.

Just as a bit of trivia, most people find the reading of the old genealogies "And so and so was the father of whosiwhatsit, who was the father of..etc etc.. pretttty boring. But a study of these, the name types relative to the historical time when they were supposed to have lived, is an extremely interesting exercise. Sometimes in the middle of a list of 20 names u find "...who was left handed" !!! :) but all the rest were just names. Then later u can see many of these names have developed into tribes..and then peoples.

Are we closer now with 'absolute' truth ? Can u think of a better term ? "Revealed" ?

Truth as belief

We are in physical existence to learn and understand that our energy translated into feelings, thoughts and emotions, causes all experience. There are no exceptions. Once this is understood, we must learn to examine our beliefs as this will automatically cause you to feel and think in certain fashions. Our emotions follow our beliefs and not the other way around.

You must realise that any idea you accept as truth is a belief that you hold. You must, then, take the next step and say,

“It is not necessarily true, even though I believe it”.

The most hampering belief of all is the idea that the clues to current behaviour are buried and inaccessible. The answers are always there in our conscious minds

Examine your invincible and core beliefs – strong ideas about your existence; the way you build your life. Examples,” human nature is inherently evil”, “my life is worthless”; “relationships are pointless”. The first example at its worst will make a person not trust a mate, family, friends, colleagues, country or the world in general.

Once understood to be false, the other subsidiary and offshoots will fall away. Distinguish between the facts of life and the beliefs of life - a daunting task for many.

We must learn to disregard all beliefs that imply basic limitations, as there is no limitations to the self. Some originated in childhood, but you are not at their mercy unless you believe you are. Because your imaginations follow your beliefs, you can find yourself in viscous circles in which you constantly paint pictures in your mind that reinforce “negative” aspects in your life

Imaginative events generate appropriate emotions and the resulting hormonal changes in the body affect your behaviour with others or cause you to interpret events always in the light of your beliefs. And so will daily experience will seem to justify what you believe more and more.

The only way out is to become aware of your beliefs and your own conscious thoughts and to change the your beliefs so that you can bring them more in line with the kind of reality you want to experience

Imaginations and emotions are your great allies and will automatically come into play to reinforce the new beliefs.

Boaz, I'm not sure about the deeper level, but it sure is getting a little weird.

"The concept of 'absolute' perhaps is better attached to the 'idea' than its specific expression ?"

Absolute ideas, Boaz? Are you sure about this?

This is surely the type of justification used by " morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam ", whom you introduced into the discussion a little while back. I'm sure that the Final Solution was a pretty absolute idea, which was expressed in a number of specific ways.

Pericles
I don't think u read my post well.
You alluded to the limitations of language. I responded with attaching the absoluteness (divine validation) to the 'idea' ONLY in the sense of for example 'God called MOses from a burning bush' was an event reported. If u had four people report the incident they might give it slightly different emphasis. Do u get it now ?
If u want to describe every event in langauge which encompasses that event in all totality.. to the exclusion of all other possibilities, it would not work real well.
So, the 'idea' here was "God called MOses from the bush" I'm sure there is more than one way that can be reported where we totally 'get' the idea.
Example 2 "a hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron"
example 3 "a hydrogen atom consists of one electron and one proton"

If my mention of the 'idea' as absolute troubles you .. ignore it or, replace 'idea' with 'event' or 'speech' or some other tangable thing.

You say I didn't read your post well, but with respect, you did not make it clear exactly which part I had misunderstood.

I quote - no brackets, no ellipsis - your words exactly:

"The concept of 'absolute' perhaps is better attached to the 'idea' than its specific expression ?"

If the quotation marks and the question mark were intended to indicate that this was not actually a position that you hold, more a flag you are running up the flagpole then yes, I didn't read it that way. Perhaps if I knew you better, I would have recognized the signals, "aha, it's just old Boaz trying out a new line of thought, doesn't really mean it, the muddle-headed wombat' (thanks Grace).

And your Moses analogy went right over my head, I'll admit that immediately. Was there only one reporter around at the time? If so, are we looking at a totally uncorroborated report? What exactly did the other three see? Heat haze? A desert mirage? A nasty hangover from last night's arrack?

I would remind you that this line of argument started with your "One is faced with the ultimate 'choice' of a moral universe or an amoral one", following which you co-opted the moral universe to the banner of absolute truth, which you then managed to move to "Thou shalt not..." strictures.

I hate to say it, but the evidence is gathering, from your own hand, that you are just another plain old boring moral relativist like the rest of us.

Pericles
the concept I'm trying to convey seems to be eluding you.
Absolute Truth.. as I am using it, indicates 'rules, laws,revelation' which for the sake of a way of putting it simply "comes from God"
Now.. that is my overall fundamental simple point. Are we ok to this point ? "from God" or.. "from man" I'm placing together, side by side two ideas for comparison. "We know its wrong because God says so" and "we make it up as we go along"(naturalistic approach)

Now.. this leads to 'how do we know God says so"? Ok.. that leads us via healsville to the burning bush and the old bearded geyser Moses. Moses received information from God, then recorded it. (exodus 3.1-10)
"I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt.
I am concerned about their suffering.
I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians"

Now, no matter what one may or may not believe regarding the textual history of this account and authorship, the point I make is that this is (for those who believe) an example of divine revelation. It is God speaking to and calling Moses to be the instrument of salvation to the Israelites.
Therefore, u can clearly see that I, believing this, regard it as 'absolute or ultimate truth' in the sense I described above.
(Boaz looks for the glazing over of Pericles eyes.. nope.. still ok.. we can continue)

In similar examples, God gives such things as the 10 commandments.
My point with the reporting of the burning bush. or the hydrogen atom, was the the same event may be reported differently but still be quite true. I only mentioned that, because you seemed blurry about my statement that the absoluteness or divine origin could be attached to the IDEA.. being.. "God gave Moses the 10 commandments" but the actual details, are reported thus and so.
It seems you are attempting to apply some rigid structure of understanding to the words I use in some particular philosophical way when I'm just trying to get the point across about a human/divine encounter and how this is the only source of ultimate truth for determining moral values.
It goes without saying that one must BELIEVE this... for it to work for them,and I'm not arguing about that being the case, indeed I state that.
So, I'm not a moral relativist as all "you mob" are. (Grace.. shoo :)
I say. "We must not steal" .... because God 'says so'. Not because it makes me poor and the thief rich and he is benefitting unfairly from my labor. (a meaningless concept in a God less world)
You really SHOULD watch the movie "Intensity" (if u can stomach a psycho who slices, dices and blows people away and lectures the victims on the meaning of life as they die, while keeping a pre teen girl in his cellar surrounded with toys, waiting for her to reach a point of desire for him) You will SEE .. the 'moral relativist/existentialist/nihilist' in living technicolor, with no humanist window dressing.

I could easily exceed my wildest dreams of PB on the condacension scale here :) but I'll resist.

over to you.

All right Boaz, I'll bite.

You have a source for your absolute truth that you call "God".

I can't work with your concept of absolute truth on (at least) two grounds, neither of which have anything to do with Lacan or Derrida or Foucault or Count Basie.

The first is that I am dumb. Really stupid. From what I have seen of the world and its surroundings, I actually understand "that much". (Holds thumb and forefinger really, really close together.) However, by many of the measures we use, I am quite smart, when compared to other humans in my corner of society. (Breathes on fist and rubs furtively on lapel.) So in my more egoistic moments I think "how dare they tell me that there is only one answer, one absolute truth, when they know no more about it than I do." (Stamps foot. Unfortunately, on other foot. Whimpers.)

The second is that it requires a belief in your "God" in order to work. Which brings us back to square one. Without belief, you say, there is no objective, absolute truth. So, as you see it, only those who believe the same things as you do, hold the key to meaning and truth.

That might just register a new PB on the arrogance scale, my friend.

Pericles ...
ur learning my son :) (new PB ???) well at least one thing, and that is to enjoy debate, with the odd humorous embellishment..
Your observation is quite correct.. it works only for 'us' who believe (deluded ?? :). But hey.. "know no more about life than I do" ??? woah.. now thats UR PB on the something scale.
Maybe I DO know more about life than you.. in some areas. I'm sure I can't cobble together an essay on philosophical logic with A's B'c and when in doubt put C's. or "not" C ... but I do know a duck when I see one. (if u can work out the connection) (Did your head explode just then with the turn of thought ? :)

Ultimately, it boils down to our belief, u got that bit 100% right. I've not suggested otherwise, (that I'm aware of) even when I've maintained that there are only 2 alternatives for determining morality. But to reject God, you are still left with the barren wasteland of 'make_it_up_as_u_go' etc.

So, that leads to the important question of how can we nudge you over the barrier from disbelief to belief ? I suggest a reading of 1 Corinthians chapter 15 might be a cool place to begin. It kinda fits with the line of discussion we have been having. But I see the open hand going up and striking the (furrowed) forehead and the exasperated exclamation "I TOLDDDD this guy I am satisfied that his wild theories of intelligent design have been debunked to my satisfaction" whereupon I respond "I'm stubborn" :)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

We can't take the moral relativity discussion any further, because it has now reached its intended goal. Your participation and interaction has been welcome. We move on to other topics.

Mark, now that Boaz has chased himself up another cul-de-sac, and imperiously declared the conversation over, perhaps others can now offer you some thoughts in consolation.

We are all born atheists and must be taught to believe in religion, in nature, in the human condition, or whatever it is that our parents and society believe in. Your father came into this world an atheist, and as I understand it, left this world in the same way. The tragedy is not his death, but the manner of his death.

Suicide is a terrible act, because of the unrelenting anguish and confusion it leaves behind in those who care. You say your father did this because he was unable to resolve his personal questions about where we are going and what we are doing here, and his suicide was in the nature of a last act of defiance. That might have been a bit muddled, and certainly left a lot of pain behind, but perhaps that act of defiance is worthy of some respect in itself.

It is a simple observation of mine, for what it is worth, that these tragic existential questions are mostly asked by men, not women. The whole edifice of organised religion, not to mention philosophy and art throughout history, have been erected and pursued by men to assist them and console them in their quest for meaning (amongst other things like having fun).

I don't mean to start a gender debate here, and bring the lone father's association of women-haters and the god-botherers swarming back, or upset my feminist sisters either. I am making the observation that women "generally" do not ask these sorts of questions of themselves - although they might be very interested in what it is that men are thinking, and might often seek to enter these existential realms and make a contribution.

Generally speaking, women throughout history have been busy in the "real world", and this is perhaps one of the reasons that we hear and see so little from them in the history of religion, philosophy and art. (Another reason being of course, that they were not "allowed" to participate.)

Women give birth and are at the fount of life's creation, which many men throughout history have found desperately hard to accommodate or accept in an existential sense. Hence the invention of male gods, men-only organisations and institutions, and an afterlife where all will be revealed and women are still the handmaidens. These are the consolations of men who are unable to accept that women make life happen on this earth.

Women are also the primary carers for children, the sick and the elderly. (Men who involve themselves in similar pursuits, either domestically or in their professional lives, seem to me to be generally less prone to existential nightmares.)

Perhaps it is that women, at a very general level and mostly without conscious awareness, find the true meaning of life through caring for others, including their children, and at the very least, are able to answer those hard existential questions with responses like; I am here, and I must survive, because my children need me, and I will live on in them after I die. That is my afterlife.

It is after all, the "reason" why all other living creatures on this planet strive to survive, so that they can pass on their genetic material to their offspring. Humans who worry about what happens next can either accept that children are the real meaning of life, or invent something else to fill the void, if they see one.

What I mean to say is that your father might well have spent too much time in the world of the mind, as you say, and too little time in the real world with his own children, and those around him who loved him. Perhaps they could have given him the reason to be, and the courage to die content that his life was worthwhile.

And one last thought. The mystery of music never ceases to absorb me, and gave me some peace of mind as my mother bravely endured and finally succumbed to a long, slow and painful death recently. I hope you have some music in your life.

Grace
that was a caring and insightful piece. I was only declaring that the issue between myself and Pericles was at point where we could not go much further without becoming circular. I'm not trying to shut out other discussion.
I was struck by what you said about women being the main care giver, nurterer etc.. quite an admission from a self confessed feminist, and very welcome. Strange, thats what we 'MCP's have been saying all along. Perhaps we all actually AGREE ..... hmm..

HANDMAIDENS IN HEAVEN
Handmaidens is the place of women in the afterlife? well actually in Islam it is, (70 virgins as playthings, if ur a matyr) but the Christian faith sees absolute and total equality in heaven. Interesting that when one considers that the suggestion that 'religion is the invention of humans, and is meant to reflect their own desires'.. that the Christian heaven would have no sex in it but it sure has large doses of love, happiness and joy.

MALE GODS
Grace, the ancient societies like the Canaanites had both male and female. They engaged in cult prositution. Worship, included sex with the priest or priestess. I hope your not suggesting that the Israelites just 'made up' a male God to justify their partiarchal culture, because all cultures of that time in that area were Patriarchal to my knowledge.


MEN ASK THE QUESTIONS
Grace, I mentioned a speaker in another topic u might be interested in, and having just listened to one of his messages, I'm sure you would find it beneficial even though u might not share his views on many things. But he does touch on sexism and the very issues you raised in this last post of yours. (beware, he shouts a lot)
http://www.tonycampolo.org/messages.shtml
message title "Staying Balanced in an Unbalanced World"
He refers to the point about men being more 'principle' oriented and women being caring. Just as u suggested.
He claims that difference is due to our socialisation of males and females. He has some very humorous illustrations too.


As for Mark, and the death of his dad, u said 'act of defiance'.. to who ? If it is to God, then I can't see the point in it. Its a defiance that says "I will not accept you as you are" Is it not saying "If you ARE there, why dont u get with 'my' program of how you should be"? Please dont see me trying to be hard or cruel, I'm trying to fathom the issue as much as you. Marks dad might even have had low seratonan levels ? Perhaps his mental condition was medically related ?

I'm happy to park moral relativity if you are, but sure as eggs it will be back.

So if we could tiptoe gently around that for a moment and look at this statement of yours:

"But to reject God, you are still left with the barren wasteland of 'make_it_up_as_u_go' etc."

I'm not going to comment on the content of this, just the form. What you have done is to say "if you don't do X, then you must do Y." My objection to this is that whenever you do it - and trust me, you do it a great deal - is that you proceed to base all your arguments on 'Y'. I made the same comment earlier when you juxtaposed moral with amoral, and proceeded to rip apart the concept of "amoral".

I find this tiresome, in that it becomes necessary to pare back your argument from your issues with e.g. amorality, and ask you to talk about the original statement that led to the issues in the first place... but you are already 'way past that point, and racing off into the distance.

Hey, I'm new around here. I've been posting just one working week, so I've no idea whether I'm out of line in saying this. But to have a healthy discussion, rather than just bandy words about, we're going to have to work on some basics.

Deal?

Boaz, my post was addressed to Mark, but I should have realised that you were not far away, still trying to round up your non-existent flock. Just a couple of quick responses and then I am leaving you to your own thoughts.

You have a very limited understanding of feminism, no doubt gleaned from all your right-wing fundamentalist christian websites, and not from actually meeting any real live women outside your own "flock". You seem to think that there is some sort of contradiction between being a feminist and caring for others. Don't be silly. You should try to understand that women, being the stronger sex, are quite capable of participating in the workforce, pursuing other interests, and even running a country, at the same time as giving birth, bringing up children, and looking after others. It is happening all around you, if you lift your head from your keyboard occasionally. I doubt you could manage half what most women accomplish in their lives, and still you prattle on about the merits of biblical patriarchy.

Boaz, I am well aware that there were once female dieties, going right back into "prehistory". The earliest archeological finds all show worship of the female principle, not male. This makes sense because our paleolithic ancestors did understand that women are the givers of life. It was only during biblical times in the middle east, where your history begins, that the female dieties were overthrown by jealous male gods and the reign of the patriarchy began. Women have been resisting ever since.

Please don't refer me to your fundy websites Boaz, I am not interested and won't be going there. They give me the creeps, with their weird sexual obsessions and contempt for democracy, tolerance and diversity. Not to mention women. And I suggest you spend a little less time on these websites and listening to vicious american preachers. Step outside and feel the sunshine on your face. (Come to mention it, that's where I am going as soon as I finish this!)

It was Mark who said that his father killed himself as an act of defiance, not me, so address your question to him. I wish you would do the authors on this website the courtesy of reading what they say occasionally. You spend far too much time preaching extempore instead of listening, but I think someone else has already told you this.

Having said all that, I too wonder whether Mark's father might have been in the grip of a depressive illness. How terribly sad that no-one was there to help him, if that was the case.

Hi, All.

Some interesting discussion. Maybe its best if I just dump thoughts, rather than try to direct to individual people ...

The theme of my piece was supposed to align with what Einstein said about religion and science - the former being blind without the science; and the latter being lame without religion.

Intuition tells me there shouldn't be a battle between faith and reason. I beleive that arguing is pointless,ultimately, because I believe absolute truth, while real, cannot be articulated - it's too fast for the objectifying mind; only the heart can sense it. Hence, Pascal's famous quip that the heart has its reasons of which reason is ignorant.

I think this is where the righteousness of religion is limiting; it's belief that the Bible or Qur'an can adequately capture things. I think such words are meant to be metaphoric - and if you accept such, there is little point becoming desperate about someone else "getting it". You can't compel (not even convince) someone to find God - or nudge them into belief, as Boaz desires - because it manifests a contradiction: "Why are you in my face trying to argue for something you just a moment ago accepted was ineffable"?

But, then, reason must also be constrained. Because the truth DOES run through the mind on route to the heart, our reason cannot help but think it has a chance of "understanding" God, heaven, life, truth, etc. It's confusing. This was the essence of Kant's quote - who gives us reason and then denies us the ability to reason the existance of God.

All I think we can do is acknowledge the dilemma: neither faith nor reason is sufficient, yet their integration is problematic because each refuses to submit to the other.

The closing quote was from St Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury from way, way back). I think his words are wise because I beleive we have to put faith "first" if we are to have a fighting chance - we have to keep believing their is a reasonable purpose for humanity that has yet to be unearthed. Like the current Archbishop, you have to hedge your bets a little - which is something of a contradiction - but that is the only way.

This is obviously very tiresome - and I basically think my father gave up. I believe a lot of men do this, but he couldn't live with himself.

I don't think women endure the same dilemma: they are built to always put faith before reason. Men slip into the loop of justification and end up being unable to break out, as the mind cannot possibly find a reason for suggesting the mind is "useless". You cannot think why you are thinking too much - there is no "too much" for the boundless mind.

I think men know they are "different" to women at some near-spiritual level, but don't want to admit it because we don't quite understand why this is. If you like, our very purpose incorporates a search for the solution to the difference, in the hope that with it, we can collapse all into the utter sameness of the whole.

Suicide is not rational - it is an escape from the excesses of rational thinking. I think my father thought he was defying God - but I don't.

Music is very comforting - largely because it is absolute; it cannot be reduced; it is pure "in the moment". If you are part of the harmony, there is no mind left to distract you from the ultimate reality of now.

The trouble is, man cannot rely on such uplifting releases (music, sex, alcohol, religion, philosophy) - he must let go of his arrogant mind unconditionally if he is to ever understand his true purpose.

Mark

Dear Grace

Flock ? *mystified look*
As for the rest....
That little burst was off the scale on the prejudice meter. That is further demonstrated by what you 'think' u would be hearing from Tony Campolo :)

To be honest but blunt.. "you don't have a clue" about much that u posted.

On patriarchy and women. Please read Judges 4 PLEASE..... it mentions a woman named Deborah.

"Deborah was unique among the women, and men, of Bible History in that she was prophetess, a judge and a military leader all in one - a powerful triple combination of authority and responsibility held by only two other Israelites, Moses and Samuel."

Now, can u please EXPLAIN this situation in terms of the 'Jealous male gods and the women oppressing patriarchal system' ? If you are going to make outrageous statements, at least make them be true ones.

Fundy web sites and their.....

"weird sexual obsessions and contempt for democracy, tolerance and diversity. Not to mention women"

Grace.. you could not be further from the truth. I've HEARD messages from them, I KNOW what u mean.... this is not like that. Tony's message on a balanced life sounds more like a Christian version of YOU than the hate trotted out by those fundy ones. Clearly you have listened to some of them or you would not have made that comment.

Tony is a radical sociologist Phd and has given more of himself to loving and helping the disadvantaged children of Haiti and other places than most of us put together.
He has seen large companies transformed by some of his actions, even to the tune of a 100 million dollar re-development program to turn 'profit making' land into food cultivation for the locals.
They did it by buying one share, turning up at the stockholders meeting and shouting out that the company was all wrong.
Please don't condemn the man by stereotyping.

http://www.tonycampolo.org/messages.shtml

"Staying Balanced in an Unbalanced World"

If u can point me in the direction of a feminist web site with real audio messages which fairly represent your views, I'm most happy to visit, listen and evaluate. In fact I'm eager to do so.

Its not me who needs to move out of a small and incestuous group of web sites, its you who needs to look more widely than the said small group of sites which you delight in attaching my views to.

I have read and re-read Marks article. I've responded to it. Not all, but those bits I can most relate to.

You and I cross paths on a number of issues, so I respond also to you.
I am adamant that you are viewing me, and my position thru very limited and narrow glasses, using cliche'd categories rather than looking beyond just what I say. If u think I have a narrow view on feminism, ok.. help me to broaden it :) From what I've seen, you are the (welcome) exception rather than the rule.

Hope the sun was nice for ya. Not much here in Melb this afternoon.

the WOMBAT

Well, none of us will ever know the reality until we die.Where were you before birth?In truth our awareness of being only grows with experience and education.We become more aware with the trials of life.If we knew the truth or reality of God or the truth of nothing but an eternal void,there would be no courage involved in living life.Organised religion can go and get stuffed,I believe in the religion of science and logic,that which gave us time to escape the realities of mundane survival and time ot indulge ourselves in creative,constructive thought.

Arjay: ‘none of us will ever know the reality until we die”

Perhaps it may be so for the vast majority, but there are higher beings and portions (inner selves) of some beings that already understand the unknown reality.

Man thought once, historically speaking, that there was but one world. Now he knows differently, but he still clings to the idea of one god, one self, and one body through which to express it.
There is one God, but within that God are many. There is one self, but within that self are many. There is one body, in one time, but the self has other bodies in other times. And all 'times' exist at once, i.e. simultaneously.

The unknown reality may appear esoteric or complicated, yet they are not beyond the reach of any person who is determined to understand the nature of the unknown elements of the self, and its greater world

Each individual is a part of the unknown reality. There are many with psychological awareness that bridges worlds of which you are consciously aware, and others that seem, at least, to escape your notice

This known reality is even more precious, more "real," because you will find it illuminated both within and without by the rich fabric of an 'unknown' reality now seen emerging from the most intimate portions of daily life.

Your concepts of personhood are now limiting you personally and en masse, and yet your religions, metaphysics, histories, and even your sciences are hinged upon your ideas of who and what you are. Your psychologies do not explain your own reality to you.

They cannot contain your experience. Your religions do not explain your greater reality, and your sciences leave you just as ignorant about the nature of the universe in which you dwell.

These institutions and disciplines are composed of individuals, each restrained by limiting ideas about their own private reality; and so it is with private reality that we will begin and always return, period

When you don't realize this, then you project upon life after death all of the old misconceptions. You expect the dead to be little different from the living--if you believe in afterlife at all--but perhaps more at peace, more understanding, and, hopefully, wiser.

The fact is that in life you poise delicately and yet perfectly between realities, and after death you do the same.

MWT.. wow..that was a bit convoluted...

Sounds a bit "Hindu" ish to me ? or are you in to some spiritualist group or something ? Please fill me in.

ARJAY we can know, in this life, but it does begin with belief and faith, in Christ. Not the Christ of 'some organized religions' who put ArchBishops palaces, in as you put it, but the Biblical one, the one who humbly washed his disciples feet.

Paul put it best in this place (have a peek at the ref mate, its very good logic and reasoning.)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015%20;&version=31;

Our faith is based on concrete, historical events of the highest importance.

Azlan pointed out to me that one of the foremost atheist thinkers of our century (Dr Anthony Flew) is now a Deist. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/09/210618.php
Please don't see this as "my scholar can beat your scholar", no, this guy is not a Christian, but his ideas have changed purely in the light of the compelling evidence itself.

I'm not qualified to debate at that level, but I offer it to you as support regarding "Belief in God, in Christ is not so silly afterall"
For me, the conversion of Paul is more striking than Flew's change of heart. Paul was on the way to exterminate more of those he had already wiped out. I mean..this guy was a killer, a genocidal fanatic ! It was not a small thing to change his mind and heart.

Boaz, when I get to his age, I don't expect to be thinking very clearly either.

Dr Flew: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins. It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Hmmmmmm.

Dr Flew is 81.

Up scope....
yep..I know that.
I just threw it in for some discussion. He seems quite bright still.
down scope...

Cosmic Saddam Husseins? These are his idea of deities? And you're cool with that?

Awww, c'mon!

Pericles
its your turn to outline your alternative to my dualistic view of morality.
By the way, if u look at the article "There is no room for moral judgements in Australia" by a Professer Meldel I made a few rather 'rabid' comments on his view :)
P.S. r u in Melbourne ?

I found what Mark wrote originally very thought provoking, but his second post seems to leap to a few conclusions about suicide which sounded wrong to me (especially as a woman who once made a typically feeble attempt, but whose sister eventually succeeded in hanging herself).

I googled quickly and found this:-

http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/facovr1a.htm

There are some facts here for anyone who is interested, plus some amusing stories, like the one about the woman who took an overdose and timed it to co-incide with her partner's return from work, with a note pinned to herself saying "If you love me, wake me up" and her partner went down the pub for the night without waking her, and she died.

Otherwise, most of the debate on this forum is completely over my head, but I do have a story about "God" which happened to me, which I share here for anyone who might be interested.

Just as background, I myself have absolutely no position on GOD either before this happened to me or after. If pushed to give an answer/opinion, I would say I was confused, but not unpleasantly so.

About 5 years ago, out of nowhere I suddenly found myself staying up nights wondering what life was for, having never given it a moment's thought before. (I was a middle aged successful CEO). Eventually that thinking distilled itself into a question that seemed ungrammatical to me, but that didn't stop me asking it of my husband, who happened to be around; "What is truth?" He asked what I meant. I said I didn't know, but I still had to know the answer to this question.

Whereapon, my 10 year old daughter (a very typical TV viewing, junk food eating public school girl - most decidely a product of contemporary secular life) , who had overheard me asking, sighed heavily,came up to me and said:

"Mum, I'll tell you what truth is"

She grabbed my left hand, stroking each of the fingers in turn, from the thumb through to the little finger, saying "That's Honesty", "That's Trust" "That's Happiness" "That's Love" "That's Reality". Then she stroked my palm, "That's Forgiveness" and, then, folding my hand over, "That's Faith". That is the Truth Hand. We are born into the Truth Hand, and we grow into the Greed Hand"

"Who the fuck told you that?" asked my husband.

"God" she said " God tells us all, but we forget"

After that experience, I'm kinda with mwr above, I think!

Dogtired.. that was precious.

One of my friends from Church, had a wife who developed schitzophrenia, and after a number of attempts, she succeeded also, in hanging herself. I found it difficult because the week before we were chatting.
You said u didn't have a position on God, yet 'out of the mouth of babes' He spoke to you :) Most of us have blindness. It is a blindness that has been produced over many years, presented in small sound and movie and news bytes, all conspiring to give us a 'bad' image of knowing God. "Rabid right wing".."bigoted Fundamentalists"... etc.

When what it boils down to is what your daughter said. All those things are what a relationship with Christ means.

"Truth-What is truth" Pilate asked of Jesus.

"I am....the Truth"
"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free"
"I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly"

Some positive 'word bytes' from Him.

Boaz

"its your turn to outline your alternative to my dualistic view of morality"

As far as I can tell, your dualism is as deep and as meaningful as "one rule for them, one rule for me". Your clumsy sidestep when I asked for your interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" lost you any credibility with your concept of "revealed truth" you might otherwise have had.

There is no dualism of morality, Boaz, there is simply the fact that we are here for a short time and are obliged to make the best of it. Part of this is living by a code that extends the period of time between upsetting or harming your fellow human being.

Your religion is the lens through which you see the world, and that is of course your prerogative. I don't envy you either your faith or your conviction that you are right, although these must be a great comfort to you. To see the world in such a limited fashion is to deny yourself one of mankind's greatest gifts - curiosity. I would absolutely hate to enter a room full of people who disagreed with me, and to come out having learned nothing. Yet this, I'm afraid, is the fate to which you have condemned yourself.

Religion is also the lens through which many theists of various other persuasions are looking, some genuine, some simply using it as an excuse to acquire power. The problem that so many of us non-religious folk have is that the two types are difficult to separate - hence the tendency for us to see religious conflict as inseparable from religion itself. We know intellectually that this is not necessarily the case, but when faced with moral absolutism of any nature it is wise to treat it with the utmost suspicion.

Incidentally, I have tried searching for that article you mentioned '"There is no room for moral judgements in Australia" by a Professer Meldel' but get no hits, could you please point me in the right direction, thanks.

Pericles....
All I asked for was your view..not a broadside.. specially one of pity.
You have assumed I am not curious about life, because of my implied 'one track' mind. I'm incredibly curious, but I'm no scientist. I love reading history, but not ploughing new ground about molecular biology. I just don't have the patience nor the intellectual equipment.
CREDIBILITY. My comment that 'kill' should be translated 'murder' is clear from many angles. While the hebrew does state "KILL" it is clear from the context that the HEARERS of this would understand it as I explained it. If not they would have recalled this when God ordered them to eliminate people under judgement. Also when called on to sacrifice animals etc. Further, Jesus himself quotes this "You have heard that you shall not kill" but I say anyone who is ANGRY with his brother etc etc." So, HE knew what it was meaning. I wont revisit the rest of my previous responses, u can read them anytime.

SORRY FOR ME
Puh-lease :) don't go there.

See your next post moit.

Boaz, please don't put words in my mouth. You can quibble about what I say, that's what we are here for, but please don't confer on me thoughts or feelings that I have not revealed. I did not say that I feel pity for you, I did not say that I feel sorry for you. I simply said that I do not envy you.

My point about curiosity was that if you look through a rose coloured filter, everything looks pink. The great thing about an open mind is that you can always be surprised by your own thoughts, which is pretty exciting.

As for the difference between "kill" and "murder", the picture that springs to my mind is of a vegetarian friend who always refers to beef as "murdered cow". Not everyone thinks that way. But I also know two very committed christians who differ considerably on the topic of capital punishment. One says "it is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder" which the other says "an eye for an eye." Which is right, given that we are talking absolute received truths here?

PERICLES..sorry.. the old 'implication' factor again :) no biggy.

as for your friends who have differing views about the kill/murder issue. This doesn't surprise me. I would come back to basic principles of interpretation. Contextually, keeping the cultural and historical situation in mind, the 'do not murder' interpretation is pretty sound. Eye for an eye, was meant to 'limit' the punishment and represent a just solution rather than an eye plus a couple of legs for an eye kind of thing.
Not all Christians are up to speed on some of this, but also, u will see those with differing views of scripture who will come up with all kinds of things. Those who don't believe Christ rose literally will be more towards this or that direction.

Absolute Truth, or better put "Divinely sanctioned Moral Truth" will always be open to a degree of human interpretation and selective application. Not because the idea of 'Do not Steal' is difficult to comprehend, but humans by nature enjoy 'spinning' things to either avoid punishment or to promote self interest. "Sure I stole it, but he was a ratbag"....

Your Christian friends, demonstrate "unity in diversity". Paul faced the problem in Corinth "Some say they follow Apollos, others follow Paul," He gives them a nudge about not following 'people'. There were times when he was in prison, and people preached Christ just to make his situation worse, and others out of envy, but he said "As long as Christ is preached,I rejoice".

The point I've been leading to in all of this, is not the idea that we can have a set of 'rules' that we can follow and thereby attain some level of perfection and acceptability before God. My emphasis on 'absolute truth' etc, its not about a ridid set of laws. No laws, rules or set of precepts can make a scrap of difference to a person. It always boils down to the relationship of the believer to the object of belief. A close inspection of the old testament will show this also. Even with its emphasis on ritual and ceremony, it was the condition of the heart which was paramount.
My oft used addage "New people make good government, not new systems"
is rooted and grounded in this also.
Jesus said "Come to me all who labor and are burdened down, and I will give you rest". He didn't say "come and follow this set of rules". Its relationship first, rules 2nd.

Hope this sheds a bit more light on where I'm coming from :)
I'll go back to that other post you did where u hinted I might be able to work out its source now.

Boaz, I think with your last post we have truly come full-circle.

"Divinely sanctioned Moral Truth" will always be open to a degree of human interpretation and selective application. "

This is the "make it up as you go along" morality that you have poked fun at so many times. Did you really mean to say this, or have I misunderstood you yet again?

"No laws, rules or set of precepts can make a scrap of difference to a person."

Hey. I thought that was my line. I won't have anything to discuss with you if we keep making this sort of progress.

Hi mate :)
look closely at what I'm saying.

Stretching, tugging, selective application do not change the truth itself. That simply shows how humanity ticks.

See my other post in response to your michell foucault quote.

Its full circle.. but what a ride :) Just think of all the trees and mountains and valleys and animals we have seen on the way round ?.

Even a circular journey can be 'illuminating' :)

Pericles

one more thing.
Have u ever wondered why Jesus taught largely in....parables ? :)

Violence, killing, murder & natural guilt

When you kill a man, you believe that you kill him forever. Murder is a crime that must then be dealt with. Death, however, does not exist in those terms. In the dawn of physical existence, men knew that death was merely a change of form.

There is never any justification for violence. There is no justification for hatred. There is no justification for murder. Those who indulge in violence for whatever reason are themselves changed, and the purity of their purpose adultered

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.
Compassion “rose” from the biological structure up to emotional reality. With this freedom and free will man is faced with responsibility for action at conscious level and the birth of guilt.

For example, a cat playfully killing a mouse and eating it is NOT evil. It suffers no guilt. On biological levels, both animals understand the roles they play. This does not mean they will not struggle to live, but they have a built-in unconsciousness sense of unity with nature.

Man on a conscious level and with compassion achieved emotional realization.The hunter is forced to emotionally identify with its prey. So to kill is to be killed. The balance of life sustains all. We are to preserve life consciously, then, as the animals preserve it Unconsciously.

Natural guilt is the species’ manifestation of the animals unconsciously sense of justice and integrity. It means: Thou shall not kill more than is need for thy physical sustenance.

Dogtied (like the name).

Nice story about your daughther. It makes you think, which is part of the problem, I suppose.

It may be best to not discuss the reasons/rationale for suicide. It's a trap like trying to understand God. Then again, as Pericles suggests - you wouldn't give up your curiosity for quids.

We struggle on ...

Mark

Mark... its 'dogTIRED' :)

Boaz, "going in circles" is, to me, a pointless and frustrating journey for an argument to take.

Brushing this off as "haven't we had fun along the way" simply doesn't wash.

The act of discussion is supposed to help people understand better the other's point of view, and in the process perhaps learn a little. I have never been particularly happy to argue for argument's sake, simply because it demands no intellectual rigour - think of Monty Python's Argument sketch. If no-one is willing to subject themselves to the discipline of logic, or to be consistent in their approach, no-one learns a thing.

You said:

"look closely at what I'm saying. Stretching, tugging, selective application do not change the truth itself. That simply shows how humanity ticks."

"Stretching and tugging" when used in the context of argument, is a way to examine a proposition, to find out whether, or even how much, it is understood. Claiming that this somehow does not alter "the truth itself" is seems to say that only you can decide what it is. Which, as it happens, is exactly that which I find difficult to accept.

"Stretching and tugging" as in (from another of your recent posts) "a given truth will be tugged and stretched and pulled this way and that by vested interest" is a substantially different proposition to me. This is because I see an enormous difference between a personal view of the world, which gets proffered in discussion, and the "absolute truth", which is precisely the topic being examined. To me, it is illogical to assume the answer, and then rebut all contrary propositions on the basis that the "truth" is already clear.

Conflating the two - "stretching and tugging" referring indiscriminately to both argument and "truth", makes it appear that if you argue against the proposition, you are arguing against "truth". That would be, I'm sure you agree, breathtaking arrogance.

Your reference to "selective application" however is a straight ad hominem insinuation that I take the points you make out of context, which I deny absolutely.

Have a great day

Hi Pericles.
another good effort !
Before I forget, have u considered writing for newspapers on various topics ? You should ! A friend from Church had an article published last week or 2. You have a gift. USE IT :)
Now, going in a circle does not mean you or I have learnt nothing.

Stretching and tugging, selective application.
P, I think u misunderstood my intent there. I was in no way suggesting that YOU make selective application, I was speaking more generally.

ARGUE/DISCUSS TOWARD TRUTH.
yes.. ur right. That should be the goal. And it is my goal. But remember what I shared about 'Christ died'= fact "for our sins" = interpretation. The diff between us on the fact of Christs death is our understanding of it. That's not about selective application or tugging and stretching. Its a position we arrive at thru faith in my case and lack of that same faith on your side. Not a criticism, but an explanation of why we have gone about as far as we can go on that thing. I happen to feel there are very solid and reasonable grounds for accepting the interpretation of 'for our sins'. But to reach that position requires the acceptance of the reliability of the documents which report it.

Truth can exist by itself in the form of an event. "Person A killed Person B". Now.. lawyers for 'A' will seek to stretch and tug at that to show it was 'justified' or to weaken the prosecution case which will be to attempt to emphasise the willfulness and culpability aspect. Neither approach will change the fact that A killed B.
Am I sufficiently distinquishing my perspective here ?

The only thing left would be to attempt to 'prove' or reduce the negative probabilities in your mind so that u also can arrive at the same faith. Or in ur case, possibly the converse to me. but faith seldom comes thru that approach.

Please don't thing the exercise has been without merit or value, I have found the encounter quite an education :)

I’ve never been a spiritual person and nor were my parents. As a child it never entered my mind that there was such a term as “Atheist”. When I became aware that others had beliefs in the supernatural I was simply in shock. Left to my own devises and raised as I was with no comments regarding such things here in Australia I never thought much about the possibility. Stories were stories and myths were myths.

However as an adult I consider it a real possibility that if everyone suddenly became "Atheist" it would be a simple case of another ideology taking its place. I consider this the unfortunate nature of man. Man has needs and often uses his views for destructive purposes. Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous. This is why I don't label myself. Why give oneself a label and then spend ones days defending it? I let others do that. You may label as you wish.

Perhaps an ideology that preaches, "be good to thy neighbor" and that offers "hope" is a touch better then a cold Political ideology that in practice “may” end up causing greater harm. I don’t claim any knowledge regarding such things but the thought has crossed my mind.

My Grandmother had Alzheimer’s and lost virtually all her memories. It seems obvious to me that memories have a physical form in the brain. My only conclusion is that when you die you will cease to remember having ever existed. This is not a very good essence or soul. Others may be able to interpret such evidence differently and perhaps these people are more gifted then me.

How do religious people interpret facts regarding brain damage?

I’ve always been curious, as I know that being religious does not mean being stupid. It just seems that case study after case study of brain damage victims reveals a direct link between brain structure and function. When we see what is taken away from an individual in terms of personality and the like. I couldn't convince myself that ones memories are restored after death even if I desperately wanted to.

After looking death in the face via the sudden and unexpected loss of both my brother and mother it seems obvious to me that death is the end. That life is frail and unfortunately there is nothing more to it. I simply wish to do the very best to enrich the lives around me and keep smiling. I do this not because of some super being with a brownie point checklist but rather because I have such empathy for all fellow beings, religious or not, human or not. For me that’s what life’s about. These are my beliefs.

My mother and brother were bother were both strong atheists. My mother worked hard as an English teacher and devoted an enormous amount of time to charity work. She was an awesome mother and gave an unbelievable amount in life to all people. Both were killed in a freak accident. I can't help but have a degree of anger at people who say that she, after the life she gave, is now burning for an eternity in the equivalent of a nazi gas chamber called hell. To me it equates with saying that she "deserved" to be put to death or locked up in prison.

This is of cause an atheists perspective because I am assuming that “some religious people” believe anyone who does not believe in god is evil, immoral and "deserves" to go to hell rather than "will" go to hell. My inner ethical compass is so apposed to such a notion. I can’t help but feel religion of this kind is monstrous and barbaric in the extreme. My ethical compass stems from empathy. If I feel pain I know that others do to. Some people don't have the ability to feel for others and may need religions hand to direct them.

For those of you who hold a strong faith and conviction in an after life and a universal justice I really hope you are right. There is nothing wrong with such a faith even if it turns out to be “factually incorrect”.

For those who believe that heaven is not about giving and being charitable to your fellow man but rather about believing in a book written by men and a feeling that may turn out to simply be written in the brain by chemicals and a belief that all who do not believe are going to hell - I truly think you are wrong and unethical in the extreme for dismissing one of the most basic of ethical premises - empathy for your fellow man - religious or not.

I have some religious friends and some atheist friends. Personally I just stay way from labels. All I really know is that I was made by my parents and they were made by theirs. Evolution has a strong case - up until organic molecules have to form a simply living organism. No doubt we aren’t any closer to solving that one accurately but so what. Knowledge does not come from ignorance. I’m just happy to say, “I don’t know” because I don’t and neither do you. If evolution was some how proven wrong and an alternate idea was proven correct I would not have any problem appreciating the new theory/fact or what ever it is. The only reason I feel Evolution has such a strong case is because of all the little facts that point in its direction.

Not all atheists are militant like for example, R. Dawkins. Some are just strongly without (A = without) theism. Still I worry about people who have to label themselves. Any reflective person knows that no one is born with religious belief. They are educated into it. Environment is the most important factor. I’m the same as I was when I was born. I have no knowledge and until I do the question is simply rhetorical.

Albert Einstein once said: “A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man”.

These are my thoughts as well.

Beno
I can understand your feeling and situation. But needless to say I don't share it.
I truly wonder about people who 'do good' without reference to God. I just 'dont get it'. 'why'? I just cannot see any reason to do other than indulge ones-self in carnal pleasures for the duration of this meaningless life. (if God is 'not') u may not see this, but I draw your attention to it because it is the dilemna addressed by a lot of major philosophers of the existential ilk. (Sartre and others). Even existentialist web sites usually declare openly that once u take away God, everything becomes absurd.
http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/cree/ have a read of this.

I think the desire to do 'good' without reference to God, actually stems more from our cultural conciousness which itSELF comes from our Judao Christian heritage. The point is, that without God, its just as much an option to be 'evil' as we would understand the term, as it is to be "good" and in the end, it just doesn't matter, because this is all there is.
The other point I'd like to make is that the Christian faith is based on historical events, well attested by witnesses. It's worth thinking about.

BOAZ_David
So are you saying that the “standards” created but Christianity have flowed over into society and have given structure in the way of standards to peoples lives. I feel that there are many avenues to standards and that they are mostly in place to help a society “work”. I have no problem with the notion that I have been influenced by Christian standards.
I believe strongly in standards. Without them society would not function. They contribute to the world I want to live in and I am prepared to give up certain freedoms to keep contributing to this world. A world where children have the safe secure upbringing I did and where people help eachother. Sadly the world is dog eat dog and it has nothing to do with atheism.
So why do so many non-believers like myself remain faithful to our wives and partners, refrain from drugs and adhere to the standards of society. I refrain from such things because I have empathy for other people and because I can so clearly see the pitfall of a society that does not have such standards.
Surely you don’t believe things just because it's written in a book or passed down via word of mouth from over 2000 years ago?? History is written but people not truth!
Also why is it that… “High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. : See Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
This is not to say that atheism causes such things but rather that these things cause atheism".
Just some thoughts
Beno

Beno
you raise some interesting issues.
Our culutre (western) is intimately linked to the Judao Christian heritage, yes. But to try to outline this in a few sentences would be overly optimistic.
One issue is that the newer atheistic philosophies of life, such as from Neitzche and Sartre, and others, take time to filter down to the masses. Not only this, the masses actually find it most difficult to accept a world based on such fundamentals, where atheism leads to nihilism....http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

"nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history."

He reasoned thus, because when there is nothing to believe in, humanity has lost its anchor. Any decency in such a society is not based on its basic beliefs, but on a sentimental clinging to ideas that deep down it knows to be false, but which it cannot face. (for atheists I mean)

As for nations with strong atheist tendencies and the correllation with societal health. My goodness, such a connection that one is due to the other is tenuous at best, ludicrous at worst, and seems to be ignoring quite a lot of history.

I read your link, can I offer one to you also ? please read the whole chapter
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

From what I can see good education, good medical access and a good standard of living correlates with greater disbelief. I feel that under such circumstances people are less likely to cling to religion. Where people have to fight to survive they need to believe in something more to give them purpose and structure in life. They need the community of church and the comfort of their belief. I don’t think this is a wild statement.

I am certainly not a nihilist and neither are most non-god-believers. I have no problem with the notion that I take a leap of faith in believing that there is a rational explanation for everything regardless of our ignorance. I feel that if the computer in front of me stops working it is because the hardware has broken or that there is a programming error. I believe that every one of the millions of computers in the world today works for a reason will break for a reason and may get fixed if we know the reason. I could be wrong and I’m not dogmatic.

I also believe in freewill. The determinist may say that an unbroken chain of prior occurrences determine every physical event, including human cognition and action. I believe that this is a little unfounded! I have the ability to pause, discern and decide. Even if the choice is just an algorithm in my head. Therefore I am responsible for my actions!

I must say though that the "Fundamentalism" I have seen among young people seems to be preoccupied with the notion of self – “my salvation” “my relationship with god” and “my peace of mind”. People in this group proselytize and concern themselves with conversion while the more moderate Christians devote time to expressing their faith via charitable acts. I have no problem with the moderate religious belief. I just feel that extremes of any kind are dangerous.

Hi Beno
yes.. I think you observed correctly that the various social 'devices' which give us a sense of adequacy and security tend to blurr any sense of need for divine help. Fortunately, knowing God is not about that. Less mature Christians often TURN it into such a thing, but they are babes, and this is understandable. Knowing God is an act of covenant relationship, of privilege and obedience and a sense of 'shalom' which is much more than just 'my' peace of mind etc along with all the other 'my's that u stated. Shalom is a wholeness of being, not just the absence of outward threat or pressure, but also of inward tranquility in the knowledge of being connected to the greatness and holiness of God thru on-going repentance and forgiveness thru Christ.
Did u read the chapter I offered you ?

BOAZ_David
It seems that god makes you very happy through… “inward tranquility in the knowledge of being connected to the greatness and holiness of God thru on-going repentance and forgiveness thru Christ”. I do not wish to convert you to no-belief. I only wish to state my peace and say that non-believes are not all that different to you. We get up, go to work, pay the bills, support our families and do the best we can. We just happen to believe deep down that all “revealed religions” are absolutely nothing more then “inventions of the mind”. As Susan Greenfield says… “I hope it's not offensive that we question religion, for example. I try to sit on the fence and say if someone has a religious experience, it can be matched by a change in a certain part of the brain, so how do you know if it comes from there or planet Zog?”…

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/duncan1.html

The chapter is a lovely fairytale as is the bible. It’s not as though I haven’t read this kind of thing before. It does seem a little quaint that people take it so literally though. No doubt your relationship with your god is far my well defined and selfless then the one presented in the hank analogy…

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

But to me it all reads as the same.
Just some more thoughts

Beno, I had a read of your links.
U didn't tell me if u read the one I gave you from Pauls letter to the Corinthians.

BOAZ_David
Yes. I can see why so many find comfort in the thought that they have a soul and that while the...”body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable”... It is truly a lovely thought and a lovely fairytale. Unfortunately my mother is not in heaven nor is she in hell. She has ceased to exist altogether just like every other generation of living thing before her. I have no problem with this, nor does my father and nor did his father – who, on his deathbed was also and atheist. But go on believing BOAZ_David for it makes you happy and there is nothing wrong with that!
Beno

Beno
Life and death are but two faces of your eternal, ever changing existence, however, feel and appreciate the joy of your own being. Many live into their nineties without ever appreciating to that extent the beauty of their being.

You have lived before, and will again, and your new life, in your terms, springs out of the old, and is growing in the old and contained within it as the seed is already contained within the flower.

The YOU that you consider yourself to be is NEVER annihilated. Your consciousness is NOT snuffed out, nor is it swallowed. You are expanding your psychic structure and becoming what your soul is
Rest assures that death is another beginning. A death is just a night to your soul.

The integrity of the self and the soul exists beyond the possibility of annihilation, as you yourself will continue to exist regardless of which path you choose to take - dying after 30 years, or living physically on for many more.

In other words, you will continue to exist and to be fulfilled within that love you sensed.

Beno
the important point I was trying to make in that chapter, was of the connection of the gospel to the historical/real death and RESurrection of Christ. Paul knew it, experienced the risen Lord, his life was turned around 180deg, and he is explaining in very unmistakable terms that if this is not true, then obviously we are to be 'pitied' as deluded wierdo's, people who believe something, suffer for it, while all along KNOWing it isn't true. In his case, he was stoned and experienced numerous sufferings. Would 'you' do that KNOWing that it was all because of a lie ? Most people who suffer for a lie, at least sincerely believe it to be true, does Pauls testimony sound like that ? Please Read the following, to see on what Pauls writing in Corinthians (which u previously read) is based on.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=9&version=31

MWT You are referring of course to the idea of re-incarnation. I draw your attention also to the fact that Jesus Christ is the judge of the living and the dead, and urge you to consider your own position before him both now, and on that day when u meet Him after physical death

Man Called Christ was NOT crucified

God did not sacrifice his dearly beloved son allowing that son to be physical. The Christ ENTITY desired to be born in space and time, and to straddle creaturehood in order to serve as a leader, and to translate certain truths in physical terms.

Each of you survives death. The man who was crucified knew this beyond all doubt, and he sacrificed nothing.

Judas arranged for a substitute to be crucified in place of Christ himself. The "substitute was a personality seemingly deluded, but in his delusion he knew each person is resurrected. He took it upon himself to become the SYMBOL of this knowledge.

The man called Christ was not crucified. In the overall drama however it makes little difference what was fact, in your terms and what was not - for the greater reality transcends facts and creates them You have free will. You could interpret the drama as you wished.

It was given to you. Its great creative power still exists and you use it in your own way, even changing your symbolism as your beliefs change. But the main idea is the affirmation that the physical being, the self you know, is NOT annihilated with death.
This comes through in distortions.

The whole concept of God the father, as given by Christ, was indeed a "new testament". The male image of God was used because of the sex orientation of the times, but beyond this the Christ personality said, ....the kingdom of God is within (among) you. (Luke 17:21)

Another Bible quote states:
“Know you not that you are the temple of God and Almighty God dwells within you

In a certain way the Christ personality was a manifestation of the evolution of consciousness, leading the race beyond the violent concepts of the times, and altering behaviours that had prevailed at that time

Every culture seems to have had religion – Pre-Christian ones included. It seems to me that the question of how an ideology/religion develops and why people need it is complex as is the question of why Christianity has been so successful as a faith.

Perhaps every culture creates myths and legends and moral parables as way of …
…”Leading the race beyond the violent concepts of the times, and altering behaviors that had prevailed at that time”.
I really like this line mwt

Many wars have been waged in its name but then people use anything at hand to wage war… probably not religions fault but rather peoples. I have to say as an aside though that moral absolutes created by religion, which are unable to change and adapt could be dangerous. Seeing things in black and white is never a good thing and it’s this fact that often starts wars in the first place.

The notion of the afterlife and the soul is all very nice but… well… I can’t help but agree with comments here:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qa2.html
For example:
…“If one starts talking about soul, one's arguing that there is a principle which is involved with brain in some way, and which carries personal information about you when the brain dies. Now from the point of view of our current science, that's an impossibility”

And yes I know - we non-believers do death a little poorly. Sorry bout that.

This is a comment on solitude, its nature, its development and its present expression in my life. One of the statements in this thread was on solitude and I wanted to extend the theme. I thank Anthony Storr for his book "Solitude."
_____________________________
THE ARENA

Another week of talking and listening—24 hours worth. Family, friends and community activities—all essential and unavoidable parts of my social constellation. In this my 63rd year this extent of social interaction is about as “heavy” as it gets. I sleep it off and in two days my psyche gradually gets back to normal, to a working order, to the tranquillity of silence and creativity’s somewhat overwhelming forces. Where did my former social enthusiasms go? Rubbed out by degrees over half a century from the age of 5 to 55? The roles of: student, teacher, friend, associate, colleague, husband, father, step-father, uncle, cousin, taxi-driver, milkman, steel-worker, editor, writer, tutor, lecturer, union secretary, Baha’i chairman/secretary/committee member, book and vacuum-cleaner salesman, clerk, patient, truck-driver, researcher and more-- roles that filled the air with words to varying extents all drawing forth my social energies, some social quotient and leaving me, by temperament and circumstances at the age of 55, preoccupied with internal processes of integration, with a desire for repose not activity and with a passion for study.

This latter, this academic, activity which now supplies each hour and each day with perpetual pleasure and an equal passion for coherence and order in the realm of thought and writing have turned the source of my happiness away from the social domain, outside the arena of human interaction. And so it is that I avoid the social and the emotional and their respective entanglements–Ron Price, Pioneering Over Four Epochs, 19 February 2007.

GOD’S GRANDEUR

On February 23rd 1877 Gerald Manley Hopkins wrote his famous poem God’s Grandeur. About one hundred days before the termination of the confinement of Baha’u’llah in the prison city of Akka, Gerald Manley Hopkins, then in his last year of training for the Jesuit priesthood, wrote what for me has always been one of the great poems of the last two centuries. This poem resonated for me much more as I got older after first coming across it in the first year I was a Baha’i, at the age of fifteen; but during my Baha’i pilgrimage in Haifa the penny really dropped insofar as the meaning of this poem is concerned. I will leave it to the reader to follow up and reread Hopkins’ poem God’s Grandeur. What follows is my own translation, transformation, reworking of this poem as I apply it to Baha’u’llah and the Baha’i experience. Of course for Hopkins “the central fact of the world is the mystery of the Incarnation, Christ the Word become flesh.”1 This is the centre of his theological perspective just as the Baha’i concept of Baha’u’llah as the manifestation of God is at the centre of mine.-Ron Price with thansk to 1Paul Mariani, A Commentary on the Complete Poems of Gerald Manley Hopkins, Cornell UP, London, 1970, p.91.

The world was charged with the grandeur of God.
It flamed out1, like that shining from shook foil.
Yes, it gathered to a greatness, like the ooze of oil.
Crushed it was-and lit in the Siyah-Chal-and lit, lit.
And while the last lights off the black West went,
oh morning light, westward swings, oh morning light.
And now the whole world broods with warm breast
and with, ah, bright wings.

But still men do not see His dearest freshness
the deep down things. After generations have
trod, trod, trod and the world is smeared with
blood oozing, drop by drop, God, God
our hearts now can barely feel, nor our feet, being shod,
anesthetized before these iron feet of God.

1 Baha’u’llah’s release from confinement