The basis of your belief is a document (The Bible)written by many different people often after the supoosed event had occurred. We have no way of knowing all, some or none of the writings are authentic.

Make no mistake about it, I want to believe, what a wonderful world it is if there were a higher power or everlasting life etc.

Supposing it did exist, there are hunderds of religions, all with different beliefs and documents, so why would any rational person take a punt on one of them when you have the likely chance you will pick the wrong one and possibly follow false prophets/gods?

Your chances of picking the right one lies with luck and your culture, and that is IF it existed. So what is a person to do?

No wonder there are non believers in the midst, the world is a smaller place now and with information flows enabling choice and greater perspective, it is common sense that this would begin to happen. i think its great that if they dont believe but still want to go to church, it shows perhaps they value certain aspects of it that they find positive, away from the belief system.

So if god exists, who will God look at in a better light? Those who follow false idols/gods, or those who for fear of picking the wrong God abstain from following a specific religion/cultural teaching altogether? To you guys does every muslim, hindu, johovahs witness, mormon, buddhist etc go to hell?

The gentlest dismissal of that melange of myths and scams known as religion was uttered about 200 years ago, in an alleged conversation between Pierre Simon Laplace and the Emperor Napoleon.

“Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Later when told by Napoleon about the incident, Lagrange commented: Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.
Quoted in A De Morgan Budget of Paradoxes.”

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Quotations/Laplace.html

I suggest their are many more greater minds (Newton being just one of thousands) than the author that are and have been strong believers who know that true science actually enhances their faith rather than diminsihes it. More and more scientist are now seeing the numerous flaws in the evolution theory. Anyone with an open mind will see that what they read in the bible is reflected in the world.

Another example of Sells dimwitted "religious" provincialism!
Especially in a day and age when we all have access to all the Sacred Scriptures of the enture Great Tradition of Humankind. And in a day and age of Quantum Reality, as signalled by Einsteins famous equation E=MC2, when everything is quite literally inter-connected and more importantly made of LIGHT.

Real God is not the maker of conditional nature.
Real God is the unconditional nature (or most prior condition) of conditional nature.
Real God is not merely the cause of all causes and all effects.
Real God is the source and the source-condition of all causes and effects.
Real God is not the objective source and source-condition of all causes and all effects.
Real God is is the perfectively subjective source and source-condition of all causes and all effects.
Real God is not ouside you.
Real God is not within you.
Real God IS You (Perfectly prior to your apparently objective conditional self, and perfectly prior to your apparently subjective conditional self, and, therefore, perfectly prior to your total, complex, and merely apparent conditional self).

I am just wondering does anybody know if the events a Fatima in 1916 were fact or fiction? Might be an example of God showing himself in the 20th century?

Well I believe in a god of sorts after all how is anything possible with out something that is godly in nature?
But then again I think by the 9/11/3006 humans will be almost godly in the way we perceive it today.

Does anyone think it strange that the 'originator' of what is called Christianity, Christ Jesus, in the days immediately prior to His ascension did not leave a structured church. He did not command His Disciples on how to observe what became to be called Christianity. Did not tell them how to ordain a ministry let alone give them the titles this ministry were to use, what days to observe, or how to observe them, what size candles to use and when to use them, how to make incense and the size and manufacture of the censors, the patterns of the frocks of the ministry or the colours of these pretty dresses :-),the shape and colours of their funny hats,mitres,caps,crowns etc, Christ Jesus left no, absolutely no church manuals or dogma at all. I should think that Christ Jesus knew that He would guide those He called Himself through His Spirit without the aid of a ministry, even one trained in a cemetery err seminary. God is and God is in total charge and absolute control of this world whether man agrees or not. Regards, numbat

Not being a theologian, I tend to look through Sells' pieces for sentences that can be understood by the layman, to use as possible signposts to the point that is being made. Here, I found many sentences that I could understand from a literal point of view, but few from which I could wring any meaning.

However, the article spoke my language - I thought - in two places:

>>The assumption was that we were all Christians and we thus all believed in this God. That is just what Christians do... but what worries me is that critical theological thinking only goes so far and then cops out when it comes to the question as to how God exists. There is an element of double book keeping here<<

Aha, double book keeping. The keeping of two sets of books, like the corporate plunderers of Enron. Makes sense - a foot in both camps, as it were, one view (God exists) for public consumption, and another (God cannot exist) held privately. Could be seen as hypocritical, I suppose, but then we all have to make a living as best we can.

But then Sells comes back to the theme somewhat differently later on:

>>Christian worship can be astonishing and can be at the centre of life as long as it is saved from the double entry book keeping that places God somewhere else and from the deadening naturalism of the scientists.<<

Double entry bookkeeping is a fish of a totally different colour. It is the means by which an accountant can record a transaction in a way that ensures the books will always stay in balance - one entry in the debit column (nearest the window), and another exactly balancing it in the credit column (nearest the door).

But as Sells would readily admit, there can not and never can be a balance between scientists, who speak only of what they can observe and test, and the theologian, who is free to invent, colour and embellish at will, without the tedium of a discipline that ensures a consistent and credible outcome.

REALIST said:

1/ “Make no mistake about it, I want to believe”

COMMENT: this is indeed good news !

2/ “why would any rational person take a punt on one of them when you have the likely chance you will pick the wrong one and possibly follow false prophets/gods? (EXCELLENT_question.)

and

3/ “Your chances of picking the right one lies with luck and your culture, and that is IF it existed. So what is a person to do?” (another great question)

RESPONSES.

1/ as Jesus would say “My son, you are close to the Kingdom”

2/ “by their fruit you will know them. Can good fruit come from a bad tree ?”
Meaning ? this is referring to false prophets.
“Many will come saying “He is here.. there.. do not follow them”

TEST: Panders to carnality....or not.

Realist mate.. the ‘many books’ by ‘many authors’ is not an insurmountable problem.

Have a read here first:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
It won’t convince you, but it will (I believe) encourage you to a higher objective confidence level.

Then..have a look at the real world contemporary hooks used in Luke here.

LUKE 3
1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

COMMENT
Note the words ‘Annas AND Caiaphas’ is a historical hint which is supported by Josephus. Normally there was ‘one’ high priest.. but here it mentions 2... this is so accurate it ain’t funny. Luke was thorough, reliable and trustworthy in historical matters....why not also spiritual ?

3/ The RIGHT one.

I only know of one faith where its founder died for mankind then rose from the dead.
As testified by http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

There are many pagan myths, but they are just that- myths. Gods fighting,chopping each other up... good grief.
Christ....is the ‘right’ one.... no question about that. Forget about‘which denomination’.. just look to Jesus.

Sadly I do not grasp whatever is the main point that Peter is striving for. I am not without preparation, having been an ordained minister with a bachelor of divinity and a masters in theology. I realise that communication between humans about the ineffable is a big ask, so I am not knocking Peter. But could it be put more simply for a struggler like me. I won't put a label on my "faith" but I believe in a "something that is beyond any likelihood that I will find out about" So, I give up, I am an agnostic. But I also believe that there are heights to human existence, experiences of being aligned with something good and the possibilities of good and evil. I value knowledge about how others have struggled with the meaning or lack of meaning about existence and what is good and bad, and in my best moments I crave to be a contributor to the good - that I suppose makes me a secular humanist. But, I have given up on hoping to know anything about God. Sure it is sometimes interesting to know about how some others have struggled with the idea of God. So I would like a clearer, and perhaps braver description from Peter about what he means when he refers to God. Is he just as secular as I?

I'm rather echoing Fencepost's sentiments here, I think..

"The increasing detail of scientific knowledge fails to ignite the spirit, tell us who we are or trace a hopeful trajectory. "

Well, that may be true, but what of it? That's not the purpose of scientific knowlege. It may have undermined a belief in God, which may have done those things, but such is the price we pay for having a better understanding of reality. There may well be no answer to the question of who we are. There may be no hopeful trajectory capable of being traced. If we want our sprits ignited, we'll have to find some other way.

"The way should be open for modern men and women to become believers, there is no essential conflict as regards the nature of the physical world."

So if I were to become a believer today, what is it that I would believe? Therein lies the problem. The moment you start to enumerate the content of the belief you lay it open to scrutiny, and few are going to be willing to believe things without a better justification than that doing so will make them feel good. We know that snake oil has been sold before, and found wanting.

If we started out from scratch with our current scientific understanding, but without being weighed down by the religious baggage loaded onto us by our less scientifically enlightened forbears, would it even occur to us to invent a God, in whatever form, in which to believe?

Sylvia.

I can't accept the bible as being the Word of God at all. In the main it is just spin on the part of the various authors to justfy their perceived position of the tribes of Israel and Judah as God's chosen people. Its authors are the original "spin doctors".

On the position of science, your statement that "The increasing detail of scientific knowledge fails to ignite the spirit, tell us who we are or trace a hopeful trajectory. " I will have to stoutly disagree. I would suggest rather that the more science discovers, the more we should be in awe of the magnificence of God's creation Those who would rail against scientific discoveries are denigrating the work of the Creator.

Ever since our species had time to draw on the walls of caves and reflect upon the awareness of self,we have yearned to escape our mortal chains.Spirituality is difficult to define.It seems to be our aspirational self wanting to escape the pain and mundane things in our lives.

Under our democratic,secular society where all things are questioned,there is nothing to replace the moral and ethical constraints that religion once put on our behaviour.Religion is not based on fact,but it served a purpose of putting constraints on anti- social behaviour.The West is in serious family/social decay and seems to be oblivious to it's imminent destruction.Our present dilemma is how to replace the constraints on the negative attributes of our humanity,that religion once facilitated.

There is no way the Muslim Hierarchy will ever accept democracy,since it means a dissolving of their powers,and the eventual decay of society that they are witnessing in the West.The legal disease has replaced common sense and community spirit.We have rights with few responsibilities peppered with bad manners and self indulgent egotism.

As Muslims become more powerful,so will we see the rise of other fundamentalists religions,primed,ready to take their turn in the sun.

The New Testament isnt all good news for example :
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

peace and love hey , makes me glad im a athiest .

What of man demands God be expressed and understood by man? What man must come forward and say, I above all have been touched by God? God has spoken to me and granted me authority over you. Here are Gods commandments to you. Follow me.
Early man believed God showed himself in the deranged. Some one at some time became jealous of that attention and decided such potential for social control ought to be in their hands. Religion is it's name and the manipulation of your faith is the game. Not Gods will but, rather man's want.

TassieDave....
Some Jews have mock funerals for offspring who believe in Christ as Messiah. Thats the kind of thing Jesus is referring to...
jdrmot@tpg.com.au for more info...

To commit to Christ in discipleship "If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross etc" it can often mean us being at variance to the beliefs of our families. You know what can happen to a Muslim who becomes Christian... right ? "Apostate!...slice!". Jews have been known to have mock funerals for those who embrace Christ as Messiah. You should try a bit harder to see the big picture.

Sylvia and Fencepost.
Sells is trying to make the idea of belief in God more relevant to modern man, based on his understanding of Science,Scripture and faith. He gives himself away by such statements as

<"We do not have to believe that the miracles actually happened for them to confront us with truth. We do not have to believe that the resurrection of Jesus consisted of a resuscitation to understand its centrality for us.">

I respond with Pauls words "If for this life only, we have hoped in Christ, we of all men are most to be pitied"...(1Corinthians15) That pretty much says it all. Without the resurrection.... its all a waste of time, our faith is meaningless. Now..given Sells on one hand and Paul on the other -I'll go with Paul..(sorry Sells :)

Miracles confront us with truth ? which truth ? "but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20.31)

Fencepost..I feels sad reading your words. "Masters in Theology"....then "I am an agnostic".
Remember Festus cry against Paul?

"As he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are crazy! Your great learning is driving you insane!"

Certainly not 'insane' in your case, but it seems to have caused you to miss the mark.

"For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain" said Paul.

Christian atheism consists in a retrieval of the God of the Bible who is identified in the events of the particular nation Israel.(End of quote)

As that nation committed genocide, murder, rape and wanton destruction I take it that god is a war criminal murderer rapist and vandal.

How does God exist? God exists only in the minds of those who believe in him, or her, or them; depending upon who happens to be the deity of your choice. (Hi, I'm Freyia; I'll be your god for today!)

Returning to the Christian god, whom I understand to be more-or-less the Jewish and Muslim god, and about whom this article was written; we are told that he created man in his own image. Man thus had a creator; if man - having a creator - was the image of the creator, then it logically follows that the creator of man must have himself had a creator in whose image he was made. This ultimately, and quite quickly, leads to the ludicrous conclusion of an infinite number of creators. This one might call the Russian Doll theory of serial creation.

Believe in god if you will. It is your belief has created god.

Well I must say that I am not much clearer about the nature of God. I am not even sure if the term "nature of God" is an oxymoron if God's otherness makes Him not tied into nature. Indeed is speculating about the nature of God in conflict of the second commandment prohibiting us to make an image of God?

When we are created in His image are we exact replicas, or perhaps a Picassoesque imperfect, two dimensional image. Is it the physical or mental or moody part that is similar?

I do get the feeling that the discussion if God is the Word or the Event or something else easily lead to theological hair splitting as none of these theories can be proven.

If Peter wants to prevent our secular society from slipping into a post-Christian society he'll have to do better than this.

Reynard, you have got it wrong.

Man has created God in his image despite what a search in Google will tell you. It is all spin.

Jesus refered to himself as the "Son of man", http://www.itl.org.uk/why_jesus/wfj_12.html so that gives us no clue as to the physical nature of God.

VK3AUU

Mate... people 'invent' gods which do what 'PEOPLE' want.. for example.. the god of Mohammed allowed him to have something like 13 wives including a child. Not a bad god eh ? But this god of Mohammed only let HIM have that many women.. the 'ordinary' believers could have 4.. but wait..theres more.. they could also have as many slave girls as they liked (were allocated)..so..problem solved. The god of Islam "As many women as you like" and lets face it.. what sells better than SEX.

Jesus "If a man so much as LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery with her"...aah...

Quite a contrast wouldn't you say ? Sounds just like something a marketing manager for MTV hiphop Rock video would come up with...NOT....

Did Jesus have this 'anti sex' thing? Not at all...he underlined the importance of the RIGHT place for unrestricted, totally enjoyable, thrilling conjugal relations with the person you commit your LIFE to...."

Have a read of Daniel 7.13 for info on the meaning of 'Son of Man'
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=7&version=31

See..I make it totally easy :)

What a tragic waste of time ! How can mature people justify spending hours reading and quibbling and praying over an outdated and competely useless text/s around two thousand years old and of little relevance to us. The basic values which seem the last resort by which to justify silly superstition are common to every society, before and after the Old and New Testaments. We don't need religion to tell us that loving our neighbour is good, etc. It's simply common sense. Maybe this kind of religious debate keeps people from causing trouble on the streets, and keeps retardees occupied. But it would be so good to see these poor folk taking action against some of the ills of our age rather than endless and stupid debates over the rights and wrongs of their little cults and the nature of a non-existent God.

Kang, I do believe you have hit the nail on the head.

Oh, Peter is back to some teddy talk. How cute but what is "Christian atheism"?

I suppose for Peter it goes something like "believe in the power of faith" which is simply saying believe in belief? LOL The connection between thought and action is never considered because where is the need reinforced with an effective assessment of the situation, strategy, and the appropriate action to be taken? If the subconscious message is one of "simply believe, and it will be so." then this is nothing more than a cultural codification of ancient magical thinking, a solipsistic dream, a drug, a mind virus and its implied corollary is "don't think negative thoughts, you might cause bad things to happen".

When people and in particular Peter here talk about belief one needs to offer some clarity because belief is difficult, but belief in belief is easy. My point is that religion is simply belief in belief for its own sake rather than belief derived from some factual information which is where intelligence evolves. It is remarkable how many people in a community will be happier to accept someone who never thinks but declares he believes, than someone who thinks deeply but has doubts or questions. For many people, our brains seem to treat beliefs we consider to be true, almost exactly the same as facts. Therefore we need to learn to distinguish the two.... and it is that simple. e.g. Just state the role of bringing your mind and perception as close as possible to the apprehension of the physical reality we all inhabit ... i.e. the world that IS. It's beautiful isn't it? When it comes to the nature of reality, if we want truth, we absolutely must not preconceive but just open our eyes, our minds and OBSERVE ........ because understanding and accepting that all causes and phenomena are natural is really not so far-fetched.

For myself, whilst I can say that beliefs are not scientifically valid concepts, I don’t go as far as rejecting the concept of belief as a predictive, intentional stance.

God is who we he.she/it is when are not ardently believing in this same god.

Thinking aloud about your faith is fine, Peter, but relise that with 6 billion people alive today there are 6 billion equally valid religions. Atheism isn't everyone's cup of tea, but neither is mysticism or dogma.

"...when we see a rainbow we think of physical mechanism and not the covenant with Noah. This is a disenchanted world. Adherents to this world...will produce no great work of art, not because one is a biologist and the other a philosopher, but because their world is flat."

Statements like this undermine your objectiveness. Are all artists religious? Granted, faith brings inspiration - but the biblical God has no monopoly on faith.

This essay unfortunately makes the same mistake many others make, when assessing their own faith compared to those of another; it is bounded by egocentrism. Runner sums it up rather nicely: "Anyone with an open mind will see that what they read in the bible is reflected in the world."

"Anyone with an open mind will see that what they read in the bible is reflected in the world."

Au contraire,

The world came first, so that it should be "What you see in the world is reflected in the bible"

To Kang, Anti Green and Keiran.

It goes like this.

-Man born blind
-known by all in the community
.... healed by Jesus.. instantly.

Results ?

a) Lots of talk about 'who is this' (Jesus)
b) Cynical disbelief. "As for this man, we KNOW he is a sinner" (Religous leaders)

But it boils down to his response to their final question:

"C'mon.. we know this bloke is a ratbag, who REALLY healed you" ? (updated langauge)

His (updated) reply

"Listen you blokes, as to whether he is a ratbag or not, I dunno, but there is something I do know.. once I was blind...and now I see"

It boils down to each persons cycical disbelief or.. their belief.

Me ? I've already told you I've experienced that 'instant' healing, but whether its an ancient testimony like the blind man, or mine now, its in your court.
You might say "Ah..but if it happened to ME...then I'd believe"...but sadly, no, you wouldnt because it won't happen to unreceptive hearts.

As Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus went concerning the Rich man in hells 5 still living brothers,

Luke16
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=16&version=31

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

COMMENT:
and neither will any person today who's heart is closed.

BOAZ_david: In our studies there is no such thing as ever lasting ever-torturing hell fire. Regards, numbat

Boaz,
You said

"Me ? I've already told you I've experienced that 'instant' healing, but whether its an ancient testimony like the blind man, or mine now, its in your court.
You might say "Ah..but if it happened to ME...then I'd believe"...but sadly, no, you wouldnt because it won't happen to unreceptive hearts"

I would have thought that Paul was a pretty unreceptive heart and according to your bible, it happened to him.

Let see, science used to say that if you take any thing and keep cutting in half ad-infinitum, there will be an end, which they called an atom, made of electrons, neutrons and protons. Now quantum physics says that atom is made up of further particles...eventually leading to an atom existing due to a 'force' existing as energy at the most fundamental, and how this exists will determine the atom, the atom will determine the matter, the matter to what we see, tree, tv, car etc

So if all things we can see, touch and feel is actually a form of energy existing as matter, then the concept of god and his creation is easier to understand, particularly if one understands god exists as a conscious energy with unlimited power over earth and creation...

The only other issue is understanding this god, two ways I think, with your spiritual eye closed or open, very difficult with the eye closed when it becomes a rigid set of rules, with eye open you see the living god and of course the devils in hell and us sandwiched inbetween, us living- part physical and part spirit...then the us-god relationship will naturally develop further and mature on, just like if we were to spend constant time with another person whom we did not know...

An old hindu saying; 'you can see god through either extremes; pure analytical thinking or through pure faith, or combination of both' just keep searching...

Sam

Should we start with the presumption that we are capable of knowing everything? IF God is the creator of the universe -- all material things, all invisible dimensions of reality -- then what mankind terms "science" can only be a magnifying glass placed against the whole of reality, which scientists move once in a while (hypothesis to hypothesis) to grasp more of reality. What this may mean is that God is not "anti-science," since IF he is the creator, he created the subject matter of science.

Further, IF he is the creator of all that is, how do humans assay or survey whether or not he is being accurate when he tells us things about reality, such as that Jesus is God, and therefore can, as creator of the universe, lay down his life, and take it up again? Just because WE, in our FINITE imaginations, cannot immediately grasp what that means, since we can't lay down our own lives and take them up again, does that mean he can't?

Why start with the presumption that we, as human beings, are all-knowing? Is what we know adequate to describe all of reality? What gives us that idea? Why do we presume this, when we don't have the capacity to know what will happen in the next second, the next hour, the next month or year?

Why ascribe, a priori, bad motives to God? It's not as if we were born with the tools to test the veracity of God's claims. To assume that, we would have to make assumptions about the scope and quality of human knowledge, and about the reach of the human brain, about which we still know very little.

He says he is "spirit." This means he can't be seen, unless he so chooses. He says he is the creator of the universe and all that is in it.

If God created us, and we are but one of a multitude of creatures he created, why would he bother speaking to us in the first place? Why would he make the effort?

VK3

"I would have thought Paul was an unreceptive heart, but it happened to him".....

exactly mate :)

Now what does that tell you ? (volumes)

blessings.

Peter here provides the purpose of his article with ..."The scientific mind has become exclusively naturalistic; the rainbow is seen as Newton saw it, the refraction of the components of white light. So when we see a rainbow we think of physical mechanism and not the covenant with Noah. This is a disenchanted world. Adherents to this world, like Dawkins (nicely nailed by Terry Eaglton) and Dennett, will produce no great work of art, not because one is a biologist and the other a philosopher, but because their world is flat.".

I find it difficult to understand Peter's "disenchanted world" belief when our mind is drawn to understand some physical mechanisms. Surely we can still see poetic beauty in sunrises and sunsets with the added beauty in the knowledge of earth rotation. If I'm out spraying my chrysanthemums with water and the droplets in the light creates a beautiful pale rainbow effect I am not disenchanted with Newton's discovery of refraction. However, I am disenchanted with Newton for believing that gravity is an attraction when in fact it is a push. If we open our eyes and mind a bit we would understand that the universe is just full of material constituents that PUSH each other ..... it's a universe full of pushers.

After reading much of Terry Eaglton's comments on Richard Dawkins' Teddy Talk I cannot see how he even landed one cogent argument. Not one. However we could call on Keiran here, and this is my disenchantment with Dawkins. He still believes in a finite, expanding universe a la the big bang cosmological model. LOL Now that is belief in belief or religion which generally builds down from some anthropic principle using deduction. Of course even though billions is spent, they will not find one skerrick of deductive evidence for a finite universe.

ps Keiran of course, generally builds up from facts using induction .... where it is find and ye shall seek. Think Picasso said something like that too.

I feel sorry for Peter, he makes the mistake of trying to knit the real world with superstition and makes the mistake of trying on old spins. It convinces Christians yes , but they don’t want to analyse, truth is the enemy of God.

Science is the observation of reality. Science runs in opposition to God because God does not exist so no observation of reality will support the existence of God. To claim science improves faith means that person is a bad scientist because he/she is twisting empirical evidence to self delude to support a belief. That is bad science.

Peter is right that Evangelists parachute god into their claims, Peter does not explain why, that it is because God is a fantasy and cannot be brought rationally, logically or honestly into an argument. No God has ever made a claim of God, no person has ever claimed a God based on knowledge or empirical evidence. God is made up, a fantasy a delusion and Peter, theologians are conmen, nothing more. If theologians are not conmen then they could prove God exists because only proof of God can justify any claim theologians make.

How does God exist? Peter never answers that question even though the answer is obvious based on observation of reality. God exists by superstitious manifestations through paranoid delusion. God exists the same way a monster under the bed exists – an over indulgence in imagination.

We cannot expect Christians are capable of facing the fact that God is a superstitious manifestation of a paranoid delusion because they are suffering it. Educating christians about reality is the same as explaining to a sufferer of arachnophobia that a rubber spider wont bite.

Rubber spiders bite in mysterious ways.

Fortunately for sufferers of arachnophobia spiders are not everywhere, unfortunately for Christians reality is everywhere. Christians constantly offended by nature result in a hysteria that inevitably has led to the Oklahoma bombings, Jones Town, Waco, exorcism, the formation of the KKK, Family First and Jesus Camp, irrational and hysterical prophecy such as intelligent design and rapture.

All without God.

What is the nature of God?
Let me answer with an analogy. Imagine a jigsaw puzzle in progress, but an endless one, one with no borders/edges, that is with an infinite number of pieces. You have found some patterns of fit but still have many separate single units randomly out of pattern. You want to know what the whole picture is like. “God” if you must have a definition is simply the “unknown”. What does that mean? “God” is the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that have not yet been matched up – single pieces as well as the not yet clear relationship between the worked out small areas that do fit to a pattern. You must always allow for the “unknown” when making any decisions. You make this sort of “calculation” when solving a jigsaw puzzle. Then imagine a 3 dimensional jigsaw puzzle.
Questioner: Your “God” sounds more like a way of thinking than a formal theology. How does this nebulous “God = the unknown” concept fit with, for example “Christian” dogma/tenets?
The “religions” of today tell you that they know what the whole jigsaw puzzle picture is or represents. Man is a jigsaw/pattern solving creature and in his heart of hearts always wishes to solve the puzzle himself using logic. He may, if he believes some others are smarter/wiser or more authoritarian than himself, “believe” in one of the many current versions of the solved jigsaw puzzle. But unfortunately for those who believe in logic to solve dilemmas, there is no way to “prove” by logic that any single religion is closer to God than any other. So choosing between the various religions is an act of faith in itself. However consider this. By the jigsaw puzzle argument “God” is beyond definition – the moment you link any definition to “God” you have destroyed the concept. So the answer to your question is that any attribution of any absolute value to “God” or “the word of God” is to be considered a serious error. It is interesting that the words “world without end” are part of Christian worship

Questioner: How do you view the idea that evolution/Darwinism is proof of the non-existence of God? That pure randomness and not purpose/intelligent design drives evolution, as put forward by Richard Dawkins for example?
Kenneth Miller in his book “Finding Darwin’s God” notes that “those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided, will always be disappointed.” “In many aspects evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God.”
Beware of those who pronounce ultimate proof, but listen to those who say there is NO ultimate proof. The completion stage of the jigsaw puzzle is always changing, but the rules to understand the way to complete the jigsaw puzzle do not change. At the very basic level there is no clash between science and religion/a belief in God, if you believe that God is the unknown, the undefinable. You have to turn Miller’s question on its head and ask “will those who ask from religion a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided, always be disappointed?” They always will be, because we wish to RATIONALLY believe the religious tenets.
Those who espouse GOD as purpose or intelligent design, then categorically tell you what the design is. If GOD is not purpose or intelligent design, they are just posturing alpha males wishing to dominate.
Questioner: What about the necessity for “posturing alpha males” and community leadership? Does God have any alpha maleness?
Society must have leaders. Human beings are “social” animals. However, if you promote any “dominance” role in the usual community pecking order sense as part of the nature of God, you are grafting a community leader role onto the idea of “God” hence an “all-knowing” God and his servants. It is this “dominance” and its interpretation that causes all the problems in and between religious systems. It destroys “God”, as it attempts to define the nature of “God”. God is not a leader/alpha male.

You folk keep wasting your time thinking about this religious stuff ! If God had meant us to understand him he would have given us bigger brains. So until this happens just forget it and go and do some good works, help the poor, heal the sick, etc.

John-tassie,
Firstly, the Christian God is not simply the unknown. Jesus is the fullness of God with no remainder but that fullness cannot be limited and defined and placed in our hands. That is why Christianity cannot be reduced to a message that once we have it ends the journey. It is the working out of what Jesus means that is opened ended. Otherwise we just have the God of the gaps, who represents only the unknown.

I see that you have been influenced by Descartes in your insistent on absolute proof of evolution or the existence of God. Nothing is known absolutely. The theory of evolution seems to be true given the lack of evidence against it and the mountain of evidence for it. But there still exists the possibility that the hand of a creator may still show itself. However, as time goes by this is increasingly unlikely.

The thing I was trying to get at in this article is the mistake of making God an object in the universe. This has been the result of the rise of science and the subsequent tradition of seeing everything in terms of being or the object. Biblical theology, by and large does not make this mistake. For example, God is love, God is truth etc. God is pure event.

This means that we must forgo the God given to us from the Enlightenment and think more biblically. God is the presence of an absence. Jesus is in a way present at the Eucharist and in a way he is absent. This is the ambiguity of the church that strict rationalists do not understand. There is poetry here and subtly of thought.

The one thing I did not put in this article was that the Trinity is of course the subversion of all talk about God as a being, a conscious monad. Again we can say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are pure event, otherwise we will fall into tritheism.

A series of good questions.

Peter

West, there are many who think like you say ...."God exists the same way a monster under the bed exists – an over indulgence in imagination. " However, my thoughts on all these teddy (god) beliefs is that they indicate a complete lack of imagination ........... but certainly not a lack of insecurity nor a lack of self-interest. On 60 minutes last night we saw the mufti and his family being interviewed by way martin. No imagination to be seen here with this family portrait when they look like a bunch of jackasses. It's as if their minds have been systematically emptied and replaced with a teddy vacuum ..... and as if we do not want to give offense.

We get creationist funny stuff like from Kang with ... "If God had meant us to understand him he would have given us bigger brains." If a contemplative intelligence evolved here on planet earth then this tells us a bit about intelligence. e.g. If you don't use it you lose it. To apply moderate imagination to this point we see you cannot have intelligence without information and you cannot have information without logic because they are aspects of the same thing and existing simultaneously. Therefore it is impossible for a creator teddy (god) to exist in the absence of logic and information. However, there is no reason why information and logic cannot exist without a teddy.

Just seems these teddies if they could be real as dumbos want, couldn't knowingly invent anything and yep there is mystery but not magic. Let's just say that teddy is innocent of the crime of creating our infinite material universe until found guilty ..... but first let's find one.

God or Gods exist as a perpetuating hypothetical construct of human contrivance. Human penchant towards spirality propels the belief system (e.g., cargo cults). Both religionists and athiests need to test their systems.

Investigation needs to be from with-out not from with-in and foresensic in nature. Elsewise, self-confirmation shall result. Relatedly, don't take a priori positions in analysis. Self confirmation of the non-existent can profoundly suggest the mere illusion of existence.

The people, whom contrive Gods, in the first instance, often have social and political motivations: e.g, priesthoods to control land in Sumer (c. 3,000 BCE), the transition from Christ Jews to just Christrians (c. 50-150 CE) or the uniting Arab tribes under Islam (600-700 CE).

In this frame, God or Gods, are most likely (the most probably construct) exist, within the architecture of our minds. Priesthoods, familial belief systems, myths and traditions reinforce how the existance of God or Gods is maintained.

How does God not exist, the null hypothesis, must be disproved along with how God does exist. On the other hand, physics exists and it would be diffcult to prove otherwise.

Thus, with religion, we have conclusions inaquately tested, from above (ahem).

With physics, we have tenative evidence to its actual existence. Does God exist as a function Physics? Probably, because, of the physics of the archecture of minds. If physics, is, first cause, and, creates our minds (first effect), and, our minds create a God or Gods: How does God or Gods exist? God or Gods exist, as the second generation effect of physics.

One of God's best evidences are the pathetic reasons trying to disprove Him.

Thank you Peter. Your point is that God is not an object in the Universe. On that we can agree. He, she, it, is that something beyond the big bang.
That Jesus is the fullness, though ineffable expression of God in the Universe is a bit of a logical problem for me. How can something not limited to the Universe be made fully incarnate, fully present in the Universe?
And I am sorry to hear you try to rationalise the notion of the Trinity. It sounds to me like some Council's compromise attempt to satisfy a majority of different opinions. I know that some people have gone to the stake for refusing the idea of the Trinity, but it sounds to me that you are stuck with one more preposterous view to defend. Admit it mate, you are as agnostic as I.

Who is God?
God has no shape,no gender,is infinite and is not bounded by any faith.The concept of God starts where scope of science ends.That controller is said to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and ultimately indescribable in human language.
This definition[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Conceptualization] is very close to my thoughts irrespective of my religious affinity.
He cannot be Human in shape because then it would be bias for other creatures!!He cannot be male because then it would be bias for those females!!It is pure being. It is the "world soul" .The Brahman concept is very complex and hence for common man various forms/ faiths can be realized to conceptualize that complex concept[Brahman].

What is that faith?
Faith is a realization of that Brahman/God by all creatures.

Is Faith religion?
No. Religion is NOT faith.Faith is pure and above religion.It can be something very personal which would realize that God.

Then what is Religion?
Religion is man made.It is a social grouping by society for betterment of society .The concept of Hell to followers of other religion in NOT true .No religion should claim that it is the ONLY way to realize God because it is Faith and not religion which makes you realize God.God cannot be discriminatory on basis of religion.Those who claim that their religion is made by God are liars.

Then what is relationship between religion and FAITH ?
Religion is meant for common people who cannot realize God through their Faith.It is a set of beliefs held by a group of people from a particular event of time .A sage is not bounded by a religion because he can realize that Brahman by his power of Faith-and that is why he does not need any religion.The duty of religion is to to bring peace of mind from worldly pressures and help you to realize Faith.So if a religion claims that it is the [only] way to realize God is WRONG and LIE. Because the jurisdiction of religion ENDS where jurisdiction of YOUR FAITH starts!!

Finally, I have found a Sells sentence that I can agree with.

This is such an unusual occurrence that I fear I may have misunderstood.

>>That is why Christianity cannot be reduced to a message that once we have it ends the journey<<

I hope I have this right (a comma between "it" and "ends", would have been useful), that the practice of the Christian religion is not an end in itself, simply part of a journey. Presumably to some form of enlightenment or heightened awareness?

Can this realistically be confined to Christianity? Surely, it is equally true of any and every religion under the sun?

If it is restricted to Christianity, can Sells explain what makes this journey uniquely Christian, and how (spiritually, of course; I know the players are unique to each) it differs from, say, Buddhism?

On the other hand, if it is simply a universal description of anyone, anywhere, searching for a spiritual meaning behind our existence, where does Jesus fit in?

Pericles
If God is pure event then history is the realm of revelation. The unique nature of Israel was that it among all of the nations reflected on its history theologically. This is different from the Greeks who sought only description. The theologies of Israel may have begun in a primitive way but they were refined as history unfolded. Thus belief was tested against actual events. They found that God did not protect the temple from destruction (twice), that nature was not a source of meaning (the Baal cults) that faith was ineffective when it came to actual events.

The greatest gift that Israel and then the church has given the West is the priority of history and the understanding of its linear and not cyclic nature ( as opposed to Asian religious consciousness). This is where our distorted trust in progress comes from.

If all of history is the revelation of God then why Jesus? He was the one who broke the rules learned from history, that power always overcomes, that the strong will always overcome the weak. His assault on the Judaism of the day using only passive resistance (if that is not an oxymoron) and his murder because of it, was the event that broke the iron rule of history and opened the way to a new creation. We see this being worked through in the history of the world. I know this sounds like I have contradicted myself but I beg your indulgence.

Of course this has all been subverted by the religious who were Jesus’ primary targets. Mature thinking will see past this.

Jesus came to save humans who make history i.e. choices that are self-destructive and destructive of others -- i.e. from these sins, for which there is a definite spiritual and physical consequence -- death.

Buddhism is an Indo-European religion which hypothesizes that man never dies, but returns from the death to relive old mistakes or learn from them. This removes responsibility from those who do harm to others, because reincarnation explains that as the fault of the harmed, in a past life (they did something bad and are paying for it in the present life).

Christianity, on the other hand, says men live once; those that do harm are sinning, and are responsible for those sins; that Jesus came to offer salvation from sins, and is the only one who can do that, being God.
He sets the terms of how one might be saved from the mountain of sins one has accumulated. Believe he is God, follow him,truly repent of sins (change one's ways), and those sins will be washed away, as if they never happened ("Go and sin no more.").

The Bible is God revealing himself to mankind. Other religions are men trying to imagine what they are here for, using their finite minds and imaginations. Other religions try to hid our sins, by saying variously, there are none, there is no God, no Jesus (or another Jesus), so there is no need to choose Jesus. Reincarnation is saying we can save ourselves in our next life, if we so choose. But, there is no next life.

There is only the offer of eternal life that Jesus/God makes to mankind -- reveals as the only choice. However one may choose, by believing or not believing, that is still a choice that will have the consequences outlined by God.

Who else would know the universal rules of the universe he created?

I was just thinking...
Suppose a new universe is discovered[and I see that there is high probability in near future in next 10 years] and we find that aliens have their own God.....:-)

What would happen to all our Earthy Gods :-((((

All,

Please see my earlier post:

Many interesting contributions to Pete's article, do; A priori, assume God exists and next make the Grand Canyon leap to, Jesus being that God. Again a priori. The consequent result narrows the study of other explanations, as "How does God can exist". Mine is, basically, physics (and biological evolution) produced a brain with a mind. That mind is inclined towards spirituality (maybe for socio-ecological reasons?)...

God is a second generation effect of a physical process. God does not precede the mind; the mind does not precede the bio-physical processes creating it.

I wonder if anyone has studied " 'belief' in God" using computerised axial tomography; an MRIf, perhaps? A socio-neurological process with a readable signature? Such a signature of, "How do people ' believe'" (in their brains) might be a good indicator to, "How does God exist"?

Sells, you have opened up a whole new line of thinking here for me, and I'm wrestling with its implcations.

>>The thing I was trying to get at in this article is the mistake of making God an object in the universe... God is pure event<<

This establishes a path which, surely, leads away from, rather than towards, the Christian tradition and its historical foundations in the actions of one man.

The Hindu philosophy, for example, sees the world as part of God; for many Hindus God is not a person but "a force, an energy, a principle". This dovetails coherently, surely, with your de-objectivisation of the Christian God.

It is also somewhat at odds with the very concept of Jesus. Surely, the "sent his only son" background founders on the reef of "pure event"? And where does "man in his image" fit, once God no longer exists as an object in the universe?

I realise that you gave yourself a double indemnity against questions like this with "I know this sounds like I have contradicted myself but I beg your indulgence" and "Mature thinking will see past this".

But having convinced myself that I finally understood one of your observations, I am now anxious to discover whether I can double that tally in short order, or whether to retire once again in total disarray.

Pericles

The importance of Jesus lies in what he says and does, in event. Worship of the man would be idolatry. God is in the event of Jesus. That is why we can say God is love because Jesus acted out of love rather than violence. This also makes sense of Barth’s adage “there is no inhumanness in God.”

It is interesting to think about Luke’s scheme, the risen Christ ascends into heaven to sit at the right hand of God. What survives of Jesus? His body is presumable somewhere in Palestine but the event of him lives in memory and is active in the world. The disciples meet him on the road. We may then ask, where is Jesus? Calvin says that Jesus is in a way present in the Eucharist and in a way not. We may also say that he is present in faithful preaching in a way, but in a way not since the earthly Jesus has gone from us.

My problem with most of the posts in this thread is that few can detach themselves from the sort of theism that became unfashionable in classical Greece. In Christianity we are dealing with something else entirely.

This cannot be likened to your suggestion about Hinduism because what we are dealing with when we speak about God is a real living person, that is the meaning of the incarnation. He can never be reduced to force, principle, energy

Didn't Jesus say he is God? Didn't he also say No one comes to the Father but through me? That only he has seen the Father?

The Disciples met Jesus who had risen from the dead (I [have the power to] lay down my life and take it up again, literally, biologically -- the meaning of "omnipotence"). Then Jesus rose to sit at the right hand of the Father, which proposition is beyond human scientific testing (which does not make it untrue).

Peter, do you believe Jesus is God, and can do what God the creator has the power to do -- reorganize molecules, create molecules?

Christianily can't be believed without faith/trust in what God says about himself, because basically what God says is so beyond human testing and comprehension -- beyond current human ideas of science.

What do you believe about the living God? The one believers have conversations with, a personal relationship with, are transformed in their bent/violent natures by [part of the meaning of "omniscience"]?

What about the job he came to do -- unbend that nature? What about sin, he came do destroy [part of the meaning of "omnipresence"]?

We are neither omniscient (our idea of science, our grasp of the facts that make up reality/the universe is limited), omnipotent (can't lay down our lives or raise up a human dead four days), or omnipresent (we need cell phones, airplanes, television to extend our "presence").

Jesus, on the other hand, as creator of the universe (that which we can see, or think we can see of reality), can turn the molecules of water into the molecules of wine, skipping the seed, vine, grape stages -- and grape-pressing -- which is his suggestion to you of how much higher are his ways than yours/ours.

As creator of the universe, he can wait until his friend Lazarus is dead four days, body's cellular structure breaking down -- putrefaction -- and by command call him back to bodily integrity, to life, by the way, without brain damage. Another hint to humans about how his ways are "higher" than ours.

Sells and Pericles,

Nazareth was historically a Greek city state. Jesus, although a Jew (Hebrew, Aramaic), seems likely well versed in Hellistic ways. Some Bible narratives clearly indicate Greek influence. (Greek) Atomism was lost, but picked-up again latter by the Christian church. Hinduism, adopts a Holistic approach. The former assigns parts and components and the latter flows and cycles. Just the same, any mythical system needs to be systematically institutionalised or it will die.

If Jesus was a learned person, he may have built arguments based on Attic Greek, not Koine Greek, as taught by theological colleges. Relatively, advanced concepts are difficult to express in Koine. Koine was replaced by Latin. The link between episte and teche was broken resulting in the loss of the Philosophy of Science to the West.

Some contemporary scientists argue we need both holism (systems) and reductionism (parts)to understand the universe. If so, a pragmatic approach to "How does God exist", should adopt both approaches: e.g., neurology would be reductionist and Psychology, often holistic.

Other animals [chickens, mice (BFSkinner)]do seem able to express superstitious behaviour, however, institutionalistion of that behaviour into belief systems and rites systems, would seem to require the higher cognitive capacities of humans. Islam is a good example, arising in the early seventh century, owing to the theo-cultural and political situation.

Operant condictioning might induce a monkey on to how to ring a bell three times and wave bread in the air, in a very spefic fashion. Or to chatter, while walking in cycles around a building, waving a chain with smoking incense on its end. Just the same, it is unlikely our primate counsin could develop a "sophicated" holistic (mystical)"system". Albeit, chimps to have more basic cultures.

Imagine a person who is blind from birth and has not seen anything. Is it possible for us to explain to him How does God look like?
:-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6146292.stm

If this is proved [and there is high probability], all Earthy man made/self made Gods are untrue. It tends me more and more to towards abstract Brahman which humans call it God or whatever.

So, Sells, when you say:

>>Worship of the man would be idolatry. God is in the event of Jesus<<

... are you saying that the event (God) and the man (Jesus) occupied the same physical space in our world for a while? But if so, why is it wrong to worship the man (idolatory), when to all intents and purposes at that particular point in time he was inseparable from God?

When you follow this with:

>>Calvin says that Jesus is in a way present in the Eucharist and in a way not. We may also say that he is present in faithful preaching in a way, but in a way not since the earthly Jesus has gone from us.<<

... are we not in Schroedinger's cat territory here?

Here we have the postulation of Jesus in a superposition of states (presence and absence) that according to Schroedinger (and Einstein) can only be resolved by the interference of the observer, who causes the collapse of the wave function into one state or the other.

But there's one critical factor at work here. So long as we don't "observe" - i.e. ask any questions - the duality of states can exist forever, since unlike in the case of the stuff in the box with the cat, there is nothing that imposes a requirement for a time limitation on the experiment.

So there you have it. Evidence that would seem to tell us that there is absolutely no point in the Dawkins of this world rabbiting on about the irrationality of religion, and trying to prove God cannot exist except as a function of man's imaginings.

It is clear that he does exist, but in a continuing quantum state of presence and absence, actualized only by the observation (belief) of the individual.

Works for me.

I suggest you all read the book 'Mystery of the ages' by Herbert W Armstrong.

In terms of Christianity, it answers questions about What God is, how he exist, what spirits are, even the question of man, what is he. Most of the things discussed in that book are not talked about in most pentecostal churches now adays.

Pericles,
Silly! We do not have to resort to Schrödinger or Einstein or quantum mechanics etc to understand this. The early church arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity in order to understand the relationship between the truth (Father) of the event (particular history) and our perception of it (Spirit). This is how God is revealed to us. You cannot have one person of the Trinity without the others otherwise you fall into idolatry. The father without the Son is an abstraction distant from human event. The Son without the Father is just another religious crank. The Spirit on its own is pure subjectivity, the spirit of our age in the turn to the self. But make them interdependent and you have a framework that describes all knowing.

Pericles,

And that's why Me (God)countinues to be, as observed by yours faithly, Tree. ;-)

(makes the existence of God dependent on faith, via resolving superposition. Problems with onmipresence and means faith "commands" God's existence. Interesting analogy, though.)

The concept of god our father and protector is like the dummy that soothes the hunger pains of a baby.Only when we react to reality,work hard and create enough wealth to buy time,can we indulge in such egocentric ideals of living forever in nervana with our protector.

God exists in our aspirations of escape from mortality,but spirituality is born from the anvil of lifes' tortured experiences.
Assume nothing.We may well be just god's toys.

"We may well be just god's toys."

Indeed. Perhaps we're just God's ants in his big ol ant farm providing never ending entertainment.

This Larson cartoon captures it beautifully.

http://60sfurther.com/JustForFunPhotos/GodComputerFarside-th.jpg

How....does God exist ?

1/ Know. New_Testament "God, in Christ revealed."

Does it reliably inform us of things ?

"In the Priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" Luke 3:1 &ff

Acts_Ch_4:5_&_ff

"5The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest's family."

This may seem insignificant to the casual reader, but in my humble opinion, it speaks volumes about internal consistency and reliability.

Then.....
Acts_3

"1The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead."

2 key points.

1/ "Sadducees" (No resurrection)
2/ Disturbed that the apostles are PREACHING it.

Entirely consistent with what is known of the Saducees.

If Luke can be trusted on such things, why not also with Acts 4:8 & ff

"8Then Peter,...said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

'which' crippled man was this ?

This one:
Acts 3:10ff
One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. 2Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts.

a)Crippled from BIRTH.
b)Known the whole community "carried to the temple gate DAILY

Reliable Testimony....about God.

BOAZ-David
I have been finding your contributions the comments section less and less helpful. You really need to start thinking for yourself theologically instead of sprouting bible references. This is the problem with Biblicist orientation, you rely on quotes to make your point and that was never their point in the first place. Remember Luther’s maxum was sola scriptural, not sola biblica.

Thanks for trying Sells, I've tried shock treatment and psychotherapy but alas he's still fixated with seeing “his” biblical text on the screen. It’s all narcissistic, nothing religious about it at all.

Sells,

You chide Boaz_David, but perhaps by (a) looking at only a theistic explanation of God's (Gods') existence and (b) then assuming the God that then without exists, is Judeo-Christian, you, as I stated earlier, act with an a priori assumption. Your field of explanation becomes too limited. You are guilty of the same thing, as Boaz to a lesser degree.

That said, I believe you are correct asserting the supremacy of scripture over quotes. My understand is, early Christians moved fairly quickly to Codexes over Scrolls, "suggesting" that readers flicked backwards-and-forwards, through the text.

Just the same, I think the answer to the question to, How God does Exist? is to be found in the behavioural sciences and neurology.

Given the alternative explanations available, to us today; I feel a Luther or an Abelard [a favourite of mine], would have left Christianity. Pure spectulation, of course. But, consider,they confronted fixed thinking, and tried to open people's minds to wider possibilities. Scroll-back through the postings here: It's Bible school. The discourse moves forward, without considering alertnative assumptions. Friends, Blinkered. Blinkered. Blinkered.

When the Western scientists first came to China, they were astonished that such an advanced civilization (China) believed the Earth orbited the sun. Again, Blinkered. Blinkered. Blinkered. Embedded, a priori views.

How do you know you are correct, if you wont consider the possibility you are wrong? What if Zeus is God? Or, God does not
exist [except in our minds and culture?

Let's not pick on David Boaz,he too is trying to make sense of this crazy world.We are born insecure beings and thus crave power to quench our insecurities.The ultimate power is the concept of "god" who will be our protector.For many this concept has been perverted to attain political power.

I think that Einstein discovered much more than nuclear science in his "theories of relativity".If space time and matter/energy are all interwoven,then that means the infinite present can exist.It does not necessarily mean that our consciousness in its' present form will always exist,however it suggests that there is a non ordinary reality that can ursurp our vision of the finite,hedonestic world of consumerism.

The real prophets are the great thinkers who search for truth without notions of enternal rewards.If we knew for sure,there would be no point in living.It is all about courage,love and tenacity.Only we make the rules to facilite fairness and only we can hold up this fragile umbrella called civilisation.Our notion of religion/spirituality must evolve into a more dynamic science based reality,and not based merely on heresay.

We seem to be back in incomprehensible-to-non-theologian territory here, but I'll plough on for a little while in the hope of uncovering something I can relate to.

>>The early church arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity in order to understand the relationship between the truth (Father) of the event (particular history) and our perception of it (Spirit)<<

"Arrived at" is an interesting phrase, given the number of thinkers who were excommunicated along the way. "Compromised upon... in order to avoid even more damaging schisms" might be closer to the reality.

But whatever their motivation, I can understand their problem. On the one hand, a solid biblically-supported argument that the whole point was to worship a single God and abolish polytheism forever. On the other, the need to promote the concept of a Son of God, who had actually existed in earthly form, and was therefore a very powerful talisman.

Gibbon enunciated Sells' position more elegantly with his description of the "third way" pursued at the Council of Nice.

"The Logos is no longer a person, but an attribute... The incarnation of the Logos is reduced to a mere inspiration of the Divine Wisdom, which filled the soul and directed all the actions of the man Jesus." [Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]

In fact, Gibbon's description of the council of Nice is extremely revelatory of the depth of the politics involved, and confirms the dictum that history is written by the victor. Trinitarianism could easily have been badged heretical, had the Arians been smarter in their use of precedent - emphasising the common use of triad deities in other religions, for example, in contrast to the biblical instruction to have no other God...

Gibbon also said, almost apologetically:

"The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings." [Ibid].

Pericles,

Good study in history. Note the Greek influence. A compromise to Roman pantheism might have also been in the air.

On the Synoptic side, the Christians whom returned from Pella, had pretty much decided upon their favourite writings in 187 CE, still comprises and reinterpretations were made after this time, including Nicae (325 CE). The Gnostics, to-be, whom left Pella and travelled to Syria, as you know, lost their influence, after the compilation of the Western bible. Else, Sells might now be arguing against the interpretation be currently accepts. [we inherit our culture and Sells has an a priori mindset].

Of course, thoughout history there have been several re-interpretations and schicisms in the Christian church. Same with Islam. Perhaps, montheism lends itself to divisiveness? To Greeks and Romans had a stack of gods, and, the Eygptians tended to meld their's, e.g., Amun (Amon) hyphen Ra. Some other religious systems seem to promote less internal conflict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6156110.stm

"Dark energy makes up about 70% of the Universe; the rest is dark matter (25%) and normal matter (5%)."

Where is our Earth in this?;-) Very very minute -Almost negligible.
And where are humans fit into this;-) Negligible.

What about Earthly Human Gods? ;-)Did they talk about this dark matter also?

Enough of Earthly God /Son of God/Messenger Of God medieval talk. Those were medieval times [think of taliban era] with no media and public scrutiny and "miracles" galore!!

If "something" is to be called God and yes that something does exist[or not exist],But it DEFINETELY CANNOT [10000* INFINITY ] be these Earthly Medieval Gods.

Or all whatever we see is illusion??[Is Dark Energy the reality?

Despite all of the political shenanigans Nicaea got it right. The Arians had biblical texts on their side to prove that Jesus was just a man (please note Boaz-D) but Athanasius won out against all odds. This was a case in which the Holy Spirit moved in the hearts of men to bring about the right result. Any other result would have been disastrous for the Church. If the Arians had won Jesus would have been reduced to the “good teacher” , the moral exemplar of 19th C liberalism. The doctrine of the Trinity, the absolute centre and basis of Christian theology, would not have survived and the interpretative power of the Christian story would have been fatally weakened.

Of course people were excommunicated, theology was very serious matter, not the plaything of those who contribute to these pages. The very ground of society relied on orthodox belief. It was not a case of the individual choosing the spirituality that appealed to them but a quest for the truth.

There is an arrogance in Pericles and Oliver who would dismiss nearly two thousand years of theological deliberation in favor of some scatty ideas designed to keep them safe from being confronted by the One who would bring them home.

Sells,there is no single imaginery One,who will bring us home.It is us working together as a society who will bring everyone to new horizons of consciousness.The traditional religions are too static and boring for this wonderous,evolving universe.Our concepts of spirituality and god are at best prime evil.They are really an insult to the complexity,power and vastness of the universe.

Without the Roman leader Constantine ,of pagan descent,the Christian Church would would have languished in obscurity.

I think Jesus would have embraced the very things that our static Christian Churches fear the most,ie the reality of scientific discovery.

Jesus was a good person,but he was but one step in the evolution of our consciousness.If you were god,would you give absolute power to a select few,or let people learn by their mistakes so they will treasure and remember those hard won victories which forge their character?

lochinvar, the red rain in Kerala remains appears to contain algal spores of the Trentepohlia genus, which forms lichens in the local area. Subsequent analysis of the spores appears to confirm that they do, in fact, contain common or garden terrestrial DNA. See:
http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/redrain.html, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala.

The extraterrestrial hypothesis is attractive, but the science suggests a far more mundane explanation.

Part I

John l:l

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Finite human brains either believe what God, an infinite "brain," chose to reveal to the human race (for its own good), or they don't believe.

God is not outside of science. Science is a method by which humans can detect the multitude of facts that God created.

Humans can't be before time. Therefore they are incapable, even if they don't believe it, of claiming that they can detect that God is a figment of the human imagination. God created that finite imagination and existed before it.

The trinity is taking God at his word, which existed before humans, and therefore can't be tested by them. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. A mystery to the human brain, and foolishness to those who forget they have finite, created brains.

It doesn't matter if humans believe what God is trying to reveal to them about the reality he created, and the universal laws that run it.
Humans will suffer the consequence of not believing even if they don't believe God. Which is why God (whose ways are not ours) came into human history as Jesus and the Holy Spirit, to reveal the inevitable consequence for humans of breaking his laws.

That we can't tolerate reading his laws, and about his ways, has nothing to do with whether they exist. We don't like it, therefore it doesn't exist? Very finite.

Part II

God spent the time outlined in the Old Testament trying to teach humans what "Holy" means, that they weren't, and what not being holy has meant for the human race.

Don't believe there is a universal penalty for harming oneself and others? There is, whether or not humans believe it. Can't see the universal law one is violating? The human brain can't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If an infinite "mind" tells us that there is one, should we with our finite minds contest that?

Why should God care if humans suffer the consequence of their violence? Why should he bother to send the Word who is Jesus (" before Abraham was I AM")?

Whether an individual believes or not, the latter will face a judgment, because he is a Holy God (one of his attributes is Justice, of which we are not capable). He wishes to spare each and every individual from what they will inevitably suffer. He is Holy -- he will allow humans to exercise their free will to do violence, but not forever.

Only God, whose ways are above (strange to) ours, would put up with humans and their arrogance about how much of the reality he created their finite minds can comprehend, of the infinitude that he is, in order to save them from the consequences of their behavior. He knows humans don't know what transgression is i.e. sin, don't think they do it, and if they do, think "so what?"

He exists independently of human thoughts and before them. He has put up with the rebellious human mind for millenia. One of his "ways" or characteristics is that he is "longsuffering" or patient with those he created. He suffers because he hates our violence and suffers with those we are violent towards.

He is good, in ways we can't comprehend, part of the meaning of "Holy". He hated Esau, a human prototype, who put himself before God's ways (hunger before God's birthright). God's ways -- Love your neighbor just as you do yourself. Esau's likely life choice -- violence towards others.

Sells,

Your animus is unnecessary, I feel no ill-will against religionists, Christian or otherwise. Rather, I am merely saying a forensic approach needs to adopt wide considerations [alternative possibilities: null hypotheses].

Else, one becomes sucked-in by centipedal forces. One can falsely come to believe, they know, The Truth. However, one can make a commitment to any truth, which can be only tentatively held, in the knowledge disconfirmation might exist just around the corner.

A Forum on "How does God exist?", I put, should posit the multifarious ways, as to, "How God [or Gods] exist?". It's not a matter of attitude [arrogance], it is about acheiving broad investigative pursuit. Being thorough.

"One cannot see the face of the mountain from the inside" - Confucius

Sells, my friend, please, come out into the daylight, and look around. There are other highly plausible explanations, to at least thoughtfully and systematically consider.



O.

Snout:
Read the Link..
"However, this identification is not yet fully confirmed, and might be considered equivocal. We hope to pursue our efforts in extracting DNA (if it exists), amplifying it and carrying out genetic sequencing, but his work takes time..."
DNA yet not confirmed.My point is to raise the prospect of life in the whole universe and there is very high probability.NASA and all agencies are very positive about it in recent years.Once found, all Earthy God hypothesis, events ,miracles ,verses would become void .
Again, if "something" is to be called God/Close to God/Messenger/Son of God,he is not definitely not some medieval Jesus,Mohammad,or some Earthly God[s].
He has a very larger scope and applicability and goes beyond human->earth->solar system->galaxy, etc.He may be a formless,infinite,invisible, controller.

Go to ward in a childrens hospital and then tell me there is a god

What does an imperfect world/creation e.g. disease have to do with whether or not there is a God? It has everything to do with man's choice to do violence.

Genesis: "cursed is the earth because of you (man)" -- man's choice
to follow himself had and has consequences,both spiritual and physical, because basically he is following a finite mind (his) that believes every issuance from that mind (human thoughts) accurately reflects reality. Human thoughts do not and cannot. Finite minds produce finite thoughts, which are imperfect. This applies to scientific hypotheses as well.

To what extent does man's decision to produce harmful chemicals end on end cause disease, deformity? What about sources of radiation? What about radioactive wastes?....

Genesis: "replenish the earth" -- we don't do this, we only take from it, generally speaking, and disrespectfully, as we believe we can do that with "things" which we perceive of as devoid of what we are (precious vs. just a thing).

Finite thoughts ("That's just a thing, you can do with it whatever you want") produce finite results -- disease, decay, limited resources, etc. There is an ecological web of life, which few care to recognize, that if violated, produces disease, natural disasters.

Mankind, in its lack of self-awareness about what it is doing, can blame God for a lot of things, but that doesn't make it true. It just illuminates the arrogance and pride-of-self (as if the self knows it all) of mankind.

Mankind does not want to be told what it is doing wrong....

Any religion that kisses mankind's rearend (REKs) should be suspect, because that is just what God doesn't do. Hence, no one reads the Bible, much less approach it with humility as if it might be the word of an entity with an infinite mind.

God doesn't flatter humans because they cause a lot of problems. They sin. And there are consequences to that. World violence for example.

Why doesn't God step in? He has, but no one wants to believe -- take that free will and finite mind and listen only to the REKs.

Also see notes and/or cassette tape,The Ways of God, Part 7 He uses our (adult) suffering (google Charles Stanley)

Hawaiilawyer,

What about the cruelty of the Insect World?

Sells,

Thank you for your contrubutions. But you could do better an engaging in debate on points opposed to your own. Do you not realise that there are histological, cultural and familial factors involved, when one chooses a particular god, or choose to believe at all?

It is you that has chosen to write an article to Forum. Do you not understand the Confucian quote, I shared? To understand, you need to standback, test for alternative explanations

Sells, once again you disappoint with your inability to engage in open debate. What caused this outburst?

>>There is an arrogance in Pericles and Oliver who would dismiss nearly two thousand years of theological deliberation in favor of some scatty ideas<<

It is not arrogant to continue to ask questions. It is arrogant to assume that your own view has greater weight than that of others.

Your summary of Nice is, to say the least, a little self-serving.

>>This was a case in which the Holy Spirit moved in the hearts of men to bring about the right result. Any other result would have been disastrous for the Church<<

This surely is classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc. If the Arians had prevailed, as you point out, the question of a Trinity would be non-existent. Given that history is written by the victor, it is obvious that credit has to be given to "the Holy Spirit [moving] in the hearts of men".

Interestingly, many religions exist without the need for this trinitarian construct which - the more you examine it - is the result of political faction-fighting resulting in a compromise, than a lay-down certainty. It is not biblically supported, so is an entirely man-made concept, designed - it would appear from Nice - to plug a potentially fatal flaw in the Jesus story.

>>Of course people were excommunicated, theology was very serious matter<<

It would appear that the preferred method of discourse has changed little over the centuries. If someone disagrees, disqualify them from the argument. Much, it has to be said, as the method you, Sells, continue to practise to this day.

>>It was not a case of the individual choosing the spirituality that appealed to them but a quest for the truth.<<

And the best way to conduct a quest for the truth is, it would appear, to silence opposition by excommunication.

It brings to mind a picture of someone with their hands over their ears saying "La la la la I can't hear you I can't hear you"

Pericles
My apologies for my little outburst, my patience does wear thin at times. It is just that in the realm of theology everyone is an expert no matter what their training. If I wrote something about auditory physiology you would give me credence but as soon as we start on theology we are confronted with a weird democracy in which anyone’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s.

I am all for free enquiry and debate. However any real enquiry requires one to relax ones suspicion towards the subject. It is this constant suspicion that drives me nuts on this page.

A large part of the problem is the eclipse of the study of theology that has taken place over the last couple hundred years. This leaves theologians on the back foot trying to catch up and do justice to a rich and varied tradition and the lay person even more on the back foot. My articles in OLO are a small attempt to redress this.

The fact that you hang in with the discussion means that you find theology fascinating even if that is a negative fascination. For my part it is the most interesting game in town and one on which much hangs.

The reason for our lack of faith is exactly that...Reason. Most religions present the concept of god as a way to close people's minds and open their purses. Some few do good in a charatable way, but the people they use to do the good are living with closed minds, good hearts, but closed minds.
My family live with a system of ethics which considers honesty, charity, decency, fairness, love, kindness and helpfulness to be the way to live. Religion of any sort does not enter into the equation and believe me, we all have open minds and happy lives. When trouble comes we support each other, we do not look for support from someone else's concept of a god, no matter how old that concept is. We have backbones and we help ourselves.

In order to understand theological thinking we must first apprehend its construct. To borrow from Wittgenstein 's metaphor in the language game we can extend this. All human meaning issues emanate not from individual minds, but from relationship. One person alone cannot create meaning; a language cannot 'mean' anything if it is a private possession. It takes coordination among people to generate anything meaningful – more often borne of a love generating honesty, charity, decency and fairness.

In the religio-cultural world of Biblical times, O.T. Yahwism was perhaps the only religion that did not have both the masculine and the feminine principle represented in deity - and often presented in customarily in explicitly sexual pairings. Ancient references to God (or Yahweh) expressed this authoritarian, domineering and often cruel relationship. The religions that included both male and female deities within their pantheons, which impacted on biblical thought, were: the Sumerian, the Egyptian, the Canaanite, the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek (including the mystery cults), and the Roman. A ‘softening’ of Judaic thought arrived before the advent of Christ. Jesus himself acknowledged the endearing Arabic term “Abba” – best translated as “daddy” or “poppa”. “Daddy” is the main figurehead in the “Trinity”.

It was only when the early Church began to be populated by Greek-speaking and Greek-thinking people did a vocabulary and method of logical thinking arise that would lead to the doctrine of Trinity and of periochoresis.

The Greeks could draw on a fairly sophisticated philosophy of emanations or intermediary creatures that somehow "emerged" from the "One" or the uncreated source of the universe in order to have the terminology and conceptions to "understand" Jesus. But still there was a raging debate concerning whether this Jesus was lesser than God or fully equal with the One. That was a debate that came to a head in the 4th century, when the "winners" decided that Christ would be fully equal with God.

But remember, theology as with philosophy, is a world of metaphor. It often uses analogy with underlying “truth”. Literalists confuse this concern with a merely two dimensional view.

How can you say that the Word of God is metaphor, rather than news reportage without news reporters? Were you there?

Consider the multitude of witnesses who claim they saw Jesus walking about, after he had died on the cross?

Confusing? But were you there or not? You weren't, but some were, and they wrote what they saw down, or told others what they saw, and these others wrote it down.

What gives you the right to call their eye-witness testimony "metaphor"?

What theory of history do you use to test the veracity of historical witnesses? Simply proclaiming God's word "metaphor" doesn't make it metaphor.

If you find it unbelievable that a creator could turn water into wine, missing the seed, vine, grape stages, then what is your definition of "creator"?

Why should it be "unbelievable" that Jesus is of the same substance as God, and is God (with God, and is God)? Because it defies your definition of "logic" or "reality"? And where did you get those definitions? How were they tested?

If you yourself saw someone change water into wine, and then you drank some of it, then told someone about it, and that someone wrote it down, and ten years hence, someone says you are a liar, or at least speaking "metaphorically" -- does that make what they say the "truth" or what you said?

Finitude....consider its meaning, but you can only consider its meaning only so far, because you have a finite mind.

Sells,

You do exhibit that a priori mindset, I have referred to several times. Your "theology" is Christian theology. Herein, several positions are taken as "givens". Narrow and unsystematic, I put.
Theology [ incl. How does God exist?], is best studied, as a subset of history and anthropology. Albeit, reinforcement schedules are likely to psychological, neurological and bio-chemical.

Relda,

Interesting post. Thanks.

Greek influence was dying even, before Jesus. Nazareth was a Hellenised city in cultural decline. In the broader course of intellectual history, it was Greek (Attic), Latin, then Greek again (Koine) linguistics. Albeit, I think Philo of Alexandia might have written in Attic.

Latin and Koine Greek are held to be less proficient than Attic Greek in articulating abstract ideas (Wells). Our line of Christianity is the Latin line. The split between Greek/Latin occurred when Charlemaine added "filio que" to the Nicene Creed. Wherein, Latin Cristains maintain the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and THE SON. [Causality before Plank-time seems problematic to me.]

The latter is more slatted towards Arianism. Charlemaine's oath of alliance, sworn by subjects, asserted the Latin view. Detractors were killed. [

Also, as noted above, a split also occurred under Hadrian (177 CE?), wherein, the Pella exiles formed two groups, from the Christian sect Jews. The first thirteen bishops of the Christian sect were Jews, post-Jesus.

The interplay of Greek concepts in a Latin Church, with Hebrew roots is complex. Wherein, Greek infleunce ebbs and flows.

There are many views out there. Other religions are fractionised too: e.g., Islam.

I suspect Sells' would deny the above accounts [which is his right]. Just the same, I wish Peter would engage the topic, without, so many affixed assumptions.

Strewth! I reckon that deep down Peter Sellick still wishes he had puffed on that joint, went out with that girl, told that certain someone to get eft, bought that Harley Davidson and took another path in life to that of a frustrated god botherer. Alas, we here on OLO must read his regretful pieces (dressed up as deep thought theology) until he meets his maker. (whoever the hell that is) . For dogs sakes, give us a break Poiter!

HL

It is obvious you read and believe in all the Bible says (only however with the perspective you choose to accept).

You do make some questionable points in support of your claims.

Consider: Jesus Himself did not turn the water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead - He does not his own will but the Will of the Father. Jesus made it clear it was the power of the Father that performs miracles, not my power, or yours, or his as a human being before the resurrection. God is His Father just as God is your and my Father and it is only Faith in Him that gives us any power over His creation.

If we had the Faith in God that Jesus had, by his own words, we could do greater miracles than these.

That is not placing man as God but as His servant. Understand?

Secondly - enough with the Finite Mind metaphor already.

Human's have a physical body AND a spiritual one Just as Jesus had. How else could he possibly show us the way? Much of mankind today has forgotten about or ignored this spiritual part of ourselves that ties us to God and is the vehicle for our 'direct' communication with Him whilst in meditational prayer.

It is our physical body that is vastly more finite than our spiritual one which is also far less than the sum total of God. (but closer in kind to Him than is our physical shell)

My PC has a 'finite' RAM - this is in direct contact with a supremely larger information source - the Hard Drive and with a simple modem i have access to an almost unlimited amount of knowledge with my tiny, finite 256MB of Ram...

If man can make a machine like that why do you keep knocking God's invention by refusing to acknowledge the creation's ability to more fully know and appreciate the Maker than you seem willing to give him credit for?? (cont..)

BrainDrain,

Complex infinite vector-space in quatum mechanics allows for Hamiltonian flow of the vector field, permitting unity change in finite time derived from the discontinous infinities, to a continous finite state [as with Schroderinger evolution] through Hamiltonian action. This posit would represesent an alternative explanation to a God the infinite to the finite. Moreover, the Math supports the aforesaid conclusion, unlike Bible scriptures.

Sells has asked the wrong question.It is not a matter of the existence of god,but more a matter of our common humanity working together to discover a higher level of consciousness.To seek the concept of god alone,is to seek easy options.Life is all about evolution and knowing what motivates ourselves.

Sells, the concept of god is irrelevant,since it is not the supernatural miracles that give life it's meaning,it is the daily interaction of family life that creates magic moments of fun and insight into our common humanity that inspires us to greater horizons.

Our society has lost it's community spirit,it's sense of awe and imagination,and we are all the poorer for it.When I lose the passion to enquire and question all things that are deemed true by the "status quo",then it is time to say "good night".

There are no absolutes such the concept of "god",only the constant of change and the anchor of family life.

Finite mind is not a metaphor, it's a description. How do you know it's not a description, but a "metaphor" as you suggest? What are the metaphysical tools of mind are you using to test infinity?

How does your brain know you can know God fully?

Again, how does your brain know Jesus is not God, if John l:l says he is?

You "know" whatever it is you know, because you do not trust what God is saying to you. And why the lack of trust?

He is revealing himself to you. You can take it or leave it. The consequences, however, are the same, whether you believe it or not, as God exists independently of what you think with your mind.

The reason that only Moses was allowed to speak directly with God is that the circuits of the human brain would be "blown" if exposed to that which God is -- the observer would die. God gave Moses special
protection, because he was most humble of all humans (he knew who he was, relative to God), and was unlikely to be arrogant (to his own harm, and the harm of others).

Hawaiilawyer,
Thank you.You have opened my eyes. I was a sinner.
Now please can you stop blabbering?

God did create a mystery, of own identity. A bit like we all know we need a father to produce us, however if we have never seen our father...but a need in us is there to know who he is and, more importantly, have a meaningful relationship with our father... it is a human condition.

Nobody 'blabbers', but struggles with the above, we all have a 'sense' of our father, but what we see is the physical world and fellow souls in the same struggle. Some souls have fully accepted the material world and at peace with that, others reject god because they sense the price of sins will be due and do not have the strength to face it or do not want the consequence of their own actions. And others are lost in the wilderness while they discover small facets which do not make complete sense...yet...but will when enough is known.

Moses was a lucky man, to know god face to face, but unlucky because he lost the 'mystery' and the joy of discovery, which the child in all of us knows its worth the weight of struggle that was before it....

Sam

Sam,Before blabbering,please read the posts.The issue here being debated here and convincing is that if God is there ,he/she/it is definetely not Jesus/Mohammad/Any Earthy Human God./Moses.

Oh and on the subject of reincarnation. Our current physical life is where we get to correct the mistakes of our past - not the other way around - we keep on 'trying' in new bodies until we get it Right!, gaining credit for good deeds and debt (karma) for bad ones or at least us non-christians do. Sadly, you only get one shot it seems?

We get it Right when we can do as Enoch did and walk with God while on Earth if we so choose. At such point we have control over our own mortality, and with God's will, that of others, such as Lazarus. It should go without saying that Jesus did it Right.

Enoch came before Jesus, I believe - so how could he be free from sin and why should we be different?

Feel free to ask your baptist friend CS if you get stuck.

Oliver,

I could not have put it better myself! 'God' is ALL! I have a problem with the limited understanding men have with that concept and that they insist on Giving God a 'personality' approximating Man's. But if that is all they can understand of God you have to talk to them in terms they comprehend.

TYPO ABOVE: This posit would represesent an alternative explanation to a God BRIDGING the infinite to the finite.

My earlier post, basically means the created universe(s) does not need a creator. The tentative QM explanation is compelling. [but needs to be continuingly test and allow null hyptheses, into the debate.]

Hawaiilawyer:

QM would make no claims to all knowledge, but it would posit an explanation of how the infinite can be made finite, without the need fo reference to divinity. Basically, how something can come nothing. This is an alternative explanation to a God. The God hypothesis can stand, as a degraded heuristic, but it is up to its adherents to prove the supposition. Demostrate its superiority over the alternatives [from science and philosophy.

If you are lawyer then I ask what weight would a Court put on evidence from the hearsay of an Egyptian priest or Faithful to Islam. And the latter's history is fairly well documented. Extending your argument, is beyond the Christian mind [some sects] to conceive of more than one god? [Actually, the Hebrews were oriniginally henotheists, ultimately choosing a Volcano God, as their own.]

Hawaiilawyer and Sells; Answer me this question, please:

How does Zeus exist?

[Sells, you write the Zuesauthor citing the Bible. You are ignored, because attempts by you to introduce the OT/NT are held, out of court. That Ancient Greek author is too fixed to come out of the mountain (earlier reference.].

--cont--

How is "infinity" equivalent to the "nothing" from which something comes?

The action in "came from" is not explained by QM, and that is where God is.

Claims by ancient Egyptian priests that animals, creatures like us, are divine can be tested. Ever see any animals do anything supernatural? I haven't. Cats, jackals, falcons, bulls, deities? They are creatures like us, not creators....

Zeus (Deus + pater) is an Indo-European sky god originally from a shamanistic religion, where the medicine man or shaman climbs the world tree, possibly drugged, "traveling" to heaven in order to bring back information from the "gods" that will help the tribe.

The Indo-Europeans came from the Eurasian steppes, rode and worshipped horses, swords, committed human sacrifice and dismemberment on the theory that the universe could be preserved somehow by repeating in the microsm what they believed the macrocosm (universe) consisted of (the eyes of the sacrificed human equivalent to the sun, etc). Sacrifice a human being, cut him/her up, disperse the parts, and they are the seeds which uphold the very existence of the universe -- without which the universe would crumble (go back to nothingness). A pre-scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, and of human life,one which justified murder, theft... -- violence.

Murder was equated with life, the life of the tribe. A "little" departure by humans from the commandment not to murder....

PART 1 (/cont.)

Will continue above later. Space problems.

Hawaiilawyer:

1. Zeus. What have provided is a definition of Zeus. What is asked is, "How does Zeus exist?". Please revisit. Sells, comment please.

2. Where infinite dimensionality exists, there is no requirement for
nothing. There is no space, no time. "Nothing", some see as in opposition to reality. Reality comes into existence from wave reduction. Some QM physicists would hold reality is not a very exact term. Not the philosoper's "do we exist" thing.

Reality is a state. "Nothing" is an irrelevant term. Even more so; "null", which in a way is less substantial than nothing is also irrelevant. Creation without a Creator.

If one assumes God has always existed, one can say that this begs the question, when [time] or what condition [outside of time]existed BEFORE God, when there was "nothing".

[Christian] religion does not explain how god came out of nothing and equally doesn't explain "nothing" itself. QM does explain what is loosely called, "reality": "Unreality" to "unreality" is not a sequential nothing/something, as with more primitive concepts. It is a [tentatively] explanable change of state shift from the infinitely indeterministic to the finite deterministic (Penrose).

Just shows we can get all manner of funny stuff when we talk teddy (i.e. god). Within this thread we read a wide variety of beliefs but are all held together with a common belief that it is worthwhile to express opinions no matter how wacky. That's excellent but it seems teddy can range through some particularly virulent forms, from a fundamentalist vengeful jack-in-the-box type teddy to others with wild apocalyptic and messianic visions, or even with a realestate focus or a childish truth as revealed focus as within Peter's article. i.e. Revelation from the divine hands of provident teddy to free us from the darkness of sin and death.

Then we get Oliver. I wonder if he can expand his thoughts on ... "BRIDGING the infinite to the finite." and how "the created universe(s) does not need a creator." i.e. Isn't this the funny belief in a curved space-time, finite universe? I like his thoughts on "nothingness" though.

Of course I mention infinity many times. My understanding is that the universe is infinite which is really not so far-fetched because it is based on observation and reason. When you look at the vast expanse of endless galaxies how can anyone believe that it all came from NOTHING. If it is expanding out then what is it expanding into ............. ITSELF? Just seems that an anthropic mindset cannot think outside the box and want to understand infinity. Even from ancient times infinity as a subject was one to be avoided with the essential view that infinity is a nothing, an incomprehensible that we should avoid referencing. My question is WHY, when it offers unparalleled richness?

It is a fair enough proposition to suggest the human mind can have little grasp on infinity – far better to accept, therefore, and to be content with the alpha and omega points our lives contain.

Let’s use The anthropic principle, as devised by Barrow and Tipler, which suggests, “The universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.” From this we can develop a non-theistic ‘physical eschatology’, “if life evolves in all of the many universes in a quantum cosmology, and if life continues to exist in all of these universes, then all of these universes, which include all possible histories among them, will approach the Omega Point. At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end. This perhaps stretches the limits of our logic – but, nevertheless, logical it is. A theologian today could well add that the totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!…. Can this be some strange sort of metaphor? I’m reminded of the pulsing of a wave (as in light particles) - both discrete and continuous.

In ascribing to the ‘Big Bang’ theory of the universe, the first fractions of a second after its formation, the universe was governed by a single fundamental interaction; the very early universe, being microscopic, was a quantum phenomenon. The first quanta thus pulsed into the macroscopic – that which is observable. As the "Strong Anthropic Principal" suggests (inferred from QM), “Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being." Another paradox: I cannot comprend infinity, but somehow, I know it to exist.

I like the question “How does Zeus exist?” The answer is the reason that the Greek gods were eliminated by the spread of Christianity. It became apparent that these were all projections of the mind. The existence of Zeus is subjective, he does not exist outside of the believer’s mind. This is Feuerbach’s original criticism of Christianity that is repeated ad nauseum on these pages.

Granted, much belief in the Christian God falls under this criticism but not essentially. This is surely what my article is about. If God is pure event then history is the medium of his revelation and that does not mean that he is pure projection.

I quite agree with Robert Russell when he says, “….we are moving into an era of radically new possibilities. Religion once again needs the rigors of science to rid it of superstition, for religion inevitably makes truth claims about this world that "God so loves," claims which must be weighed against the gruelling tribunal of evidence. More surprisingly, science needs religion to expose its pretensions to absolute authority and unique and unequivocal truth”

One can well understand the scientific atheism reached in the face of a preached and pedantic theism. Equally, the reaction to gross scientific materialism in ‘New Age’ remedy is also well understood. It is important to recognise, however, in the absence of any real ‘grounding’ we are “easy prey to New Age illusions wrapped in science-sounding language - the ‘cosmic self-realization movement' and the ‘wow of physics’- while our ‘de-natured’ religion, attempting to correct social wrong and to provide meaning and support for life's journey, is incapable of making its moral claims persuasive or its spiritual comfort effective because its cognitive claims are not credible.” Professor Robert John Russell (Centre for Theology and the Natural Sciences)

I agree Sells, there is a part of history in need of noting, recognition and believing. Seldom is it clearly understood.

Relda, your alpha and omega is classic funny stuff .... absolute beginnings and endings, bangs in vacuums, multiple universes all culminating with the totality of carbon based life as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. LOL

Just seems for the teddy believers it is mind before matter which is impossible. Your classic alpha and omega is mind over matter which is insecurity. Mine is mind out of matter which matters a great deal with unparalleled richness.

Relda, the "Strong Anthropic Principal" is weak and unimaginative on just about every level. Systems people only know closed systems which is not surprising really but if the universe is an infinite ENVIRONMENT then it is not a system however one wants to look at it. So let's not have silly cosmological models that are nonsensical and no different to earlier examples like the "wonderful" idea that the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle.

Just believe in an infinite universe ........ always existed and will always exist, infinite in the three spatial directions, infinite in the macro and micro. Infinite here refers to a process needing assumptions only to understand and this point explains why assumptions and not absolutes are necessary for thinking.

For example neither empty space nor solid matter can exist because they are human idealisations ..... i.e. absolutes. The reality in an infinite universe can only be the continuum between ..... never being an absolute solid nor an absolute space that we call a vacuum. If there can be no true vacuum then it is reasonable to conclude that the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility.

We cannot ignore the imperfections produced by INFINITY so truth is a relative process, not an end point.

Keiran,

QM does not refer to the expadning universe(s)and is not apart of the Big Bang and Solid State debate, as I presented it. It refers to wave reductions to create finite particles, regardless of the factors influencing the expansion of the universe.

More later on other points. Busy.

God was before "nothing," and beyond human logic, which can't see "before nothing," can't see "God," can only see through eyes that began when humans began. We can only see what the structure of our mind allows us to see, what the structure of our eyes allows us to see, what the structure of our technology allows us to see.

According to Richard Feynman, physicists themselves are confused about existence, the subject matter of physics, how it operates, what it is.
I take that as meaning physics can't be used to disprove God's existence

Only one God, because there is only one. One creator, one true storyline for history, one beginning of the human race, one fall, one redeemer, one offer of redemption, one way to be redeemed (only one -- trust the one who created it all).

Leave it, and one leaves the only way, whether or not one believes it is of no consequence. The one way still exists. Try another and the truth will be known upon one's deathbed, or not known. It doesn't matter.

Scary? Not really, if the one who says this is the only way is trustworthy, wholly good and reliable.

It takes pure goodness, pure constructiveness, an absence of defect, to create, to be the creator.

What matters to God, because he is good (the meaning of "holy," or whole), is that all mankind -- every soul -- be saved from a terrible fate (his wrath at the end of time; also known as the judgment). Why? He loves mankind (I don't know why, frankly).

He knows there is a time when he must judge each life, and he will do it according to his rules (not ours which are biased in our own favor).

He is a god of wrath when his commandments which are intended to preserve the good, to preserve mankind, are violated. Which is why he says don't judge, but leave judgment to him. Judgment is inevitable.

He offers one way out. Jesus. Believe on him and you will be saved.
Believe that he is who he says he is.

Prophecy: Have soldiers cast lots for his coat.

Old Testament references: Psalm 22:l8 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

New Testament fulfillment: John l9:23,24...This garment was seamless..."Let's not tear it," they said..."Let's decide by lot who will get it." Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34.

If your quoting from religious writings you do not prove knowledge of God but, knowledge of religion. If you use science you prove knowledge of science. We do not know God through our senses but through our intuition. we fail in our attempt to discuss this direct knowledge because we manufacture reasons. We are using the tools we developed to understand our world and they can never contemplate Gods world.

Keiran,
The antithesis of imperfection is an absolute. Our ‘perfect’ ideal, however, is an abstraction (i.e. it cannot be fully grasped) – nevertheless, most apprehend the perfect morality, even if not practice it. A parallel exists: The random movement and uncertainty generated at the sub-atomic level implies total chaos. Alter one part of Planck’s constant (an absolute) and the world, as we know it, could never have existed. Remove Planck’s constant and we have nothing (a true biblical void). One could suggest therefore, no-thing is predetermined but a ‘framework’ exists. Some ‘things’ are perhaps more likely than others in occurrence – QM, after all, is a construct based on probability. Perhaps our actions will ‘stack’ the odds – I believe so.

As you imply, we don’t (or can’t) operate in a vacuum (you suggest an ‘imperfect infinity’). But, you are prepared to believe anything (if you say all ‘truth’ is relative) or perhaps a vacuous nothing. Non-belief, as with relying on dear ol’ teddy, is perhaps a lot safer but quite unimaginative. I believe most, however, are far more inherently creative.

Fear Jesus!!
Dont sin by writing such nonsense:-)
He is coming to each and every country ..http://www.joshuaproject.net/

You know God through the Word of God, Pt.I

From the Bible edited by C.I.Scofield:

The four Gospels record the eternal being, human ancestry, birth,
death, resurrection, and ascension o fJesus the Christ, Son of God,
and Son of Man. They record also a selection from the incidents of
His life, and from His words and works.Taken together, they set
forth, not a biography but a Personality.

These two facts, that we have in the four Gospels a complete Personality,
but not a complete biography, indicate the spirit and intent in which we
should approach them. What is important is that through these narratives we should come to see and know Him whom they reveal....

...the four Gospels, though designedly incomplete as a story, are
divinely perfect as a revelation. We may not through them know
everything that He did, but we may know the Doer. In four great
characters, each of which completes the other three, we have Jesus
Christ Himself. The Evangelists never describe Christ -- they set
him forth. They tell us almost nothing of what they thought about Him
they let Him speak and act for Himself.

This is the essential respect in which these narratives differ from
mere biography or portraiture. "The words that I speak unto you, they
are spirit, and they are life." The student in whom dwells an ungrieved
Spirit finds here the living Christ.

....the Gospels are woven of Old Testament quotation, allusion, and type. the very first verse of the New Testament drives the thoughtful
reader back to the Old; and the risen Christ sent His disciples to the
ancient oracles for an explanation of His sufferings and glory (Lk.24:
27,44,45). One of his last ministries was the opening of their under-
standings to understand the Old Testament.

__________
Lk 24:44: And he said unto them, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Pt II

Lk.24:45

Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

And said unto them, "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day;

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

And ye are witnesses of these things.

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high."

Acts 2:[Babel reversed by the Holy Spirit]

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it
sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues [languages], as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every
nation unto heaven.
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and
were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own
language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another,
are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia,
and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia.
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about
Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes;
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues, the
wonderful works of God.
And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another,
What meaneth this?....

...whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be saved.

lochinvar2006, fascinating link, but I wouldn't get too excited about the Joshua project. Christians are pragmatists too, you know.

There is after all a very good reason why the Taimani tribe of Afghanistan (highlighted by the Joshua Project as in significant need of the gospel) is completely free of evangelical Christians queuing up to set them upon the paths of righteousness.

"Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world. Few have safe drinking water, and fighting is still going on in some areas.

The remote location and wide dispersion of the Taimani have made them hard to reach with the Gospel. At the present time, there is no Christian witness available to the Taimani." (Joshua Project)

In my youth I attended a party in an affluent Southwest London suburb, given by a friend who had recently graduated from theological college. A number of his colleagues were there, and I bumped into a group of them chatting in the kitchen, as one was wont to do at that sort of party. They were discussing their next moves, and the topic when I arrived was "which parish?"

After a few minutes listening to them describe their various choices, I naively suggested that the East End of London was probably fertile ground for their ministry. I was treated to a collective old fashioned look, and told that "hey, we have to live, you know". Strangely, none of them looked at all abashed by the concept that they were putting their religious training to work in the comfortable vicarages and leafy provinces of South East England, as opposed to the slums of Brick Lane.

So the chance of anyone in the Joshua project doing anything more energetic than practising distance piety from the comfort of their own prayer cushion is insignificant.

Part 1
Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?
Though a retired farmer, never-the-less, in my younger days I built a 20cm Newtonian telescope,
took photos of Jupiter, and timed transits of Io. Like Galileo, I observed the beauty, wonder, and awesome grandeur of the heavens(See Keiran Forum Comments 13 Nov 2006). I satisfied myself
the Popery Institution is a fallible one.
Did Rome adopt an attitude of humility at Galileo's discovery? No sir! Rather, a couple of hundred
years publication of Roman theological critical thinking has obviously filled the mind of Sells who seeks to support the religious and political shenanigans of the Council of Nicaea(325 CE). With
this theological information overload, Sells needs to get out the “razor” and lop off some of the
excess baggage!

Two thousand years of Jewish theological deliberation remains untouched by Sells. Could this be
due to feelings of arrogant superiority?

Roman imprimatur is no guarantee of understanding original meaning. Latin is not Hebrew. Should Russia have priority over the interpretation of Australian history rather than Australians?
Sells could start playing catchup, e.g. reading the essay on Nachman Krochmal by Solomon
Schechter in his “Studies in Judaism” would yield helpful insights into the nature of “strong
right arm”.
(contin.) Shmuel

Part 2
Australia is not noted for producing theologians, but Barbara Thiering's efforts on the Dead Sea Scrolls are worthy of careful investigation to perhaps help unravel some of the confusion Sell's
reveals... “we must affirm that G-D is not tied into nature”(Christian atheism)... “while biblical
narrative is often derived from actual historical event... it is also figurative... there is no essential
conflict as regards the nature of the physical world.” Later comments “The greatest gift that Israel
... has given the West is the priority of history and the understanding of its linear and not cyclic
nature”. When Thiering points out deliberate calendric changes in Jesus' era, it becomes obvious spiritual faith took precedence over prophetic calculations. Why?

How fulfilled would Sell's wishes for a following to help be, if the global interest in Dan Brown's musings were to devour Sell's words with their previous fervour? Perhaps, Dan may even have
been a secret student of Barbara?

Christian theology may well have been “eclipsed”... “over the last couple of hundred years”, but
many lay persons are free in the Australian environment to pursue their own bent, ideas that can
generate passions to pursue throughout life. Ian Gillman(edit) “Many Faiths, One Nation” lamented
“Are they having us on?” when wondering about the ever growing 3rd largest “religious” group
revealed by the Australian census. Somewhere around 80% Australians believe G-D exists, but many are hard pressed to say much more in terms of explanation.

“How does G-D exist?” Confusion interlaced with common sense has made for some exhausting
and interesting reading. Whew!
Shmuel

God created the devil. That was good of God.

Sells refers to God as "God Himself". You seem to be at pains to emphasise the sex there. So God has balls. Now who really sees God as an object - in human terms? Hope he has updated to boxer shorts or god forbid hope He isn’t still wearing Bond’s y fronts.

Numbat you said that there was no never-ending hell - well I just read this lot and I disagree. Also despite this punishing read, I am none the wiser. Thanks anyway Sells and posters.

Maybe we should have more faith in Satan for he will sort out the truly bad people. Actually I wonder if Jesus' brother, Satan, really is God because at times Satan seems to be the only one doing any works. Maybe we have it wrong and the Trinity should be the Quadruplet.

Satan has a strong work ethic so that there devil - must be good.
Got lots of friends that evil devil - must be good.
Cashed up that devil - must be really good.
Pulls plenty of chicks that horny demon - must be good.
Drives a BMW that Beelzebub fella –must be good.
Heaps of followers –must be good.

God’s religions are trying to kill each other off while Satan is having fun putting bastard pills in John Howard’s coffee, gaffe invokers in Beazley’s beer, invisible tablets in the Democrats’ bubble baths, chainsaws noises in the Greens’ relaxing CDs and replaced Christian theology with a computer game called the Chamber of Scientific Curiosities and Religious Experiences for Christians with Big Balls – must be good.

Hmmmm. We’ll see.

How does God exist? Only God knows. Maybe instead of grappling with unanswerable questions we should ask: What is truly God’s Way? What is the best way to live (for the atheists)? The answers are supposedly in the Bible and other places. People will find the answers if they push back ideology, religion and all those things that get in the way of Truth

ronnie and others: Again there is not and never has been nor will there be ever be an everlasting torturous commonly preached (by Satan's many churches) hell fire. God created both male and FEMALE in His IMAGE - that is God is both male and female. And YES! God created Satan as the adversary of human kind though God is in complete and total charge and Satan will only do what God allows, it's a part of His plan for all. This is why EVERYONE - that's EVERY HUMAN BEING who has ever lived and who will ever live irregardless of present religion, race, age, sex will make it. As He, God, created Satan as our adversary, allowed Satan to confuse us with his many confusing religions etc then He will save us He will rescue us in His good time. Give you proof - 'get off it'! whatever proof I did give you would probably mock it as well as dis-believe it, Satan has done a good job you see. Regards, numbat

Satan tempts humans to their destruction, as he hates them, the latter being beloved of God. But just because humans are loved by God doesn't mean he will tolerate their misdeeds forever (some of which are truly heinous -- child sexual abuse, or just plain human abuse). And God may have created an angel called Lucifer, but Lucifer chose to sin on his own, mistakenly believing in his pride as the most beautiful of all angels, that he could be like God.

God, on the other hand, tests humans, in order to develop their character. Testing and tempting are qualitatively different, the former for constructive reasons, the latter for destructive ones.

God's ways are constructive -- Love your neighbor as yourself. He has to test us to allow us to meet his challenges, as we don't know how to love our neighbors as we do ourselves. Consider King David who murdered the husband of a woman he wanted. God allowed him to live, although the king knew the penalty was death. However, God also raised up a sword in David's family, through which his favorite son Absalom was destroyed.

For those who are born again in God's spirit, sent to help them meet the tests of God, they would be familiar with the multitude of challenges God places before them to develop their characters according to his image, so that they can follow the second commandment, or come closer to doing so. God changes man's ways from that of war, hating one's neighbor,to peace, loving one's neighbor -- or can do so, with each individual's consent. That's the purpose of being born again.

Gnosticism (Dan Brown) is a belief system opposite to that of the Christian, although the words used may be the same. The Jesus of the Gnostic gospels is different from that of the Gospel. The Jesus of the former claims according to the pseudo gospel of Mary that "there is no sin." If there is no sin (human misdeeds against each other) then there was no reason for Jesus as God to come to earth to try to communicate with an obtuse, hard of hearing mankind, to straighten out our bent/unclean ways.

Gnosticism posits that humans can become as gods. Christianity via Jesus posits that humans are bent towards sin, and as sinful beings, are very far from God's standards which are holy (do not harm others).

Gnosticism posits that sex (eventually with anyone, anytime, at any age) is sacred.* Christianity posits that sex is good, when confined to the marriage relationship (need sociological, psychological and criminological studies to show how this is true, where the marriage relationship is godly, that is, where each marriage partner loves the other as God loves humans).

Gnosticism posits that the flesh/material world is evil. Christianity says creation was originally good, made crooked or imperfect by mankind, to be restored by Jesus at his return.
________
* See the clip from the Da Vinci Code when the grandfather of the presumed descendant of Christ is having "sacred sex" with a prostitute,
as in the pagan religions of old, which associated fertility with the gods and therefore sex with life/divine.

Hawaiilawyer,
Is that God Jesus? :-)
Yes because Jesus told you so.:-)
What about Buddha and other Gods who were before Jesus? :-)Are they Satan?Are others followers of Satan?
Lets have WWF beteen Jesus and non-Christians Gods and Satan :-)

Lets broaden, when Genesis taught about God and Satan to Abrahamical followers,people in other parts of world already knew of "their" God and "their" Satan.
So I am curious to know what would be outcome of this WWF :-)

I cannot let the ill-informed ramblings of HL go Unchallenged.

HL believes himself to be both a champion of the Trinity and Jesus is God and biblical divinity and prophecy, as well as the accredited expert on all things Gnostic (because he or she has been told all about the evil Gnostics at 'divinincal school', or wherever)

He might be able to fool himself but anyone who bothers to look at Truth will be able to see through him for what he truly is. He relies upon the ignorance of others to not rise up to meet him on equal terms.

If Jesus is God why does Matthew 27:46 quote Jesus as saying "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabach Thani"?

Gnosticism has far more in common with True Christianity than HL can possibly begin to understand, certainly far more than it differs to it.

Gnosticism has as it's core belief the intention of eliminating the evil from within the mind of man in order to allow us to more clearly see our personal connection with and to ultimately reUnite within God (Religion: from Latin, Re + Ligare = to rejoin)

Gnosticism posits not that sex is sacred, but that Sacred Sex is sacred. God made humans Male AND Female, so Gnostics understand that humans need to fully appreciate both their male and female 'selves' in order to become closer to God and that sex only with a similarly believing individual and performed in a ceremonial type fashion (enjoyment of sex for sex's sake would be a travesty of the rituals and could never be done by any Gnostic - something HL cannot possibly grasp) is one of the means towards 'enlightenment'.

Gnostics and christians agree on the origninal form of the world AND on it's current rule under Satan and that only through Jesus Christ can we transform ourselves from sin to the state we need to find in order to see and move closer to God.

(cont.)

Listen to HL rant if you want to be good little christians and follow his dire warnings away from evil for you'll only get one chance under his 'Gods' view of humanity's worth and if you fail to accept Jesus in this life you're doomed to eternal hell. Did i get that bit right HL?

Any of you who cannot stomach the smug superiority he tries to peddle and continual knocking of others who seek God through other paths than biblical christianity should realise that Jesus spoke truly, but not just in the bible.

Ghandi knew this and also knew more than HL ever could.

If HL makes it to heaven Ghandi will be waiting for him with open arms along with a bunch of Hindu, Muslim and Gnostic mates.

Time has now come to discard the futility of "religions" claiming their authority to "God".

God cannot be defined,confined,authorized by a religion.God cannot be bounded/claimed by some medieval belief[read religion] held sometime by medieval humans at medieval times on Earth .

Religions are just a set of beliefs,rituals,rules and regulations held and promoted by people at particular event of time and subsequently followed by followers.They claim their path is the way to know "God"/They even Humanize God[:-)] and claim who so ever believes in their belief is a true human being.[:-)] and rest are under grip pf Satans :-)].

Religion should limit their limited knowledge to moral values and good ethics.The concept of God is tooooooooo complex and tooooo vast to be claimed to be a proprietary of a medieval religion.

This article has generated the most disappointing comments yet. Usually there are some worth of reply (Pericles came the closest) but comments have quickly degenerated into the usual drivel. If there could be a case for formal study of theology in our schools and universities the comments on this page would suffice.

Braindrain,
I think you’ve made some thoughtful comment with regard to Gnosticism. It continues to be regarded as somewhat of a heresy by some. Rather than mere apostasy, Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Contemporary research indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy and thus no heresy either. Instead, many opinions on religious matters, including gnosis, flourished side by side. Certainly there were disagreements, but to arbitrarily extrapolate standards of falsity and authenticity from these polemics does not seem justified. Sells may well be frustrated and indeed legitimately call some of the ‘stuff’ here “rubbish”, but, as with Hawaiilawyer he merely disenegages people (even if I might agree with some of what he has to say).

Gnosis can be referred to in the early Catholic authors so too with the Neoplatonic, the Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis (Carl Jung) are gnostic too, Blake and Yeats were gnostic...

The perennial question is, “How do we ascribe meaning or interpretation to words?”
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things".

Sells you are just a writer and one whose ability, perhaps like the rest of us, to articulate is not very good. You are not OLO's resident godly writer. The "drivel" you whinge about is in response to your article. Maybe you aren't as good as you think. Maybe it is your elitist and patronising carry on that winds people up. Maybe that is just the nature of OLO.

You asked an unanswerable question: "How does God exist?" What did you expect the Masters of Theology to rush to OLO and marvel in wonder at your intellectual prowess? It was hard going reading all those posts, but I love that we can be exposed to other people's ideas and thoughts.

Numbat I am a litle confused by your response. I was mocking the idea of eternal hell, of Sells reference to God as an object after arguing that He wasn't an object. He did this by calling God "God Himself". "Himself" suggests human characteristics.

My portrayal of Satan as "good" was what society generally regards as good characterisitcs in a person. I was mocking how these things can be used by bad people to suggest goodness.

If I have crossed the line, tell me what the line is and I will try to respect your boundary. Nothing personal.

Numbat, even though I disagree with some of the things you say, I hold you in high-esteem and regard you as a person of goodwill and character

ronnie peters: Sorry I confused you, there was no intent to do so nor offend or belittle you. No you have crossed no line as far as I am concerned and you are more than entitled to your beliefs.
It's difficult to talk religion when church language is used by others. Church language is totally at odds with God's way, with the Bible so one is prone to come across as pompous or somewhat confusing. By the way this does not in any way make me superior to you or any one else. Any knowledge I have has been given to me for whatever reason.
Thank you for your kind words I will try harder to live up to them. Regards, numbat

BrainDrain and Haiwiilayer,

1. Relda is correct, Christianity didn't stablise until after over three hundred years. Even then, the Latin and Orthodox church split. The first 10 to 13 bishops post-Jesus were Jews.

In the beginning there were small Jesus sects. The gospels were written decades later by writers borrowing the aspostles' name. A convention to assert authority. Only the favourite stories were widely distributed, because copies were expensive to make. The Latin gospels were pretty much in place c. 187, about ten years after Hadrian exciling the Jews, including some to Pella. Those worshippers, whom renounced Jewish faith and allowed Gentiles to join were permitted to return to the Holy sites by the Romans. The roots of Christianity.

Another branch stayed in Pella, later moving to Syria. These guys wrote the Gnostic gospelslater. At Nicaea (325), these theologies clashed... divinity, the trinity and the like.

2. I tried unsuccessfully, to post some equations with comments to demonstrate how time can be created "from nothing".

DaVici Code,

A fiction. The Meroveringians dynasty started in the sixth century. The god involved was Neptune.

Sells,

Your article has drawn interesting comments.

In your reply to me, it was good to see a tilt towards objectivity regarding, "How does Zeus exist"? But, I felt you seemed relunctant to stand back and view the topic, afresh.

Let's try this:

- Guantama Buddha
- Attis
- Dionysus
- Krishna
- Adonis
- Zocaster

All of the above are alleged to have had virgin births. Just the same, Mithras (Mithra) is more interesting, because

a. The virgin birth took place in a stable (c. 600 BCE)
b. Mirthas held a sacraficial dinner
c. Mirthasism uses a eucharist
d. There is judgement and, heaven and hell
e. There is baptism
f. There is a resurrection story
g. The Romans recognised 25/12 as Mithras' birthday
h. Mithasism was Hellenised
i. Jesus grew up in a defunct Greek city-state
j. The Trinity was not Christian doctrine in the first century CE

Peter: "How does Mithras exist?". No double standards or definitions, please. How does (that) God exist?

shmuel,

When discussing Tutankamun with an Egyptologist at the Singapore Civilizations Museum, I was told by her, to go to Greeks to understand what happened in Ancient Egypt. I think there is a lesson, here. Find objective sources. Religionists are often scholarly, but their field of focus too narrow. Research is used for confirmation, not challenge.

Relda, indeed, if I am saying that we cannot ignore the imperfections produced by INFINITY then let's put "imperfections" in inverted commas. Perfection if there is such a thing as perfect, like everything else for we human beings can only be relative because perfection is only perfection in relation to things that are imperfect . Much the same as saying if there were no lies, everything would be true, and therefore truth would not exist and good couldn't exist without evil, because without evil to compare it to, everything would be good, so nothing would be good.

Perhaps we should accept perfection as you say ...... as a human abstraction because even though we may imagine such, like Plato, it will prove impossible to find in an infinite environment. It will also prove impossible to find identicals because relativity denies the existence of identities in nature. Now that's something to think about and also a good one for Peter to comprehend. However, considering some here have made mention of quantum mechanics perhaps I can add that both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are similar because both are still based on the now obsolete assumption of finite universal causality. e.g. Quantum theory still regards quanta as being identical and of course everyone is seduced by formulas until they penetrate the many inbuilt arbitrary assumptions.

In my earlier OLO posts I mentioned my early experiences as a child growing up in the bush. These experiences aroused great curiosity about life that could be beautiful and chaotic, ancient and new, peaceful and cruel in the extreme as well as forever changing. It is not surprising that I came to believe that the universe is infinite and of an unbroken wholeness ....... never created and far from anthropocentric. Today I say there is an inseparable quantum inter-connectedness as reality that requires assumptions like infinity, relativism, causality, uncertainty and complementarity.

Gnostic "gospel" of Mary:

Jesus said there is no sin.

The Bible:

Jesus said there is sin, and he came to earth to destroy the works of the devil (sin and death).

Gnosticism posits that man can become god, that man is matter enclosing a divine spark the source of which is the infinite/divine.

The Bible posits that man can never be "god", that when man believes he can (pride), he becomes dangerous to himself and others.

The biographical sketches of the Old Testament are intended to show the reader, among other things, that when man departs from God's leading, the former departs from morality itself -- right and wrong to the detriment of other humans. It also shows that man often departs from right and wrong when the former is full of pride about what he knows, or thinks he can know (e.g. gnosis)....

Buddha was a man, raised as a prince protected from the world, who left his paradisical compound, saw that there were the aged, the unbeautiful, the dying, and thought that the way to heaven was to deny human mortality and weakness. In an occult trance, he thought that a solution to this problem was "the circle" of reincarnation (presuming there is such a thing), where an individual could eventually work off his past misdeeds (no help from the divine), on his own. Further, in this life, he could reach nirvana by pretending to be without desire. According to Jesus who is God,this is an impossibility for human beings. Out of the hearts of men comes hate, war, envying, strife.

___________
RE: Ad Hominem arguments

The Aryans were Indo-European killers on horseback who dualized those they destroyed (raped, stole from, murdered), claiming the latter "deserved" what they got, being inferior. Some still use ad hominem attacks when arguing -- attacking the persons of those they object to, rather than the argument -- a legacy of Indo-European dualizing which objectifies the other, attaching "inferior status" to the other in order to "conquer" (win the argument, without winning the argument)....

Ronnie Peters

Liked your post. Can we meet at Starbucks in Hawaii? Just fly on over.

Peter

We have "crossed swords", in a civilsed fashion, on this board before. I find your current post most stimulating. You have certainly grasped the essential reasons for my rejection of the Christianity I was brought up in...(trad RC of the Aust Irish sort mostly pre John XXIII). I am not so sure that this means my rationalist world is "flat", tho - missing perception of a real as opposed to imaginary dimension which we might call spiritual, tho that word makes my hackles rise instinctively. You have given me some food for thought.

It amuses me to think, those so condemning of Gnosticism are often peering over a Gnostic ‘elephant in their own backyard’. The ‘Gospel of John’, from the canonical ‘scriptural textbook’, is overtly Gnostic. The reason why the Gospel of John was finally passed on as an accurate gospel is perhaps because Christianity was so highly Greek and Gnostic, its allusions were not so radical as they would have appeared to Jews in the 1st century.

In fact, the Gospel of John very nearly didn’t make it into the cannon because of its strong Gnostic overtones. A few years after Irenaeus, the Roman Presbyter Gaius denounced it as having been written by a Gnostic heretic named Cerinthus. Certain Gnostic elements are noteworthy in the gospel, such as a metaphysical rationalizing to explain why the Resurrection and Parousia had not happened as a physical event. The resurrection is indeed given just such a spin with Christ supposedly saying: “I am the Resurrection and the life,” making the concept of a one-time vast resurrection of the dead into something far more metaphysical or allegorical.

It is interesting to also note, the gospel was written late in the 90s AD or early 2nd century as shown by the fact that the prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, now a past event, are noteworthy for their absence, and apocalypticism in general is expurgated. Christ is no longer a Jewish figure at all, but he is Greek, engaging and talkative, disputing, evasive, and mystical.

Keiran, I enjoyed reading your last post.

HL

Your blindness is truly sad.
Or is it just that you do not have the intelligence to see things without your personal bias?

You 'quote' the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) as: 'Jesus said there is no sin'.

Did your eyes not read the context? Did your brain not bother to check your own personal inequality and trust in the word of the one who so Loved 'Our Saviour'?

'25) Peter said to him (Jesus), Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.

Jesus is quoted as saying, in answer to Peter's question; The Natural World has no sin. It is you (man) who MAKE sin.....

HL your blind hatred of things Gnostic is unworthy of a christian. I suggest you do not make such feeble attempts to inform us here of the things of which you either have not the faintest comprehension or which you are evilly trying to corrupt in the eyes of others, as such IS a man-made sin.

Since you refuse to answer my challenge to your theory of why Jesus-who-'is'-God asked why God had forsaken him on the cross (I attack your argument there, not you) I can only assume your argument is either false and Jesus Christ was NOT God or you do not have all the answers on biblical study and understanding. Or you are just plain wrong. Which is it?.

P.S. for the post, my personal belief is that God is currently best represented by the Quantum Foam which operates to connect us instantly to every other sentience in the Universe and perhaps even beyond, and through which it is possible to access infinite wisdom, if we free our minds from the shackles of physicality and acknowledge our spirituality and conscience and it's position of importance in our everyday lives.

Keiran,

Your Glenn Borchardt quotes are informative. Nonetheless, infinities do exist in QM. Also, the infintesimal. Sometimes these infinities are a mathematical nuisuance. Transitions from the infinitisal to the finite point to why universes are (the multi-verse is?).

Some QM senarios were initially examined non-relatistically. Herein, t (time) is decrete, say as a denominator in an equation. This is problematic, because of relativistic spacetime being enjoined. Dirac notations try to deal with this matter (dimensional components).

Some mindstretching stuff with infinties. Like some infinities being larger than other infinities, and, infinities raised by the power of infinities.

Photons are not alone in being identifical: So are electrons (Gell-Mann). You would know, from Atomic chemisty, that (identical) electrons can move between the outer shells of atoms. What Borchardt does not articulate is that the eigenstates of particles are variable (normalisations)and it is here we find differentiation.

QM is still underdevelopment. Perhaps, new calculi will need to be developed to manage this development. Herein, there could be a shift in using integers, towards something more geometric in nature.

Just the same, the fundamentals of "How does the Universe exist?", now exists in as a rough diamond, in providing conceptualisations (some tested) of the transition of infinite indeterminance and finite determinance.

Herein, the gods, which are the contrivinces of Man, exist, within a macro-matter universe. The QM micro-world is more fundamental than cosmology, humans or gods. We, and our mind, and imaginings, are built from such stuff.

Sells,

I await your reply, please. [I did note your earlier post about Jesus being an historical person. I think this likely.]

-"How does Mithras exist?"

Relda,

I guess the difficulty in studying the Jesus character is, his life fits between two confabulations [not total fictions]. The first, the OT. The second the NT. It is a pitty, we do have to hand pricisely contemporaneous accounts c.20-30/33.

Have you read Karen Armstrong? Someome whom took a step back to study "theology" rather than a religion

Oliver, Thanks for the mention of KA. I found this quote from Karen Armstrong (a "freelance monotheist” and ex-nun), to perhaps sum up what theology should achieve, “If your understanding of the divine made you kinder ... and impelled you to express this sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology," she writes. "But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God's name, it was bad theology."

Unfortunately, her Christian allegiance would not rank as sufficiently firebrand, in the Fundamentalist view at least, given her strong tolerance toward other religions – particularly Islam. She’s managed to raise the ire of both Christian fundamentalists and atheists alike (this perhaps makes me a bit of a fan). Armstrong says that just as there is good and bad sex or art so too is there is good and bad religion. “Religion is hard work”.

She sees nothing extraordinary in the persons of Calvin or Luther and views the Reformation as having created more death and violence than what it was worth – perhaps a challenging view. It needs mentioning, many individuals within history merely represent an apex of an existing process or idea. This makes them no less important but they certainly owe their destiny to a birthright given to timing, location, endowment and a particular ‘calling’ - to which they’ve responded

Brainy... to understand Jesus utterance on the cross it is neccessary to digress momentarily.

Luke 24:44-48

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.

COMMENT The above encompasses all that occurred in Jesus life.
"All that is written" includes the Messianic Psalm 22

The words Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani are the opening words of that Psalm. There are other sentences in the psalm relating to the crucifixion, including

["They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."]

This same principle applies to Jesus cleansing the temple. "Thus it is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer" but you have made it a den of robbers.
His disciples recalled that it was written " for zeal for your house consumes me" Psalm 69:9

I hope this helps to fit it all together.
regards

Relda

Can you cite me some sentences in the Book of John that seem gnostic to you, so that I can take a look?

___________

Genesis lays out the beginning of mankind and the reasons why it is so violent. If one accepts the premises of Genesis, if one trusts it as
being accurate (not chronological, but accurate), then God's premise that mankind can never become as God will steer one's understanding of the rest of the Bible.

For this reason, the gnostic premise that man can become as god/return to a perfect/godly state, is diametrically opposed to the Bible. For this reason, it is called anti-Christ, or against what Christ came do say to mankind, and do for mankind, provide the only path to salvation -- through him. The fundamental premise of the Bible is denied by the gnostic premise of self-created perfection.

Some consequences:

If the premise of Genesis is true that mankind is bent towards evil (the heart of man, as the biographies in the Old Testament are meant to reveal to mankind, then it is a factual impossibility for man to perfect himself through gnosis. That is, the premises and statements in the gnostic gospels mislead, and redirect.

If the bent of mankind is towards destruction, then giving man the choice to follow his own lead, will lead to further destruction, further violence to others.

It comes down to whether one trusts the words of the Bible as God revealing himself to mankind, in truth.

That is, Is God trustworthy? A question of God's character.

The Bible is intended to show that he is and has always been trustworthy. He fulfills his prophecies and his promises.

Hawaiilawyer,
The Gospel according to John was probably written for Hellenized Jews. The use of both Pagan and Christian Gnostic symbolism throughout the Gospel and the fact that the Gospel was originally written in Greek indicate that those to whom this Gospel was directed had to have been people (whether “elite” or “non-elite”) who knew and understood the myths and symbolism of the Hellenized world around them.

Dualist themes (a component of Gnosticism) are expressed in John:
· Light/darkness.
· Flesh/spirit.
· Birth/death.

Many of the stories in John are laden with symbols e.g. The Samaritan Woman at the Well where these symbols center around water: a well, drink, water jar, leading to other symbols — spirit, truth, food etc.

John has Jesus using “living water” in “conceptually parallel ways”: The Old Testament, Jewish monuments, and Jewish institutions are contrasted with the “gift of Jesus.”
· Water was a metaphor for the Spirit in both Old Testament and Rabbinic thought.
· The metaphor of the living water depicts two things:
The valueless institution which Jesus replaces in his person.
The newness Jesus brings.

Examples of other stories, highly symbolic:
· The marriage at Cana.
· The story of the loaves and fishes.
· The story of the man born blind from birth.
· The story of the raising of Lazarus

On the subject of Gnosticism: Jung claimed, "In the ancient world, the Gnostics, whose arguments were very much influenced by psychic experience, tackled the problem of evil on a broader basis than the Church Fathers." It is no exaggeration to say that the theological positions of most mainstream denominations in their approach to pastoral care, as well as in their doctrines and liturgy - have become more or less identical with Jung’s psychological/symbolic theology.

Those who claim to know nothing about ultimate reality are called agnostic (literally, "not knowing"), the person who does claim to know such things is called gnostic ("knowing"). The Greek language distinguishes between scientific or reflective knowledge ("He knows mathematics") and knowing through observation or experience ("He knows me"), which is gnosis.

Boaz_D
I thank you for your helpful comments, although this thread might not be the most appropriate, I appreciate your words. Apologies to readers for my response here.

It is interesting to see in the words of David, written a thousand years before Christ, many similarities between what David experienced and what Christ endured (assuming we take Gospels 'as Gospel' ; ) ) and also interesting to note it's position in the Bible just before what i consider to be the most beautiful of the Psalms, Psalm 23 (..Valley of Death...)

The point I still make however, is that David, who was undeniably human and not God, is declaring those words to his own people as a declaration of his faith in God. I still cannot equate this with one who IS God (supposedly) calling out to God, even if to show to Jews his connection to the lineage of David. To my mind this merely reinforces Christ's humaness, not his Godliness. I do not in any way deny that Christ knew all that was in store for him before he surrendered himself through the aid of his agent Judas (possibly as a result of reading the words of David, thus making a self-fulfilling 'prophecy)'.

If you have anything that disproves this in your wisdom i shall be happy to hear it.

I see Jesus as an exceptionally wise and courageous Human with great (perhaps Unique?) Faith, anything more than this i have yet to be shown.

Thank you for your efforts Relda but you have said not one thing HL can accept as proof of your argument that John's Gospel was Gnostic. His 'faith' will not permit him to acknowledge your perspective as having any validity any more than it will allow him to admit mine has. He is right ( and has God on his side) and we are sinners who hold no truth and are thus wrong and that is that in his eyes.

HL despite my many proofs of the falllacy you hold to of your understanding of Gnosticism you still cannot accept your own ignorance in this matter and persist in making foolish statements that just prove your lack of understanding.

Here is the latest one: You absolutely and resolutely insist that Gnosticism equates to man's self-generated Godhood - It DOESN'T! It DOES require ALL individuals who desire to seek God to recognise that from Birth we build a wall that prevents us from 'knowing' God fully or perfectly, and lack of awareness of this will ensure we end up in your concept of 'hell'. Gnosticism's aim is to remove as much as possible from every human who makes the attempt (through the aid of Jesus Christ within them) this 'wall' (fundamental mental processes - could be identified as 'human sin' at a push) so as to bring to the very few who remain capable of overcoming all challenges and building the necessary preconditions (which, for many, takes multiple lifetimes) closer to knowledge of and eventually incorporation into, God. (Like Enoch who 'walked with God' after hundreds of years, humans HAVE that ability - the ability through immensely hard work and the Grace of Jesus to 'walk with' God.

Accept that you have misled yourself into a false understanding of what Gnosticism is (mainly because of the Council of Nicea) and try increasing your knowledge and understanding of what God IS, instead of pulling down a practice you have not the least true understanding of, as your words prove to all.

You have been partly deceived by the evilness of those who sought power over the 'True' Word of God from the time of his arrival on Earth, if not before that. Christ's knowledge remains but you choose to follow man's word and your own imperfect understanding, and that of others, over your Lord's.

Be as Christ - Christ is the Way.

Trust Sells is just busy or working on a reply. Hope he will join in the debate. That is what writing to a Forum is about. We learn from each other.

Peter, please respond to my earlier post. Thanks.

Jesus requires that a human be born again of water and the [Holy] spirit, in order to be saved. There is no gnosis involved in this. There is faith, generated solely by God. It is unreasonable for humans to believe that Jesus is God, because humans are only personally acquainted with other humans. If it is unreasonable, and cannot be accessed by reason, then following Jesus who is God can only be by faith/trust.

One may trust Jesus, if one sees, hears, or reads about his miracles, which are occurrences beyond the abilities of any human being.

The premise of gnosticism is that through knowledge gained through human effort, a human can save himself. The sleeper awakes to salvation. Independently of any supernatural/beyond human help.

The premise of Genesis is that humans aren't capable of this. The premise of Gnosticism is that humans are capable fo this.

The reason, according to the Bible, why Jesus/God became flesh was to reverse the decision of Adam and Eve to live their lives apart from God and God's guidance. They wanted to be independent. The Bible says that human independence is an illusion, that the reality of the human condition is that humans are enslaved to sin, as humans. They can't awake on their own.

_____________
Sources:

Kurt Randolph, Gnosis -- The Nature & History of Gnosticism.

James M. Robinson, general editor, The Nag Hammadi Library.

Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels.

ON MINDS

Sells and religionists,

"God is a fixed-pint concept surrounded by religion." - Professor Igor Alexander, AI expert, and Professor of Neural Systems Engineering at Imperil College, London. -- Translation, "God is a concept embedded in a personal religious mind".

Further, Alexander states, "God is slightly [I would thought largely]different from God in others [others' minds]. Hence, in the neurology, different minds; see Zeus, Mithras and existing differetnly. This is "how God(s)exists". In the mind. Even Sells says this about Zeus, but, regards as "drivel" the same words applied to Jesus. Wonder if he has an MRI?

- How does Mithras exist?

Relda,

"Humanism is itself a religion without a God... Our ethical ideal has its own disciples of the mind [Freud would have liked that :-)] and heart and gives people the means of finding faith in the ultimate meaning of life that were once provided by more conventional religions." - Karen Armstrong (in Mooney, B., "Devout Sceptics", 2003)

I am a fan of KA too. And the notion of "unconditional positive regard towards others" [try at least] - Carl Rogers

The above ideals seem much more moral (Kohlberg) than the Gods [Abraham & Moses] of the OT and better represent the Sermon the Mount than the teachings of the Christian churches thoughout history.

Albeit, I am not a relionist, there are some religious thinkers, I respect. Peter Abelard broke with the tradition Greek dialogues and revisited how we should review reality, for instance. In Greek dialogues, the master leads the student the final truth.

Regarding your post, I agree many great persons receive the praise, after others have laid the groundwork. Your mention of Eistein is a good example.

Humanists and Christians are at opposite poles. The former starts with the proposition that people are basically good, but sometimes fail themselves. The later sees the people are basically [original sin] bad and sin, under the influence of evil, and, fail their god.

The humanist mind is mainly internally justified and self-actualised. In contrast, the Christian mind is mainly externally justified and elsewhere actualised.

Oliver,

make mine a fixed half-pint thanks! ; ) surrounded by and permeated completely by mostly itself.

God may be a 'concept embedded in a personal religious mind' but what concept isn't embedded in a person's (mathematical, physical,conscious detecting) mind?

What the erstwhile Prof. has not established is whether or not God exists independently of our concepts of it.

My personal belief is that it does. I cannot agree with the concept some religions hold that God is somehow dedicated to hold prime interest in the ravings of a bunch of semi-evolved ape-like creatures on a tiny planet in the middle of an unlimited Universe, and that 'He' holds onto some kind of desire that we worship him and do only good to our fellowman or gives a damn if we do or not. That humans somehow hold the 'key' to fulfilling God's 'plan' for us.

It's just a load of navel gazing.

( Sorry HL i should have warned you to close your eyes even more than you do when reading this bit!)

Man has enough trouble trying to make their understanding of God fit inside their tiny little minds to make some sort of self-justifying sense without trying to understand exactly what God IS. (the one thing i am convinced of and most religious thinkers would agree is that God is NOT human - not even very much like humans, in my mind, any more than Michaelangelo's image of David is human).

HL,
i am impressed you can research other sources than the bible for your information, not much, but impressed.

Research of other texts is pointless if your own belief makes you incapable of seeing truth, as it clearly does in the case of Gnosticism. I am being forced to conclude that nothing can remove your bias. That is sad indeed.

You cling to this Christian fantasy that just accepting Christ into your life is all that is needed for Salvation, as if this changes a person irreversably. Gnostics are fully aware that humans change and if they can accept Christ, they can also reject him at any time. How could a christian priest ever possibly commmit paedophilia if Christ was within him?

Once Again! your understanding of Gnostics comes more from your own bias than the Truth. Gnostics (how many times do i have to thump this into you?) have to ask Christ's help to achieve their slow, long, hard rise (Narrow is the path and many fall by the wayside) towards their ultimate goal - reuniting (re-ligare) with God. They are NOT 'self-fulfilled' 'Gods'. Take off your blinkers and see the Truth, Man!

What part of 'Gnostics require the aid of/faith in Jesus Christ' don't you GET??

Faith IS of God (you got that sort of right!). It is up to each MAN to choose to accept this inside and work constantly towards building it up and holding onto it while simultaneously eliminating that within him which constantly seeks to deny this faith (it is the struggle of one or many lifetimes to fully eliminate that which denies faith).

(I would ask that you await the confounding post limit expiry to hear my full argument before replying)

Some pretty sharp minds on this post. Who can tell me -

What became of those who lived before the bible was written?
What of all the innocent but ignorant, were they destined for damnation?

And if mother Theresa was a jew would she go to heaven?

Seems to me you're all looking at the same sky, but seeing different cloud formations

To be "born again in the spirit of God":

Agree from your heart, and confess that Jesus is God and you
wish to lay your burden of sin on him, accepting him as your
savior and lifelong guide (Lord).

Admit that he is God who came in the flesh, was crucified, and on
the third day, rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand
of God.

Admit that he will judge the living and the dead, for which reason he has now washed away your past sins,
and remembers them no more,

That he has broken the stranglehold that Satan and sin has had on your life.

Recognize that as an adopted child of God, he has sent you the Holy Spirit of God to
guide you and cleanse you, to help you be a new creation in the Lord.

Recognize that during your life, you can only do this if you truly love him with all your heart, mind and soul,
following the first commandment, which following will lead you to follow his ways and make decisions as he would.

__________
That priests, who are probably not born again (compare the doctrine of works which claims that
man as man can clean himself up with the doctrine of grace where man can do nothing without choosing daily to rely on the Spirit and the Word for guidance, the key being "choosing"), can wallow in sin, is a characteristic and proof of the degeneracy and violence of humans as humans.

If they are born again, they have the availability of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean they will choose to cooperate with it.

The element of free will is a mandate of God for his creation. He never imposes his will, but allows humans to destroy themselves and others, to their own destruction and ultimate judgment.

There is no force involved, except at the end. The element of love is that God didn't have to offer mankind a way out, but he did. It is a choice that is real, but one that many will ignore.

Imaginary priest pedophile: "I and my needs are perfect (I don't need to change [repent]). Therefore, if I decide to abuse a child sexually, that's okay. I don't need to change [repent].

Imaginary murderer: "I and my needs are perfect (I don't need to change [repent]. Therefore, if I decide to murder someone, that's okay. I don't need to change [repent].

Imaginary weapons of mass destruction terrorist: "I and my needs are perfect...."

Jesus calls on humans to repent i.e. change, because as is, they are full of sin / sinful, and the latter does the above -- destroys one's neighbor. This requires perceiving a sinful self/past, first, not perceiving a divine spark within the self, or one's divine potential.

The next step is following his lead -- through accepting him as lord and savior (from what? from the scenarios above, and their choices to destroy others).

____________

Which stage of human "perfection" allows one to "thump" others, and call them names if they don't "agree"? Is this the secular version of a crusade -- prepping to do violence, or doing violence?

bennie,
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick) – narrow religiosity often resorts to this sort of tactic with regard to hell/ damnation, particularly Fundamentalist Christianity. Unfortunately, for many people, this is the whole crux of the Christian faith: "Do what God tells me to tell you to do, or else you'll roast in Hell for all eternity." The Calvinists will probably say (stemming from their belief in predestiny), "Do whatever you damn well please, you're probably going to roast in Hell for all eternity anyhow and there's nothing you can do about it." Either way, the ‘love’ of God is hardly illustrated or appealed to. Hell certainly exists – as a state of mind, here on earth.

Christianity is the offshoot of Judaism. The Torah teaches that all humanity is created in the image of God. In the Jewish myth of creation, one couple, Adam and Eve, are the parents of all humanity. In this view God speaks to all human beings and all human communities in various ways. All perceive the one God in their own way and take different paths to the service of the ultimate Godhead. A narrowly defined Christianity seems to pretentiously usurp its ‘parent body’.

Judaic storying telling gives us an interesting tale. When Moses was ‘divinely’ requested to go down into Egypt, he rather reluctantly says, "They'll laugh at me. Who shall I say has sent me?" and gets the massive punning answer, "Say that ehyeh asher ehyeh has sent you," which is invariably translated as "I am that I am" but actually means "I will be that I will be" - put this into English so it is coherent, "I will be present wherever and whenever I choose to be present."

Might seem, ‘he’ hasn’t been ‘round for awhile.

Bennie, indeed.

We are all here trying to find a teddy because Peter has asked a leading question from nothing more than a belief in belief assumption like .... "How does God exist?". Of course there can never be one of these teddies but it is concerning that many people still adopt some ancient codification of magic where they insist on intelligence first before matter. May I suggest that one of the problems with such magic is that a pattern cannot be designed and necessary at the same time. If it is necessary then it is not designed, and if it is designed it is not necessary.

i.e.
No matter how aesthetically pleasing something is, or how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain religious industry has bet on it..... it will always come down to ..... does the theory over-ride the evidence?

BrainDrain,

"make mine a fixed half-pint thanks!" - BD

[Should have read "point" not pint... Reminds of Winston Smith (1984, George Orwell) going to a pub of the prols., where an old guy, who could remember the imperil system of measure, said words to the effect that, with the metric system a litre of beer was too much and set one to the toilet all the time all the time and a half-litre was too little and did squench one's thirst. A pint was just right!]

I think what the good prof. was saying is we build our own god around a common attractor. [I may have miss read him, little context, a few lines in a book intro.]. Agree, there other concepts.

I respect your concepts. But I see other people, all religious, building concepts about their religion, just like you and Sells (who seems to have left us). All saying there are 1,000 gods, but "my concept" is right, with equal conviction. 999 false gods and I have the one true god [apologies to polytheists].

Relatedly, this is why Sells takes God as a given and Jesus is that God. All Sells, so called theology is, tethered to that point. When he writes he starts with a given and adopts a langsyne attachment to an apriori fixation. ...Out come the four wise monkeys, see no evil, say no evil, hear no evil, write no evil in response to tricky Forum questions

All,

Sells sees Jesus vis-a-vis Zeus, as a "pure" human presence. But does not elaborate. Many would see Jesus as a historical person, but does it not odd seem so many attributed characteristics parallel, Mithras? Sells would say, Mithras is a project of people's minds, but at the same time chides many whom post here claiming Jesus is a projection of the mind. A double standard.

Even if Jesus was human, an historical person, and, Mithras was not: Why would a Son of God, as an historical person, cloak himself in --to him-- the 600 year old Mithras Myth, as detailed in my earlier post? What would Occam's razor suggest? Who this plagarist? God or some priests?

Sells,

- How does Mithras exist?

Peter, Please don't preach from a bunker. If you like your name on articles, why not engage in our remarks. Else, you seem aloof.

cont.
If you could be bothered to remove your personal bias you would see that there's nothing within Gnosticism that denies man the path to 'heaven' or God, and it is, in fact, christianity of (man's) church that prevents many from ever reaching a true 'understanding' of God and 'His' ways, not Gnosticism. Gnosticism denies the power of man's church and the role the Bible plays in it. It is for this reason ONLY that it is (falsely) made out to be heretical. (Mis)Quote whoever you wish to try to 'support' your own bias, but you can only truly understand by walking the (straight-and-narrow) path.

To me it is obvious that you acknowledge the falsehood of the christian church since you no longer attend one. It is the history of the same church that calls Gnosticism heretical, as they fear the true Power and fail to properly understand God or man.

Over to you.

Oliver,

Please give me enough credit to work out for myself what 'Fixed pint' means. I had hoped you might appreciate humour. I supect English may not be your first language?

I'm sure Sells can fight his own battles (if he can be bothered), but your question about how Mithras existed sparked my natural curiosity and i did a little research (unlike HL I can accept information provided me without denying it's validity because of some pre-existing self-held worldview).

In regards to your Question:

a: Citation for your claim? Wikipedia quotes Roman Mithras as being born (or reborn) of a rock (272 BC dies 64 years later 208 BC (nobody needed him when he was 64!) and also as a virgin birth (from the 7th cent BC Zoroastran Mithra,"progeny of Anahita, a mother-entity, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras").
b: I believe you'll be hard pressed to find any religion/god that does NOT hold a sacrificial dinner in Indo-Eurasian theology.
c: Eucharist, from the Gk=Thanksgiving. Ditto b.
d: A common theme in Indo-persian religions pre-extant to both Mithraism and Christianity.
e: John the Baptist was baptising people before Jesus Christ rose to prominence... cont.

(from before)
..as a public figure in Roman times. Under Roman control many differing religious sects and their practices were united so as to enhance Christianity as the religion of the Emperor and his people.
f: How better can people symbolise the rebirth into godly life and ways or that God has the power over life and death?
g: The Romans decided 25/12 is Christ's birthday under a Roman calendar (solar) it is no coincidence that it occurs during the week following the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere (Dec 21) being the day the Sun (son) is 'reborn' and the days again start becoming longer. Zoroastran Mithraists ancestors in Iran today refer to Shab-e-Yalda which celebrates the birth of the divinity of light on that day. Yalda literally means "The birth of sun."
h: Since Alexander the Great conquered the land of Zoroaster worship in 4th cent BC, 'Hellenising' Mithraism is hardly surprising. It was Romanised at the time of Jesus' alleged birth.
i: Jesus grew up under Roman rule as the Romans overrode the Greek conquest of Palestine. Empires both adopt and supplant a states extant practices, what's new?.
j: Romans (who's soldiers held Mithras as their God/Religion. It was predominantly male) determined that the Trinity should become dogma. Persians held an Indian belief in the Trinity of God. Mithra is a member of the Ahuric Triad, protectors of Asha, the order of the universe.

This highlights to me the importance of understanding evolution (how one thing grows out of another, 'perfecting' it for a specific period or group). Things get dropped (occasionally vital things), and things get added (sometimes erroneously misextrapolated).

I have something for you to invest that substantial brainpower upon:
Until we can learn to live beyond the good and evil dichotomy we will fail both our own humanity and God ('s will).
A single coin has two opposing faces which man frequently fails to recognise are, at the one time, unique in one's own perspective and indivisible from it's whole.
Conscience that isn't separated from conscience somehow, is incapable of distinguishing itself uniquely.

Comment?

BD,

1.1 General references:

- History and Ethics within Organized Christianity, Hall, 1910
- The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, Thornburn, 1916
- Survival of Roman Religion, Laing, 1931
- Seasonal Feasts and Festivals, James, 1963
- The Son of Man in Myth and History, Borsch, 1967
- Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, Rahner, 1971
- The Transcendent Adventure: Studies of Religion in Science Fiction/Fantasy, 1985
- Pseudo-Dionysius, Luibheld, 1987
- From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity, Finn, 1997
- Ascetic Eucharists, Food and Drink in Ancient Christian Ritual Meals, McGowen, 1999
- Mystics of the Christian Tradition, Fanning, 2001

1.2 Stable reference:

The stable reference was from “The Hiram Key”, Knight & Lomas, 1997,. Unwisely, I just checked the stable claim, with that book, because the Book was handy. Checking a little deeper, the more common birth reference is to a cave. The rub is that others say Jesus’ birthplace was a cave and the stable is a tradition. Does this mean that Mithras and Jesus were both born in a cave, in truth or fiction? To be honest, I think not. More than likely than not, in myth, Myrythras was born of rock, representing the enduring universe. Jesus’ birth, in real life? Unknown.

1.3 Answer Format:

I started typing my reply before realising that your points corresponded to mine. Sorry.

I did know much of the history you outlined but learned a thing or two. Thanks.

My minor point is that Jesus has adopted many of the trappings of a mystery cult. In Marketing term the product is not well differentiated.

My main point throughout this thread is that there are some whom think objectively about, say, Mithras, but do not give Jesus the same workout. Thinking is selectively suspended and double standards applied. Sells sees God and Jesus as synonymous. That’s his personal right. However, “How does God Exist?”, is a wide theological topic not merely a personal advocacy

/Cont...

BD,

1.4 Your question:

Will think on your question. Busy now. Doing my own research and in an offshore time zone. Could be a few days.

2. Reply still pending

Sells,

- How does Mithras exist?

Hope you reply.

Oliver, thank you for your consideration and your posts. I find the similarities between Mithras and Jesus amusing and cannot see much reason for a wide consideration of difference in approaches attributing different characteristics to either individual as some probably do (christians for example).

Given the influence the roman empire has had on both religions the similarities might partially be expected.

All,
permit me to correct an apparent misundersanding of me.

Unlike HL it matters not a whit to me what religion you choose to adopt personally nor even if you adopt one at all.

This is because, despite all appearances of perceptions to the contrary.... I AM NOT RELIGIOUS!!

I am not proselytising (christianity, gnosticism or anything else)
as HL frequently does on OLO insisting that he contains the one true way to God for all and that we are damned to hell if we don't accept verbatim his own (held in common with a number of other's) belief.

I will defend vigourously the denigration of practically any religion HL tries to demonise, that i have some understanding of when i can see quite clearly how deceived he has been and he tries to share that deception with those who read his rantings.

I can quote the Bible because i find it interesting as a source of practically unadulterated history of the time of a figure who has influenced more than almost any other human has and can see a lot of value in doing as Christ did (including more than any Bible claims to show. Refer EB Szekely's works) not because i am in any way christian, (HL will surely misinterpret THAT quote!) it just makes a deal of common sense to me as a moral guide.
(cont.)

I can claim God 'exists' (as a combination of the sum total of all that is and that of which we currently have little or no understanding or knowledge) as a convenience for uniting 'everything' under a three letter term that can have various concepts attached to it, without having a 'religion'. I have belief, which is currently able to be updated, as various pieces are revealed to my awareness. It is able to encompass the beliefs of many religions and of non-religion (science). I seek commonality between different beliefs, not to find the 'perfect' one.

I can claim an ultimate 'self-generated' (i.e. upto MY conscious choice) ability to re-unite with this 'God' (and in that sense only be considered re-ligare-ous), or more precisely claim that i was never actually separate from it but that it was partially 'within' me the whole time but my consciousness usurped it's role as Divine Orderer/Creator within MY 'Universe', and thus bridge any gap between Humanists and Religion. (except the Humanists belief that 'nothing else' is 'out there')

I cannot help if other human's incapability of fully appreciating these sometimes contradictory-seeming statements within their own perceptions causes them confusion but i do believe i deserve greater credit and less pigeonholing than some seem capable of here, mostly perhaps due to the limits of a 350 word post and the economy's that insists upon.

As for the Question how does God Exist? My answer is: How can 'He' Not? Allowing for a far less limiting interpretation of God and 'His Plan' than most religions seem to be able to confine 'Him(Her)' to. that is.

Part I

Porter Barrington (Royal Publishers):

SIN

In considering the question of sin, we are faced with two startling
facts.

The first fact is that man makes so little of sin. To some, it is
an illusion -- a religious mirage -- the invention of some fanatic.
It is denied, joked about, and laughed at by man. Many who believe
sin to be a fact continue in it with little thought of its penalty.

The second fact is that God makes so much of sin. God said, "The
soul who sins shall die." (Ezek.l8:20 OT). "The wages of sin is
death" (Page 273 -- Rom.6:23). All sins are an abomination to
God (Prov.6:l6-l9 OT), and He hates those who work iniquity. (Ps.5:
5 OT). Moses ssaid, "...All who behave unrighteously, are an abomin-
ation to the Lord your God (Deut.25:l6 OT). Sin is an evil force.
Its presence cannot be escaped in this life, but it can be overcome
by the power of God....

JUDGMENTS

In the Scriptures, we are instructed to"rightly divide the word of
truth" (Page 372 - 2 Tim.2:l5). This is most essential when studying
the judgments. Do not endeavor to make all the judgments conform to
the theory of one "general judgment." The "general judgment" theory is
the invention of religion and is not taught in the Word of God. There
are five separate judgments revealed in the Bible, and they differ
as to time, place, and purpose. Yet, they all have one thing in
common: the Lord Jesus Christ is the judge (Page l67 -- John 5:22).

....see part II.

Part II

Porter Barrington

JUDGMENTS (con't)

In the first judgment, the sins of the believers have already been
judged in Christ on the cross.
...

In the fourth judgment, all nations are to be judged at the Second Coming of Christ.

In the fifth judgment, the wicked dead are to be judged at the great
white throne....

__________
JESUS ON HELL:

Luke l6:l9

There was a certain rich man which was clothed in purple
and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there
was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his
gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the
rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his
sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried
by the angels into Abraham's bosom; the rich man also died,
and was buried;

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and
seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in
water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son...

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great
gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you
cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come thence.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest
send him to my father's house:

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest
they come to this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from
the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Let’s religiously follow some NT writings for the ‘bible believer’ – to the letter:

· There is no other name under heaven, (Jesus) by which a man can be saved. There is one true Christian Church and whoever believes on the name of the Lord..Jesus Christ, shall be saved, while others are condemned.

· Allegiance to Christianity forbids one to make friends with "the world" (love not the world, neither the things that are in the world, whoever loves the world, the love of the father is not in him.") Paul cursed the Jews in the New Testament, numerous times. Martin Luther, a Christian, taught they should be killed like pigs.

· You are to have no relationships outside the church; they are not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers."

· A Christian is instructed to marry only one, which becomes his property. His wife cannot talk in church – questions of a religious nature must be asked at home. Women are to keep silence in the church, obey their husbands as unto the Lord, and call him "Lord" as did Sarah (all in NT). They are to give him sex as a part of her duty and submit.

· God is 'loving" only to the degree you obey and fall in line. If not, you are toast just as with any other "god" The Jesus of the Gospels is NOT the same as in the book of Revelation. The fundy Jesus comes back with a Rod of Iron to threaten and beat the crap out of those who don't obey and love God

The following is strongly implied, for the biblical literalists:

· The Koran must be reviled and the Christian bible upheld (the Koran and the Bible sprang from the same culture, something few realize or think about).

· Critical thinking is to be abhorred as it runs counter to the examining of evidence that runs contrary to their (Fundy Christian) established belief system.

Relda,

I share your scepticism concerning following biblical scripture verbatim.

I have some points concerning your observations:

The first biblical book, Genesis Chap 1 and the entire last book of Revelation clearly show that the Entire Bible between those two books (old and new testaments) is not intended to be taken by all quite that literally (Genesis tells us God did not create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth 'day' and yet the evening and the morning were the first day and the second day and the third (when he created the plants, BEFORE the sun, moon and stars!)

Christians were directed not to marry unless they found it impossible to resist the will of the flesh (and love of a 'good' woman). Paul to the Corinthians, Ch 7: 'It is good for a man not to 'touch' a woman' (so as to remain a virgin pure unto God and Jesus).

He understood this was a trial too strong to be be lived up to by many and so 'permitted' (tolerated) marriage to one woman. He also was a biblical Sex Discrimination Officer: A woman hath not power over her own body, but the husband. LIKEWISE the husband hath not power over his own body but the wife! (1 Cor 7:4)

The bible uses much allegory and parable to teach those without the wit to understand the higher truth and mystery. It also contains the higher Truth's for those who can determine them and is thus useful for all mentalities (except the proud)

Jews may have been used (perhaps in translation to english) to identify unbelievers in Jesus and killing can be meant to destroy lack of faith - ask HL for a better awareness of this than i can offer.

cont.

God is loving always and gives love to all. He does not force people to follow him or his will but gives fredom of choice and then allows us to experience for ourselves the consequences that must be allowed to follow (much like any decent parent would do if their life did not depend upon their kid's survival).

The big difference between man and God is that God realises man is just a shell for His spirit which is everlasting and it matters not if the shell dies or suffers. Man just does not ever understand this fully. Unless he awakens to the Truth through long, hard work of mind and spirit.

Could you explain how over a thousand years of Jewish scriptural history that was spent at war with various Arab tribes and Persians, Greeks and Romans, and that was almost entirely re-written (a New Testament)under Roman editorial control a hundred years after Jesus 'died' is in any way the same culture of one Arab who died in 632 AD and who seemingly hated Jews while accepting Jesus as a prophet?

If you read and understood the Bible at all I do not believe your last comment could have been made in honesty.

Hl,

sorry but by writing as you did i tuned out completely.

That is my failing i acknowledge, but if i want to read the Bible word for word i'll do it in my own time not when you insist i do, ty.

I think congratulations are in order as i did not observe a direct attack on misunderstood gnosticism this time, and perhaps you are capable of learning a little in that regard, but maybe that was just because i did but briefly scan over all you wrote?

BD,

In the 1970s, Lawerence Kolhberg evaluated morlity, including the idea of "good" and "bad":

http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/moraldev.html

In his studies he set up moral conflicts and analysed how people justified their response. Why there responded in a certain why was more important than how the subjects responded. For example, a subject might be asked is okay to steal to say a life. [Actually, it would embedded in the scenario]. Many Developmental Psych. books from the 1970s will give Kohlberg a few pages. Worth a look given your interest.

I guess most gods sit in the mid-range of the Kohlberg hierarchy. The gods of Abraham, Moses, and, Revelation [which might reflect Daniel?], for example. Several historical people; e.g., Jesus or Elenor Roosevelt, probably would rank higher than war gods from the Jehovah (El Baal,Mars or Thor. Guess this allows the State and Church to apply a double standard. For example, I saw on TV this week a documentary on the Black Plague. In 1348, the Christian Church in burnt many Jewish people alive, for bringing the pestilence upon humanity. At least that's what the peole were told. The real reason was the high level of debt owed to the Jews. That is, bad was portrayed, as good, in the name of the Lord.

Ever noticed how clerics seem to be less than vocal on issues of war and state control. Often suggesting in certain circumstances killing is justified. The rub is that priests and misnisters in the modern era don't fight in the front line and kill, themselves.

Freud's Ego, Superego and Id (the it) is a dynamical model. Old, but, Freud did feel the model was really a metaphor for a neurology that would be someday understood. Herein, the Ego arbitrates between good (conscience) and evil (immediate self-gratification).

Sells,

Assume you have decided not to reply.

Obviously, you can't refute my notion that, in analytical sense, Jesus should be treated NO DIFFERENTLY than Mythras and other gods. History and anyltic processes, show both gods (JC & M) , as "projections of the mind"; i.e, neurologic effects of ecology, culture, familialism, fear, hope and conditioning, and the like.

Good, Sells. Your silence screams. You have led us to the best answer tothe question; "How does God (or Gods) exist?"...

-- Gods exist, as hypothetical constructs of some minds: This conclusion is the most probable positive heuristic. Moreover, the existence of any god is a degraded heuristic, and, more, the notion of Jesus' substitutionary ransom, as a member of tri-godhead, is a tiny subset of wider religionism. --

Part 1
How does G-D/Zeus exist? Several topics have now been discussed which, on their own, remain a
little obscure. Yet, when brought together, they help illumine each other and throw added light on the search for truth about mankind's ultimate mystery.

Thoughts about Zeus were mentioned by Oliver(21/11/06), and Sells(22/11/06), Satan by ronnie
peters(24/11/06), Greek insights to ancient Egyptian history by Oliver(27/11/06). Old Testament
scholar Robert Pfeiffer once wrote, “It is from the discussion of opposite ideas that the truth or an
approximation thereto might be obtained.”

Paradoxically, religion can be both the cause and cure of mental illness which is a very important social issue today. Most people try to steer clear of the stigma surrounding this phenomenon. Yet
surely, study of the human mind is perhaps the greatest adventure!

Sigmund Freud, the papa of psychiatry, wrote as his last testament “Moses and Monotheism” in
which he demoted Moses to an Egyptian apostate who borrowed his ideas from the Pharaoh
Ikhnaton. Freud considered all religion was a neurosis and would ultimately disappear.

Sells has demonstrated how humans will respond when their cherished beliefs are attacked. This
reaction occurred to Freud's final outburst.

Egyptian history had been accepted as the standard by which all other ancient histories were
measured and compared (Sir Alan Gardiner: “Egypt of the Pharaohs”). Yet nowhere in Egyptian
documents was there mentioned the story of Hebrew slaves living in Egypt for over 400 years.
The story of the Exodus to freedom has been faithfully recounted for approximately 3500 years.
A fairy tale?

(contin) Shmuel

Part 2
When did the Exodus occur? Did Akhnaton(Ikhnaton) live before or after Moses? An
amazing intuitive insight occurred when applying simple modern astronomical knowledge
to the story of Joshua commanding the sun to stand still,(and the sun returning 10 degrees
in Isaiah). Such a phenomenon could not be local, and rather a world wide event. The
search for Egyptian literature conveying allusions to this phenomena resulted in the finding
of the Papyrus Ipuwer which then had to be dated. The reconstruction of ancient history
was begun by Immanuel Velikovsky which continues today by fallible workers.

In “Oedipus and Akhnaton”, Velikovsky's initial insight, he linked Greek legend with
Egyptian history, which in turn led to “Worlds in Collision”. The scholarly world reacted
with fury and immediately denounced the work.

Sell's does not agree with rogue comets(Apocalypse now:...9/11/05). Nor does leading
Australian astronomer Duncan Steele. Eric Lerner's work on Plasma Cosmology claims
the Big Bang never happened, and considers Velikovsky belongs to the lunatic fringe.

Yet, Nature/G-D/The Great Architect(?/?/?) recently demonstrated close confirmation of a theoretical reconstruction from the ancient mythological record. Compare Aeon/a symposium on myth and science/Vol.III: No.3, Oct 1993 pp39-48 with Southern SKY Nov/Dec 1994 pp27-30. In
4Q175 Testimonia “comet”=”tbhs”. What's the bet, Jesus didn't carry this document(or a similar one) around in his pocket? Cried Job, “Ktar yny' ht'w” h.bm bwya rpsm.

Recently, Australian scientist Wal Thornhill has co-authored a work “Thunderbolts of the Gods”,
well worth reading in the current ferment. Zeus is often depicted as wielding a thunderbolt. In the fifth century BCE Heraclitus wrote “It is the thunderbolt that steers the universe!” For further info
on this go to http://.www.kronia.com which will link to many other sites.

Careful consideration of these ideas will hopefully help mould our ideas to a better understanding
of “How does G-D exist?” The Electric Universe is fast becoming the exciting way of the future!
Hope you don't consider this drivel Sells.

Shmuel

Brain Drain,

A bit of history with regard to common links and culture relating to the Koran and Bible: Three of the world's major religions - the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism.

The stability of interaction of cultures within the framework of the Mediterranean civilization was connected to basic principles of a uniform outlook based on the ancient culture and Abrahamic religious tradition. The consolidating basis of the medieval Muslim world, consisting of three Caliphates (Baghdad, Fatimids and Cordovan) and various other Emirates, were tolerance and pluralism. This basic tolerance can relate to the premise found in all three religions, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5). And “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).

It is obviously important to note, that the openness to dialogue and the fruitfulness of interaction of Muslim and European cultures was determined by the circumstance that they were generated and developed in the area of a uniform Mediterranean civilization. The 15th century, however, became a turning point in the history of the Muslim world with the conquest of Byzantium and the development of the Ottoman Empire; the basis of the consolidation of the Muslim world were no longer the principles of tolerance, pluralism, and openness to dialogue with other civilizations, but a rigidly conservative religious vision. No doubt, the other two ‘great’ religions of Judaism and Christianity suffer (and have suffered) similar fits and starts.

Islamic scholar, Fazlur Rahman is correct, "Free thought and thought are synonymous, and one cannot hope that thought will survive without freedom.... Islamic thought, like all thought, equally requires a freedom by dissent, confrontation of views, and debate between ideas."

Relda (re: Dec.4 post)

Jesus/God was faced with a Eurasia populated by
Kurgans (Indo-Europeans) who believed
l) the world was kept "alive" through human sacrifice
2) that the death of others = life for the Kurgans
3) females were part of the plunder due the Kurgans
(theft as their right), as such females were things.
Indo-Europeans were notably violent, believed in violence,
thought violence was "proof" of masculinity.

This was and is a society that believed the blood
(subordination) of others was necessary for "success"
i.e. "life."

When he or his disciples came to teach an alternative,
they took small steps. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman
("plunder") at the well, something none of his disciples
would have done then.The first witness of his resurrection
was a female who, in that society, did not have standing
to testify as a witness in court (no credibility/just for sex).

Martin Luther, if he did advocate genocide, was expressing Kurgan/worldly values.

The Bible says love your wives as Jesus loved the church
(he gave his life for the church, putting the latter's interests
before his own).

What you may be reading is an underlying Kurgan interpretation
of the Bible which would mistakenly suggest that females are just
for sex.

The "value" of murder, glossed over as "life" or
a "right" exercised exclusively by Kurgans for Kurgans, is
a worldly value.

The "value" of rape, glossed over as the right of a warrior
(successful Kurgan), is a worldly value.

The "value" of theft, glossed over as a Kurgan privilege, is
a worldly value.

The "value" of all the above equals violence, and sums up
worldly values.

Jesus came to overturn these, displace these from the hearts
of men/women:

l Thessalonians 4:6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in
any matter: ...For God hath not called us unto uncleanness....
He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God....

Acts l8:And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue:
whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him
unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more
perfectly.

The only correct answer to the question, 'How does God exist?' is 'We don't know!'

God cannot be proven or disproven empirically, philosophically, or metaphysically. The question remains completely open until further scientific evidence is bought to hand.

What we can say is that the monotheistic religions as revealed in their sacred texts are completely flawed. They are unreliable as true historical documents. The Old Testment / Torah shows a cruel and petty God, the New Testament is illogical in the extremem, and the Hadith (the contextual foundation of the Koran) is so bad that even some Muslims are choosing to disregrad it. In historical terms it is little more than a joke.

In short, the statistical odds of either the Bible or the Koran being true is less than 1%, but not completely zero.

Hawaiilawyer,
Nice to know you can look beneath the literal and guess at other layers of interpretation.

TL,
Similar thoughts have crossed my mind. It true that all religions witness to some sense of the sacred. But it is not true that in their dominant theoretical expressions they all witness to a sacred reality significantly analogous to the Western God. It seems that belief in God (if we have one at all), as we might understand that in the West, has arisen chiefly from the Jewish and Western experience, not from a universally human one.

In the context of the history of religion we see that in our own traditions there are diverse aspects of reality. It is no longer clear that the God of metaphysics and the Father of Jesus Christ both present the same 'reality'.

Today we speak more readily of altered states of consciousness. This perhaps provides us with much better access to the understanding of Buddhism. Although in the nineteenth century such talk was rare and difficult for Westerners to understand, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer did grasp Buddhism in this way.

The Buddhist imagination can populate the universe with Buddhas who function very much as gods, and it can even speak of gods in distinction from Buddhas, but these Buddhas and any deities there are must be Empty, that is, their true nature, like the nature of all things, is Emptiness.

The Buddhist rejects belief in God not primarily for theoretical reasons, but because it is a form of clinging. To become Empty is to be free from such clinging. But this does not mean that the realization of Emptiness is being cut off from the rest of reality in a self-enclosed moment. On the contrary, to be Empty is to be filled by all that is without prejudice or distortion.

The Christian tradition has it that “Christ emptied himself” – a formless entry into ‘reality’, free of distortion. Simply put, the idea of God or God ‘himself’ cannot be contained – I’d prefer to retain this mystery and remain fully appreciative of Buddhist practice.

A quick perusal of the postings on this subject confirms to me the great advantage of atheism. The subtitle definitions and complex arguments of the theologians can be cast in the dustbin labelled, “meaningless nonsense.”
Unfortunately “meaningless” does not necessarily imply “harmless.” The Wars of Religion provide all the historical evidence required to dam the believers in the god myth.

Relda,

By all means relate to anyone who is not aware, like you and I, of the generally vague connection between Moses, Christ and Muhammad (they were all Semites by birth, all believed in the one true God).

I am still waiting any kind of justification for your statement: 'the Koran and the Bible sprang from the same culture'.

Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysis sprang from the same 'culture' (to a far higher degree than the Koran and Bible did) as Hitler's ideas for the Third Reich but i would not go making much of an issue about it (on second thought, it might make for an interesting comparison... anyone up for the challenge?)

I claim the Koran 'culture' (early 7th century AD Arabian peninsula) the Christian(Jew) 'culture' (first centuries AD Roman Empire Palestine) and the Jewish 'culture' (1500 - 300BC Egyptian/Judaic/Persian/Greek eastern mediterranean coast) were all vastly differing cultures and had only their rough source of evolution, and not even language, in' common'.

I also find a problem in defining Judaism as a 'Great' religion as it currently lays claim to a meagre 14 million adherents and owes, almost exlusively, it's pre-eminence in our modern society and remaining existance to Christianity (differs markedly to Judaism even though Christ was indeed born in Judaea).

If Christ had not tried to give the Jews a message from their own God (and thus had to rely upon the 'old' testament) they refused to acknowledge (they in fact had him executed because he threatened the Jewish religious leader's control over the people) we would have no reason to claim to be a Judeo-Christian community or culture in places like the UK, Europe, America and Australia and would just be known as 'Christians'. Quite clever how such a tiny minority have held onto such influence today, isn't it? A Great Religion?
Cont.

You have an intersting understanding of mediterranean 'stability'. Five entirely differing cultures (Egyptian, Persian, Greek , Roman and Ottoman/Muslim Empires all intermingling through violent war/succesive conquest and destruction/slavery of anyone (eg.Jews) who got in their way) You do remember three hundred years of bloody conflict called the Crusades I assume?

Rahman was almost right - Free thought and thought are not always permitted - Bias often imposes itself on anyone's thought and so cannot truly be described as 'Free'. Anti-green is a case in point. America is another one. Might is Right is not a 'free thought'. Just being free in a society does not make one's thoughts by any means 'Free'.

Closing one's mind to what one is incapable of understanding is no substitute for intelligent 'free' thought. (I am not actually claiming you do this but it is clear some here do).

But we wander from topic now.

"I claim the Koran 'culture' (early 7th century AD Arabian peninsula) the Christian(Jew) 'culture' (first centuries AD Roman Empire Palestine) and the Jewish 'culture' (1500 - 300BC Egyptian/Judaic/Persian/Greek eastern mediterranean coast) were all vastly differing cultures and had only their rough source of evolution, and not even language, in' common'." -- BrainDrain

BD,

From the late six century, into the seventh century, Arab tribes (a)were disunified and (b) felt pressure from the encroachment of Persia and Christianity. The Jews and the Christians had received prophetic revelation, but the Arabs had not. Very simplied, the creation of Islam was Muhammad's response. Worked well; worked quickly.

TJ,

Sells' article, I feel, asked an excellentquestion; "How does God exist?". The answer can lead us to the architecture or religionism and in someways, I suggest, is more answerable than the questions, "Does God exist?". Herein, we can look foresinically at the HOW bit. Best evidence, I put, is, that religion is a fundamental and prolific cultural construct. Bottom-line we are are animals, whom achieved city-state status only 6,000 years ago. It is unremarkable that which we call ancient, is not really so long ago in the history of our species. With greater insights, maybe one day, we can put away our training wheels, and, live life humanly and openly, without frabications and superstitions. Hope, Humankind doesn't have to wait another 6000 years, though.

The Gods have failed. We Humans can do better.

'Very simplied, the creation of Islam was Muhammad's response. Worked well; worked quickly.'

Actually, we don't know for sure that Islam was Muhammad's response to the politics of Mecca. It is more likely that the religion of Islam grew slowly over a two-three hundred year period as the Arab empire expanded.

Western 'Orientalists' such as John Wansborough, Pat Crone and Michael Cook have created a reasonable case that the Koran has multiple authors and evolved according to the political needs of the early Islamic oligarchies.

These 'Orientalists' are able to challenge Muslim Orthodoxy because the historical foundation of the religion is so woefully shaky and composed hundreds of years after the fact. For exmaple, Imam Shafi didn't commission Bukhari to create his collection of Hadith till the latter half of the 9th century! Even Muhammad's chief biographer Ibn Ishaq didn't publish his work till a full 120 years after The Prophet's death. What's more Ibn Ishaq's transcript has never been found but is cited second hand in another later work by the author Ibn Hisham.

Therefore, what we have is a history of Muhammad's life formulated and contructed by biased writers from the Islamic empire circa 9th century, or perhaps even later.

Oliver,
The basis of your dialectic seems to waver between a distinct humanism and something a little more esoteric. I’m reminded of Einstien’s famous, “..science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” He also said, “In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labours they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.”

TR,
I agree, the growth of Islam, as with all religion, evolves over time and invariably changes and adapts to its surrounding culture. Over riding all religion, however, is “The Way” (Tao). Globalisation is bringing to the forefront an ‘Orientalist’ challenge to Western held orthodoxy. The challenge is subtle because it awakens what westerners should know, “He who obtains has little. He who scatters has much” – TaoTe Ching

BD,
Abrahamic religon (or the OT Bible) presents a culture surrounding a patriarchal monotheism. An ‘authority’, bound to a violent retributive aspect, permeated this culture – women were merely the property of men. This unified belief alone, however, did little to alleviate violence or the plight of women, who could only ‘bruise the heel’ of man. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ was tempered into a crude justice –vengeance was always a close ally. In ‘loving our enemies’ and giving full respect to women we broke the ancient cultural taboos – ‘peace on earth’ is given a chance.

Pluralism and tolerance were once a part of Islam (Peace). Traditionally, Islamic epistemology tolerated and even celebrated divergent opinions and schools of thought. The Islamic civilization has crumbled, the traditional institutions that once sustained and propagated Islamic orthodoxy and marginalized Islamic extremism have been dismantled. Unfortunately, and to be resolved, is the state of virtual anarchy in modern Islam: no clear ‘authority’ exists, which speaks on religious issues.

TJ,

I respect your superior knowledge in the area and regret if I have misled the Forum. My "basic" notion was the tribes were unified quite quickly and the factions occurred a few centuries later.

Your description of the development of the Koran seems in many ways to parallel the development of the OT and the NT, in-so-much-as, it was written much after the fact. I had erroreously believed sixth-seventh century records were more historical in nature than Bibical and early Christian recordings. Back to Mohammad 101 for me.

Relda,

I have enjoyed all your well researched and articulate contributions to the Forum.

I think the picture you paint of me to be accurate. As a student, I was once desrcibed as a meta-meta physicist. Also, I tend to be eclectic and a re-mixer of those separate sources. Despite, the many references to physics, I am not a positivist. Maths is okay, but I see it as the full stop. Measurement is good, but it is in oppostion to explanation (Polanyi).

Perhaps, I adhere to my own personalised and modified version of Lakatos, wherein, I see the positive heuristic the most plausable explanation at this time, to be tentatively held, and, held degraded heuristics, as lesser alternatives. Else put, accept the evidence for now, but don't throw the baby out with bathwater.

Humanism has my thumbs up. It too has its context, and, I suggest, needs to be viewed, as an organism, within dynamical ecologies. Holism and gestalts, I put, have been sent to the backbenches for too long. That said, management of; the whole-is-greater than parts and some solutions are not physical thinking, must need be managed carefully; else, we find ourselves backsliding into mysticism.

A challenge for new science might be to tease out some the structure of religionism and isolate the more basic constructs, without becoming infected primitivism. Herein, has Religion and Greek thinking)provided Science with metaphors for creation and design. More generally, how do view Religion's contribution to Science

Sells,

Above, I hope you see I am not "out to get" religion, rather my sights are on the processes adopted by religionists to reach in my view incurrent conclusions. That is why I love your title cum question?

Look at your title and article. Herein, I still suggest, you apply a priori convictions, even to the point of knowing God's sex ("Himself"). Can't you see it?

Histographies, theologies and many sciences, suggest you take three steps back and start again, and, again ask your own question, "How does God exist?"

This time, work through the alternatives and build null hythothesis to challenge your preconceptions. Work things through, thoroughly.
To do so, is not a sin, rather, new relevations would await you

Relda,
Your understanding of 'culture' seems about on par with that of stability.

Picking out one or two items you are able to draw paralllels between amongst varying human groups does not prove that three different religions (which are forced to refer to just one (same) God) all derived from the 'same' culture as you claimed. Certainly there are linkages but the cultures and indeed the periods at which all three religions holy scriptures were established are quite different in most respects.

One could just as easily argue that all humans have one culture since we naturally form tribal heirarchical groups, developed tools and possess language which allows us to communicate with one another.

Which cultures DO you actually consider 'different'?

Your research is adequate; the logic used to reach your conclusions needs work, in my opinion.

I do have quite a good understanding of all three religions and their origins in case you had any uncertainty. There are undeniably things I have yet to learn but you have not supplied me with any to date.

Oliver, I posit that Sellick has made the usual fundamental error in his article, in that he attempts to make God fit into human thought instead of appreciating that humans fit, instead, into God's Thought.

Merely because we cannot derive a testable hypothesis to prove the existance of God (which i believe exists independently of man's belief and permeates everything we see and experience including wour own bodies and within Nature (not 'apart' from it)) I find is no proof that God doesn't exist.

I find dificulty in ascribing a human personality to (my) God and don't objectify it with Human requirement of a sex. Neither do i require God to be only Good, but to be above such divisive concepts as Good/Evil. God is far 'above' such human perversions.

God has not failed humans - we did that through human imperfect understanding and continue to do so today.

Once we have reached consensus on how HUMANS exist (including our sprit) we might have a chance to determine how God exists.

Any thoughts?

Two quick things. Much of the discussion above is about religion in general. The universal (if there is such a thing at all) is given precedence over the particular. I am certainly not for religion as my earlier articles show. Religion is the great illusion that keeps humanity in superstition and ignorance and vulnerable to nature. The history of Israel is important because it struggled with religion in general and arrived at a synthesis that equipped the nation to live in the real world, even though it most often abandoned that path.

It is not that we must know man before we can know God but the reverse. Theology always challenges our view of ourselves. That includes a challenge to our religiosity. The path to the truly human is through Christ.

My use of the male gender to refer to God does not mean that God has any sexuality. However it is faithful to stick to the particular in this just as it is faithful to stick to the particular man Jesus and not to some universal spirituality of our own making even if that seems more inclusive

BD,

Rather than claiming the ‘same’ culture has produced a belief in one God I’m saying the reverse, a belief in one God has essentially given us two corresponding cultures – i.e a certain ‘unity’ existing between two disparate peoples. It’s a broad definition but a quite legitimate one. We broadly define eastern culture as opposed to western culture and separate a European culture from an indigenous one. So too we might broadly define both middle-eastern peoples of ‘the book’ as belonging to the same culture. Many sub-cultures intersect, combine and are defined within a ‘main’ culture, so it (culture) can be either broadly or more narrowly defined. My point is and remains, the Koran and Bible have more in common than what separates them – they share the same ancestry and core belief. Regardless of this, a division remains.

Sells,

Your statement, “The path to the truly human is through Christ” if made within the context of Christianity leads one to conclude, it is only through the Christian religion we find Christ - which seems a rather obvious statement. After all, how else do we have Christ revealed but through Christ – ianity? If stated in terms of a belief, expressive of a particular ‘faith’, there should be no intransigence. If, however, presented as an absolute, denying those who ‘seek’ via differing paths, pluralistic values are merely paid lip-service to (if at all).

It seems contradictory to (quite legitimately I might add) call religion “the great illusion” keeping us from superstition and ignorance, vulnerable to nature but then to advocate Christianity.

Relda,
The association of the Koran with the bible is only superficial. This is an attempt by liberals to obliterate the differences, make Islam and Christianity the same and then damn them with the same criticism. Read the unreadable Koran and then read the bible and you will see the difference. Your postulate of a similar origin leading to similar religion is absurd.

Have I ever promoted myself as a devotee of pluralism? Let Muslims be as non pluralist as they like and let me also be. The truth is in the particular not in some universal view of religion or spirituality. The problem is that spirituality has become the property of everyman, it is the sop we use to mask our nihilism.

Christianity is and is not a religion. It is not a religion because it is not based on mythology as were its rivals in the ancient world and its rivals in our present time. Islam is based on the myth that God spoke the words of the Koran to one man. Christianity is based on historical event, the main point of this article that we are supposed to be discussing.

Sells,
I should point out nowhere have I said Islam and Christianity are similar – they are two very different religions, each comprising of their own variety of divisions and sects. Both religions suffer similar narrow interpretive views of their respective bibles. My point has always been in their close similarity of origin. Both religions are deserving of differing criticism - it should go without saying, nothing defined is beyond any objective criticism.

You are certainly very liberal if you are to say Christianity is not a religion, but you hedge your bets when saying, yet perhaps on the other hand it is. Spirituality has always been the property of everyman – it is something not to be entrusted to anyone, although some prefer it that way.

Jesus may or may not have existed (I’ll hedge my bets too) because the very existence of Jesus has not been proven as an historical fact. There is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide, despite the Gospel stories – which I do actually enjoy.

Missionary and theologian, Albert Schweitzer, in his ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ 1906, reviewed and exposed the fallibility of the previous lives of Jesus and the problem of whether anything could be safely known about him. More recently, Christian theologian Rudolf Bultmann has said, “We can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary.”

Early Christians agreed that Christianity offered "nothing different" from paganism. Arguing with pagans around C.E. 150, Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)."

It does, in fact, all come down to a matter of belief even if based on ignorance or superstition. But, I'll contend, we all have and hold our favourite myths.

Sells: "...The path to the truly human is through Christ. .."

:-)LOL

Sells:"..The problem is that spirituality has become the property of everyman,,"
Whose problem?Sells'?:-)

What a wonderful thread!! Horrah!!

Religion is the gravest sin.

All Religions commit one unforgivable error. They presume to understand god, speak for god, kill for god, die for god, enslave for god, and at the very least ensnare for god. Religion is a crime against god.

Everyone is entitled to have an imaginary friend. But when I tell you my imaginary friend is the one and only god, then I am attempting to enslave you in the worst possible way. And no amount of brotherly love, good intentions or christmas cheer changes it one iota.

If I was god, this is something I would never forgive. Because religion is always an negation of life and a preparation for death.
Religion is the enemy of life, it always has been. If we could all just get past it, what wonderful conversations we could have. What possibilities we could explore.

And for those brainwashed objectors, who fear our moral decline unless it is buttressed by religion, please read some history. You will find christianity, mohammedenism, or Judaism have not a single authentic original moral contribution.

Christainity, with which I am most familiar with, has entirely plagarised pagan thought and text. Not a single original thought. The entire christian cosmology is Platonic. The moral christain life is entirely Stoic.

May the gods bless you.

Yebiga,

Great Call. Someone can see sense at least.

All,

In his discussion on Science and Religion, Wells notes that during time of Ptolemy I, Alexandria was a god factory. With respect to theorcrasia (fusing gods), Wells notes:

“In Alexandra three types of mind and spirit met … the clear headed criticism of the Aryan Greek, the moral fervour of and monotheism of the Semitic Jew and the ancient tradition of mysteries and sacrifices at work in secret cults and cult practices of Greece.”
Perhaps, also Buddhist missionaries from the King Asoka’s Indian court.

Between them, these religions have the monotheism, godhead, trinities, punitive patrimonialism, sacrifice, resurrection and immorality. Like elementary particles, these elementary components can be configured in varies was to produce metaphorical atoms (will come back to this structure) and melded to build a god product.

In this context, Serapis (male) is an interesting product of the aforementioned god factory. Serapis consisted of a trinity:

1. Orisis and Apis (males)
2. Hathor (female)
3. Child god, Horus, Orisis, reborn, as Himself,

“They were each other; they were three, they were also one.”

Sells and all,

Please consider the Periodic Table of Elements. One has elementary particulars, as earlier noted, configured in different ways, producing “particular” elements. That is, the components are universal, yet the configurations, “particular”. If this so, what Sells claims becomes problematic:

Sells asserts that all religions – EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY – are non-religious myths. Only Christianity is true.

Especially given just about even story and theme in the OT and the NT is espoused by other religions built by priestly manufacturers in god factories; saying the Christian godhead is true and every other god false, is equivalent to saying, all the elements (read mythologies) are true, except of Zinc (read Christianity)?

Christianity. Why is it special? Why would a REAL god NOT differentiate Its product? Why embark on a supreme endeavour, in the guise of a mythology?

Cont...

Sells,

I encourage you not to adopt a priori positions in theology. You need to step back from the trunk and see the elephant. For me, the harbour outside of my window does not exist, if I focus only on this computer screen.

Yebiga,

Welcome to the party. Please bring a plate convinctions and a bottle or two of discourse.

Relda,
"The following is strongly implied, for the biblical literalists:

· The Koran must be reviled and the Christian bible upheld (the Koran and the Bible sprang from the SAME CULTURE, something few realize or think about). "
Posted by relda, Sunday, 3/December/2006 5:33:42PM

"Rather than claiming the ‘same’ culture has produced a belief in one God I’m saying the reverse..."

I am assuming the brackets are your own thought? The block capitals are to indicate what my posts have been challenging.

Sells,
MOST 'organised' religions, christianity included, have relied upon keeping their adherents superstitious and ignorant and unable to adequately challenge their priestly classes superior learning and authority, especially concerning aspects of God. For this they are to be universally reviled and despised. I find Buddhism comes closest to what true religion should be, which is concerning for me as they claim there is no God (or just no God external to ourselves?).

Religion should be about developing personal initimate (without the need for outside 'assistance') relationship with some of the many aspects of an infinite God so as to reunite, as fully as possible, our own spirit with God.

I do however challenge your assertion that religion keeps us vulnerable to Nature (with a capital 'N', or our own 'human' nature)

As human beings formed within, and are but a minute part of, Nature we ARE vulnerable to it - it's force and determination to have it's 'will' met are far greater than are our own as individuals. We cannot help but be vulnerable to it.

As far as our human nature goes, all humans are vulnerable to that, even yourself and Oliver, as am I. Only a very enlightened few have ever been able to overcome their own (human) nature and align with, or surrender to, a higher 'will' in every instance.
Cont.

Humans cannot 'know' God (entirely), only by how their thought can convolute to fit God 'inside' of them. That is 'knowing' some human construct, not God itself. Humans must first begin to 'know thyself' before we could ever begin to know God in any Truthfulness. To do otherwise is to deceive ourselves of what we think we know.

Jesus Christ may have been a truly enlightened human being and 'I am the Way' (to God) might hold value for those who understand his words as he intended them (consider to whom he was speaking).

There were paths to God before Jesus lived, hence, his is not the only way. (Personally, I do not currently know of a better one).

The truth is in the particular OF EACH INDIVIDUAL who seeks God and each of us have different 'particulars' (particulates). When addressing more than one individual the truth must be in the Universal, from which each of us derives their own particular truth in alignment with the Universal one. Any particular truth that does not fit with the Universal truth should be reviewed carefully for (human) error within the logic and facts which created it.

Christianity is not based on mythology?

Forgive my imperfect understanding, but i believe Christianity declares Christ the incarnation of the spoken Word of a mythologic God of Abraham and Moses, born of a Virgin and who overcame a physical death to return to sit upon the throne in Heaven? This is not mythology, why? Because we have writings dating back some 2 millenia of people who claim Jesus is Lord?

Your understanding of 'historical events' seems to contain a certain bias to me. I challenge you to show one concurrent, independent (non-christian) writer who gives us evidence that Jesus and his words/ministry were not mere myth.

If you argue Christianity is not a religion based upon myth but upon historical fact and that Islam is a religion based upon myth because it declares God 'spoke' to the prophet Muhammad then you have just lost any vestige of plausibility you might have previously been considered to possess.

A QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

Before 350 BCE does the OT place any NT style emphasis on immortality / after life?

BD,

On keeping up superstitious practice: In Russia, I have seen people lining-up to kiss icons. The Orthdox Church seeming quite happy to allow this practice. In the 1970s, I recall Catholic Brothers preaching about the Shroud of Turin. After its Carbon-14 dating, that same church claimed it knew the Shroud was a fake, since the medieval times and therfore was not in error. A deceptive sales force?

GOD FACTORIES (Please above)

Sells and all, about god factories,

Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church correct in taking Sun-day, as the Sabboth? The Catholics, CEs, Methodists, Baptists, Presbytian and Uniting church product models, accept Sun-day (Mithras). The early Christians are said to have resisted worshiping "their god" in pantheon temples (The Romans DID try to accommodate them.]; yet, most Christian denominations worship according to a Mitharian calendar.

Sells, one can't argue these practises are just traditions. In Rome, it was okay to worship YOUR god in the (polythiestic) pantheon. The Christians did not. This is a major reason why the Christians were targeted, not because of the their beliefs but because of their behaviour, especially under Nero. (They also copped the blame for the fire of Alexandria)

Sells: Is it a sin to worship in a polythiest temple, but not a sin to workship on a polytheistic day of devotion (having knowledge to the true history of day/date)? Perhaps, making your your demoninational God (product) model exist in sin? ... A god factory defect product?

All, re: previous:

I found this:

"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2). However, the OT seems to refer to restoration of the past and punishment (restored Earth?), rather than substitutionary sacrafice and heaven (NT)?

... Trying to tease out the Eygptian influence on, "How do the first two Christian gods exist?" (First, Abraham's: Second: Moses')(a) vis~a~visa Egyptian theology and Cb) visa~a~visa the third Christrian God (Godhead, the Trinity).

Herein, the afterlife is at the very centre of Egyptian and NT belief/instruction. Weigh the heart before the afterworld. Is the Eygptian construct closer to the NT posit of an afterlife, than the OT version?

Does the locus of the OT lean more towards reward and punishment in the here and now (and restoration); while, the NT (post-Alexandrian god factory)and Eygptian theologies lean more towards preparation for the afterlife?

Oliver,

I'm sure other posters are better qualified to answer your OT/Afterlife question. I'm happy to do research and offer my insights later if no-one else feels inclined to.

To your superstition comment. Let me preface by reaffirming my distrust/disgust of churches and 'organised' religion owing to my belief that the heirarchy's of both (or just the most elite) have other interests at heart, above any proclaimed belief in following a 'Divine' Plan that most christians might normally understand by that term.

Accordingly, the duplicity concerning the Shroud, i feel, is just one of many deceptions Christian Elite dupe their flocks by. The Vatican library has much information going back millenia that is never to be 'freely' revealed to the populace for fear of upsetting their applecart. The Shroud was a useful device for reinforcing belief in previous centuries. I find it no surprise that once science revealed it's true nature the church would acknowledge it rather than continuing to insist it was genuinely Christ's burial cloth. 'Lower' christians can be mistaken and forgiven but the Pope, being infallible, couldn't continue to allow people to believe he thought it genuine when it was shown otherwise else his 'nakedness' be revealed to all.

As for icon worship. I believe the second commandment (Sells's first) forbids it - no graven image or likeness shall be made of the things in Heaven (Saints), nor on Earth, nor in the waters under the Earth. It bemuses me why so many orthodoxy's permit this, even in God's house?

An even more ludicrous example of this was made evident recently:

An epileptic climbed a 45ft high statue of Jesus in Colombia to pray for Jesus's help in curing him.

On his way back down he slipped and took a 40ft shortcut and broke several bones on the concrete below.

Many of the massive devout christian crowd around the statue rushed to his aid and helped him to hospital. NOT ONE of that same crowd bothered to point out to him before he climbed up that it was blasphemy to mount a graven image of a

cont.

thing in heaven or that Matthew Chapter 6 quotes Jesus on the right way to pray and what this man did was therefore doubly against the God he was trying incorrectly to pray to. All those christian believers and no-one seemed to know the right and wrong way to pray and so prevent one of their bretheren from breaking both God's commandment and Jesus direct instruction, and a number of his own limbs in the attempt. There were ample numbers there to stop the guy from climbing up... I'm betting most cheered him on. What do christians know about Christ? Who teaches them?

Who's side are the teachers really on?

As for the Sabbath, there is no doubt. The Jewish calendrical year is currently 5767, that's over five and a half millenia's worth of Sunday's to Saturdays without a break (not since year 1 AD anyway) The Jewish Sabbath weekday commences sundown Friday and ends sundown Saturday. This is 'The Seventh Day' and is why the SDA do no work on Saturday, the Holy day of rest.

So why do most Christians consider Sunday the Holy day?

Because the Holy Roman Church of Christ in order to distinguish itself from Jewish religious practice and to claim 'superiority' of Christ over the Jewish God who commanded we do no work on the 'seventh' day of the week, determined that Christians should place Christ first and foremost and should worship Him on the First Day of the week: Sunday!

I have performed a detailed calculation based upon the exact lunar revolution of the earth and determined the day that 01/01/01, the first day of the AD Julian calendar of Rome, fell on and confirmed this with the passover festival of 34 AD when Christ was supposed to be on the cross (a 'Good' Friday - our Easter) taking into account the 11 days 'lost' when Gregory had the calendar adjusted to it's present format and surprise, surprise... the VERY First Day of the first Millenia AD was on a....

Sunday! The first day of the week!

Mere Coincidence? Not a chance!

BD,

THanks for your interesting comments. More later.

Carried down from earlier post. Please read first. (might be missed, because of other largish posts):

"Especially given just about even story and theme in the OT and the NT is espoused by other religions built by priestly manufacturers in god factories; saying the Christian godhead is true and every other god false, is equivalent to saying, all the elements (read mythologies) are true, except of Zinc (read Christianity)?"

"Christianity. Why is it special? Why would a REAL god NOT differentiate Its product? Why embark on a supreme endeavour, in the guise of a mythology?"

Sells and All,

Would appreciate a few comments/insights on this matter. Thanks.

Sells,

Thank you again for providing such an interesting title, which I guess many contributors find as worthy of comment as the body of the article. The idea of how God is assembled is more readily managed than the old qustion, "Does God Exist?". Intended or otherwise, you alowed us to dissect god(s) and see things more clearly. Good work.

Set-up: An "A".

I do hope you just don't ignore the questions posed of you, before you write another articles. This job isn't finished until contribute to the discussion YOU initiated by answering outstanding questions posed to you. Recall please, this a forum for debate, not a congregation. If you move a proposition you need to speak to the motion and defend critic.

Folow through: A "D".

I feel you still need to engage the forum more fully, please. Appreciate the Forum isn't a day job, but, feel you should not leave this topic for another, yet. The patient is open. Please don't abandon the operating theatre. Answer the outstanding questions.

Oliver,
Didn't miss it (I don't miss much!) I chose to reply to points i feel confident of my reasoning in on the basis of previous learning and research, over the ones you repeated, owing to the limitation of the 350 word post/2 per day limit.

Some thoughts: Christ said: 'I am the Way'. He did not say 'I am the ONLY way.

Christ was born a Jew of the lineage of David (Luke Ch 3) but was only a Jew by birth of Mary (Jewish heritage is matriarchal. Children born of Jewish fathers are Jews only if their mother is also Jewish so as to ensure their heredity is not divided unto other tribes) Interesting he is of David's lineage by way of Mary's husband Joseph, given that Mary had a 'virgin' birth and Jesus is thus Josephs's adopted son. (If we believe mythology and scripture).

Christ may well have been a member of a Jewish sect called the Essenes (See works of E.B.Szekely) who were healers and teachers who followed an ancient arcane knowledge of which the 'Tree of Life' held major importance. This principle is shared by the Jewish Kabbalah some believe dates back to Adam , the first man and gets an ambiguous reference in the OT in Genesis.

The Kabbalah posits a trinity of Godhead beyond human reach, Ain, Ain Soph and Aur Ain Soph, while the 'Tree of Life' is the means through which man can come to return his spirit to the Godhead. Man is incapable of achieving this without first raising his basic awareness to far higher than usual levels through perfecting the path as symbolised by the Tree. This cannot be achieved by mere intellectualism alone.

Jesus may have mastered this awareness and was wise enough not to preach a particular religion and asociated laws, but a message of putting God and allegiance to 'Our Father' at the centre of life's struggle for all men, regardless of religion. He spoke mainly to Jews as that was his culture, but many of different religions or atheism heard and followed his word.
(cont.)

It is Paul (a Roman convert) and the Roman Catholic church that much of our awareness of Christ today is due to. Rome, as the centre of the Empire, needed to assure it's position went unchallenged and in the 3rd and 4th centuries adopted what we know as christianity today, as the religion of the head of the empire 'state'.

Romans selected the books for inclusion into today's Bible, only accepting one's that they could use with as little opposition as possible to their Ultimate power (generating the 'Infallibility' of the Pope) over the populace.

It is Rome and the basis they set for christianity that requires Christ to be the ONLY way to God and Heaven and is a usurption of Christ's true message. It is MAN's philosphy that enslaves Christians and puts them at war with every other religion, not Christ's own message, which was for Jews primarily but able to be undertaken by gentiles also (a heresy for Jews; one of the reasons the Jewish Priests had Christ put to a Roman Death rather than murdering him by their own hand).

Please do not make the common mistake of crediting Christ with a desire to establish the 'One True Religion'. He tried to correct error in his own people and in so doing was glorified by others after him into a Messiah for his 'own' religion, which was something he would have despised because of it's exclusivity of those who were not 'Christian' from being able to 'correctly' know God. Christ knew our true nature and that anyone can know God initially by simply asking 'Him', just as he did himself. There's the answer to your last Q. The Real God does not differentiate his product because he wants all to be free to find their way back to God according to their own unique cultures and circumstances (abilities).

It's Man who needs converts to their own favoured religions so as to retain power over as large a flock as possible for their own needs, not for God's.

Surely an intelligent person can see this?

Oliver,
The reason I have dropped out of the discussion is that I am totally overwhelmed at where to start and what to say. These last posts of BrainDrain are typical of an avalanche of questionable data. It reminds me of reading very bad essays in theology. It is impossible for me to make a start because there is so much that is wrong. Frankly, I have better things to do.

I am reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre’s little parable in After Virtue about the survivors of a catastrophe in which the practice of natural science had been lost. The survivors use scientific terms as though they knew what they meant but they really have no idea what specific gravity is or any other concept. Scientific language became arbitrary signifying nothing.

This is our difficulty with theology today, we have lost central concepts and our discussions have about them an arbitrary character. All of the old heresies are rehearsed as if they have become yet again a solution to a theological problem. There is no real grounding in theology as a discipline that has arrived at certain conclusions that everyone in the field recognizes. This means that it is very easy to take on a supposedly critical attitude or, on the other hand, swallow concepts whole without understanding them.

I know this sounds elitist but how many other disciplines would put up with totally uninformed comment. As I have mentioned the subject of religion has become the property of everyman, the consequence being that everyone thinks they can make intelligent comment. This thread has demonstrated the falsity of this attitude.

After reading the earnest entries in this thread, I feel thoroughly abstracted. I then had this sudden revelation from god himself who said to me "behold my children are lost....and I have sent my servant John Howard to lead my people to the promised land. And god said "blessed are the miners for they shall inherit the earth and blessed are the share holders for they shall recieve dividends".

And John Howard said "always a lender or borrower be and then you will have the respect of everyman or woman". And John then came to the valley of global affairs. There in the darkness he witnessed a burning bush and John pronounced "verily we will attack Iraq and prepare them for the light forces of the market". And all was good.

and I opened the second seal of the packet of Dunhill Blue and I saw drought, bush fires and sulphur descend upon the great cities. The people were punished for several weekends before christmas. But the people won the ashes. And all was good.

Sells:"As I have mentioned the subject of religion has become the property of Everyman, the consequence being that everyone thinks they can make intelligent comment....."

You got it finally.Great.
So now you finally agree that religion is a property of selective people to make believe on so called "TRUE" belief .That is what the point of contention is.Religion has become a property of selective people like you who make believe on their belief!!
Make sure to root this on your neurons:God has no religion and HE cannot and does not discriminate people/animal/any creature on basis of religion.Period.

This is exactly what I mean. Where to start replying to Lochinvar’s post? The study of theology is perhaps the oldest academic pursuit around which the universities of the West were formed. It could be argued that a university without a faculty of theology cannot be called a university, it is a glorified technical college. Theology is the discipline around which all other study congeal. The problem that present day universities are facing is the vacuum of purpose and method produced by the absence of the guiding hand of theology. This is why we have become degree factories and why independent thought is becoming increasingly rare. Of course theology is a specialized subject! Just like chemistry and physics. The idea that in religion anyone’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s is obviously absurd. To be a speaker of the language theology in the academic sense you need at least NT Greek, church history, Old and New Testament studies, and systematic theology. Take a look at all of the big names in the universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, and the list goes on. We in Australia are living in an academic impoverishment, we do not understand our history because we do not understand our theological history, our literature is opaque because we do see the biblical references, our art is forsaken because we have missed its true nature, our philosophy is empty because it has no ground, even rationality is slipping from it. The hysterical outpourings on this comments page tell a long story of neglect and ignorance.

Sells,

Thank you for your recent replies.

If you are typical, the Christian theology college graduate is not, “elitist”, rather complacent, self-righteous and self-satisfied. All-to-confident in that only they have answers. .

I find it strange one so knowledgeable can’t address the clear issues, I have raised, which have much to do with the rules of history and behavioural sciences, not merely theologies. Herein, I am not examining the life of one person using theology. In examining, “ How does God exist?”. I am using a suite of disciplines to answer YOUR question.

Basically my questions/comments to you are:

· Why adopt an a priori position in analyses?
· Alexandria was a god factory.
· History shows many gods share characteristics (theocracasia)
· OT gods and the NT godhead follow the same common pattern as
divinities of that period.
. You say, “BUT my god is the only EXCEPTION”. All the others are
mythologies.
· I retort with the Periodical Table metaphor, which you ignore.
· I posit the question, “why would a REAL god on a supreme mission
cloak Itself in the guise of a MYTHOLOGY?

I truly can’t see why these matters are too vague to answer. Here, I am saying, when analysing events, it pays to NOT hold preconceptions, triangulate disciplines on the locus of study and IF your god is real, why non-fiction manifest as fiction?

A PRIORI, we must answer the above, before any theological college teachings.

Herein, I am reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre (1963), whom asserts, “ Philosophy and Theology [I would add history and the behavioural sciences, Oliver] desires to offer a meeting place for thought of contemporary theologians and philosophers … without partisan or a priori assumptions [Love that part, Oliver] about the way the meeting may best be used. No doctrinaire scheme underlies the choice of titles, nor the editorial plans”.

The Historians you would serve to vilify and having less knowledge of events than you, are Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, Caroll Quigley and William McNeill. Now, that DOES put you in an “elite” company.

Please answer my questions.

Sells,It is really good news that you have finally seen and agreed that religion is a selective people authority and NOT a God's creation.
So once agian :
God is a TRUTH ,religion is a belief for that TRUTH.
Also God has no religion.So God is no christian,no buddhist,no Hindu,no Muslim etc.No body knows if HE is SHE or for that matter SHE is HE.or Even Human. HE has a larger role to play then just perform some medieval miracles in Mediterranean deserts.

And therefore,if a belief claims that it is the TRUE path,then it is lie. Because, as you rightly agreed and claimed that Religion is a belief held by a authority of selective people.
And a belief is a belief and will remain a belief.A belief cannot be a TRUTH and will NEVER be a TRUTH.
So if a Religion[read belief] claims to be supreme and ultimate TRUTH then obviously it is a lie.
If universities began to teach this belief ,then it would tentamount to teaching lies.So we are better off separating religion and education.

Sells,

The growth in knowledge in Western knowledge visa~a~visa did not come from theology. Rather, Episteme and Techne fused, resulting in the Great Divergence (c.1760). Many disciplines have specialist words used differently than in everyday life. To an anthropologist the word "caucasion" does not mean "white", but is a skull shape.

Christians often refer to Pilate as governor or proconsul. He was a prefect. The position of proconsul did not exsist untl 60 CE. Look at the Michelangelo's, "Moses". Christians thought he had horns! [actually a mistranslation of "light"] So, we do see, theology uses very specialist words, and, very wrong words, until corrected by historians and linguists. A medievil Sells would have assumed the a priori the Church knows best and maintained the established teaching.

Religionism occurs in history, in response to ecologies: The product is culture (e.g., state, family, community) which acts on the Self to reinforce (Skinner) or divest behaviour. At the level of soliciting superstitious rites, these conditions will even work on chickens and mice.

If one places a glass panel in a fish tank. A fish will learn where the panel is and turn to avoid it. After the panel is removed said fish will not try to venture into the otherside of the take, because it has learned not to do so.

Sells and other religionists, please remove the pane of glass, but don't tether all understanding to gods - first case. Don't turn back on the centripedal forces of theology. Instead, swim to the other side of the tank, and objectively apply multifarious disciplines to question, "How does God exist?.

[Thanks, Sells, I wish I had thought of your excellent question,.]

Oliver,

Didn't you read any of Sells' recent remarks?

He hasn't answered a single question you or anyone here poses because he CAN'T!

He can't because none of us here have proven our qualifications to challenge his supreme elitist authority in matters Theological, in that, before we could possibly pose any question worthy of Sells' consideration, we would firstly (a priori) be required to have studied NT Greek (and Old Aramaic and Hebrew), church history, Old and New Testament studies, and systematic theology and presumably have passed examinations in all these from a recognised degree factory like Oxford or Cambridge, otherwise our knowledge could not be considered 'practical' and hence worthy of his consideration.

I have removed the pane of glass and am learning to swim into the religion 'side' that was previously unfamiliar to me.

Sells,

Unlike Theology, Chemistry and Physics rely soley upon disprovable experimental evidence any pleb can repeat for his/herself upon which is built 'solid' theoretical understandings/Science.

'The hysterical outpourings on this comments page tell a long story of neglect and ignorance. '

Hysterical?

Quick definitions: (hysteria)
noun: excessive or uncontrollable fear;
neurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks and disturbances of sensory and motor functions;
state of violent mental agitation.

Who but the elitist Theologians are responsible for that neglect and continuation of ignorance, pray tell... oh sorry i forgot,... you can't dicuss this intelligently with one such as i.. can you?

Taking the simplest, most basic concept known to any aboriginal(personal spiritual connection to Universal God) and raising it to the most elite form of human knowledge only accessible to a miniscule minority of academics who are incapable of survival on their own without the assistance of the plebs.

You sure have come a long way in 5000 years Sells - you should be so proud.

Writing the article on this forum and then refusing to engage in OLO'ers comments: you're pathetic!

You won't even ignore the 'drivel' i and lochinvar and others have spouted and deal with an intelligent question, you coward.

I dare you to step out of your intellectual ivory tower.

Peter is concerned with the concentration levels of solutes in his pure theological solution. LOL

Well of course this is indicative of the theological. deductive mindset in the first place and explains the disenchantment. Like. how can we have a knowall discourse on the gods if there are no such teddies to be found? If the subconscious message is one of "simply believe, and it will be so" then isn't this inothing more than this cultural codification of ancient magical thinking or more emphatically a disorder of perception It seems that seek and ye shall find is useless if one hasn't developed the ability in the first place to find. Isn't it much better to build up from facts using induction .... where it is find and ye shall seek. Isn't this where true imagination is found as you comprehend infinity and infinite possibilities?

My question for Peter is if as a theologian and scientist you believed that a certain effect had no material cause, would you then ever be motivated or capable enough to find a cause? Like for so many people our human mind has this tendency to think with finite closed systems and impose this notion onto everything. The problem here is one of the deductive mindset where it tries to solve but makes things worse because it doesn’t comprehend that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. Certainly this is a pathway to disenchantment.

However isn't it the inductive mindset that perceives everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole, that is undivided, unbroken and without border, which flows to orderly action and along with it to the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally unhealthy.

DROPPING THE BALL

BD,

You are correct. Indications are Peter CAN'T answer the questions posed. Herein, he has dropped the ball and moved onto a new article,seemingly, without completing this thread.

I tried to encourage him to avoid a priori approaches and double standards. No luck.

At least, he didn't use the Catholic's, "It's a mystery of the Church", retort.

ANY CONTRIBUTORS FROM SELLS' NEW ARTICLE

If you have joined us from Peter's most recent article, please have a look back over the past eight or so posts. What do you think?

I did try my best to get Sells to ignore most of the less well 'informed' question/argument (including mine which i feel were included in his 'very bad theological essays' remark, presumably he has had to mark some of them in his past life?) and answer at least one intelligent question here (ideally Oliver's).

We still await, but with hope (faith and charity) rapidly diminishing.

In the interests of fairness i have to correct one less-than-perfect statement of mine (although i stand by all those facts as opposed to mere opinions i have presented here). I imperfectly accepted one other human's view of the derivation and meaning of religion as coming from re+ligare, to re-bind or re-join (man with God).

While this can possibly be taken as literal in one particular case i now feel (after doing my OWN research and not relying on others for info) that Religion in English was a term intended to convey a way of life that required devotion to a supreme power or deity to which one devoted one's self to, over that of the individual's own will, in all matters. Religion translates to monastica in Latin, from which our terms monastic and monastery also derive which perfectly represent what 'religion' actually represents.

It is only my assumption but i believe Sells has experienced such 'religion' (devout way of life) personally and possibly still does in some form or other.

How does God exist? In human experience? - Through such devotion to 'Him'/It is probably one correct answer, equally as valid as any.

In the abscence of commentary from the originator it is probably best if we move on from here. There is still much i could add but will do so in other posts.

BD,

You have company in the waiting room. ;-)

Sells, I feel, regreted his own post, afterwards. Actually, I thought it opened the way for some valuable discourse. Albeit, I wish he would finish one job, before moving to the next.

Sells,

Please address my questions. I feel what I ask is clear. Thanks.

BD et al.,

My apporach has been to emphasise the HOW, in "How does God exist?" The architecture: the construction. History and anthropolgy vechicles to study the said building of gods. Psychology and neurology can explain how beliefs are reinforced.

What concerns be about Jesus Christ is how undifferentiated the product is. His architecture mimes that of other religions of the period and the conduit to the population-at-large existed for other gods and other purposes millenia beforhand.

Sells sees the 999 religions having the atributes as JC as myths, but the one product, known to have the characterics of Alexandrian gods and other gods, is accepted. Like, as mentioned before, saying all the elements on the Periodic Table are elements (myths) but not Zinc (JC). Even then, JC (Antioch)evolved from J only.

IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK...

I posit that the elements on the Periodic Table ARE elements. And, further, Myths evidenced by clearly identifiable attributed ARE, yep, MYTHS. Herein, I posit Zinc is an element and Christian Trinity/ Godhead is a MYTH

Oliver, I feel when it comes to matters theological we are but solutes in Peter's pure theological solution. I have appreciated your efforts to question from an historical basis and what you have said makes a great deal of sense.

Relying on religion to fix social or any problems at all is irrational, hence delusional and twisted. This is my concern and this new article from Peter offers quite convincing evidence. Just for starters examine our Peter when he says ..."We miss the point that the peaceable kingdom can only be brought about under the tutelage of the one who is both creator and redeemer." If we are to seriously believe Peter here then petrified or stock-still in his mindset is this belief in a superior creator and redeemer from whom all else in existence derives. However, in other articles, Peter will spin something quite the opposite. Why?

Oliver,

I understand your approach but not the basis for your rationale.

WHY are you attempting to 'disprove' Sell's belief?
For His benefit? For your's? For some undefined 'others'?

What do you hope to gain by your posts?

ALL Human thought is imperfect, we are imperfect beings. Therefore trying to correct imperfection is fairly pointless, i am beginning to believe. If we make a correction of one fault it does not actually make us any less imperfect. It's just not in our nature's to replace one incorrect belief with a 'true' one.

Sell's unwillingness to answer MAY perhaps be taken as some acknowledgement of innaccuracy in his own post, or it may just be my imperfect guess of a stranger's motives/thoughts.

Sell's seems to recognise the importance of having ONE thing that is unmoveable, unshakeable from it's position of impermanence in one's belief upon and around which to base all of our other thought, else we just build our 'houses' upon shifting sands and they will crumble in on top of us one day.

You (nor I, nor Anyone) can convince Sell's otherwise or his Universe and life would implode leaving him as bereft of pupose as the rest of us, who would all be vulnerable to the same fate if our 'rock' was put under similar scrutiny.

Today, armed with four centuries of Scientific thought and enlightenment 'reason', secularists feel confident enough to take the clergy head on and rationalise away their 'gods' and 'religion' ( although not one of them shows they understand the word accurately)

And yet they have no firm foundation upon which to base their solid 'reasonable' argument. They are as full of myth as are the religious they accuse of unreason.

What is the 'starting point', what axioms do you chose to adopt?
How well would your base stand up to scrutiny? or do you operate from a null origin and create something out of nothing?

For anyone who cares: Mine is that 'God is the sum total of everything that was, is and not yet is'. Lets see anyone tear that apart.

How does God exist? Compared to what?

How (or even whether) God exists in one person's belief is entirely up to them. One person attempting to 'logically' argue that another's God does not exist is inherently and fundamentally a flawed argument, just as we are inherently and fundamentally flawed beings while trapped in our physical world/shell.

Kieran's comment of 'relying upon Religion to fix... problems' is as inaccurate as is the 'God is responsible for all wars' fallacy.

There is only one 'thing' that is responsible for all wars and there is only one 'thing' that we 'rely' upon to fix problems. It is the same thing. it is NOT 'God. It is MAN! - US! WE, you and I are responsible, or those men we let decide such things for us. God or Religion do not make the choices.

It's always left up to the imperfect, misunderstanding, fallible ape-like creature that is still on the first rung of the evolutionary 'ladder'. He may sometimes try to use the supernatural to form his (imperfect) judgement upon or rely upon superstition to gain support of his fellow apes in his desire for conquest, but in the final analysis it's just down to... US.

Religion originally was a term to define 'a way of human life, dedicated to a divine perfection' beyond human capability under more 'normal' circumstances. It was an effort to achieve scrupulousness, exactness in our ways and abilities.

As ever modern man has putrified a glorious objective and turned it into a mere sham... or at least many of us like to think that in order to feel better about the mess we live in.

It may be a good time to take a long hard look at one's self and see the error of our own ways before accusing other's of theirs.

But when has any man ever taken such advice seriously??

What percentage of us would be bothered listening to Jesus or dropping everything and following him if he came back in person today?

How many would be holding out the nails and bits of wood?

Are,we,so,perfect?

Hello BD,

Simply put, I am trying to recommend to Sells and others, that, "a priori" approaches are inappropriate in investigation. It is better not to start the pathway of knowledge half-way alone the road. It is preferable; to deal with primary sources, not wear blinkers and is better to triangulate sources. Moreover, ideas should be held tentatively (even atheism)and tested.

Herein, I am trying to disprove Sells' approach.

Peter made the commitment to write in the public domain, and seems from the comments of more senior established posters'readers, he has a history of avoiding issues:

Herein, I am trying to suggest his judgement is limited not in respect to his "theological" knowledge; rather, how theological knowledge is better managed under the canopy of many other disciplines. ... Prove/Disprove?

For Sells, we start out with a theological position and bend all else, to fit an original mindset. For me, everything is on the table, and we shuffle through the facts, with really ever finding a state of rest. ... Very different.

The citing of the history of myths, Alexandra as a God Factory (Wells) and the strong evidence of an "undifferentiated" JC product, is meant to show the architecture of Sells' faith is no different to many, many others:

Herein, the HOW, in "How God/Gods exist "is" known to histographies and anthropology, and, reinforement schedules are known to psychology, and the biology foundation of learning to neurology.
... Pragmatic not faith-based approach.

My target is others, by leveraging Sells in debate. My goal is to encourage investigators holding a positive heuristic to consider alternatives, and, to invetsigate the same "critically" from multifarious sources. ... A clear challange Sells

Cont...

At no level am I out to "get" Sells. At some level, perhaps, I am guilty of relentlessly trying to encourage him, so he can see for himself, how he operates towards limited ends. At all levels, I would encourage Sells (and others), to see the face of the mountain not just the inside (Confucious). ... The alternative approach to addressing Sells' question, How does God exist?", as a matter of course, questions the structure of Sells' belief. ... And emphatically posit the stronger heuristic. ... If God (s) exists, Sells' approach does support belief. Said existence (which I doubt), would be merely conincidental.

Whether one believes in god or does not believe in god, it is informative to test one's position.

Sells writes, I assume in good faith (ahem) or maybe he likes his name in print. Perhaps both. He also is probably strongly embedded in self-confirming references groups, whom reinforce his beliefs: I would this out to Sells. But, at the end of the day, Sells will believe, what Sells's will believe. In the face of contradictory evidence, withdrawal and ego-defence mechanisms seem like to protect his current mindset. Would I like to break this shell? Probably, yes. Would, I want harm Sells. ... No. Suspect, his religiosity, his feelings towards me not be reciprocated. ... Suspect my humanism and willingness to debate are stronger.

I have seen few people cross-over, from religionism, including a ex-Pastor friend, whom saw the real light, when studying comparative religions in a Master of Theology degree. Afterwards, each appreciated the transition. (and changed to an MBA!).

BD, What do you think? How far would you press a point? If it okay for Sells to skip from article to article the way he seeming does, without sound engagement? Am I too tough on Sells?

Oliver,

Thank you for a clearer explanation of your overall perspective vis-a-vis Sell's and this post.

I did not mean my posts to impute you had ill-intent towards Sells' personally and i do agree with some of your position, reference to Sells' arguments/posts (possibly not all and possibly for differing reasons)

I do agree - questioning one's own position is always valuable as we can often be misled away from truth. Particularly by our own 'egotistical' or ideological biases.

Time is limited at present but i would like to respond more fully later.

I enjoy reading your posts even if i might not always find my thought convergent with yours (or Sells), or many other posters if it comes to that! : )

BrainDrain, when you say .....
"Kieran's (sic) comment of 'relying upon Religion to fix... problems' is as inaccurate as is the 'God is responsible for all wars' fallacy."
AND then say .....
"For anyone who cares: Mine is that 'God is the sum total of everything that was, is and not yet is'. Lets see anyone tear that apart."
THEN ....
'God is responsible for all wars'.

ALSO ....
The use of "religion" in the context of that statement I made was in reference to supstitious mind viruses that all share this view of truth as revealed, rather than observed or discovered. This approach to belief is belief in belief which is quite simply the basis of all religious pathology. i.e. Hoping for a Messiah or an anointed one or a pure miracle associates more to the lazybrained that to a humble disposition. e.g. Handel's Messiah oratorio, where hallelujah, only by the grace of teddy will we be saved. LOL

If people need a broader "religion" with something more in their lives than just the material world then just study what is, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing. The infinite environment is an orderly place where one can only feel privileged with eyes to see where we are and brains to wonder why. Teddies, poltergeists, angels, fairies or funny spirits don't intervene and hurl things about for reasons of mischief or caprice.

Deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, the microscopic workings of biology and heredity, the enormous data bank our tiny lonely planet has bequeathed us, all contain more beauty and wonder and are a trillion times more important and interesting than myths, pseudosciences, ritual sacharrine adoration and flattery of imagined teddies (gods) that dumdums are so attracted to.

Just seems we have to manage the change over from living with the disasters of the religious past to an understanding that we live in a brilliant material universe where there are real enticement rules that you do get to vote on.

Oliver,
I can see positives in both your and Sells' approaches (although i detest Sells' inability to answer your questions or talk 'down' to me and others of my 'level' to correctly reveal his knowledge, as i feel he sees it).

I like the contigious line of knowledge throughtout human consciousness Sells espouses, albeit seemingly made 'perfect' through one human almost 2000 years ago, which seems to be what he rely's most strongly upon as his foundation. His knowledge is not 'common understanding' but the superior esotric form known and passed on only to those prepared to devote their lifestyle to it in True 'relligio(L)' fashion.

I feel you (and for the first thirty years of my life, I) argue against the exoteric form of this knowledge with the tools we have had honed for us by humanists and the more intelligent non-clergy of the last 500 years, without full understanding of the original 'starting point'.

A suitable analogy i see is the distinction between the cardinal and ordinal number systems. both orderly and logical when observed in their correct context but one includes zero and one cannot.

As far as human understanding of our 'place' in the universe is concerned whether we use ordinal or cardinal 'numbering' is what we should be trying to find agreement upon, or better yet mutual understanding of.

I feel you cannot adequately define 'zero' in terms of your ordinal system and Sells' insists upon keeping his 'true' understanding of Zero (God) a secret known only to the priestly classes, refusing to discuss it for fear of common 'impure' understanding maligning it for the masses.

Keiran (apologies: I have the same problem with 'kieth')
I acknowledge the technically correct argument you pose with relation to God/war. The problem is that man tries to use it to deny personal responsibility for war. Humans ar far from perfect because we are finite. God is 'perfect' because God is not finite not because 'he' is 'good'.
(cont.)

Humans and human imprefection is responsible more directly for war than war being any 'creation' of God. I was trying to get such 'denialists' to recognise where the blame actually is held most strongly.

As for religion, we imperfectly understand and use the term today.

Many believe it to be a poor 'mythology' others have in their quite busy and unenlightened, superstitious lives. Many actually display such in their self-proclaimed 'ownership' of such 'religions'. (often containing a massive hypocrisy)

Such people are, while in the majority perhaps, not to be used for accurate examples of what religion is intended to be. Nor to be included in the derision of Religion. To do so is as 'logical' as trying to disprove mathematic principles because many of the masses cannot 'do' long division or add up correctly.

Religion is more accurately an attempt by an individual, through complete devotion of their way of life (not the half-hearted attempts that would sicken Jesus), to perfect and know one's self by following a true understanding of an infinite 'God'.

However hard mankind tries, following our own (human) self as an example of 'perfection' to follow is doomed to failure since we (Scientists and Atheists included) are clearly less than perfect.

By following Man we are simply a dog chasing it's tail. By understanding the perfection of God we at least have a clear purpose and goal to 'start' from and a 'path' to follow (IF we are prepared to put the necessary ground work in beforehand).

It is a pity that mankind is so imperfect as to so frequently insist upon trying to change the definition of God, because we cannot let God BE, but insist upon making him somehow more like us as we think we grow out of previous limited understandings and move into yet another misunderstanding in the hope of 'learning' something.

We should be spending more time 'knowing thyself' than in speculating on the misunderstandings of all the 'others'.

We might then be better able to (scientifically/economically) understand and conform to the Universe around us.

BrainDrain, we can abstractly extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero but in an infinite material universe we can never find such .... i.e. no time travel nor perfect vacuums. ............. although an all powerful teddy may create some form of credit as well as a big nothingness in people's heads. lol

Same for "perfect" and "perfection" ......... simply human idealisations and cannot exist. Your constant use of "perfect" makes me wonder if you can ever progress from the notion that you only do what's right because someone bigger than you will slap you around if you don't. Also feel you are getting confused with your imagined absolutes. Like if you want an infinite teddy then this does not and cannot equate to perfection because INFINITY is a relative PROCESS, not an end point nor a product. There is no such thing as an infinite. Likewise, perfect beginnings and endings implies a problematic disconnect which I feel is necessary with this seemingly interesting but never ending thread. Catch ya later.

BD,

Whether we follow natural humans or supernatural entities, we cannot certain of sound governance. If it were possible to contact a supernatural entity, can one really be sure of its true intent? Yet, at least, with our fellow humans, we do have a measure of knowledge, personal experience and equivalence.

[Incidently, I do not adhere to the existence of supernatural entities.]

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

I am in complete agreement with your comment: 'Whether we follow natural humans or supernatural entities, we cannot (be) certain of sound governance'.

If we listen to 'voices' in our head who tell us God wants us to 'kill all abortionsits'. we should use our own knowledge and experience to 'judge' for ourselves if this is actually a supernatural entitiy we have the right to follow blindly or merely our own paranoid bias made manifest to us. I doubt that those who do hear such voices are best able to judge this for themselves and so we should probably not use such in any way to doubt the existance of God.

Personally i think it a mistake to believe supernatural entities are human-like and capable of perverting 'lesser' entities for their own diverse pleasures.

My current belief in the supernatural entity area is along the lines of: there is more to us and to life than we have so far 'proven' in our rationality and reason and 'something' exists that is far greater than our own personal awareness and we would do best to seek such out (as many throughout or history have chosen to do more perfectly than we) and 'go with the flow'. as 'it' would undoubtedly have a greater 'understanding' than we possess in our own tiny minds (even with the benefit of the internet for 'research').

With all our long history of the folly of Man's thought following our 'knowledge, personal experience and equivalence' can you honestly put your hand on your heart and swear to me that it is best we continue to follow man's imperfection and failure to correctly understand the truth's about ourselves?

Or is it best to try to fully and completely know thyself and understand why humans go so wrong so fast for so long and continue to misunderstand our personal spiritual 'connection'/self? While leaving the majority of mankind who don't possess the intellect to discern what is true from what is false on quite the level we might believe we can to continue to experience their spirituality/atheism for themselves?

Not a single person can have the excuse of not being aware of what God supposedly is and so say 'God does not exist so i won't try looking for God'.

We can only be guilty of giving up the search or letting other's experiences or perversions deny our intelligence the fair chance to truly consider why or how or if 'God' should have a positive effect upon our own thought and heart.

Some who have not 'found' God inside of themselves yet insist upon denying to themselves, as well as others, that God exists. Some who have imperfectly formed their view of God insist upon 'forcing' 'their' God upon our own will.

I find both equally distasteful to my mind.

The more i learn about myself the better i feel able to understand God's truth.

I would not trust someone who cannot perform addition to teach me about Maths. Do not trust someone who imperfectly understands God to teach you about your connection to God.

Seek out truth for yourself with a truly open mind but beware of man's limited ability (including your own).

It is in our emotions and our Ego that we experience most of our fallibility of thought and reason. We should recognise that our emotion and ego are our most intimate and fast reacting parts of our personality, capable of misdirecting our slower-acting reasoning ability. We should also recognise that our connection with Spirit cannot be achieved by reason alone, it requires more of us than just that.

Part 1

"Laughter is the best medicine". So I would like to ask Keiran (".. they insist on intelligence before matter" 30/11/06) a joke.
Question: " Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
My Answer: "Neither, the idea did"! :-) A smidgeon of Greek influence here. That's how it was with my wife to be and I -a twinkle in our eyes! You see, we both could have died before our two healthy sons were born, but we shared the idea with a happy result (..."be fruitful and multiply" Genesis !:28).

Oliver (1/12/06), in my opinion, plagiarism is never worth it. Like the forger trying to make a banknote, the budding artist painting a Mona Lisa, Jean Baptiste Vuillaume making something like a Guarnerius violin, all crafts require hard work. The problem with the writing one, is the need to return to sources in a hurry when the occasion demands. The plagiarist only fools himself. More than fifty years have passed since I first the learnt the need for this rigour*, quick re-access to ideas that have helped mould the intuitive process.

Relda wields a pen that exudes a fine clarity well worthy of emulation. Some of the phrases crafted keep reverberating in my mind..."beat the crap" (3/12/06)..."pretentiously usurp its 'parent body' " (30/11/06). Previously, relda noted (22/11/06), "Religion needs the rigors* of science...science needs religion". This reminds me of one of Albert Einstein's aphorisms, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". ("Ideas and Opinions" 1956,p46).

Sells writes to Pericles that "theology is the most interesting game in town"(20/11/06). Relda adds to the "language game" (20/11/06) an interesting observation on relationships. However, it may be questioned the precise accuracy of the statement "...Yahwism was perhaps the only religion that did not have both the masculine and the feminine principle represented in deity". The post concludes with the recognition that metaphor, analogy, help to confuse a literal two dimensional view.

Contin Shmuel

Part 2
Isaiah scribed "...Art thou not it that hewed Rahab in pieces -51:9
That pierced the dragon?
Art thou not it that dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep;
That made the depths of the sea a way
For the redeemed to pass over?" -51:10
"Isaiah" (Soncino 4th impression 1961 p 252-3),
which refutes this view in a "partial" sense. Simply put, "it"/"he" (phonetic) is she, and "hoo"(phonetic) is he. To my mind, sonorous Hebrew is the most beautiful language. Translations in various Bibles are briefly listed here:
Jewish Publication Society of America "it" = "he"(phonetic) = ”ayh” (she)
King James Version "it" < “ “ < “ “
Douay Bible "thou" < " " < “ “
The New Oxford " < " " < “ “
The New English Bible "you" < " " < “ “
The New Jerusalem Bible " < " " < “ “
New International Version " < " " < “ “
Note on "it" = "he"(phonetic) = "ayh" (transliterated from Hebrew into English characters). As Rev. Dr. Israel Slotki comments, "it" refers to the "arm of the Lord" (from which there may be derived interesting possible deductions about the cosmos).

Relda illustrates the lexicologist's problems involved with translation (30/11/06), and how difficult it is not to just convey word meanings, but also idiom. With Humpty Dumpty asking the question, and Alice responding with "...the question is whether you can make words mean so many different things"(relda 27/11/06). With Hebrew, this raises a fascinating potential, and challenge! I hope the funny side can be seen to this.

Hebrew is constructed without vowels which have to be added to the consonants by the reader. Thus, only in the context of a whole sentence can the precise vowels be added. Here is a little game:
How many words can you construct out of the following letters, "r-l" ? For example "r-l" can be rendered Ariel, Uriel,oriel, real, rile, rule,...lure,liar,lair,lare...and "l-d" - lad, led,lead,lied, lode,elude...dole,duel..."relda” >< adler a student of Freud (Farad, fried, freed, ...! :-)

Contin Shmuel

Schmuel,

Thank for your post.

Theocrasia would have seemed to have societal goals when communities fused. In this context, I made remarks about the engineers of the divinities borrowing from each other. Sells the Silent, has previously acknowledged How OTHER gods exist. But, with his God, he does not wish to recognise component commonalities between HIS god and others of the period. Or, of does somehow seeing JC as a special case.

Moreover, super-added was cosmolopolitan Alexandria and its, "God factory" (Wells). He the manufacture of gods is pretty much known to history. And, Yehwah and JC appears undiffentiated from pantheons at an atomistic level.

Languages can also be adopted by castes/ranks and some lanaguage can be fashionable in certain periods. Herein, the times around the alleged life of Jesus inform. Jesus, if he were an intellectual, in a recently read Hellistic city-ste would likely have formed his thoughts in Attic Greek. Some commentary from the Bible takes this lean. Supports Quelle? The common languange would have be Arimaic. The official language Latin? Jews would have known Hebrew. Latter (1st-2nd century CE), (less eliquent) Koine Greek would have been adopted by the learned classes.

Was it always the case Hebrew did not contain vowels? Not, challenging you on this matter, but, I thought I had read with Yehwah, regarding, the vowels, all were used before the third century BCE?

Schmuel,

POST SCRIPT

I am having some of my research instruments translated into Chinese. A real challenge, even with post-grad. qualified language professionals helping: Some of the back translations support your remarks.

POST, POST SCRIPT

You seem to be an OT person. Would you see Yewhew evolving over time?
(A transition from henothiesm to monotheism seems to have occurred making OT divinity, perhaps, not a distinctive match with the NT's Jesus Christ.) Is there any hint of an NT trinity in the OT, acceptable to Jewish folk? Do you have a feel for what made monotheism stick in the OT? The exclusivity of the clans? ...

Monotheism (Aten) did not last in A. Eygpt. Herein, Tutankhamun's (sic.*) first birth name was Tutangkhaten (sic.*). Akenaten's monotheistic endeavours were thus short-lived.

* The Egyptians placed the God's name first.

Sells,

Still think it is a pitty you wont engage the topic, How God exists. Personally, I hold your choice of topic, fanscinating. If you work through the histographies involved, in dialogue, you might gain some new insights of how gods come to exist, including the Christian god. Herein, manufacture (theocrasia) of the Christian god can be decomposed in terms of construction (Alexandian et al.), content(Jewish), politics (Judeo-Roman) and philosophy (confused Greek).

All,

Seasons greetings.

Shmuel,
Ancient narrative literature makes clear that from birth to death the Hebrew woman belonged to men. They ruled her life. Biblical writings portray images of Yahweh in the form of the masculine as warrior, judge, and king.

For the Hebrews, God’s greatest victories were not cosmic but occurred on earth. God defeated pharaoh’s armies (Exod 15), battled the Amalekites (Exod 18:16), and discomfited the Amorites by stopping the sun in its course (Josh 10:10-15) – all masculine traits. As a bit of an aberration, at least six feminine references occur in the book of Proverbs where the individual/ person referred to is "a woman," a "prophetess," a "gracious hostess," "lady wisdom," and "divine." Pre-exilic collections from within proverbs closely parallel the Egyptian Amen-em-ope (or a non-Yahweh influence). Proverbs, Chapter 31 (On finding a capable wife) – was then, as is now, about as realistic as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. About 700 years later, however, the record is put straight with the Gospel according to John, reaffirming the masculinity of YHWH. All the references to Word/Logos in this prologue are to "him," "he" and "Son." – all masculine.

The Hebrew God was written with just four consonants—so Y[od].H[e].W[aw].H[e]— not because Hebrews vied with Poles and Czechs in owning unpronounceable names, but because the scribes of the regions could write whatever they wished without using vowels. The phrase ehyeh asher ehye remains enigmatic for it bears many translations. Presuming that the name is based on the verb hayâ, "to exist," we can render it as "I am who I am," "I am what I am," "I am because I am," "I am what I create," "I create what I am". No other culture was as intent on regulating the most personal aspects of lives, such as with whom to be intimate, what to wear, how to shave, and what to think. We find Israel practically alone in denying women direct access to God. We can say, however, that the idea of monotheism came to a rhetorical and ontological stability.

As with ‘dog’ you have correctly found my name :).

Relda,

Your last post, like others, was interesting.

My NY's resolution will be to spellcheck before I post.

O.

Part 3
*BrainDrain(1/12/06), since you picked up the difference between pint and point, please note that "rigor" is the U.S. way of spelling "rigour" (Australian).

In the psychoanalytic literature, Adler eventually broke with the master, a primary originator who probably found Kabbalah an intuitive source for later emergent ideas. While Carl Jung early on, associated with Freud, he is not so much linked to psychoanalysis as his Analytical Psychology, and important work on the collective unconscious, together with the concept of racial memory. Duane Vorhees, an American Red Indian, notes the influence Carl Jung had on Velikovsky (Aeon III:3 p86-91). Understanding collective amnesia plays an important role in re-assessing an understanding of how ancient myths were once seen and interpreted with relevance to the idea "How does G-D exist?" (Kronos=Saturn, Zeus=Jupiter, Ares=Mars,
Athene/Isis/Jesus=Venus...Mithra......ad infinitum...)

Pointing the way to ideas in these posts which then require individual effort, seems to me perhaps, to be the quickest way to expand info to help answer seemingly impossible questions.

In addition, it is also considered the Shekinah is a female aspect of G-D. However, investigations in this area lead to the Merkabah and Kabbalah, deep, dark subjects that are best left alone, when we humbly recognise that not every question neither needs, nor has an answer.

A similar grammatical construction to Isaiah is found in Malachi 2:10 -
“Have we not all one father
Hath not one G-d created us”
However, in this case the gender is masculine.

Cordially
Shmuel Friday 8 Dec 200

God is seen by some to be masculine yet He made woman-females in His image strange that eh? Also El-Shadia which is a 'name?" of God (actually more a job description) anyhow those with a knowledge of language say that is could mean "The Breasted One" and new followers in the New Testament were given the 'milk' of the Word by Paul. Christ at one time equated Himself as a mother hen.
Many of the above scribes seem to use BIG words and involved wording as a substitute for knowledge about a God they know so little about.
Regards, numbat

The Christian Science Monitor conducted a survey in America to detail the type of God people believed in. It would appear four different Gods are apparent within ‘Christian’ America (and perhaps to a lesser degree, 'Christian' Australia)

About 5 percent of the 1,721 respondents were atheists, but the rest had a view of God that fit one of four basic "types":

Type "A" is authoritarian, metes out punishment, and is highly involved in world and personal affairs (the view of about 31 percent).
Type "B" is benevolent, also active in the world and individual lives, but more forgiving (23 percent).
Type "C" is critical, not engaged but still passing judgment - which individuals will discover in a later life (16 percent).
Type "D" is distant, neither active nor judging - but a force which set the laws of nature in motion (about 24 percent).

The "four Gods" track more closely with political and social attitudes than do traditional indicators such as church attendance. Religion experts, as a result, suspect a superficiality amongst the ‘God-fearers’.

Whilst not necessarily a proponent for atheism, I would maintain, however, there is a certain sanity and consistency of non-belief there – perhaps quite a healthy and much needed reaction toward ‘God-piety'.

"For the Hebrews, God’s greatest victories were not cosmic but occurred on earth." - Relda

-- Consistent with a tribal god (associated with a terrestial volcano).

Jesus and later NT embellishments (Paul) tend to make the god transition in type away from the OT. Perhaps, the Christian Monitor God scale would affix to several different god types, depending on the particular verse/actions selected from the OT (tribal/primitive) and the NT (political/cosmological). Also, from the exclusive to the inclusive.

[Survey: Assuming God here equates to Christian versions of god.]

Sells,

If we take the OT and the Koran, as a sources of God's word, and for argument's sake (for now only), accept that Moses and Mohammed did make supernatural "contact". How do you know contact was made with, "God". Because, a voice said so? How do you know that the voice was, indeed, God's and not an other deceptive supernatural agent?

Shmuel, I laugh at many things in life ... often at myself, to myself and explains perhaps why I come to post here mainly in Peter's articles where I read so much funny stuff. However, many would be jokes of cosmic proportions if they were not so bludddy serious. Take your blinkered, short term thinking with ... "be fruitful and multiply" and consider what this means exponentially with such an ever-increasing human impact on the environment which supplies basic needs. Are you say that life is meaningless?

That question ..... " Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is answered with the reptile but further back in Earth's evolutionary time we can say an environment with the infinite relationships of its material constituents. You may also like to decide now if you still believe in the ignorance of an "intelligence existing before matter" mindset.

Sells,

Hope your NY resolution is have some courage in your convinctions and engage in topics you, yourself, initiate. I suspect the real reason you write your articles is that you like the authorship, not being a participant.

You beg questions, but condemn answers. You pearch... one way. Yours is an a priori world, the closed world of fait compli. Even to a supposed theologian, the history of theocrasia known to antroplogy must make some impact? Look at the evidence! Don't act like a flat-earther refusing a ride in a spaceship.

"How does God exist?"... read the posts. There are many worthy views expressed by seemly articulate persons, without any "evil" agenda. Yet, with arrogance of the orthodox Brahmin, you dismiss, even for tentative consideration the views of others, because, we are a lower caste to you; the unclean, Untouchables, lepers. Herein, you are not true to the Forum; you are in conflict with the teachigs of your own faith.

Please debate or give up your pen

Keiran (28/12/06)

My early rural career began at a period when horse power transitioned to tractor. Many a working day began harnessing up, blinkers going on first. So I'm familiar with blinkered vision in a real
practical sense. But like all aspects of evolution, the tractor eventually took over.

Why choose the reptile? Are you an admirer of the late Steve Irwin?

As a hobbyist, I had no success with the propagation of ferns from spores. A 10X magnifying
glass was used to determine the maturity of sporangia. Success only came with a commercial
size attempt, using a 50X microscope lens. However, optical vision has its limitations. The
cellular structure of a bracken fern frond is revealed with a X2150 magnification by the electron
microscope. See photo by J.Troughton, Physics and Engineering Laboratory DSIR, New Zealand
in Kevin Handreck, “Growing Media” 1984 p4, NSW Univ Press.

In the fossil sequence, ferns came well before reptiles. It is generally agreed the evolutionary
sequence is not a smooth one. Rather, extinction of the dinosaurs occurred suddenly. It is also
recognised speciation occurred at the same time as extinction.

Rather than paleontology and physiology which can be fairly easily seen, I have rather preferred
to concentrate more on psychology and psychiatry. For example, Jane van Lawick-Goodall, “In
the Shadow of Man”, etc., after much painstaking work has revealed the remarkable and sometimes
cruel social life of the chimpanzees. These insights may go a long way to help elucidate our own
origins.

In the SUBORDER ANTHROPOIDEA, how did the Family Pongidae transition to the Family
Hominidae? Was it a slow process, or a sudden one?

My question (21/12/06) was asked in rather more prosaic terms by the Australian Academy of
Science in the textbook designed for Senior Australian students, “Biological Science: the web of life” 1967 p672, “...from where did the parents come, and the parents' parents, and so on? We
cannot escape the question”. On the next page, a diagram of the Miller spark discharge apparatus
is shown. Nothing happens until an electrical discharge occurs.

shmuel (contin)

Part 2

In my primary school days, I built a crystal set and heard a radio transmission through
earphones used in World War II. What a thrill ran down my spine! Nowadays, while the Hubble
optical telescope is revealing yet greater wonders, it is the radio telescope that is reaching ever
further into the unknown.

Just as a micro-electrical charge races through our brain and computers, so a macro-electrical charge, plasmas from outer space feed storm clouds and the sun.

Hannes Alfven, Max Planck, Michael Faraday, Guglielmo Marconi, Anthony Peratt are just a few of the pioneers who have opened up the vista of an electrical universe.

Have you seen a human being die? All the physical elements are still there. Like a torchlight, death
can only be pronounced when no micro-electrical charge can be discerned in the brain. What is
Henri Bergson's elan vital?

It is very difficult to give mind (and “mindsets”) a physical existence. Yet, can you tell me, Keiran,
mind does not exist?

Cheers
shmuel

P.S. I must apologize for a faulty URL in a previous post due to my typo error. Rather, try
www.kronia.com. Thoth Newsletter will keep anybody out of mischief for more than an hour or
two. Try also , the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies at www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ .

I think what sell was saying was that if a person can't speak the language than he shouldnt attempt to speak it. whether this is elitist or not is irrelevant, its logical. and what is the purpose of
discussion if it will only be perceived through our own semipermeable preconceived notions. what are we trying to convince ourselves of?

How,does anyone know?

How does anyone know?

Try trusting Jesus that he is God, and that he should lead you. He will send you the Holy Spirit of God who will knock your socks off with revelations of knowledge straight from him.

When you do that, you will then know what you didn't know now.

But, again, that requires a little trust that God is who he says he is.

No trust, no closeness. No trust, no communication, no information, no knowledge about what is, what is to be, who you are, and why.

It's a bit SCI FI, though not FICTION at all, but reality. The most amazing guided trip you will ever take.

King Solomon asked God for wisdom, when he was a teenage boy crowned king. He got it. He was the wisest man that ever existed, and ever will. He wrote Ecclesiastes about what men can know "under the sun," that is, without acknowledging the existence of God. Not much.

The Spirit of God lifts you up, provides rest for your soul, peace instead of fear, all based on knowledge. But again, that takes faith that God is who he says he is. Creator ab initio, creator of everything from nothing. Man creates from that which God has already created. God creates and created from nothing, to something.

Although we have the word "nothing" we can't conceive of what nothing really is, as we are working from something (our brains, already existent)....

"The scientific mind has become exclusively naturalistic; the rainbow is seen as Newton saw it, the refraction of the components of white light. So when we see a rainbow we think of physical mechanism and not the covenant with Noah. This is a disenchanted world...
The increasing detail of scientific knowledge fails to ignite the spirit, tell us who we are or trace a hopeful trajectory. The disenchantment of the world has led to the disenchantment of life." - Peter Sellick [Sells]

The problem of the Natural World versus the [alleged] Supernatural world was evident when Vatican astonomers refused to look the Gallileo's telescope. To see the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus is problematic for the [then] Christian, because everything beyond Earth's atmosphere was supernatural and we ancestors lived on
God's created [antropomorphic] world. Astronomy has since pushed the temporal from our little planet/speck to the enormity of the Universe. That is wonderous.

The Noah myth is built on the Epic of Gilamesh. In earlier religions, Gilgamesh [distruction] was the complement to the The Epic of Creation, in epic poems. Christian OT mythology is more in linear Genesis, begetting, and, The Flood. Similarly, Shamesh [God of Wisdom] provided Laws hundreds of years, befor Yahweh [volcano god from the El Council.]

Light with its physical properties is the basis of many sciences and our undrestanding of light allows moderity in technology. Again, amazing and beneficial.

Newton problably believed in the covenant. That is, while your metaphor is colourful (ahem. :-) ), it likely wrong, in reality. Newton also tended to anthropomophise matter, objects fell [literally]enthusiastically to meet the Earth. Great scientiest though, including calculus, which allowed us to abstract in new ways.

Our trajectory is known, we live-we die, our atoms are reassigned. In five billion years the Sun will nova. Alternatively, seventy million years ago, the New World Monkey line [our line] was formed from earlier primates, arount five million years, our genes gave cognive advantage over chimps. Albeit, Chimps are stronger and more agile, hence, display different superiorities. Is science great? If we didn't Jesus at least we would have had Mithras, but imagine a world without Darwin! No that would be a loss.