Each to their own God, if they believe they have need for one.
Society is not advanced with assumptions made, by one religion or sect, of their superiority over another while accompanied by public lobbying.
Fortunately, Australian society is constituted with no preferment in relation to particular belief in the matter of religion.
Let us keep it that way.
The Talmud, the Bible, the Koran will continue to have relevance to some individuals. As will spiritual philosophies such as Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto, or whatever. But the progress of society should be based on the reality of human social needs and benefits - in the way it has continued to develope over the past two centuries. That development has taken place often with the assistance of people using the banner of religion. But possibly even more often it has been in spite of religious dictates.
Whatever religious persuasions underlie social lobbying groups, they should not be in denial of reality of our social development: That development which is part of our evolutionary heritage since mammals first came onto the scene a hundred million years or so ago. Such reality as encompassed within Mary White's book "Earth Alive"

Hi all

Colinset (post 10:18:03 AM 7/3/06)

You're entitled to your anti-god stance. I once thought as you do - until providence saw everything which I treasured stripped away. That was in 1999 & subsequently.

Humanists, as you appear to be, are self-survivalists until a mammoth calamity strikes. Then the fallibility of mankind becomes clearly visible.

I am always amazed at how eager individuals are to accept the hypothesis of Evolution based upon the claims of other humans. Just as with all science, there becomes a time when it refutes itself - the earth is no onger flat, Thalidamide isn't beneficial, mankind can actually overcome gravity, etc

A genuine study of the relativity of C14/C12 & the diminishing properties of C14 - called Carbon Dating - places all earth's living fossils & fauna discoveries at 10s of thousands of years.

I wonder what we'll discover within the next century to prove &/or disprove mankind's erronious beliefs?
(7/3/06)

To: Peter & all

It is interesting to reflect over the utterances of others about certain traumatic events. Such events might include a "natural disaster", but will be better-revealed in the paradoxical emotions & passions following a well-publicised crime. I give as an example, such cases as theEbony SIMPSON, Anita COBBY, Janine BALDING, Michael MARSLEW, "Granny Killings" & the "Backpacker Murders" tragedies. Undoubtedly, the killings of Azaria CHAMBERLAIN & Virginia MORSE could be added to the list - as could many others.

I have an affinity with all those cases because my mum was killed in 1990 by a then 17-year old drug addict whose background was a pathway of 'alleged' abuse by those whom he once trusted - both 'allegedly' relatives & friends, & most certainly government instrumentalities - & a series of wrong choices made by him.

His crime has not gone unpunished, but in the broader context it can be understood. His perceived choices were clouded by minimal education, & the brutality metred against him by those who surrounded him from when he was 8-years old. Nonetheless, what he did is not to be excused. ...

...(t.b.c.)
(7/3/06)

Cheers all

Hey Little...,

I wonder if you read what you wrote. You accuse Colinset of beleiving in something that you say cannot be proven. I agree.

I must also state though that the belief in a God or other power controlling the earth etc is, bluntly, beyond belief. At least evolution has sciencitific evidence albeit not conclusive. I couldn't compare one with the other though as science is one of our only truth's and religion is the biggest human deceit.

Peter unfortunately continues to write about the world's greatest fraud as if it were reality. It is for those who simply accept what is not sustainable but the existence of a God is based solely on Neanderthal thinking. Extremely primitive and based on fear.

Religion is, and has always been, a political tool. Read Henry the 8th's history for clear evidence of such. If you can create a new religion simply to support your desire for a divorced woman it is a false religion, as they all are. Lust was his religion, plain and simple.

To take the text of genesis 1-11 seriously, you should interpret according to the style of writing, which is historical narrative. Ignoring this is merely placing your own desires and views into a text was intended to mean something different.

In this same way you can also take a single verse and use it whilst ingoring many other verses to get a shallow and myopic view of christian theology

tldr

Pegasus

I belief in God, I belief Jesus is the son of God, and it is not based on Neanderthal thinking.

I try my hardest not to judge people, however this does not mean I will agree with all of the people all of the time.

Joseph
7th March 2006