The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The nonexistence of the spirit world > Comments

The nonexistence of the spirit world : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 12/2/2007

In the absence of church teaching, ideas about God will always revert to simple monotheism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 56
  7. 57
  8. 58
  9. All
This essay gives a unique understanding of the origins and limitations of the essentially nieve and self-serving childish religion that Sells advocates.

1. www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

This related essay gives a unique understanding of the origins & consequences of the science vs EXOTERIC religion culture wars. Sells religion being entirely within the domain of the exoteric--that is entirely dumbed down.A religion which confines everyone to meat-body existence only.
There is no esoteric content in any of his writings.None.

2. www.dabase.net/noface.htm

Also

3. www.dabase.net/tfrbkgil.htm The Garden of Indestructible Light

Did anyone ever notice that the Church of England (Sells home base) was founded by a person who was a serial killer, a mass murderer and by far the "greatest" thief and vandal in English history. Henry VIII.
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 12 February 2007 9:22:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Didn't we start this particular discussion a while ago? I seem to remember pointing out the machinations in Nicaea early last year. But maybe I just dreamed it.

>>Athanasius did not win the argument against Arius with a reasoned discourse, in fact he was devious and a bully and one wonders at the establishment of such a key concept as the Trinity to theology and indeed the whole of Western civilisation from such a quagmire of personality and politics...

Perhaps Athanasius, for all his thuggery, saw how things would go if Arius had had his day, a deficient theology that could not be at the centre of the flowering of the culture of the West. So perhaps the logic was more about the outcome than of seeing the invisible things of God!<<

The proposal seems to be that the end justifies the means - have I got this right?

That we are not looking at an argument carried by superior theology, or a more accurate interpretation of three centuries of Christian history, doesn't entirely surprise me.

But if a true understanding of Christianity's nature is dependent upon an interpretation achieved principally by the forceful nature of a bully and a thug, does this not concern those who continue to base long, erudite and fundamentally incomprehensible texts on the "absolutes" so created?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 12 February 2007 9:56:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sellicks article was disappointingly but to be expected Dungeons and Dragons drivel.
At first glance it is a whinge about theologians making stuff up and could other theologians making stuff up make up better stuff. Castles in the air because the foundation is absent, it never had existed, it was made up, what was it? It was god. No god, no prior proof of god = no argument, no justification by god, no honest claim of god.

The onus is on Sellick to prove his god to exists to justify what is without proof of god merely Sellicks own fantasy. Without proof of god the article has no point. The article did smack of self indulgence and it is typical of these Dungeon and Dragon cult articles. The irony is without proof of god Sellick proves his own god as nonexistent. God remains as always a missing link which requires believers to step in and think and speak for.

Spirituality is nothing other than ego. To say the ego always leads to superstition such as believing in a god is meaningless Christian propaganda unless we put Sellicks argument to analysis. The article is more about Sellicks than anything else. It is obvious to the non-superstitious that spirituality is the ego. The article demonstrates how the outside world, reality can provoke superstition to become defensive as God is not based on knowledge but is made up in accordance to individual preferences and the fraternity of con men , the theologians and clergy. The article demonstrates a conflict within Sellicks fantasy, a fight between ego fed superstitions, conman manipulated dogma against reality and rationality. Obviously this is not restricted to Sellick , he merely expressed it , it is universal across all superstitions from Christianity and Islam to Animism. As another of Sellicks Dungeons and Dragons comrades the Buddha claimed’ with our thoughts we create the world’ very apt because to play the Dungeons and Dragons game you ‘got to have faith’ or what the non-politically correct may call brainwashing.
Posted by West, Monday, 12 February 2007 11:00:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "spirit" of things is simply the underlying direction of movement. The chinese call it The Tao. To sense it, is to first have a clear, 'unintentional' mind. To know the direction of things and to move in concert is harmony. Man is at his most hapy when he understands his general harmony with all things - including those beyond his control, beyond himself.

The direction is always about increasing love and understanding. To resist is to create uneasiness, instabiity and even distress.

When we understand the reasons for love and for peace, it is easier to align with them accordingly, consistently and influence all things, initially from a state of calm acceptance and subsequently, inner motivation from what we know we must do.
Posted by K£vin, Monday, 12 February 2007 11:33:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Christians believe in order to know'. Can't argue with this as those who hold to evolution do exactly the same thing.
Posted by runner, Monday, 12 February 2007 12:06:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have little doubt that the author is trying to come to terms with the desertion of Rev. Peter Ferguson from the Anglican creed to the Unitarians.

I look forward to further attempts to suggest that the Trinitarian Judeo-Christian god suffers from multiple personality disorder and the cognitive dissonance this entails.
Posted by Lev, Monday, 12 February 2007 12:12:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I may be missing something here as my theology is poor however, monotheism was a forced introduction to faith by the Roman Catholics whose grasp for power swept the globe. The Jewish faith did not believe in only one God until they were pressured by the oppressive church. 'Jehova' is two names in one, one being male figure, the other female. The Star of David originally two triangles. Male's pointing up, the female's pointing down.

The success of the Catholic Church was their actions of keeping earthly God's and Goddesses by changing the stories. Some of them becoming evil(Pan) and some becoming Saints.

Losing any religion or particular spirituality is not the end of the world. Losing all but one would be mortifying.
Posted by Spider, Monday, 12 February 2007 12:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@west

What the hell all the stuff about D&D? Damn weird.
Posted by Lev, Monday, 12 February 2007 12:52:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It may seem absurd to the modern mind to indulge in the metaphysics of the godhead". Not "may", it is absurd.

Mr Sellick, it is depressing just how historically contingent your entire belief system appears to be, or at least, the belief system you wish to have "preached".

Rather than take on your "theology", perhaps you could deal with this thought experiment:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, at some future date *all* knowledge is lost, all historical, all religious, all political, all cultural, all scientific knowledge.

In this future, it is as if humanity must start again from scratch.

Given this, how do you suppose human beings might reason their way to a belief in your God-Head, that it might be possible to preach in favour of the "father, son, and holy spirit"? And if you conclude (quite reasonably!) that indeed these humans cannot reason themselves to such a position, what does that mean for this belief system you wish to have preached?
Posted by skellett, Monday, 12 February 2007 2:14:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I keep wondering whch, of the twenty thousand or so gods humans have worshipped over the last 40,000 years, you are referring to. Have you really discounted 39,999 other gods? if so, we are of like mind, I simply disvelieve in one more god than you.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 12 February 2007 3:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting article, Peter, but it does raise some questions in my mind.

Are you saying that there is no spirit world? What about the angels referred to in the Bible, or the references to the legion of evil spirits cast out by Jesus? Are these things no longer to be considered ‘gospel truth’? Because if that is your position, I must say that undermining the authority of the Bible seems an odd strategy for a Christian.

You state that if Arius had his way, natural science would have been crippled. Isn’t that pure speculation? We can’t know this unless we are privy to some alternative universe where it did in fact happen. Still, maybe you’re correct and an Arian led church would have sanctioned all sorts of superstitions; like maybe a belief in the healing power of saintly body parts, or a belief that witches use evil spirits to work mischief. It’s lucky that Trinitarian theology closed the door on such nonsense!

One more thing. You refer to the modern “persecutors” of the church. I haven’t actually noticed any Christians being thrown to the lions or turned into Nero-style human torches lately. Surely it’s a trifle overstated to equate criticism and debate with persecution?
Posted by Rhys Probert, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 7:17:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who cares? The only spirit I believe in is rectified spirit.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 7:52:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is persecution , Christians persecute homosexuals , interfere with their lives , banning same sex marriage. Christians persecute women who need to have an abortion, Christians persecute the chronically ill and many of the disabled by preventing stem cell research. Christians persecute science by constantly trying to undermine the great work that is done. Christians persecute Children by taking their happy lives from them and brainwashing them in the darkage superstition based cult of Christianity. Christians persecute truth with their superstitious claims. There is plenty of persecution going on but its Christianity which is doing all the persecution.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 10:10:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo, Bravo, West & RhysProbert.
May the force be with you.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 12:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey *Poppets*

Not ALL *Christians* persecute those of the "Gay" persuasion. Australia's 1st Church have been marrying same since Perth, 1971. We still do, calling the ceremony a *Covenant of Love*

Our view is that if 2 Souls come together in *Luv* seeking the consecration of the *AllMighty* then no person has the right to interefere. (Some of us reckon that *John* was called the *Beloved* for more reasons than 1. HaHaHa)

As for "Spirit," it is our view that "Spirit" is non-corporeal whereas matter is corporeal. How 1 goes about proving the non-corporeal with corporeal means I don't quite know but then, wasn't it 1 of *Steve Hawking's* mates who said something like,

" ... The "New Physics" prevailing, perhaps the mystery of that which lies on the other side of the Black Holes will become known to us. ..."
Posted by AJLeBreton, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 1:41:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All Abrahamic derived religions close their eyes to the many "Spirits" that make up the nature of this world. Their intellectualized propagation of monotheism and their God demands no less. It has long since become a war of who's God is THE God. The Spirits that define the natural world have been disowned and disavowed. Rejected, while being misunderstood in the context of their single God. The great fear that accepting many Spirits may lead to many Gods when only one is being championed.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 1:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not all fascists persecuted Jews either AJLeBreton but you have to agree with the values of a cult before you allow yourself to join it.

Christianity has always been and remains the great persecuter of history along with its cousin Cult Islam. Most of the Christians fed to the lions were fed by competing Christian sects. After the Roman armies of Christ wiped out the pagan Goths the Christians turned on themselves.The belief in god always without fail leads to the persecution or attempted persecution of somebody. The belief in God brings out the worst in people. Wether one sect accepts homosexuals is beside the point , the machine of persecution is there and is active. Jesus himself within his rantings according to the occult fiction of the new testament locks out non Jews from heaven = Christ the persecuter. Women have been persecuted all through history by Christianity which came so ingrained and changed so recently we still have an anti family economic system.

That me may find the other end of the black hole , dont hold your breath Christians , there still wont be flying pigs on the other side.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 2:17:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Rhys

You raise the very interesting problem when you ask "You state that if Arius had his way, natural science would have been crippled. Isn’t that pure speculation?"

Of course, the opposite to what the author claims is really the case. When an "Arian-like" metaphysical perspective dominated, that is, "simple monotheism plus naturalism" science developed in great leaps and bounds. I speak of course of the Abbasid caliphate of Babylon who, regrettably, were defeated by mystical theologians who brought a sudden stop to Islamic scientific development.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 3:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, just because something doesnt exist doesnt mean it isnt real. We are surrounded (figuritively speaking) with real things that dont exist - no abstracts actually exist yet many abstracts are not only undeniably real they are critical to life.

For example all 'patterns' are abstracts, they do not actually consist of anything - the objects that make up the pattern exist but the pattern itself is independent of that as is demonstrated by people who can recognize objects that make up a pattern but cannot see the pattern itself. Ironically we only recognise patterns, which means we only recognise things that dont actually exist.

Then there are the phenomena which are simply absences of things like; darkness, silence, emptiness, cold etc these things are absences of things - how could an absence of existence actually exist? And yet darkness, silence and cold are real are they not? Cold is only the absence of heat but it can kill you cant it? So just because it doesnt actually exist doesnt mean it cant kill you and you cant get any more real than that.
Posted by Rob513264, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 1:41:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the literal "punch up" at the Council of Nicea was not between Arius and St Athanasius, but between Arius and St Nicholas of Myrra (aka Santa Claus). A recent examination of the bones of St Nicholas in Bari even showed that at some point his nose had been broken! Just thought you might be interested.
Posted by Schütz, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 1:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we are, staring down the barrel of serious planetary degradation brought about primarily by the excess population created by religious fanatics, and there are still people who dish up this pap.

Get real you lot, and wake up to what is happening under your noses. We are in deep trouble because of all this religous crap so start looking at what we can do to save this world we love and all the other poor beings that live on it.

We humans are in control of our destiny and everything elses so step out of this etherial snot and do something constructive. Bend your minds to saving "God's Creation" from our excesses instead of quibbling about antediluvian squabbles about three headed deities.

Wake up before there is nothing left except religion. Look at the countries where these religions started. They are all barren wastelands full of aimless starving people and a few goats. Doesn't this ring a few bells in the back of your minds somewhere?
Posted by Guy V, Thursday, 15 February 2007 7:58:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For all those going on about world population. I dare say that if you had the courage of your convictions..... we wouldn't be blessed with your post. Kool-Aid anyone? Get your tickets now! The spaceship for Hale Bopp is leaves shortly.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 15 February 2007 8:16:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article Sells,

"In the same way we relate to persons in a natural way and it is also natural to imagine a personal God. But it is not natural to conceive of a person who is described as three persons in one, this has to be taught"

Your challenge with the above statement is that it breaks the first 2 commandments of the Old Testament: your God is one, do not relate God to images. You are trying to teach 'one' and 'Trinity' in the same time which may appear to be contradictory. It would make more sense to teach one or the other but insisting on theology that sits on the fence between monotheism and polytheism challenges human logic.

Peace,

T
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 15 February 2007 8:32:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Aqvarivs*
The Church of The Mystic Christ would prob b classified as being: "Left of Main" in the view of the medicos & perhaps some of us wld b diagnosed as "suffering" from 1 form of pathology or another however ...
(It also would perhaps come as no surprise 2 some that we have additionally been dubbed the *Church of the Fruit Loop* (HaHaHa))

Notwithstanding the above, we ackowledge the *Entities* of the Spiritual World but we just don't worship them, such as the "Nature Spirits" - VOTE 1 *Browny* 4 PRESIDENT (Solar, Wind, BioMass, PooWater, RainWater Tanks etc !YAY!)

To continue, we trace our history back many centuries & indeed *WEST,* often have been the times when the so-called religious have persecuted all & sundry, which has included us in more recent times for "given" reasons such as having a Female Head, but we don't c that as a reason 2 throw the "Baby out with the bath water."

Further, we believe that the *Cosmic Christ* was fully manifest on the cross & literally infused the whole of Humanity with the essence of her/his/it's Being as "He" bled, giving us all a necessary evolutionary leg up, with the promise that we ALL may grow into *Luv Poppets* ourSelves.

It necessarily follows that the taking of "Life" is forbidden & thus we like to distinguish ourSelves from the war criminals like g.w.bush Turkey et al.

...Adam...
Posted by AJLeBreton, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJLeBreton,

Perhaps if the Abrahamic Religions maintained the natural respect for the Spirit world and hadn't thrown the bathwater out once having bathed the baby, we wouldn't have such a observable disregard for Mother Nature and the Human Condition. These Religions of Love and Peace, that profess such concern for mankind through the love of their God have lead all Humanity to this end. Not just their fellow believers. I do not blame this on anyones God but, on a shared, adopted philosophy and abuse of scientific principle, being that reducing to the essential element, purity, is the highest good. Reality is otherwise. Purity is just as big a threat.
Can man survive on pure oxygen? Was man designed to breathe pure oxygen?
In the battle to win the right to dictate the value of mans soul Religion surrendered the use of balance. Any counterbalancing weight, force, or influence with in religion itself. Having chosen God over man it becomes an easy extension of that thought to abuse man in the name of God. It's for your own good. Your benefit.
And by extension we can pollute, we can kill, we can consume, ravage the land and the seas, loose a species a day, relentlessly drive for that unobtainable purity. And with in that same deck of cards we have chosen by design, discard the ace, the joker of our new deck of cards, the natural spirits, the elemental all good, the spirit of nature.
Lets not go to the extreme of worship. How about due regard?
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 15 February 2007 4:49:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a long time, I was in the same boat as West and Ybpgirp - religion is the problem of the masses. I couldn't understand how intelligent people could voluntarily believe such guff, unless indoctrinated by their parents.

After seeing so many religions, all so convinced they are right, I couldn't help but be incredulous - they were all so convinced of their blind faith, the only logical conclusion was that some were wrong, and as they all employed the same reasoning, the logical conclusion was therefore that they were all wrong.

I had formed the opinion that religion as a way of life was really only two things: a buffer against reality (namely death) and secondly, an explanation for things which can't be explained.

Ultimately however, I have come around to another way of thinking. My ponderings led me to believe that it was also plausible that in their similarities it was possible for them all to be correct, provided certain differences weren't emphasised. In seeing the similarities of all world religions that have taken hold, these differences appear quite trivial in the larger scheme.

One by-product of this line of reasoning, was the simple fact that belief in one system can't be a prerequisite for human development - when you think about it, this goes hand in hand with all of the above conclusions, despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed.

So my ultimate conclusion?

It doesn't matter. If there is any code upon which to base a life, it isn't founded on a selective morality; it is founded upon the conscience which the vast majority of us collectively share.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 15 February 2007 5:10:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJLeBreton without persecution of the 'other' there can be no belief in god Because there is no belief in god without persecution. God has proved himself by every believer to be the believers ego. Each god believer worships himself and therefore those who do not acknowledge the believer as holder of god is offensive to the believer. Occult literature such as the Bible or Koran serve to justify and regulate persecution on that basis. The bible from first paragraph to the very last and what I have read of the Koran are persecution start to end. Indeed the concept of Heaven and Hell make the concept of god-god the persecutor. He who does not follow Jesus is not saved thus persecuted and Christ becomes Christ the persecutor. Those are the rules regulating the god believer. Of course its just arbitrary gaming made up by groups forming superstitious cults. Pity god believers dont keep their self worship to themselves. It would be nice if they stopped causing trouble and stopped their persecution of others , their incessant whinging and let the rest of us fix the problems this world faces.
Posted by West, Thursday, 15 February 2007 5:22:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Turnrightthenleft
and then do a back flip.... I wonder how much contact you have with the natural world... you say "It doesn't matter. If there is any code upon which to base a life, it isn't founded on a selective morality; it is founded upon the conscience which the vast majority of us collectively share."
The only thing all living objects share is the desire to procreate and to live at all costs. If that cost is the life of one's neighbour, then so be it. If it is at the cost of every frog and lizard in Australia, then so be it. Conscience is merely the knowledge that you have transgressed one of your society's rules. When societies collapse, as thgey are in the throes of doing due to over population, global warming and the egregious lies of politicians, then social conventions no longer apply - it becomes every 'man' for himself as it is in all of nature when things get tough, and the only thing that would prick anyone's conscience is not doing whatever it takes to save one's own skin.
Posted by ybgirp, Thursday, 15 February 2007 6:27:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ybgirp.. VERY astute post mate !

TRTL said:

"founded upon the conscience which the vast majority of us collectively share"

Now..that is probably one of the ideas which deserves serious scrutiny by all of us.. specially the humanists among us.

It is undeniable when looked at objectively, that our collective conscience has been shaped and mouled by our education, media, history and race. I sure hope I don't have to justify this as it is a self evident truth.
One only needs to examine other non western societies to see the differences in said 'Collective Conscience' to know this.

Since the late 50s, many aspects of our 'collective conscience' have changed and I've watched it happen.
It has not happened with me, because I have a rock solid anchor in the Judao Christian traditions of faith. My reference point is the ethics and values of Christ, and the Apostles, as outlined in the New Testament, as based on the Old Tetsament.

But mere adherence to the validity of a set of ethics is not enough. Its the relationship which produces the motivation and desire to fulfill them. "Self" sometimes gets in the way, and we err, but the Good Shepherd reaches out.. and draws us back.
Sounds like a good place to put an 'Amen'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 February 2007 7:33:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianities so called ethics are based on exclusionism and persecution. Like most if not all cults of superstition Christianity holds bad morals and this is why Christians have been motivated to war , to witch hunt , to steal children , to commit the most horrific crimes against humanity a person can imagine. Of course Christians claim they have good morals, the Nazis claimed the same thing. The truth is ethics have never been important in civilisation until secularists forced it upon the religious world. Christians like other cults have always been and remain anti ethical and a good example of moral corruption in action is Tony Abott, Timothy McVeigh, Benny Hinn, Bob Larson, the popes who's dedication to occult idols such as Jesus has led to their approach toward true care for their fellow man with occult cynicism and antipathy responsible for spreading misery. Christianity is the quintessential opposite to ethics, it is anti-ethics regardless of what Christians claim. It is ironic that Christian claims of god and heaven and hell are untruths , that the only possible reality , that they could be ethical is also just another untrue claim of Christianity.
Posted by West, Friday, 16 February 2007 8:26:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The only thing all living objects share is the desire to procreate and to live at all costs"

All living things, of course. People, no.

Ask about the killing of a child in any language, it is wrong. The same generally goes for theft, and the vast majority of heinous crimes.

Yes, it can make people appear wise to be cynical, but not when it defies common sense - you can rail abot differences all you lke, but there is an awful lot of common ground the human race shares.

I can assure you, I live in no bubble - I tend to view the trappings of faith as more of a bubble than seeing things for what they are.
I've lived in a number of countries, not all of which are in 'the west.'

Go talk to people in Asia. Talk to people getting by on the streets of Europe and even the middle east.

They're all just trying to get by, but they do all have a reasonably common set of principles - some are diverted by culture and religion, but most share the basics.

I suggest perhaps in your cynicism it is you who are living in some kind of bubble.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 16 February 2007 9:09:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz.... please don't agree with me. it gives me a sense of failure.
Turn right then left -- have you not been watching the news? How often have we heard something like the following... The USA and Australia 'regret' the killing of 10 children and their mothers when a bomb blew up their house. We thought it was a hifdeout for terrorists. "But," says our glorious leader when questioned on the deaths of millions of totally innocent men women and children in Iraq alone since the first gulf war, "I regret nothing! Even knowing what I do now I would act in exactly the same way again!" A conscience? come on! As for your suggestion that humans are somehow different from animals -- sorry mate, they arent. Our Limbic system ensures that.
Posted by ybgirp, Friday, 16 February 2007 11:20:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ybgirp.. credit where credit is due.. if you say something insiteful.. I will give it due recognition. I don't reject all you say just because we might disagree on other matters, and I hope you will reciprocate.

TRTL "Killing of a child in any language is wrong" ? woooo.. mate.. not at all. And that particular issue underlines exactly WHY I said yp's post was valuable.. infantacide is not uncommon in many cultures and the disposal of less economically valuable female children is a regretable practice which is all too common.

So, the values people hold, will resolve down (as ypgirp said) to survival and propagation.

The only motivation which seems to separate us noticably from the animal world is 'self gratification' as a studied exercise.

So, I'll add that to the other 2, as I've long suggested all human behavior can be resolved down to any one, or a combination of these 3.

1/ Self preservation.
2/ Self propogation.
3/ Self gratification.

The Spiritually enlightened person.. a person renewed in Christ, will overcome these 'self' centred values and become Christ centered.

"I am crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" Gal 2:20

I disagree with Sells that belief will settle on simple monotheism without Church teaching.. no, it will head towards Animism/ Superstition.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 17 February 2007 7:30:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article. Like many introspections on the scriptures the logic resembles a mobius strip.

Whatever your faith it's difficult to believe that anything apart from wilful ignorance would cripple natural science.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 17 February 2007 12:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spider,
It is a pity you had not studied history. To make a statement "monotheism was a forced introduction to faith by the Roman Catholics whose grasp for power swept the globe". Nonsence! The polytheistic Roman Empire gained power long before Christianity was ever known.

The Roman Church did and still does teache most of the theology of Zoroaster on dualism. i.e. The presence of two opposing powers to affect moral change in the Earth.

Christianity totally places the moral default of man as the personal choice and responsibility of man alone; not some spirit being; to uphold otherwise is dualism. Islam despite all its retoric about monotheism teaches the reality of the spirit person - Satan. Mohomad claimed to have communed with him. Jesus never communed with a spirit, he was challenged by Jewish zealots (Matt 4)and their sympathisers (Peter and Judas and those Jews opposed to Roman occupation).

Spider your knowledge of the history of theology you obviously gained from Bart Simpson - the following from your post is simply nonsence _ "The Jewish faith did not believe in only one God until they were pressured by the oppressive church. 'Jehova' is two names in one, one being male figure, the other female. The Star of David originally two triangles. Male's pointing up, the female's pointing down."
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 18 February 2007 10:24:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo you are wrong , Constantine began by persecuting pagans and Gothics. Constantine increased the butchering of Christians in the stadium ie fed to lions which continued for another few hundred years. The people of the Roman empire were forced into Christianity by the sword. Jesus afterall was based on the Roman martial cult of Chrisos (mithras) soldiers already worshipped what after Constantine became Jesus. The rise of Christ was certainly a bloody afair especially where indigenous European religions were tenacious. The Roman Catholic church continued persecution of the pagans for many hundreds of years. Pockets still survive in North East Europe. The Christian idol of Satan is based on antipaganist propaganda mocking pagan gods. Roman Catholicism and its child protestantism continued persecuting each other and others until 2007 in which both still interfere with earthly politics.
Posted by West, Monday, 19 February 2007 8:10:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, you might need to go back to the Bible

>>Islam despite all its retoric about monotheism teaches the reality of the spirit person - Satan. Mohomad claimed to have communed with him. Jesus never communed with a spirit...<<

Luke 4:5-8 (King James Version):

4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

So is this metaphorical or literal?

And will you use the same standards of truth/fiction literal/metaphorical on all holy books, or just the ones you find convenient?

Or perhaps I have completely missed your point
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 19 February 2007 8:31:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your reference to the the tempter in Matthew is a reference to the leader of the Jewish stronghold of the zealots held out in the desert who plotted the overthrow of the Roman occupation. He offers Jusus a leading place in his forces if he would follow him. The text has been misrepresented by the Roman Catholic Church, and those that follow a belief in a literal spirit world. Jesus saw the zealots as not following the will of God and the service of God even to a foreign Government as Joseph and Daniel who were subject to foreign powers. The zealots way was death to the occupiers, contrasted to Jesus teaching of "Love your enemy, and pray for those that persecute you." Read Matthew 5 in the context of his recent past.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 19 February 2007 5:27:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells complains that:

a) Christ, as God, is being attacked by the authorities of modern society known as scientists, because they have wrongly associated Christians with a belief in the spirit world;

b)True Christian belief excludes a belief in the spirit world.

Does believing in the spirit world put false belief before actual or true perception of reality?

What does the Bible say about spirits?

a) Jesus cast out unclean spirits in possession of the bodies, minds, souls of various individuals. He could because he created all creatures, including spirits;

b) Jesus is the author of all matter (the physical world) studied by scientists;

c) Jesus is God (Arius is wrong in saying he is just a creature).

Scientists study the matter created by God. If they can't believe in the spirit world, it isn't because of a simple theology.

Arius was a gnostic with a human imagination unable to grasp who God is. The ancients believed that the flesh/body/matter was evil, and hindered the rise of man to the heavens, where he could achieve godlike knowledge and status.

In order to rise, man/men had to leave behind their bodies (see Plato, Timaeus), upon which they could soar towards heaven.

Jesus as God enfleshed was abhorrent to Arius because in the gnostic scheme of things, there can be no connection between God and flesh (good and evil).

However, God proclaims in Genesis that creation before the fall was very good, rather than inherently evil.

Modern gnostics would banish all those associated with the flesh, attempting to distance themselves from evil/damnation/non-heaven. Those banished include females (more of the body), the lower class (pre9=ll, blue collar workers incl. firemen), etc. This is a delusion of distance between the gnostic self and evil, and is unblblical.

Scientists, attatched to the gnostic mind-body distinction, look down on the less intellectual who would recognize what Jesus did -- the
spirits he created (fallen/unclean).

One can study matter without referring to these spirits, by the way.

Jesus's creations, corporeal or spirit or both, are just that. Real. Existent. Undeniable. He is God, after all.
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Monday, 19 February 2007 7:52:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Gnostic metaphysics describes, Monad, father of all, and the nature of God:

“It is not fitting to think of it as god or as something of the sort, for it is superior to deity; nothing is above it, for nothing has mastery over it. It is not inferior to anything, because it lacks nothing.” – Apocryton of John 2.33 [in Athanassiadi and Frede]

I posit, the above, would not suggest a Gnostic complementality regarding good and evil.

Similarly, in Christianity, Satan is subordinate to God. Herein, the Temptation of Christ, as a member of the godhead, appears problematic to me:

If Jesus Christ [of the godhead] is of the substance of God, how can He, ever, be tempted by the inferior Satan? Why even try? It's like the crooks always shooting at Superman, when they already know he is bullet proof.

-Q4U- With Zorocastorism, are God and Satan "equal" in its dualism structure?

In developing his Neoplatonic construct (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), Origen develops a graded system of sorts, suggesting the influence of Numenius and The Chaldean Oracles (O’meara): The Christian trinity seems to have been influenced by earlier trinities.


Spider,

I saw that TV show too. Fiction. Please note, words sometimes change gender in translation and people wanting to sell books ignore this fact.

There are plenty serious non-fiction studies on General Religiosity and Theocrasia, wish will put Christianity to the test, in an historical perspective, without the need for more popular titles.

Sells,

I know I am not welcome, here. I’m not back to stay.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 19 February 2007 7:55:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is it with you guys, that makes you invent a different question if you don't like the one that is asked?

Yes, that means you, Philo.

The extract I put in my post was Luke 4:5-8 (KJV).

"4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan"

You respond with:

"Your reference to the the tempter in Matthew is a reference to the leader of the Jewish stronghold of the zealots.... etc etc."

My reference was absolutely not "the tempter in Matthew", but "the Satan in Luke".

Now, are you willing and able to answer my question? Or are you going to pretend I didn't ask it, but something different entirely, like whether the loaves were unleavened and the fish filleted?

Let me remind you again of the sequence.

You stated "...the spirit person - Satan. Mohomad [sic] claimed to have communed with him. Jesus never communed with a spirit"

I referred you to your principle document of record, the King James Bible, where it notes clearly that he did, in fact, commune directly with this Satan figure.

So which is right?

Is this to be read metaphorically or literally?

And do you use the same standards of truth/fiction literal/metaphorical on all holy books, or just the ones you find convenient?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 9:33:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Satan is a late creature to the occult fiction of the bible, these theological posturings always degrade into a schism in the book club.The authors meant different characters when they introduced satan, lucifer, the devil, abbadon, Apollyon, the serpent, Father of man, Belial, Beelzebub and angel of Light, the god of peace that the god of war cast out of heaven and possibly more if we chase the esoterics north, nestorists east and the gnostics south.

Its all Harry Potter of the 4th to 11th centuries.

Dungeons and Dragons to the tee.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 11:11:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ybgirp. Limbic system aside - this discussion is about religion. Perhaps when dolphins can join in and discuss the finer points of morality I might agree animals are the same.
Until that time, I can only conclude the animals are different, or disagree with you.

Boaz: you can draw out examples of infanticide or any given atrocity and point to it, saying that it proves humanity doesn't share some kind of common morality.

But I think it's a tad weak. Sure there's examples of these horrors - but take a walk down any given street in the world and you will encounter people with pretty similar thoughts and worries as yourself, and guess what - most look on acts such as infanticide as horrific.
It is true that we act how we have been conditioned - but as humanity moves toward a globalised civilisation, there are thosed who are raised in a civilised atmosphere, and those who are destitute.

The thing is - even most of the destitute people are decent human beings. Watch interviews with refugees fleeing the horrors of African genocide - the genocide is the example of horror the individual is not.

I say again - most human beings you will encounter in this world have a basic shared morality, acts of cruelty aside.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 1:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My point is the temptations faced by Jesus Christ were exactly confrontations by the leader of the Jewish zealots wether Matthew or Luke recorded the incident. The Satan or the Devil is one who opposes God.

Note Jesus uses this term when challenged by Peter to fight who upon his conversion becomes a devoted follower willing to be a submissive martyr for the sake of his Lord. Judas and the zealots who challenged his teaching or actions were also addressed as "the devil" or the "Satan".

The term the Satan is derived from the Hebrew and the term the Devil from Greek. However in Greeks view of the term devil as equivalent to a god in English, and had affectionate conitations. However to monotheism it is anathma as no such being exists independent of the human character, and is the expression of the human character.

Jesus was about releasing people from processes of thought that had them in their culture believe they were posessed by demons. The demons had no independence or reality of being only in the belief of the Greco-Roman world that such beings existed and controlled people. The spirits of the wicked deceased lurked waiting to find rest, usually in graveyards - hence the Zoroastrian influence on Romanism regarding purgatory.

The act of exorcism was a physical demonstration to the minds of those who believed in demons that they were now released. The casting out of demons was an effective tool demonstrating they were now personally in controll and responsible for all actions, not some demon. It was a cultural overthrow of superstitious polytheism being replaced with responsible monotheism. We stand alone and responsible before our Creator for all our actions.

There are no lesser gods (powers), there is but one God in whom all creative power exists, and man is a spiritual being in rebellion.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 5:18:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LIMBIC SYSTEM

Above comment has been made on the Limbic System, herein, I cite:

"The universality of myth and religion strongly suggests a common biological substratum responsible for their existence. This substratum is probably located in the temporal lobes, largely involving the limbic system. The mammalian limbic system is over 200 million years old and contains our emotional reaction to environmental stimuli. Not surprisingly, religious behaviour involves strong emotional reaction to meaningful stimuli that inspire awe, fear, and submission, all functions of the limbic area and the basal forebrain. It is no coincidence that temporal-lobe epileptics display, among other symptoms, a preoccupation with religion. We all have temporal lobes and limbic systems. Therefore, no matter how irrational our neocortex may think religious behaviour is, we cannot escape religious behaviour, including mythology.” (Shobris, 1994)

[Journal of Genetics, Social and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 120, 1994]

[In part] What the above states is neuro-“physiologically”, Religionism is supported by the limbic system: But this does not mean neuro-“psychologically” human constructed mythical attitudes are 200 million years old [epoch relates to us and earlier mammals]: Rather, Church/Temple-based mythologies are recent. For example, with Dualism, as mentioned in recent posts, has its foundation in 500 BCE philosophies. In this way, we have mammalian/historical strata.

Hence, were we to abrogate those regions of Believer’s brain responsible for [mythological]delusions [recent in human history], we would also damage significant self-preservation regions of the brain[deep mammalian structures]. Thus, hopefully, one would recommend reasoned argument, over brain surgery any day, as an attempt at addressing said delusional behaviour
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 6:37:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There are no lesser gods (powers), there is but one God in whom all creative power exists, and man is a spiritual being in rebellion. "

I hope all you are doing is playing your dungeons and dragons game , just be careful it is a very dangerous thing to forget god is a fictional character and end up believing such a terrible beast is real.

Asserting one god over another and to believe it is self delusion in its purest sense and no less superstitious and no more moral than devil worshipping.

Philo you cant bag one set of fake beliefs and then assert your own beliefs in a fake deity. The immorality is that you judge humans as a spiritual being in rebellion. I would call that evil because as you well know god is your personal fantasy and for the world to be in rebellion of your fantasy is claiming the world is in rebellion of your ego. You speak for god , you claim utter nonesense onj gods behalf you are speaking for yourself and your own prefernces. You are telling us you are god and we should worship you.

Obviously the truth is there is no god and subsequently you know nothing at all about god. Leave the crime of lies to that great con fraternity the clergy and theologians. They dont peddle their lies any better but its their profession.

May I put you to the test Philo? Should those who are in your mind in "spiritual rebellion" of YOUR god be punished on any level?
Posted by West, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 8:39:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Philo, I read every word of your response to my question, and I think I can decipher it. Please let me know if I am misrepresenting you in any way - your prose is somewhat dense in places.

>>My point is the temptations faced by Jesus Christ were exactly confrontations by the leader of the Jewish zealots<<

This can be interpreted as "it is just a metaphor, you dummy", which would at least have been setting us on the path to an answer.

>>Judas and the zealots who challenged his teaching or actions were also addressed as "the devil" or the "Satan"... Jesus was about releasing people from processes of thought that had them in their culture believe they were posessed by demons<<

This would also seem to support the metaphor theory. We can I guess now agree that all that stuff about Satan is simply metaphorical, and not meant to be taken literally.

So that answers the first part of my question - "...is this metaphorical or literal?" - quite neatly.

Having settled that, could you now take the more important step and answer the second part of the question:

"...will you use the same standards of truth/fiction literal/metaphorical on all holy books, or just the ones you find convenient?"

And just in case you find my intentions less than clear, I am trying to find out whether you are applying the same rigorous standards of truth and accuracy to your assessment of other religions:

>>Islam despite all its retoric [sic] about monotheism teaches the reality of the spirit person - Satan. Mohomad [sic] claimed to have communed with him...<<

Are you sure they aren't being metaphorical as well?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 10:38:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Belief in spirits independent of a body and as literal beings is fantacy. The ancient world believed in them especially the Greco-Roman and was saturated by such superstition. Visit any primitive culture today, like Africa or Indonesia, and you will find they still believe in independent spirits that control physical events.

The spirit of man is the capacity to think and act independently to the social norms. West has no conscience and may try to kill a few people then he will discover the consequences of the Biblical principle "Thou shall not kill".

God is manifest in the expression of character, attitudes, actions and wisdom that evaluate human behaviour that bless or punish all human activity in the light of perfection, devoted committment and active engagement.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 22 February 2007 3:01:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are obviously not a Catholic then......
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 22 February 2007 4:15:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Philo, you win.

My last question was:

"...will you use the same standards of truth/fiction literal/metaphorical on all holy books, or just the ones you find convenient?"

to which you replied

"Pericles,
Belief in spirits independent of a body and as literal beings is fantacy. The ancient world believed in them especially the Greco-Roman and was saturated by such superstition. Visit any primitive culture today, like Africa or Indonesia, and you will find they still believe in independent spirits that control physical events..." etc. etc. ad naus.

There is a limit to the number of times I can ask a straightforward question and get unintelligible gibberish in response, and that limit has just been reached.

Have a great day
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 22 February 2007 4:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

I think what Pericles is asking is, why does a Christian believe God did not communicate with Mohammed, that Hermes did not come down to Earth as a messenger in human form; yet, a Christian posits God communicated with Moses and Jesus is God incarnated as Man?

[hope my comment is okay, Pericles.]
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 22 February 2007 5:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Philo then it is agreed and the obvious answers to the questions you are avoiding is that 'Bruce Almighty' is an equally relevant scripture to the Bible. With our thoughts we create our gods and with our thoughts we create our gods wills.
Posted by West, Thursday, 22 February 2007 6:27:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is a good summary of one aspect of the question Oliver, thanks for that.

But on a broader front we have the (to me) utterly ridiculous situation where we are asked to cherry-pick interpretations of the various scriptures, guided only by people who have an absolute and overt interest in their particular individual interpretation.

Once we question the basis of that interpretation, the opportunity is taken to i) ignore the question entirely and ii) fish around in the ever-handy grab-bag of pseudo-religious nonsense sound-bites, and simply splodge a couple of them together and publish.

I see it as blatant hypocrisy, as well as an insult to normal, thinking human beings.

And just to rub it in, another of the clan will wander by and chide us for spending so much time arguing with them.

D'oh.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 23 February 2007 9:41:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christians hold that the ultimate revelation of the character, attitudes and actions that communicate God to all men is expressed in the life of Jesus Christ and through the devoted followers who emulate those character, attitudes and actions as Jesus lived. The word Christian is derived from "Christ in", meaning that person is living the same life as if Christ is living in them. Anyone not upholding that character, attitudes, actions and wisdom cannot claim Christ is living in them.

Forgive others sin who offend you (do not hold hurts)even if they despise you.
Heal the infirmed and care for the social outcast
Bless one's enemy and give them water if thirsty, do not take up the sword in revenge
Bless and do not curse an enemy as love is the ultimate goal

Are some of Jesus teachings that changed pagan culture who believed that power over others is right - which is the basis of much pseudo religious belief. Jesus taught servanthood not acting as an over Lord of others. He who is greatest in his kingdom will be the servant of all men.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 23 February 2007 1:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are DEFINITELY not a Catholic......

And I guess the majority of Americans could not be called Christian under the "do not take up the sword" part...

Hmm interesting
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 23 February 2007 3:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West and Pericles,

"... guided only by people who have an absolute and overt interest in their particular individual interpretation." - West

As Michael Polanyi notes the idea of worship is not the exchange of information, rather to "indwell" in worship. Objective analyses are difficult from this starting point. Relatedly, "authoritarian traditionalism" (Church/Priest/Minister) makes it hard to become an individualist progressive in a congregation. I have had students disagree with me in open class, but I am yet to see a church member challenge a priest, during a sermon in open church. The attitude to knowledge discovery and the potential synthesis of ideas is a canyon apart in a lecture vis~a~vis a sermon. The Church dictates the programme and said programme appears self-serving and appears to reinforce a "denominational" attitude, rather, than a question to test posits, even the quest for god through the lense histographies, which stand outside the theocrasia.

The early Christian Church was based on house and small Jesus-group workship. There was a strong focus on martyrdom and virginity. A Martydom was seen as a "second" baptism and martyrs-elect were said to have the power to forgive sins. This later was moderated, wherein persecuted/tortured but released Christians could forgive sins. The Holy Spirit came upon the martyred and later the pursecuted.

Independently, opportunists were building an organised Church, which would assume the Confessors and the lay members, under politically motivated bishops, whom put themselves above the Confessors and the lay members. The bishopss like with the Isalmic leaders led stood there distance will calling others to fight the good fight and die at the hands of the Romans. The first 10-12 bishops of Christianity were either Jewish or had their titles fabricated by later writers "spinning" translations.

[Main source: Robin Lane Fox]

Philo,

If Yahweh's behaviours in the OT were replicated in front of the apparently humanist NT Jesus, would Jesus deem Yahweh to have sinned? If god is perfect, why would emulating Yahweh's genecide in the Middel East [The Flood] be sinful [nuke the Aswan dam] ?
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 23 February 2007 5:51:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When did Hermes promote the Ten Commandments of God? That's right. Hermes wasn't a spokesman of God. Therefore he didn't say what God would have him communicate to the world.

Not all spirits are alike. Spirits differ in character, some with malice aforethought, some with God in mind. l John 4: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits ot see if they are from God." As one tests humans, test the spirits.

Malicious spirits tend to tell humans something they cannot test e.g. that there are multiple lives to live for each human.
How would that be tested? New Age spirits tell their human channels that the latter have had past lives. This is untestable.

Telling humans that humans never die is perpetrating a fraud on the human who believes it. That human will die, and be dead (no future lifetimes) and it will be irreversible.

The purpose of telling a human that he or she will never die (i.e. will have multiple lives) is to remove the one choice the human has to have true eternal life, by lying to that human about the future.

If that isn't malicious,what is? Removing true choices is malice filled. And unclean spirits do it with polished advertising techniques -- they gloss up their false alternatives, the better to be believed.
That is, they play to the weaknesses of the particular human they are targeting. Have a big ego? They play to that. Have a small ego? They play to that. Have pride of appearance? They play to that. Have a fear of old age? They play to that. Whatever it takes.

Carl Jung, one of the original New Agers, helped eliminate the idea of spirits from the modern lexicon of legitimate thoughts with his concept of the collective unconscious. Messages he got from the spirit Philemon he walked and talked with, Jung said came from the "collective [human] unconscious." Who is Jung that "modern man" should follow him? He was an occult founding father of psychiatry.
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Friday, 23 February 2007 9:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
See what happens when you start talking about spirits........
Gibberish and BS starts spewing forth from the lips and fingertips of people once thought to be sane. Jung was a big believer in dream interpretation, but all of that doesn't really have a basis in fact or proper research either. The spirits I prefer are those distilled by monks.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 24 February 2007 12:10:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,
Interesting. When the ancient Greeks began to embibe fermented drinks and discovered they caused weird and uncontrolled behaviour they assumed the participant was filled with a spirit that was released by the drink. Hence the name spirits when refering to alcoholic drinks.

The use of the term spirit in Christianity refers to a belief system that influences and controlls behaviour. Test every spirit means test the thought, motivations, and outcomes of a belief system to see how it encourages moral excellence and blesses life, relationships and community.

Truth is truth no matter who expresses it, and is not the exclusive property of any person, or system of belief. "love your neighbour as much as you love yourself" is a Christian truth and if practised will fulfil outcomes of blessing for life and community. Understanding Christianity in reality means witnessing the love of God expressed in human relationships. The expression of Love is a spiritual quality and identifies the character of God - for God is love. The spiritual expression has healing properties to relationships and community - it is the truth - it is the blessing that identifies its sourse.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 24 February 2007 12:42:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Going by this thread god has manifested himself as the Titanic, yes it took the movement of atomic particals within free space to bring the physicality of both boat and iceberg to truth with absolutist consequences. Same could be said for the routes of electrical charges in your heads in their desperation to see demons and gods within squinting sight so believable but not so pandemic as to convince all the people all the time.

Atomic physics screams out that most of the universe is made of nothing. In that sense only nothing is everywhere and god being everywhere when the only thing everywhere is nothing. God is therefore nothing. Dust off your old logic tables philosophers it holds true.

Philo, Hawaii et.al. when you cannot find your car keys do you believe they have actually "vanished" into thin air?

P.S Jung's bent was the universality of symbolism he never claimed the Yeti went through his garbage or the Loch ness monster rocked his boat.

That said Jung was wrong about the universality of symbolism. Western arachnophobes would never worship new world spider gods.
Posted by West, Saturday, 24 February 2007 1:58:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hawaiilawyer,

Thanks for your post.

The Ten Commandments are more likely to have their orgin in The Book of the Dead, which preceeded the ten commandments by eight hundred years. The author of The Ten Commandments is lkiely to have developed his mythology based on Greco-Egyptian mythology. [The Hammurabic Code also predates The Ten Commandments]. Moreover, the Christian denominations (between themselves), Jews and Muslims have different commandments. "Thou shalt to covet thy neighbour's house" [envy] is not in the Protestant codes.

Hermes was the message of the gods, principally Zeus. Hermes had stong connections with the afterlife and accompanied the dead to the afterlife. As a human he interpreted scriputural meaning. Open up a common dictionary and look up the word, "hermeneutic".

- A question- What is the relation between (a) God the Father (NT) and (b) the Son of God (NT), with El in head of the Council of Gods in the OT [Psalm 82]?

Philo,

How would God in the NT [Father, Son and H.G.), judge the God in OT [El, Yehwah and council members], in your opinion? Did Yewah honour His father, when He deposed Him? [Psalm 82]
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 24 February 2007 6:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well the idea of nothingness is just that, an idea. Nothingness cannot exist unless it's an imaginary teddy (god) that creates nothingness in the minds of people. Many teddy infected people hide underneath the comforting grasp of their teddy cheer leaders who have concocted their web of circular "logic", making one believe this is some sort of noble loving act by a teddy (god).

Peter in this article speaks of the doctrine of the trinity that can only be "taught" ... that teddy the father, teddy the son and teddy the holy spirit are each equally and eternally the one true teddy. This is top shelf funny stuff where one is expected to submit to the exception by being indoctrinated with a piece of silly dogma. i.e. When Peter says "taught" he really means forget the only and the right thing to do which is using our intelligence. This "taught" means the abandonment of reasoning, questioning, observing, experimenting and the analysis of evidence which is the bedrock of our morality and from which logically springs love, forgiveness, tolerance and a profound desire to make a just, egalitarian society to reduce suffering. He really means we do not need any more knowledge to understand the real world because this is the belief.

What precisely is the expressed meaning? e.g. Teddy, the unseen, omnipresent source of all being miraculously is born in a manger to look like one of us and with much hoo haa. We then know nothing of teddy for almost thirty years which seems somewhat borderline. Wouldn't you think in all these years he would in truth be telling people he was teddy rather than eavesdropping and interposing in disguised humanity? Well so much for the holy spirit stuff while this particular teddy is on a mission because we find it is better to snoop around for most of one's life before quickly doing the bigbang with much weeping, wailing, blood, guts, gore and simulated pain. Phew, this teddy certainly satisfies a sadomasochist mindset with his alpha and omega screaming spasm of psychosis.
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 24 February 2007 6:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The only motivation which seems to separate us noticably from the animal world is 'self gratification' as a studied exercise.

So, I'll add that to the other 2, as I've long suggested all human behavior can be resolved down to any one, or a combination of these 3.

1/ Self preservation.
2/ Self propogation.
3/ Self gratification."

BOAZ_David, February 2007

It is a well known and considered proposition that understood perceptions of the world are usually a tranferance of one's own ideology and beliefs.

Nice going BOAZ, I've finally worked out the real you.
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 24 February 2007 7:03:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ,

Humans are animals. Mammals, in fact. Moreover, the Australian Museum exhibit in Sydney, states, we are a branch of the Great Apes. No problem to me.

Humans are not alone at being senient. Dogs can be self sacrificing and dolphins have been known to train human fisherman,as to where to caste nets.

Our neocortex is very advanced but we carry a load of baggage from earler evolution, as with the comment on the limbic system, above.

In many ways we humans are special, but we are not fully in class of our own.

Common DNA can be traced to very primitive organisms, in existing in the very deep crust of Earth. Go bad far enough and you are related to a common garden snail.

[Appreciate that as Christian that you might not believe we are mammals and the world was created 4,000 BCE. I beg to differ.]
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 24 February 2007 8:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RE: Psalm 82:

"The psalm calls the judges of Israel 'gods' and 'children of the most High.' They were called gods because they represented God in executing judgment. In John l0:34-36, Jesus used this passage to defend his claims to be God. His argument was as follows: if God would call mere men gods, why was it blasphemous for him, the Son of God, to declare himself equal with God?"

___________

RE: The film "The Exorcist"

The actual child possessed in this case was a boy. The film fictionalized his story to protect his identity.

January l949:

"As an only child, he had to depend upon the adults in the household for his playmates. One of these adults was his Aunt Harriet, Karl Mannheim's sister...Harriet responded to Robbie's interest in board games by introducing him to a new one -- the Ouija board.

...Because Aunt Harriet was a Spiritualist, she saw the Ouija board as a way to make contact between this world and the next....

Great forces now were beginning to focus on the Mannheim's home, a one-and-a-half-story frame house in Mount Ranier, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. Call them psychological forces, though this is a feeble designation for the overwhelming horror to come." Thomas B. Allen, "Possessed -- The True Story of an Exorcism."

The rest of the story is laid out in the film version.

There are ways for a human to consent to spirit possession -- to open the door to fallen angels:

a) commit a sin e.g. adultery, fornication, murder, lying, cheating, stealing;
b) be unrepentant about it;

c)refuse to recognize sin's true nature;

d) speak to evil spirits (e.g. through the Ouija board);

e) channel evil spirits -- e.g. automatic writing;

f) blame God for all or some of one's own problems...etc.

g) deny that God is telling you the truth about reality.

Evil spirits require consent, could be constructive rather than actual consent as in the commission of a sin.

Also see Malachi Martin, "Hostage to the Devil -- The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans" -- excerpt forthcoming.
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Saturday, 24 February 2007 10:37:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When JC returns will Peter Sellick believe it to be true?
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 24 February 2007 10:51:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malachi Martin:

For one week the police of a southern Nanking city precinct had been looking for Thomas Wu...Wu...had killed his victims and eaten their bodies...Father Michael Strong...sent word...that he had found the wanted man..."I am conducting an exorcism. Please give me some time."

...They could see Father Strong standing in the middle of the floor. Over in one corner there was another figure, a young, naked man, suddenly ravished by an unnatural look of great age, a long knife in his hands. On the shelves around the inner walls of the storehouse lay rows and rows of naked corpses in various stages of mutilation...

"YOU!!" the naked man was screaming... "YOU want to know MY name!" The words "you" and "my" hit the captain like two clenched fists across the ears...it was the voice that made the captain wonder. He had known Thomas Wu. Never had he heard him speak with such a voice.

"In the name of Jesus," Michael began weakly, "you are commanded..."

"Get outa here! Get the hell outa here, you filthy old eunuch!"

"You will release Thomas Wu, evil spirit, and..."

"I'm taking him with me, pigmy," came the voice... "I'm taking him. And no power anywhere, anywhere, you hear, can stop us. We are as strong as death...And he wants to come! You hear? He wants to!"...

"The voice of Wu pursued them over the noise: "It's all one. Fool! we're all the same. Always were. Always."...

Then the fixity of Thomas' grin broke: his face semed to be replaced by another face...At the top speed of a kaleidoscope, a long succession of faces came and went, one flickering after the other...Faces and expressions Michael never had known...Some he had seen in history books, in paintings, in churches, in newspapers...Japanese, Chinese, Burmese, Korean, British, Slavic. Old, young, bearded, clean-shaven. Black, white, yellow. Male, female. Faster. Faster. All grinning with the same grin...

... "Cain..." he began to say weakly to himself...."Wrong again, fool!
Cain's father. I. The cosmic Father of Lies and the cosmic Lord of Death. From the beginning of the beginning...."
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Saturday, 24 February 2007 11:08:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hawaiilawyer, do yourself a favour and check the label on your medication, I think you may be over-indulging.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 25 February 2007 6:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hawaii, when I mentioned the Titanic I meant it as a metaphor not the movie. The excorcist huh? The passions of christ was based on a book too, ironically written by an anti semetic nun, maybe her spirit possesses Mels mouth when he drinks.

It is nothing less than moral panic to need a deity to remind a person what the diffence between right and wrong is. Children can only believe in god when they reach the 'monsters under the bed ' stage of psychological development. 100% of Infants are atheists and the fact that infants cannot concieve the concept of a god is the only universal spiritual conceptualisation amongst humans. We are born atheist and we die atheist (corpses dont believe in gods either, or monsters under the bed ). The very young and the dead dont know anything about right and wrong either. Right and wrong (morality) are purely cultural , are not universal and morality evolves to suit the social climate. In the middle ages a good many European women were executed for blasphemy , the blasphemy of mourning for a dead child which is clearly against gods will. To the community at the time it was wrong to see children as precious. We have more in common with pagan Rome with our attitudes towards our children than did the Christian era, belief Vs economics? Infantcide was just as rampant in Christian Europe as it was in China early in the 20th Century.

In reality we 'learn' right and wrong through experience akin to Pavlovs dog.

Speaking of dogs, dogs are domesticated wolves made immature through domestication. Oliver, community is primo to a wolf. Wolves have evolved into a true operalisation of all for one and one for all. All primates of course have rather loose loyalties compared to wolves and lets face it chimpanzees and humans have been known to be sleezy at times. I guess to draw an ecological fallacy from this is chimps need jesus too, why are there not missionaries at zoo's?
Posted by West, Sunday, 25 February 2007 9:52:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hawaiilawyer,

Psalm: 82

Thanks. I understood God singluar to refer to El the Head of the Council.Yehwah was just one of the gods, plural. Will check.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 26 February 2007 12:17:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

Agree with your comments about wolves and dogs. There is some debate on this matte, whether dogs and wolves are separate species. From what I have read, the majority side with what you have said about dogs being immature" wolves". I saw a TV pragramme on primates where it was said said that chimps are more promiscuous than apes who normally stick to one parter [like birds]. Trivia: Some called called E.B. Twitmyer discovered Pavlovian conditioning, before Pavlov. However, that person was a grad. student, so took any notice at the time.

All,

-- Please, excuse the aside to our topic
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 26 February 2007 12:32:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I swore i wouldn't read this article cause this author reminds me of why i always fell asleep in church, but unfortunately the number of posts has piqued my curiosity.

"Perhaps Athanasius, for all his thuggery, saw how things would go if Arius had had his day, a deficient theology that could not be at the centre of the flowering of the culture of the West. So perhaps the logic was more about the outcome than of seeing the invisible things of God!"

Yeah like the West is some kind of wonderful utopia that we have to thank this Athanaius character for steering the Christian theology in the direction he did. Otherwise those wise Christians who started the flowering of our western culture might have erred and set us on a path towards decadence, social decay and a society steeped in "sin". Thank God that didn't happen!
Posted by Donnie, Monday, 26 February 2007 2:06:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Donnie has given god the death blow. When I was a child it was rare for my siblings and myself to recieve chocolates. Unlike today chocolates were not everywhere. Chocolate that was avaliable was relatively expensive. Toothapaste was not as advanced as it is today and wisdom of my parents was to ration chocolate as a special treat. The simple chocolate easter egg pulled sway. Therefore to me chocolate is still imbued or fetishised with meaning it does not in true physicality possess.

Kids today have access to chocolate at will and for that in my forgetful moments appears as decadence. "In the good old days" we knew better. During the enlightenment as life deconstructed was becoming more complex those in less technologically obsessed socieites suddenly became nobel savages. 'Civilised' man became the convoluted sin destined for destruction.

During the Industrial revolution the country side became romanticised, cities were pure expressions of the survival of the fittest, the city dweller crude and violent. The country life was the simple life thus blessed except for most of those who actually lived there.

The argument that gods way is the utopian way is nothing more than mere romanticism spouted by people swept along with no control over their lives. Life has never been more gentle than in the 21st century for those societies which have embraced science and technology. A single metroplitan clinic helps more ill in one single day than the alleged Christ ever did in his entire life time.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:10:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BURIAL TOMB OF JESUS

Often in these threads, I have posited need to Christians adopt a "forensic" approach to theocrasia [the architecture of god building], the authoriship of the scriptures, an the spin/re-interpretations of the Church(es) by church leaders.

Now, I am in the same position as a typical Christian: Herein, my council is to [tentatively] maintain the tomb is "not" the burial place of the historical Jesus. There are vagaries, self-interest and ambiguities involved. It would inappropiate to draw firm conclusions. A "forsenic" approach is needed.

So, Sells, I do practise what I preach:

It is essential that wild claims are not made in situations unsupported by the firm, triangulated evidence, in every case. Not just "belief".

The tomb must be thoroughly examined through the lense of histographies and social constructions [common names], just as claims to Jesus's divinity must be viewed the the lense of histographies and social constructions [common theocrasia from the Axial Period to 500 CE). With the Tomb, we must not have unproven claims, made after the fact, just taking names and pasting these on other historical events.

We must not have researchers making "a priori" assumptions and just moving on from there based on a belief that the tomb "is" the tomb of the historical. Such an "a priori" assumption is irrational. Is it not? Else, it could lead to all sorts of false, untested beliefs. And can't have that; can we?
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 2:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver in essence Christians remain better off with Jesus missing. The tomb of Christ exists only in the hearts of christians. The real Christ existed in ink on well worked hides and has probably long been consumed by beatles. Jesus if ever a man is long dead and if his tomb exists and by chance he is was the jesus found a few decades ago then its ironic that Christendom deny him.

A further irony is it is sad that all that had occured in the name of that poor pile of organically rich dust and calcium chips Christ when found is denied as the god as he has been claimed by Christians. If the tomb is indeed that of Christ then the biggest blasphemy ever commited toward Christ is the Christian denial of his corpse which will always remain silent in almost all of the universe.
Meanwhile the second coming as it turns out was finding the grave of the poor sod and it could never in reality have been anything grander. Even if the tomb is not that of the real Christ it is in many ways a lesson in how a few thousand years can blow out a delusion of grandeur.

Does Jesus still live ?

Well Mickey Mouse became more important and more loved than Walt Disney. We will never find Mickey Mouses tomb either.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 3:15:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, you have used my name in vain yet i am not the god assassin of which you speak ;)

The 'God' way may not be the utopian way, as you say, but surely our culture of the West is not the idealised Christian society perhaps envisioned by this big noted "thug" Athanasius when he *laid down the law* on the Trinity disunity way back when.

"Life has never been more gentle than in the 21st century for those societies which have embraced science and technology"
Not to detract from what "science and technology" has endowed us, but it has yet to lead to solutions of the type that Christ was attempting to instill, to improve the relations and decencies of man.

"A single metroplitan clinic helps more ill in one single day than the alleged Christ ever did in his entire life time"
Perhaps in the treatment of ills, but will said clinic inspire the hearts and minds of men for the next 2 millenia?
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 4:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DOUBLE STANDARDS? WE WILL SEE.

West, as usual, I appreciate you post. Thanks.

Sells and his colleagues recognise the "mythology" in Roman mystery cults and other religions. But wont recognise the same constructs pertaining the architecture of the Christian religion. We are meant "in the first instance" to accept an "a priori" posit, without researching foundations. Understanding is said to flow from "belief" and forensic research is suspended.

Now, what of a person, whom maintains by "faith alone" that the bones are those of Jesus, and, adds, we will ignore complementary descenting commentary by historians and scientists, casting doubt on the religuous nature of God's bones. What of a person, who irrationally and "a priori" maintains to understand that the bones are really God's, and, ambiguities/alternatives are the the work of Satan?

Most importantly, the Bones of Jesus must be the Bones of Jesus, because a TV documentary makes this claim: The scripts the narrators use written Testaments given Holy Sanction by the producer.In this way, Jesus of the Bones, is a matter of faith and belief, alone, which is outside scholarship. In Letters and Epistles to theatre chains and marketing agencies, this Truth is made very clear. Especially, after a Synod of writers parsed many drafts.

For adherents of Jesus of the Bones; the mystery Celts of Mythras and Jesus of Resurrection are just mystery cultures. Only, Jesus of the Bones is real and exempt from scientic method. Lastly,[Like Constantine] Black Beard was a convert to Jesus of the Bones, having won battles, after flying the skull and cross bones... this must be proof.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 7:26:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, most of these infected and poisoned unfortunates become so well immunized in the process that they just do not play outside their playpen. They have been repeatedly warned, are well armed with entrenched avoidance behaviours like pulling down the shutters, disconnecting and walking away from highly plausible arguments. This kind of belief doesn't require evidence because it is issued as pure rote "learning" and boyo does it have all bases covered. e.g. The great disconnect where belief in something without evidence is elevated as a particular virtue because there is this notion that any fool can believe something based on evidence. BUT, belief without any evidence takes "real character". lol

The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole teddy milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason coupled with very powerful inducements on captive and vulnerable minds. It is a closed control system where the end product of this process is simply one of damaged goods rather than the true achievement of human potential. There is no thought of reason, humility, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy, in this systematic manipulation for this is the world of the unreasonable.

Probably harder to understand for the teddy infected types is that this delusional attachment that supposedly takes "real character" is one of the major causes of crime in every shape and form.
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:52:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said. Thanks Keiran.

Last night, on CNN, Christians were citing scientists, historians, statisticians and anthropologists, to disprove Jesus of the Bones.
An in these religious matters, and, saying "a priori" (that Word, Sells), we must "first" research ancient naming conventions, before drawing conclusions.

But, in three plus OLO threads, when, I use specialist civilizationists, general historians, antropoligists and university [not bible school] professors of religions; Christians say one must not triangulate secular disciplines on matters of faith, ignoring; Gibbon, Toynbee, Wells, Caroll and McNeill, Popper, Polanyi, Leakey, Penrose, Skinner, Armstrong and Greenfield, and, Popkin, Russell, Kant, and, many others. [Sells, all are serious experts in their respective fields.].

Herein, if a Doctor of Cristian Theology (Pells) makes a posit, we forget all the rest of human knowledge. We believe the Earth is the centre of the universe, that the world was created in 4,004 BCE and that Moses has horns. If we are Catholics that Jesus' body is "floating" in space enroute to heaven and transubstantiation is true.

The Christian denies their scheme of behaviours to secular science and to other religions. Why?

Keiran, I think you are about to see TEDDY-RAMA in the near future.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 5:34:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, I enjoy reading your excellent thoughts ..... and following these up to gain some further insight.

Today was a most interesting day in the business world and for myself with this date 27/2/07.

Some months back you may remember we were discussing connectivity, infinity, and mathematics ideas like pi. (i.e. which should be as easy as Pi. lol ..... posted by Keiran, Friday, 22 December 2006)

I posted "Better still what about Martin Armstrong's Economic Pi Cycle for some reading?
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
"

Well, if anyone was interested in economic business cycles Martin Armstrong's Economic Pi Cycle says 2007.15... or 27/2/07 for a major downturn. How about this then, when it happened right on cue to the day for about the sixth time. This is truly astonishing ...... makes one wonder why this bloke is locked up and out of circulation.

e.g. He says this in part of an excellent read that is based on considerable evidence.
"The Mystery of 8.6
At first, 8.6 seemed to be a rather odd number that just didn’t fit mathematically. In trying to test the validity of October 19th, 1987 being precise or coincidence, I stumbled upon something I never expected. This is the first time I will reveal something that I discovered and kept secret for the last 13 years. The total number of days within an 8.6-year business cycle was 3141. In reality, the 8.6-year cycle was equal to p (Pi) * 1000. Suddenly, there was clearly more at work than mere coincidence. "
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 8:57:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Keiran.

Last night, on CNN, Christians were citing scientists, historians, statisticians and anthropologists, to disprove Jesus of the Bones.
And in these religious matters, and, saying "a priori", we must "first" research ancient naming conventions, before drawing conclusions.

But, in three plus OLO threads, when, I used specialist civilisationalists, general historians, anthropoligists and university [not bible school] professors of religions; Christians say one must not triangulate secular disciplines on matters of faith, ignoring; Gibbon, Toynbee, Wells, Caroll and McNeill, Popper, Polanyi, Leakey, Penrose, Skinner, Armstrong and Greenfield, and, Popkin, Russell, Kant, and, many others. [Sells, all are serious experts in their respective fields.].

If a Doctor of Christian Theology (Pells) makes a posit, we forget all the rest of human knowledge. We believe the Earth is the centre of the universe, that the world was created in 4,004 BCE and that Moses has horns. Moreover, if we are Catholics that Jesus' body is "floating" in space [sells] en-route to heaven and transubstantiation is true.

The Christian denies their scheme of behaviours to secular science and to other religions. Why?

Scientists can't use science to invalidate Christanity, Yet, Christians can use science to invalidate other religiosities. Curious, isn't it?

Keiran, I think you are about to see TEDDY-RAMA in the near future.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 9:18:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie you are right medical clinics have not inspired the hearts of men to torture people to admit they were witches then burn them , or torture and execute Christian converts to admit they still have a soft spot for their Jewish past and then kill them , or go to war over a different opinion over scripture , or persecute Jews , gays, gypsies, Russian and greek Orthadox, women , children , pagans , other sects of the same cult, marry children, take land off of peasants, ethnically cleans Europe, the New World , Oceana and the antipodes.

Perhaps it is because crimes against humanity justified by the faith in a god is not covered by medicare. Maybe after the election Abbott will cover inquistion gap costs.

Despite musing waiting for a doctor for 20 minutes is a small torture I make no light heart on the suffering of the victims of Christianity over the centuries. The suffering of very first victim centuries ago is as fresh to me as the multitude suffering February 28 2007. Be reminded rape victims who have abortions can face the death penalty in Nicaragua a law enacted on the request of the vatican. Children in the U.S and I know of here are kicked out onto the streets because their lives are not righteous enough to god fearing parents. The pain of the stolen generation haunts many in Australia. No need to give you a full index , you get my drift.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:35:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most people i know think that im crazy and
i know at times i act a little hazy but
if thats my way
and you should know it then
in every way help me to show it

oooooooo yeah, yeah, yeah

For most of my life i lived a delusion yes
material gain has caused me confusion but
slowly in time i learned that my place is to
tell all that i meet the glory that God is

oooooooo yeah, yeah

and thats why

Most people i know think that im crazy and
i know at times i act a little hazy but
if thats my way
and you should know it then
in every way help me to show it

oooooooo yeah, yeah, yeah

Most people i know think that im crazy and
i know at times i act a little hazy but
if thats my way
and you should know it then
in every way help me to show it

In memory of Billy Thorpe. I hope he's found the promise of his God.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 1 March 2007 8:30:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes West, kind of a predictable response. The bad news is always more compelling, you'd do well working for a newspaper.

So if i say to someone "be good to your fellow man" and the person who hears me goes out and murders his fellow man. What actually happened here?
Was i at fault for telling the person to be good?
Did the person just not listen and go and do his own thing?
Did the person for some reason believe that "being good" actually meant to kill someone?
Did i fail to explain what being good really meant?

Simplistic example i know, but if someone genuinely tried to inspire people to do good and even explained what that actually meant, and then some of these people go out and do bad, who are the real bad ones in that picture?
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 1 March 2007 10:21:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie if you said to be good to your fellow man it does not make you a better person than if you yourself were a better man. See the difference? You are dictating to your fellow man to be good. By what standard ? There are good standards and there are bad standards. Christianity simply put holds bad values , bad standards and no understanding of morality that is why it has a horrible history and a horrible present. Christianity like all cults is a cult based on exclusionism and deciet. Self obsession to the point of paranioa of an imaginary god evoking behaviour is not what makes the good of a person to be good. In the scheme of things Christianity is all bad with no redeeming qualities at all despite what Christian propagandists claim. It only adds to the deciet. I dont care about the mumbo jumbo that you or anybody believes in . Its your life. Just dont lioe to me and tell me that what you believe in is good and that you are better for it when you are trying to interefere with everybody elses life. I understand the belief in god is self delusion or brainwashed delusion. I understand that to believe in god is to believe the self is god and thus superior to all else. It is crazy, psychotic , addictive and possessive. Even so most Christians should for the first time in Christian history throw away their self adulation and replace it with real rigorous reflexivety.

Here I draw the line in the sand and take Olivers assertion that Christianity undertakes a non-reflexive view of the world and put it in your terms and say that Christian philosophy and ontology has degraded into a Sodom and Gamorrah koroko of an orgy of Judgement , bias, deciet, control and persecution.

You may be a nice guy but is your weltanschauung a nice guy?

1 John 5:4 a recipe for evil.
Posted by West, Thursday, 1 March 2007 11:48:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agnostics can not honestly contribute on the subject of spirituality in regards to any Deity. Ummm. Is not an opinion.
Atheist and believers on the other hand can always blame God for their difficulties while taking full credit for their successes and holding them up as personal triumphs.

In the absence of religion those individuals or groups who perpetuate crimes against their society will always be able to blame some system or power structure for their behavior. Do we blame all of Melbourne for the criminal activity of the crime families? Or do we separate and recognize not all of Melbourne is criminal even though the history of criminal behavior is long established in Melbourne?

And by extension do we say,"Well what do you expect. Naturally all Australians are criminals. The fruit don't fall far from the tree mate." "I don't lock my door cuz I'm afraid I'll be burgled or have my life taken. I lock my door cuz I live in Australia. Don'tcha know the difference.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 1 March 2007 12:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aquarivs, your simplistic interpretation of agnosticism is somewhat insulting.
It is far more than merely "umm." That implies a passive uncertainty, that agnostics have yet to choose.

I for one, am an agnostic and have made a choice - that choice is simple - there is no way to prove or disprove god. I will never know, and perhaps we are not meant to know.
Religious people see this as a cop out, while agnostics see the exact same thing in the religious. They have abrogated their responsibility as an enquiring human being with the ability to employ logic, and have hung their hat on faith - this is exactly the same for atheists.

Ultimately. a belief in god is not necessary to be a spiritual being. If anything, signing up to a particular doctrine inhibits your ability to analyse other faiths and consider other aspects of spirituality.

Consider this: the notion of reincarnation. I see nothing to confirm or deny this concept, yet if I peek beyond the bounds of a particular set of rules, I can see a similar alternative, which binds both science and spirituality.

We know according to the rules of conservation, ultimately matter and energy can be transferred, but not destroyed.
After death, we know the matter from our bodies will be recycled to form a myriad of things - trees, animals, hell, even concrete. Reincarnation requires me to subscribe to a notion that my being as a single unit will become something akin to a mouse, or another person based on a concept of morality
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 1 March 2007 1:22:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"if you said to be good to your fellow man it does not make you a better person than if you yourself were a better man"
That i can agree with. It is certainly a matter of acts more than it is words. The Christ figure evidently did set an example in his life and actions which were far more telling than the words he spoke or maxims he put forth.

"Christianity simply put holds bad values , bad standards and no understanding of morality"
Well, if we're to get into an arguement over this it would require getting into the nuts and bolts of what "Christianity" is exactly and what merely pertains to it. Fundamentally it is the story and doctrine laid down by various people based on the life and teachings of the one named Jesus contained in a compilation called the Bible.
Then you have the numerous groups of people organised around these tenets and the various interpretations and practices that they have adopted. Eg. the catholics, the protestant denominations, the fringe groups, and the other cults and assemblages that exist.
To talk of Christianity as a nebulous mass does not allow for this differentiation and will not expose the real roots of the atrocities done in the name of God and Christianity that you object to.
There is the doctrine, there are the adherents, there are the ways the adherents interpret or manipulate the doctrine, and there are the actions the adherents do and if in accordance with this or not. Where it goes awry is in one of these areas.
The doctrine may be ambiguous but not inherently bad.
Perhaps an ambiguity exists to highlight the intentions of the adherents?

"1 John 5:4 a recipe for evil. "
Case in point. Does it really spur evil? You have interpreted that it does and object to it, which possibly shows you are not evily inclined?
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 1 March 2007 2:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This discussion is all very well, but it's not getting me any closer to deciding whether Dumbledore is dead!
Posted by Reynard, Thursday, 1 March 2007 3:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Agnostics can not honestly contribute on the subject of spirituality in regards to any Deity." - aqvarious

Are you saying that an Anglican who wonders [but is not sure] that the RCs are correct about transubstantiation, has nothing to say about divinity? What about an RC questionning that a [human] Sovereign can start can start a [religious body] Christian church?

Questioning can also be at the heart of theism [not the blind Sells brand],but, rather, as in Sic et Non [Abelard]. Abelard [deeply religious] championed questionning.

More broadly, David Hume thought in terms of agnosticim and spirituality.

In the first and centuries centuries, the Christians were the atheists and agnostics, doubting polytheism. And you believe this has nothing to do with divinity?

The problem with modern churches is they and their flock "indwell" (Polanyi)in doctrine and performance. IF a god does exist, denominalisationalism could have them miss the object study.

--One must question and hold conclusions tentatively--
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 1 March 2007 7:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL, "I for one, am an agnostic and have made a choice - that choice is simple - there is no way to prove or disprove god. I will never know,"

Those who believe in God or a higher power aren't about proving or disproving, their acceptance that such exist with out proof is the anchor of their faith. They have chosen a spiritual, intuitive understanding that there is more to the living experience than breathing, eating, and procreating. That you need intellectual assurance and physical proof of the nature and existence of a higher power excludes you from the discussion since it's a matter of faith. Not an intellectual exercise. You do not believe and so you have no faith.
You are trying to assert a position by intellectualizing belief and faith. It can't be done. And to suggest people account for their faith using intellectual argument is akin to demanding the bird if it could talk account for it's intuitive sense of flight. A person of faith will never get any explanation right for you. You have chosen to doubt such an existence. Hence the ummm.

Oliver, Agnostic; a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
So yes. Agnostics can not honestly contribute on the subject of spirituality in regards to any Deity.

"--One must question and hold conclusions tentatively--"

If one questions ones faith and who's hold on that faith is tentative, then I submit that that person lacks faith.
Faith; firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 2 March 2007 9:43:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie I judge 1 John 5:4 soley on outcome.

In the thread concerning the article 'Misreported, misconstrued, mistranslated, misunderstood written by Ifran Yusuf. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5533
I responded to a comment claiming agnostic knowledge superiority over atheism. This is not unlike Aqvarius's claim that theists hold a knowledge superiority over agnostics. It seems agnostics are getting a bashing today but I paste my response below because I feel it is relevant here especially to the last few posts. I dropped the poor spiritualists because of the word limit.

"An Atheist is somebody who thinks Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show.

An Antitheist knows Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show but is all aware that the purpose for the television series Star trek was to entertain a television viewing audience.

An agnostic is somebody who thinks we can never know if Leonard Nimoy is an actor and we can never know if Leonard Nimoy if he ever existed did play a fictitious species and we can never know if Vulcans are fictitious and we can never know if it was on a television series. Agnostics believe it is better to err on the side of caution incase vulcans are real and they will refuse to beam up non-believers.

Theists believe Leonard Nimoy never existed that it is a belief in science that misguided people come to the conclusion Mr Spock was a character played by an actor. Theists believe Mr Spock is a true Vulcan and we need to have faith in vulcans to be saved by vulcans. The proof is the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck. Theists assert that through the the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck faith in the series will literally lead us to an ever lasting space journey where we will go where no man has gone before."
Posted by West, Friday, 2 March 2007 10:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont'd (dang 24 hour rule)

A much more broad stroke, with say, the energy that is the neurons firing in my brain being part of another brain or even a lightbulb or probably both, is less warm and fuzzy, but a form of immortality I for one take solace in. There's a pretty high chance that at least some of my molecules will form someone else - so yes, in a sense I will be reincarnated. It's something for which I can find support, without having to merely parrot somebody else's thousand-year-old dogma, or concept of what a god is or isn't. Who's to say god even has to be an intelligence? Why not leave it with what we can see, and determine god is simply the catalyst that drives the flow of energy as we see around us? Why the need to attach an intelligence to it?

Is this a spiritual concept? Perhaps not according to a prescribed set of religion notions, but it feels that way to me.

You assume a god and spirituality have to be intertwined. There's your first mistake. You assume agnostics have nothing to offer the debate. There's your second.
I think a debate with solely agnostics would get much further in probing the nature of god than a room full of religious preconceptions.

How can you debate issues of spirituality, when you have already decided which narrow band in which you place your beliefs?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 2 March 2007 11:46:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a type of reasoning that an agnostic can apply to decide whether to lean towards theism or atheism. I call it the "Best Outcome for the Afterlife Theory" or "BOAT".
One looks at what each option has to offer in the hereafter and decides which course would place them in the most favourable position.
eg.
For theism you basically have a final judgement and a heaven or hell type situation, so if you were a good boy or girl and believed in God you'd go to heaven. If you didn't you'd go to hell.
Then you have a spiritualist type atheism where you keep coming back in different forms and your actions in this life determine your lot in the next. So depending on your Karma you'll either come back as a rock star or a dung beetle.
Then you have materialist type atheism where this one life is all there is baby and you may as well live it up while you can because once you're dead you're just dust and bones, the end.

You could probably break it up more and add other possibilities if you were serious about it.

Given these options, unless you like it hot, the best choice to lead to a most favourable outcome would seem to be: being a good boy or girl to build up some good karma and also believing in God.
So if the theistic scenario turns out to be true you should be well placed for a seat on the heaven bus, if the spiritualist scenario is right then you'll be nicely placed for a cushy next life, and if the materialist scenario happens to be correct then it doesn't really matter what you believed or how you acted does it?
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 2 March 2007 12:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or Donnie if you back the wrong deity you are as stuffed as those who refuse to worship the moons of Jupiter.
Posted by West, Friday, 2 March 2007 12:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs,

I fully agree that I was using the term "agnostic" very loosely. [I almost didn't] Your definition is strictly more accurate, I know.

[Does the God that does exit; exist in a waffer?]

Just the same, I posit that some like Abelard or Luther managed doubt in relation to faith [doctrine] or at least religious teaching differently to say Sells [who never questions], or, St. Paul or Origen, who just make it up. I do think that those theists, agnostics and antitheists whom forensically research divinity do make comment on spirituality.

Sells would see me of his opposite in terms of good [him] versus evil [me]. Alternatively, I see my self involved in knowledge discovery and Sells as knowledge retentive: An explorer vis~a~vis a true believer [in the political sense]. Ironically, he would likely wish me harm, whereas, I would wish him release.

What is god can have wide interpretations, engaged/disenaged, good/bad, anthromorphic/mathematical.

Cheers.

Keiran,

In the middle of data collection for some research. Look forward to reaading the link you sent me. Thanks.

Best wishes.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 2 March 2007 12:22:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,
"This is not unlike Aqvarius's claim that theists hold a knowledge superiority over agnostics."

I have made no such claim. I do not believe that a person of faith, any faith, is superior to one claiming the absents of a faith.

I find your characterization of my post an ugly misuse of this forum.

If you must use one of my post to provide impetus to your tedious anti religion rants please do me the courtesy of cutting and pasting a complete sentence with in context.

Truly, I suggest you find another method to promote your cleverness.

Your anti religious ranting is no better than any ranting based on a fixed orthodoxy or institutional dogma. If you actually believe that your star trek scenario is equal to or explains any theology than you must also accept that Aesop's Fables are in full the perfect replacement for understanding sociology and political science.

And no I'm not religious. I don't belong to any theological school of thought, or practice a religion. I do have understanding for those who have a deep and abiding faith. I believe in more than myself and I know for damn sure that what goes around comes around.

G.K. Chesterton, "When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything."

Don't confuse a belief in a God, or a higher power to be religion. Theology is not exclusive to religion. Since the dawn of time man has contemplated the existence of God, his place with in the wider nature of world. Of universe. His spiritual value.
The mysteries of life and death. The awe inspiring moment of sitting on your backside in the grass watching a glorious sunset and thinking that for a brief moment you felt the entirety of your senses become one with yourself and your world. That second where everything seems to stop and one feels to have been touched by the very hand of God. Who-ya Baby!

I hope this little nudge gives you some opportunity to regain your intellectual footing and acquire a little tolerance.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 2 March 2007 2:19:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is there a spirit world? Of beings other than human - NO! However there are many spirits communicating here on this site. We can see none of the other posters on this site, but we can certainly know their spirits. They are present, they do exist, they are real. They are there trying to influence idea, thought, action, belief - all are spirits with their own agenda.

The spirits of "Satan" (Satan a Hebrew term identifying opponents of pure and right living; opposed to the God of all truth and proper function of all reality) are evident in the attitudes and motivations of those here. They will speak up against right and moral living as they cannot oppose their own lack of moral conscience in their behaviour and attitudes. The greatest opponents of God do so because it excuses their lifestyle and attitudes to right living. There are no spirits without a body. God is not a spirit, He is spirit. God is the revelation of enlightenment, the word enacted in flesh. He is not the mortal flesh. God is the way the truth the life!
Posted by Philo, Friday, 2 March 2007 2:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West: "Or Donnie if you back the wrong deity you are as stuffed as those who refuse to worship the moons of Jupiter."
I guess these are the risks you take in the game of Religion Roulette.

On the subject of agnosticism here's something to think about:
"The weak agnostic especially leaves himself with an important decision, more so than any other postition taken on the questions of God and spirituality. That is whether to engage in a search for the knowledge that they think insufficient or whether to leave the questions up in the air. While the strong agnostic has taken the stance that it is not possible to know, and the theists, materialists and spiritualists have subscribed to certain viewpoints, none of these are really still facing the burning question of do they want to *know*, because they have already to some extent decided on what they consider to be true, or have at least decided on a particular area in which to take up the search. (I'd suggest that any of those still searching in some field are still partially (weak) agnostic at heart anyway).
So the search for truth and knowledge is a road before the weak agnostic primarily, and whether to embark upon it or not is the decision they face. And if the quest is undertaken, either they will find their answer or not, or will move closer to it or further from it. But if they do not seek it at all, it is not likely to fall in their lap or they would not know it if it did. So the question becomes is it better to have searched and not found than never to have searched at all?"

I believe there really is no other more worthwhile endeavour than the search for truth even if it does turn out to be futile, because if you get to the end and have not found the answers what have you really lost? Yet if you do find the answers, what do you stand to gain?.
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 2 March 2007 4:37:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarius dont take it personally you just simply happen to be a person demonstrating the the poor value base and antiethical position a god believer asserts. I have nothing against you personally. You only allow me to point out that the radical extreme prejudice that god believers hold against persons who are not superstitious. I understand god is the god believers ego so anything sugesting truth or reality is a threat seen by the believer toward the god but in reality it is taken as a threat to the ego. This is where your hatred towards atheists or antitheists or spiritualists stems from. But now Philo demonstrates it even clearer as he equates those who do not agree with him with the devil. Philo it is no coincedence the degradation of values and moral standards has coincided with the latest rise of Christian evangilism. The fact that Christians and indeed Muslims religion in general deny they are the greatest cause of the degradation of morality is merely symptomatic that such cults are deceit based anyway.

Everybody is born atheist , no baby worships idols of Jesus or Mohommed. Children can only be brainwashed into believing in spirits and gods when their brains proceed to the monsters under the bed stage of development. Even then psycho extremist concepts such as god have to be forced upon the child. What you are suggesting Philo to persecute atheists you are suggesting persecuting children , which did occur in Christian Europe in the cause of Christianity between 700 to the end of the 1600's or in the case of Catholicism the end of the inquistion in the 1800's.
Posted by West, Saturday, 3 March 2007 1:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo posts "The greatest opponents of God do so because it excuses their lifestyle and attitudes to right living. There are no spirits without a body. God is not a spirit, He is spirit. "

I'm amused by much of the funny ha ha beliefs that abound like grim jack-in-a-box teddies and unseemly teddy trinities but Philo the virtuous, here makes a good case for funny peculiar because isn't teddy more concerned with spirit confiscation? Perhaps Philo's "real character" may enlighten everyone on what he means in the above with special attention to his understanding of "spirit" and its essence, uniqueness, fundamental preciousness, physicality and connectedness.

Let's just say that I'm not optimistic about receiving a dogma-free response from the "right living" Philo. BUT, sometime for myself, play can include attempting from the beyond if simply for the amusement.
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 3 March 2007 1:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dont get angry with me try and seperate your god from your ego. Again I hold nothing personal against you. It is part of the dungeons and dragons game that Christians constantly and are dependent on making outrages claims mostly to try and convince others of their moral and phantasmic constitutional superiority. Of course to be able to do that and believe it true is to deny all that is true. So therefore as many defendants at Nuremburg in 45 & 46 denied the holocaust Christianity has to deny ties with its own history even though that history is not finished.

Speaking of which a relation through marriage who served with British forces in WW2 took part in the liberation of a concentration camp and told me he had become an atheist that day because he had an epiphany that 'man should not follow shadows that shadows should follow man'. I think he was right and the less a shadow such as a god or philosophy can be held accountable for its evocations the more dire it becomes for everybody. We see this at the extremist muslims want to force sharia law on innocent people and extremist Christians want to force Old testament law onto innocent people.
Posted by West, Saturday, 3 March 2007 1:50:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West

Healthy values and habits are acquired through personal satisfaction, practice and personal experience.
Moral values are acquired through encouragement, instruction and interpersonal experience.
Ethical values are acquired through rewards, education and impersonal experience.
Historical values are acquired through inspiration, cognition and creative experience.

Islamic Values
Those who do good
Those who have sense of moral responsibility
Those who are firm and steadfast/patient
Those who judge in equity
Those who keep themselves clean
Those who put their trust in God
Those who turn to God constantly
Those who fight in God’s cause in battle
Those who believe in God

Christian Values
I'm sure your aware of the Ten Commandments, since they are the foundation of your civil and criminal laws.

That you find people who express these values as base and anti-ethical flies in the face of common sense and reason. I find your exaggerated moral outrage at those who practice or adhere to religious belief and that your lack of intellectual integrity allows you to mass blame religion for all the worlds problems. As if in the absents of religion other systems of belief or practice could not or would not have seen the equal in human history. Like fascism, communism and democracy.

I honestly feel for you. Your anger and obvious hatred of God, religion, and those whom believe in God is palatable. You obviously have little experience and a parochial understanding of the nature of man and the human condition relative to the totality of human history.

To separate out religion and hold it the predominate reasoning behind the many aspects of mans more sinister character is not a higher moral or ethical position. It's an excuse to attack and belittle. It's a selfish and cruel attempt at appearing clever. It's a rouse. You need to find some tolerance for other peoples way of thinking and dealing with their personal life experience.

As one of the non-religious I find your behavior rather embarrassing and shutter that it will be perceived as typical.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 3 March 2007 4:19:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

"The spirits of 'Satan' (Satan a Hebrew term identifying opponents of pure and right living; opposed to the God of all truth and proper function of all reality) are evident in the attitudes and motivations of those here."

This definition represents just one thread of demonology.

That description would net plenty of Christians too.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 5 March 2007 7:53:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs... well, I don't say this often, but I totally agree with your last post.

I'm not a religious sort by any stretch, and if I didn't define myself as agnostic I'd probably be closest to atheist.

But West, in your blind attacks against religion, you fail to see how eerily similar your dogma is to that of the religious.

If god, by nature can't be proven... how can you be so zealous in your certainty that it can't exist, if not by resorting to similar tactics to those employed by the religious you so fervently attack?

Plus, in order to rule out god, you have to settle on a concept of what it really is - in order for you to then deconstruct why it can't exist, you must streamline a concept of god until it fits what you can deny exists... somehow this feels like picking and choosing. Again, this is something you share in common with the religious.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 5 March 2007 8:43:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Healthy values and habits are acquired through personal satisfaction, practice and personal experience. Moral values are acquired through encouragement, instruction and interpersonal experience. Ethical values are acquired through rewards, education and impersonal experience." -- Avarivs

Humanism serves the above, as well as any relious code. One does not need a God to be moral. Moreover, if there is a god, it might not be an entity or construct claimed by any of the religions.

Philo,

Where do you stand on the Deeds versus Faith debate? Can a humanist perform good deeds withou the Holy Spirit? Can one act under the influence of [your] Holy Spirit and not belive in God?

Sells,

1. Where does the RC Church sit in your thoughts? Vicar of Christ? Transubstantiation? Intercession?

2. Do you see the Churches stand as "agents" for [your] Christian god?

3. Does [your] God "need" the Churches?
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 5 March 2007 10:45:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

"Humanism serves the above, as well as any relious code. One does not need a God to be moral. Moreover, if there is a god, it might not be an entity or construct claimed by any of the religions."

So. Whats that got to do with my post. You write as if I suggest that moral and ethical values are the purview of religion. And that God or Gods must be as perceived. Your way off base.

Though I don't believe humanism, or any other ism is a suitable replacement for the believing in and/or having faith in a higher power. Religion in my mind is nothing more than another form of government. A competitor in the power game. Seeking spiritual understanding in a world of unanswered questions is not unreasonable. And I don't understand why there would ever be a movement to put and end to something that is universally natural to mankind since prehistoric times.
Rationalism and universal morality leave too many holes in the subject to be sufficient unto themselves. I don't believe man has a common moral code. We share some common sense of morality but, it is by no means singular and complete. For one thing there are differences and exceptions in emphasis and by degree of adherence to moral and ethical values among cultures and societies. I also don't believe that reason is the only way to acquire knowledge. Too much of human history and ingenuity comes from being stumbled upon. This does not lessen the contribution of hard thinkers and intellectual plodders who spend their lives on a single subject. I'm in awe of their dedication and take nothing from their determination to "find the answer".

If one group asserts that God does exist. And another group asserts that there is no God. Can any application of reason definitively prove the existence or non-existence of God? And as humans(ist) is it moral or even ethical to want to persuade one to disbelieve?
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 12:23:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs certianly I am not embarrassed because I am correct. I am neither a comminist nor religious so anything I say or do does not represent anybody else. Atheism has no institutions, no scripture , no dogma , nothing any atheist says or does represents another. Besides I am not Atheist, I speak of what religion is not what religion believes. The Atheist debate is well and truley over , there is no god.

I know what you are trying to say in your attacks.
I dont recall the name of German Journalist in 1934? 35? who said (losely paraphrased here) 'It is a fool who speaks up to them (nazis) if I wish to survive them (nazis) it is better for me to lay down and recieve the beatings'. You want me to lay down. Fair enough religion has a task keeping people superstitious but religion is fair game once out in public.

Fascism is the direct control of social life and economy of a population from a singular fetishised governing agent demanding complete loyalty to that agent. Fascism is what religion aspires to not withstanding Mussolini installed the vatican and the Vaticans role in the Spanish civil war and WW2. Patriachal overlordship and the rule of sharia law or the ten commandments, dictates to all social facets and an arbitrary moralistic and socially machiavellian control of economy as a tool of reward and punishment to those who are not loyal to the superstitious belief of god and loyalty to those who decide what superstitious beliefs hold moral supremecy over all. Name a major religion which is not a fascist movement? There is no longer any.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 9:49:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, You have singled out religion to be your nemesis and in some regard I can empathize. I wasn't "attacking" what you is. I was "attacking" what you believe. What you believe is the most unmitigated rubbish and an abuse of any definition of reasonable. What you is, is well documented by your post. Don't blame me for what you make for yourself. Anyone who equates Nazism or any expression of fascism to religion has bent reality to profit hate.
I'll say it once again.
"To separate out religion and hold it the predominate reasoning behind the many aspects of mans more sinister character is not a higher moral or ethical position. It's an excuse to attack and belittle. It's a selfish and cruel attempt at appearing clever. It's a rouse. You need to find some tolerance for other peoples way of thinking and dealing with their personal life experience."
And I'm sorry for you that an idea of a higher power is dead to you. Not for any purpose of religion but, because you have chosen to toss aside a valuable human experience. A human quandary. The existence and value of the human soul.
Religion didn't create the idea of mans soul. The idea of mans soul lead to developing religion. Certainly organized religion is flawed and that man has exploited it for diverse means down through the ages but, that is the inherent evil of mans nature not the purposeful design of religion. We mustn't blame mans institutions for mans behavior. Reasonable people don't blame the building of prisons for the obvious criminal element found in every society.
I wish you peace of both heart and soul.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 1:53:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs in no manner of truth can you claim a higher power. That belief is your superstition. Individually superstitious beliefs in higher powers are the burden of the believer. When you take it to public superstition becomes an agenda to decieve. Your belief in a higher power is no different than a belief in a thousand year reich or a belief in the rebirthing powers of the Ester Rabbit. You have no moral grounding in a belief in a higher power. This is why you are angry with me because for god believers a belief in higher powers equates to them as moral superiority. History and god belief in this era prove morality has nothing to do with superstition. Christianity has demonstrated through history and rhetoric it is positioned as antimoral. God belief is the realm of deceivers and religious claims of containing moral standards is only part of the deception game and all monotheist and major multitheist cults are guilty of it.

Yes I do hold moral superiority over Christians because Christians do not know right from wrong they need external guidence to tell them what to think which is how Islam and Christendom became fascist movements. Christian rhetoric concerning morality is as dubious as all christian claims, always unsupported always contradicted. Then there is immorality which superstitious cults such as christianity claim as moral which are not morals but loyalties to ritual.

Again god " higher power" toothfairy , santa claus,intelligent? designer, super magician or whatever you want to call it is focused centrally and pertaining only to the ego. Re- old and new Testament, alleged teaching of Christ ,Koran , crystal healing , satanic apocrapha , astrology, tarot. Leading back to moral panic , the fact we are not immortal is superstitiously translated to we are punished by magic that we need to be saved from magic creating a set of rules and rituals to base further external persecution on. Gays, abortees , divorcees, atheists and other religions must pay for newly invented crimes against arbitrary morality. Paranoid hysteria is now called spiritualism.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 2:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kieran,
The basic claim of Christianity is all humans have failed to live the pure life of God. That includes me! That is why I worship, admire and study to understand a more pure and holy character and life. The principle of grace applies i.e. even though I have failed I ask forgivness and reconciliation to the true spirit.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 4:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West: "Besides I am not Atheist, I speak of what religion is not what religion believes. The Atheist debate is well and truley over , there is no god."

You can't say, I am not Atheist, then say, there is no god.
That's as amusing as Coach's attempt to pretend Christianity isn't a religion.

What you're incapable of understanding, is that all the rules that you are invoking to prove god doesn't exist hinge on no more than faith. This is the problem with the whole god debate.
You can't rule it out because it is simply a concept.
In time you can argue that there is no proof to verify that there is a god. That's fine, but by exactly the same token, you can argue that there is no proof to prove that there isn't a god. That's why this entire debate is so stupid.

So what are we left with? A collection of religions with views that conflict to varying degrees, each with a series of rituals and dogma that generate conflict.
Through the fear of hell they are also capable of inculcating values, and while it is fair to highlight the horrific deeds committed in the name of religion, it isn't fair to ignore the values that religion has provided society.

I suspect that we're of the similar view, in more enlightened places there shouldn't be a need for religion any more, and the world would be better off without the conflict generated by warring ideologies.

Your attacks aren't based on sound reasoning - you hate religion for it's conflict and desire to control, yet your argue in a similar vein.

You can't forcibly abolish religion, it thrives on persecution. All you can do is hope people see the stupidity, and realise they don't need god, or a big 'hell' whipping stick to coexist.
You can only hope that one day, enough people will see that it as the next stage of humanity's evolution.

But it can't be forced. Try to persuade peacefully - you'll get further doing that peaceably than with violent language and insults.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 5:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

Of course I can claim the existence of a higher power. I would never suggest that you or anyone else must believe in a higher power. I would never suggest that I was morally superior for holding such a belief. Not being religious myself I can not claim to be morally superior to a person who adheres to a specific orthodoxy.

You are apparently a person who needs to be seen as morally superior and part of that need is found in a destructive and bitter anxiety. I have had many conversations with people who have lost the desire to further their relationship with a particular Church or religion, and none have had such resentment as you portray.

I understand you position on having to deal with the inconvenience of religionists that refuse to take a kind hint to bugger off. However.
This is an article for comment by a religionists on the subject of the spirit world, and while you have every right to your opinion on the subject you have chosen to attack other commenter's beliefs not the essence of the subject matter. You are not conversing. You are being unpleasant for the sake of being unpleasant, and suggesting that such an attitude is a superior form of intellectualization.

You seem rather limited by your professed superiority and moral advantage. The viciousness of your attacks must be due to the momentum that is built up coming from such a great height.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 2:20:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft I am an antitheist because I know and acknowledge god is a product of superstition. God is not relevant because there is no god. That has nothing to do with faith; it does not take faith to acknowledge reality. Faith is unquestioned hope. If we jump off a 100 metre cliff we can do so because we have faith we will survive faith is a psychological resolve, psychological blinkers, it doesn’t mean we can survive. But awe geez prove god exists so we can have a serious debate based on knowledge of god and not just everybody espousing the preferences of their egos.

If your god is a false god then you have no god which makes everybody an atheist. I feel the word atheist panders to religious values.

Aqvarvis I apologise I hadn’t articulated what I meant by my moral superiority. My moral superiority was perhaps too strong a way to put it. What I was saying was that a person who needs religion or spiritual beliefs for moral guidance is morally fickle and their true nature is one that does not accommodate morality easily. Compare that to somebody who knows right from wrong and has no need of doctrine or dogma. I certainly don’t need the 10 commandments to stop me from killing and stealing. I suspect somebody who does.

Aqvarvis you are obviously annoyed that somebody else has another point of view than your own. Christendom as is Islam is certainly fragile to criticism and that’s why censorship is so essential and so central to them both. They are faith based and faith requires blinkers or the believer won’t have the guts to jump. I am gently reminding religion it is nothing of what it claims to be in fact in many cases it is the opposite. God believers claim they are justified in impacting on other people’s lives I am simply stating they have no right and they are wrong. Religion is only a game after all and the self called spiritual have to be aware not all of us want to play their games
Posted by West, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 10:02:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear West, contrary to your assertion, your post prove your a willing participant and you do play at the same game. Your like the moth before it is incinerated by the heat of the lamp arguing it has nothing to do with the brightness of the light. I am not a religionists because it requires an either or mentality. It's of the private club milieu. For me there is no difference between Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, Jehovah Witness or Mormonism etc..
Calling me a Christian is like me calling you tolerant. It's meaningless.
I do believe in the human spirit, the individual soul. I believe in it because I have seen it at work. I would never dare to approach anyone on the subject because for me it is very private knowledge. I don't want to make people jealous or envious or angry or anxious for any reason. Not everyone has the capacity to see, to understand. Not everyone can draw equally or speak well in public, or dance as well, or do their maths. We are not all equal. We are all individuals and as individuals deserving of special regard.
You have found your calling. You have found your religion. And you are out working to gather converts. Once you shake off the denial and achieve acceptance of your beliefs, your sermoning will become more potent, full of the fire of your truth. Sing it out loud baby. God is dead. Amen. Gimme an AhhMEN! Who-ya!
5 million years from now the religionists and the anti-religionists will still be trapped with and by the dichotomy of your existence. You are all part and parcel of the same package and are necessary to the whole. You are interdependent and would not exist with out the other.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 2:53:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs,

Yes, I did read your post to imply the religions maintained a monopoly on moral values., which I assert these bodies do not. History provides testimony to the immorality of the religions, including Christianity.

Religion has acted as a cohesive organising principle, since, as you say, from primitive times. Herein, the establishment of the first City-States operated on the basis of the Land [owned by God] was administered by priests on behalf of God [c. 4000 BCE]. However, there needs to be a time to take of the training wheels and ride the bike ourselves. A circumstance that has evolved for the past 6,000 years, especially, the least 300 years. Perhaps, we will assign the trainers to the garbage bin, in 100, 500 or 1000 years’ time. Maybe, significantly extended longevity and our knowledge of post-mechanical science will make the belief in an afterlife or magical creation, less sustainable, and, we can transition away from religious post-Shamanism.

True, some knowledge has been stumbled upon. Nonetheless, since The Great Divergence [c.1760], the West has been able to apply rediscovered Greek theory [Episte] to artisan techniques [Techne]. We have learned how to learn.

A have been received by Sells and Co. with anomous, because I am seen to be in “opposition” to their belief systems, which they will not test, even histography. Being in opposition the Light, I must be some malignant Satanic character, working directing a belief system… Good versus Evil. [Sells’ World View]

Instead, I see the Religionist approach to knowledge discovery almost magical thinking, outside the realm of rational methodologies towards, [tentative] “understanding” and “explanation”. A priori posits sustaining Ignorance versus healthy exploration sustaining Knowledge Discovery. [Oliver’s World View]

Else put, I will posit null hypotheses to my beliefs, whereas, Sells, Boaz and Philo do not [regarding religion].

[cont.]
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 4:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would do believe in higher powers, e.g., gravity and nuclear binding. Yet, I will maintain these as a positive heuristics, while evidence supports such beliefs. Moreover, it is incumbent upon me to disprove my posit.

Alternatively, Sells, Boaz and Philo will not test their beliefs. Perhaps the more ethereal aspects are remote. Yet, theocrasia and the politico-religionism is testable, through the lenses from history.

West, Keiren and I represent modernity. Sells and Philo represent medievalism. Our thought processes are literally centuries apart.

West, Keiren and I wish to ride the Spirit of Progress [to Knowledge] than the Spirtuality of Retreat [from Knowledge].

Does this matter? At the level of a few individuals, no. At the level of societies, yes.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 4:52:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs you either do not understand or you refuse to understand. You go and seek the wizard Oz by all means but dont drag us along with you. If you stopped being defensive and I admit I evoke and at times provoke defensiveness you will see I am saying the Wizard of Oz is not what hes cracked up to be and those relegated to the moral fringe of society are only the witches of the west not the Wicked Witches of the West. Of course god become collatoral damage in such an exchange because hes the magic boasted about by the magician. We all know the rabbit is up the sleeve and not in pre-existance. So click your heels Dorothy , perhaps if you opened your eyes you would see you were always at home and save a perfectly good pair of shoes.

Yes I am intolerant towards fascism.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and
the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts,
that it shall leave them neither root nor branch...

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded
unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and
judgments.

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming
of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children,
and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come
and smite the earth with a curse. Malachi 4

A message/warning/advance notice to you from the Creator.

You may ask why, but then you might have to parse the meaning of sin -- that is,
you might have to consider if you have committed any, a risky and self-challenging
proposition.

And then, if you have gotten this far, you might have to ask if you have
offended anyone, and eventually, you might lead yourself,
by the nose of your thoughts, to the idea that you have offended
a holy God, who is unlike you in standards, yours being lower
(that is, human).

Only then might you begin to understand the reason for God's anger.

God hates sin because it destroys humans, both the sinner and the sinned against.
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 6:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pt II:

God's word: there are spirit beings which he created, angelos (messengers of God) and demons (fallen angels, no longer messengers).

Those who contest his word do not recognize the reality of spiritual warfare over the souls of men, and therefore are ill or un-equipped to
war with the fallen angels over the souls of men.

These humans are disarmed at the outset, having by their own disbelief, disarmed themselves in the war over their own souls.

The war is over God's standards. The fallen wish for no standards, because an absence of standards is harmful to human beings. Fallen angels therefore uniformly advocate an absence of restraint on human actions. This appeals to most humans, who identify such a lack as "freedom," not recognizing where human action becomes true harm, and when it in fact frees.

Cain acted freely in murdering his brother, but his brother was not thereby freed. Cain destroyed the freedom to enjoy brotherly relations with Abel for the rest of their lives. Cain destroyed his ability to
be a husband, father and grandfather who was not a murderer. He destroyed his capacity to pass on moral standards to his children.
He destroyed his ability to recognize wrong. These are all choices
or freedoms made impossible by his "free" act of murder. See Genesis 4.
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 7:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs appears to be copping it from a few sides here but i have found their posts to be quite insightful and reasonable.

West, you have come down heavily on religion and use history as your proof that it's all bad, but do you apply the same magnifying glass to your own beliefs? It appears your beliefs are rooted in the ideas and theories of the likes of Nietsche, Marx, Freud: "God is dead, said Fred", "Religion is the opiate yada yada", "sex, sex, sex, sex... um sex?". Our recent history of fascism, communism should serve as good indicators of the fruits of these 'posits'.

Oliver, you appear to advocate an empirical approach to knowledge which is fine, but are you assuming it will lead to total materialism? Or have i inferred wrongly from your posts?
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 8 March 2007 11:04:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hawaiilawyer I am sure the Taliban agree with you. Donnie the Vatican the spiritual arm of Fascism aside , you only need to go to the transcripts of Family First or read Hawaiilawyer's post above yours to see what I am on about. See Tony Abbotts, Hillsong or Paradise church of Christ websites. Seek out what the legal status of converts to atheism or Christianity are in Morocco. Find out what happens to critics of Islam in Egypt. Try the discovery Institute website and see the Christian agenda for American and eventually all children. Check out the Kids On Fire School of Ministry website or any Fire Ministry websites. Read the ' Misreported, misconstrued, mistranslated, misunderstood' thread in this Forum and see how as far as Christians condemn Muslims for doing what Christians do.
Posted by West, Thursday, 8 March 2007 12:20:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hawaii,
The word "angel" means messengers of God - the messenger is the medium and it can be an innamate object or animal but mostly other persons that strikes in our mind a message. The term "demon" is a Greek word for their gods, being monotheist does not allow other gods. Early Christians were put to death because they refused to believe that the Roman gods existed. Many in the Church today do not understand the conflict the early christians had with combatting these views. They think because the Bible mentions such; therefore they must be real. Demons are the ideas and teachings of men who believe non material beings control acts and behaviour. Christians are free of such ideas and fears. All power belongs to only ONE. That ONE is intrinsically involved in nature of the Universe - It is all God's Creation. Demons are the spirits of men in defiance to the moral and pure God.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 8 March 2007 12:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, yes i do see what you are on about. You are asserting an evil nature in theism and specifically Christianity by the intentions, actions and consequenses of its adherants through the ages. Perhaps that is a sound argument. I myself would also look at the positive and good results as well as the negative for a balanced view before i made judgement, not just stack the scales on one side.
I also point out that you yourself are on shaky ground as the beliefs that you seem to hold, implied in your posts, are echos of theories and ideas which have also inspired fascism, murder and immorality. So the same hammer with which you strike at Christianity and other theistic positions actually shatters your own platform when turned around.

I personally am not a defender of Christianity per se, so am not really perturbed by your posts. I am however a defender of free and uninhibited expression of religion. In part i agree with your objection to one religion trying to stamp on others. However i take issue with the conclusion that because some or the main religions have been used to control and oppress man, then all religion must be bad or false and the whole idea should be abolished or we will eventually evolve beyond such "primitive" notions. It is flawed logic if nothing else. Religion is a search for truth. Science grows from similar seeds. The search should not be hindered, no matter what avenue it takes.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 8 March 2007 2:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
I understand your wish to extend human progress but, is choosing an either or proposition progressive? In order for you to be more right, someone has to be more wrong. You have positioned yourself as the more right. A superior position. Thus contributing to the social discord by promoting an us vs. them environment. Good vs. evil. The very same dichotomy of opposing extremes found inherent in mans nature which religion seeks to moderate by rewarding good and punishing evil under the watchful eye of a benevolent but strict spiritual authority.
Indeed gravity, nuclear bonds and sub-atomic particles exibit formidable forces. So to does inertia. I would familiarize my self with it if I was to dedicate a significant portion of my life's energy to defeating any idea of religion or the existence of God. Especially the unified inertia of two opposing forces engaged in a push pull relationship. Neither generates sufficient forward momentum to break the stalemate. He said, she said arguments are circular not linear.
The anti-religionists suggest that in the absents of religion mans history would be nothing but a history of modernity and enlightenment. Blaming mans historical and present character, or lack there of, on religion or a belief in a God.
Such thinking makes the imprisonment of criminals responsible for crime, it becomes the fact of the institution, prison itself that promotes criminality. If man had never incarcerated his fellow citizen for crimes against society no crime would exist. (insert icon of man shaking head)
There is justification for arguing religion has failed mankind but, religion is not responsible for mans nature. Man thought into existence the institution of religion. The institutions of religion did not think into existence man nor define the extremes of his character. It is mans inherent nature that lead to the building of prisons, the building of the Taj Mahal, and the building of the space station. Should we dispose of it all, end human development because we have a necessity for prisons.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 8 March 2007 4:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

"Demon" in Ancient Greek means, "evil spirit" [of whch one can be possessed], not a Greek god. My guess is you taken your claim from some Church tract? Remember:

Please note, The Churches typically use Koine Greek often translated from the Vulgar latin. You need to use more ancient Attic Greek sources to capture the real meaning. What you are doing is something like a 25th century scholar reading Chaucer from a 21st century high school primer. {The Churches should know better. Scholastic fraud?]

Moreover, you overstate that the case against the Romans:

Christians refused to worship THEIR god in the temple of Apollo.

- (a) This failure to worship at the appropriate palce was seen as atheisism and the Romans were superstitious about this, and,

- (b) their exclusivity was against Roman inclusive pantheism.

Moreover, there were issues around not praying for the safety of the Emperor.

Further, Catechemens before Baptism were known for "last fling" (Mack) loutish behaviour.

Lastly, ingesting the Eucharist (body & blood) was viewed by the Romans as sickly, symbolic cannibalism.

I would never, never agree with what the Romans did, but, let's not white wash the historical situation. [Also, Carigula and Nero were quite mad.]

Donnie,

Will reply soon
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 8 March 2007 5:04:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, thank you for your reason but I was hoping you could reason by enlightening everyone on your understanding of "spirit" with an examination of its essence, uniqueness, fundamental preciousness, physicality and connectedness. I guess reasoning is impossible here because all we get is a response that is as shallow as dishwater. Just how do people get so intellectually blunted?

My thoughts are that a unique spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of each living organism, is a physical process, not a miracle nor some break in the fabric of causation. But, when you refer to "the principle of grace applies", does this process understand how this UNIQUE living spirit functions in its lifetime for each organism? ............ Obviously not when you need to grovel to what you imagine is "the true spirit" which cannot exist, and "ask forgiveness". This just seems like spirit confiscation which is dis-grace-ful.

One of the most dishonest concepts ever perpetrated by people is this belief in the existence of the one and only "true spirit" and the morally perfect shaper and ruler of everything. Like how could it be possible for some morally perfect teddy to seek this sacharrine adoration, seek and be persuaded by prayers (five times plus a day), but become petulant and a displeased teddy if "he" does not receive this flattery? I feel this true living teddy is a serious dud and could benefit by learning some self evaluation skills. "He" may actually find like everyone else that you can never actually find perfection.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 9 March 2007 8:41:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo perhaps it would help if you gave the facts about what a spirit is, how you confirmed the 'spirit' and discounted all other possibilities to what the 'spirit' and confirm your knowledge of what the 'spirit' does and precsribes and thinks by the 'spirits'actual side of the story. That is of course if the 'spirit' is a 'spirit'.
Posted by West, Friday, 9 March 2007 9:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THE APPRENTICE - SCIENCE OR RELIGION?

"The problem with Newton and Whiston’s approach was that they brought scientific methodology to the task and this restricted their view of the matter. There is something in the scientific mind that creates either atheists or fundamentalists, rationality is just not enough. Rather, Christians believe in order to know, a recipe for disaster in science but a necessity in the matters of faith. Perhaps this explains the frailty of theological writing done by scientists turned theologians." - Sellick

Fid quaerens intellectum: faith in search of understanding. This a centuries old concept, predating both Newton and Whiston. As a writer, Sellick,annoys me. He takes the course between discloser and plagiarism. Herein, I note, leverages an article/book [achnolwledged] and implicits posits it as contemporary relevation of his thougght process for the article.

The difference between a science and religion in knowledge discovery often is that student of science submits to the discipline of the community of practise, when learning. The student submits to teachers. As the student matures in understand the discipline in challenged or extented [usually post-doctoral and doctoral research]. While the core of the displine is dedended [Lakatos] the developer or challenger acts as a change agent. In matters of religion the Faithful indwell in worship under the control of a Preisthood. Challenging that authority is discouraged. It is a matter of a process of proactive knowledge discovery [Science] or knowledge retentiveness [Christian religion.]. Dare I say it? Religion is doctrinaire.

Moreover, Sellick [sells] Science short in presents nineteenth century science [closed to mechanical system]. Modern science, DOES look at the periphery of understanding/existence: e.g., QM and Singularities.

Notice also how Sellick [Sells] wont engage critique. With some [cultural] research I was conducting I found the same attitude at a Vatican college who would answer emails [First paragraph was in Italian]. Whereas, say, UCLA, ets, etc, etc, responded within days.
The correspondence was about knowledge discovery envoronment, when the Jesuit West met Eastern astronomers. Nothing directly to do with religion.

Religionism? Open and Closed. Open to worship. Closed to investigation
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 9 March 2007 1:12:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
You quote - "Demon" in Ancient Greek means, "evil spirit" [of which one can be possessed], not a Greek god.”

WRONG!
To the Greeks and Romans they believed spirits influenced and controlled the world – not one single spirit as in monotheism. For instance: Where did we get the dames of our days? Hence the gods of thunder, war etc. To the early Christians all these are evil. Christians were put to death for not accepting a plurality of gods.

However the influence of Zoasterian beliefs that the spirits of the evil dead roamed the earth and lurked in graveyards and unclean places held by citizens during the New Testament period later influenced the adoption of the ideas by the Roman Church – hence ideas of purgatory. The people believed the spirits of their deceased evil ancestors could inhabit their bodies. Jesus who taught that the spirit of the deceased had no communication with the living denounces such a view.

This is slightly different from a belief that there is a world of non-material powerful spirits controlling the behaviour of man and events. The concept of gods (spirits) means a powerful being influencing or controlling behaviour or events is anathema to monotheism. Christians believe the Earth was created complete in the beginning with all its systems in place. There are changes and they are natural or made by man. The fact is the spirit of man himself is the primary influence on human behaviour and the natural world is inanimate and was designed originally with natural chemistry and physics
Posted by Philo, Friday, 9 March 2007 2:33:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,
Define yourself apart from the organic chemistry of your body and you will discover who you really are. Your body is temporarily borrowed from the earth so the real West could find his mark and expression among the living. You are a spirit that defines you. We know nothing of or see nothing of your body but we perceive your spirit in your expressions here. God is the perfect expression of spirit to whom we bow in adoration, sometimes expressed in men who walk in his presence.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 9 March 2007 2:56:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo I have no evidence to suggest my consciousness is a product of magic so I am not saying my consciousness is a product of magic. You are saying so , why dont you give the facts about what a spirit is, how you confirmed the 'spirit' and discounted all other possibilities to what the 'spirit'is and confirm your knowledge of what the 'spirit' does and precsribes and thinks by the 'spirits'actual side of the story.

If you have no facts or proof concerning this so called spirit or god then the only explanation is that you are making it up. Why would you make it up?

So why not answer my question? You are talking about god or spirit so what are really talking about? Its all mumbo Jumbo to me if you have no god or spirit before you talk about god or spirit. It would be like me telling you the blob wants you to burn hair clippings so that you can live in a castle in the clouds because the blob likes the smell of burnt hair. Obviously if I have never met the Blob and he has never told me about his fondness of burnt hair and proved he will house hair burners in castles then I have made it up and it is meaningless.
Posted by West, Friday, 9 March 2007 3:30:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've yet to read a definitive scientific explanation for the creation of life. The best science can offer is the big bang, cell replication, and dna mapping. Not a direct scientific explanation of the moment of creation. Scientist may shout from amongst their beakers, "It's alive. it's alive." But not the why. Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer. At least the same amount of time as religion. Science ought to be abandoned as a tool of human exploration and understanding. Science is directly responsible for all of mankind's wars since man sharpened the first stick or chose the best rock. The history there after is just refinement of the art of killing. Gunpowder, atom splitting, is just a sharper stick. The art, the science, it's all ego and needs to be done away with before it brings about the final destruction of all mankind. Science is evil. It's killed more people than it ever helped to assuage it's ego
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 9 March 2007 5:14:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Scientist may shout from amongst their beakers, "It's alive. it's alive." But not the why. Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer." - Aqvarivs

Real science as oppose to developing technology has existed for at best three hundred years.

Life? Current thinking is along the lines that inorganic replicators [like crystals] morphed [give quintillions of interactions over billions of years] into basic replicators, thence, into DNA (Dawkins). It might take Science hundreds of years to fuse the necessay [say geology/biology]. That is why we explore. We test and admit when we are wrong and hold tentative the possibility of truths.

Life? Why? ... Happenstance. Purpose? At the micro level to preserve genes and the macro level the product of the interaction within cultures in response to ecology (Triandis).

[Regarding the Ancient Greek meaning of the word, "Demon"} ...

PHILO:

Philo to Oliver: WRONG!

My reference was Woodhouse (1910) [Like Fowler is to English]. His primary sources were Plato and Xenophon. Moreover, Woodhouse added that his translation was strong in both verse and prose.

Socrates' alleged insanity was put down to his guardian demon.

A quick personal search revealed references to demons [a.k.a. daemons and demones]inhabiting statues too.

Consistent with your posit, Homer secondarily is said to have called a Gods, demons [source didn't say which gods].

I think history will show Koine Greek was translated by Apuleius and in the Latin Church by Thomas Aquinas.

Just the same, thank you for your and detailed reply. But where did it come from? What souces were outside Christian tacts? Name your Greek source documents, thanks.Not little greenk books from Bible College I trust.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 9 March 2007 6:02:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Love yer logic, aqvarivs.

>>Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer. At least the same amount of time as religion. Science ought to be abandoned as a tool of human exploration and understanding.<<

The reason science has "failed" is because it was not designed for the task.

Scientists and religious folk have totally different objectives, job descriptions, and process management techniques.

It is not the task of science to tell us "why". It is the task of science to tell us "how".

And being fair, science has at least been making some forward progress over the years. There are more things we understand in the language of science than we did ten, fifty, a hundred or a thousand years ago.

For those of us who believe that it offers an increasingly comprehensible explanation of the "how" we got here, this is progress. And as such, keeps us interested in making further progress.

Will science ever discover - even accidentally - the "why"?

I very much doubt it.

The reason for this is because the tools they are using, the techniques they employ and the logical structure of their research, is not designed to unearth the reason behind these events, merely their causation.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Nevertheless, I expect that - being human and by nature curious - we will continue to refine our understanding of the "how" we got here, which after all is a big enough, mind-boggling event in itself.

But I totally reject the concept that because science will never discover the "why", it suddenly becomes axiomatic that religion is able to provide those answers.

That is about as logical as saying because scientists can't tell you why a boat disappears in the Bermuda Triangle, the ufologists must be right to blame it on aliens.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 9 March 2007 6:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, reasoning that putting a point on a stick would better pierce the hide of an animal and then fashioning the tools to do that work is the infancy of mans science and technology. Real science? As opposed to the science of the founding principles we use today. All that non-real science that got us up to and including the past 300 years?

Pericles, it's not my logic. I'm merely pointing out to those who claim their non-belief is superior, by using their logic.
The fact is any human endeavour can be attacked using the same logic.
Prove to me God exist. Prove to me the big bang happened. Prove to me time and space is infinite. Prove we're able to discern that split second between one moment and using the very same moment in time as part of a continuous existent. A relentless repetitive series of the exact same moment, On off on off on off on off... We just think something has past.

Prove to me your existence.

There is only a single number and that is one. Every other number is achieved by adding one. So does twelve exist. And why when we add one once again luck becomes a mathematical consideration?

Man is ego therefore all man does is ego.

Mans existence is one homogeneous pie. It's illogical to select any particular slice to use to attempt to defeat any other slice in argument. Good vs. evil. Hot vs. cold. Night vs. day. None exist independent of the other. With out the one there is no other.

In the absents of belief there is no belief in anything. In the absents of faith there is no faith in anything.

The sky is blue and the water is wet, but is it?

I firmly believe that when first man had his first crap he uttered the immortal words, Oh my God. Then turned to find some one to show it to.

Careful. You may wake up to find yourself asleep.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. Albert Einstein
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 9 March 2007 10:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarius,

What is Science and what is Technology? Sharping a stick to use as a spearing tool/weapon would be typically designated "technology"; forecasting before 1919 that Sun's mass would destort the light observed in the 1919 solar elipse is Science. Chinese inventions were often just happened upon" e.g., powder from Alchemy. The discipline that studies the influence of Science ON technology posit theory ON practice. In the middle of the 1700s humankind learned how to learn, allowing amongst other things for disciplines to merge: e.g., biology and chemistry. Intuition is NOT sidelined rather applied to a more fruit [if the past 300 years are typical] methodologies.

I tend to think of myself as an eclective progressive, who can hold several propostions similtaneouly. Herein, the atheist/agnostic tags don't sit well. Rather, I posit that a study of priesthoods, the architecture of godheads and gods, are known to historians and anthropologists: This knowledge degrades the idea the Churches have found god. If the Churches are correct it is a fluke, as churches and priesthool are political constructs. But the evidence, ON BALANCE, is that their accounts/interpretaions are false. So God becomes only a remote [not fully discounted] possibility. But it would seem to the gods of religions are of human origin.

Materialism, without arigid notion of "matter" would describe me. My view is that the Newtonian physical sciences hold strong in space-time in our experience. But, these phenomena do break infinitisal indeterminism(QM)and singularities/phase space (Cosmology)outside more stable 4-D realities.

"A wise man proportions his belief on the evidence." (Hume). Good scientists perpetually live in the "twilight" [Loche] of their fallibility; whereas, devote religionists live in "light" their self-perceived infallibility. A restless search vs. a stagnant posit.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 10 March 2007 3:27:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

What I see is you equally dependent on someone else's work, someone else's thinking for your opinions and then use them to attempt to defeat someone else and their opinion based on someone else's thinking. All in the question of belief. What you believe vs. what they believe.

Science is no proof of anything if human perception wont allow for that observable reality. Like I said. Water is wet and the sky is blue but, is it really. Science can "prove" to us that water is not actually wet and that the sky is not actually blue. Which reality do we live with?

Should those of us who believe in that scientific reality go around belittling, being contemptuous, and demanding that people change their perceptions. Demand they acknowledge that their perceptions are based on a biological failure to be able to distinguish the true reality?

I think the better question is do you want to live in a world were there is no God. Whether you or I personally believe in God is not as important as demanding no one believes in Gods.

Many of our greatest scientist, mathematicians and philosophers have been believers in a God and no one disputes their work for that inclusion.

Don't place that glass of water on that table. That table is not actually a solid. Well, neither is the glass. And the water is actually gas.
Man are you messed up. Don't you live in reality? :-)

Belief in God is a matter of perception. Those who can not perceive of a God can not see that. :-)

Peace dude.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 10 March 2007 7:26:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is deliciously ironic Aqvarvis attacking science as a failure on the internet a successful product of science which has conquered more of the globe than any single religion. Science is learning, learning is progress and understanding. Science has effected the entire globe its benefits always quick to spread, world wide communications, transport and has enabled agriculture to feed millions more than could exist in virgin nature. Science has extended our life expectancy. No religion has ever been as great or as universal as science. Science just does not support religion and that is why Christians are angry at science and claim to reject it but will still line up for bird flu vaccine. Science can only describe reality and with that description we are given that how to.

A baby has to learn how to breast feed , its first attempts are clumsy it has to discard its biologically bred hypothesis to purse its lips or move its head away before it can learn that the way to feed is to grip onto the nipple and suck. Even a year down the track it is doing the same with hand eye co-ordination to stick a spoon in its mouth. Every species with a cognitive brain from the moment it is born is a scientist practicing science.

Olivers apparent existence here not proof enough he exists? Aqvarvis I bet you don’t believe that post modernist mumbo jumbo I guarantee you hold reality absolute too you live in a physically real house and would even have abstract realities like bank accounts. You would not give them up to demonstrate your faith in post modernism.

Ok I admit that science has failed to ask why Tinkerbelle needs a magic wand and doesn’t wiggle her nose. Aqvarvis since religion has succeeded in such questions of importance and you are so well informed by the authority of god please answer that important question. Why wand over wiggle?

Alas scientists- psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists and anthropologists have already answered the questions you claim science has failed to ask, you just don’t want to know the answer.
Posted by West, Saturday, 10 March 2007 8:52:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aquarivs,

"What I see is you equally dependent on someone else's work, someone else's thinking for your opinions and then use them to attempt to defeat someone else and their opinion based on someone else's thinking."

Thanks for your comment.

On whom, am I dependent, specifically? Certainly, I am influenced by Polanyi and Lakatos. Popper is an evergreen but not quite what see, either. But OWN position isn't a direct match.

Argument from "authority" can be posited as a logical fallacy. But, what is one to do? Not accept the contemporary dictionary meaning of the words you used in your last post? Difference is scientific authorities are malliable, but, religious traditionalism more static. The former seeks progress, the later langsyne affinities.

On matters of Science vs Tecchnology, the outline prided was no more than what pretty much anyone from the History of Science Society or PhD course curricula would state. To go into depth would take thousands of words.

God is a separate construct to religion. Religions and priesthoods are seemly [based on history] political and organizational instrumentalies. The God construct is separate to this call. God could exist [even in form totally unknown], or, subsist does as a character [like Louis Lane], independent to existence/non existence [Russell/Meinong]. A hypothetical God could have created the Universe then forgot about it.

My thing with religionists/denominationalists is, that, Sells, e.g., in the search for God, wont look beyond "indwelling" in worship [Polanyi]. One might not be able to prove/disprove whether or not God exists/does exist. But, one CAN study the theocrasia of divinities in history and draw conclusions, beyond the self-referencing & self edifying claims of scripture. Sells has chosen Jesus without investigating God. Contrarily, a Cosmologist [pride aside] would re-visit a theory given counter evidence
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 10 March 2007 9:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now Oliver don't get upset with me. That sentence wasn't supposed to come off like a personal attack as such but, rather to highlight that our beliefs and perceptions are not inclusive or exclusive to the individual. We are dependent on many authorities.

I once read a thesis based on mans probable outcome had he not accepted natures gift of fire. The end of the story doesn't have us here today with all the comforts of our society and scientific advances. We would have very little of it. Man never would have had a comfortable moment to contemplate ideas not directly related to immediate survival.

I understand your argument with Sellick because I myself dislike his approach. Especially his "the Church above the individual". And this last statement that monotheism is mans "normal" spiritual direction is a statement totally blind to mans history and beliefs. Polytheism was predominate in both theory and practice before being beaten out of many cultures world wide by a richer more aggressive mono(theism)culture.

"Religion" itself in the absents of spirituality is much like our government and our education centres. They have forgotten their purpose and have sought to fortress their "authority" and increase their size so that people become dependent on the institution rather than independent of thought and free of mans baser instincts. Our culture is not free it is heavily institutionalized.

West, Has science proven there is no God?
You true motives are apparent with your constant bashing use of the word Christian.
Reality as an absolute. I loved that. Thanks. Do I have to adopt your contemptuous reality or can I continue with my own hedonistic dance picking among life's smörgåsbord of offerings. I'm way too hedonistic to be throwing any human experience out of consideration for some artificially pure ideology that is supposed to be the manifestation of existence. Science is man made. Religion is man made. Democracy is man made. Communism is man made. Choosing one does not nullify the others.
I'll take my freedom over your self imposed constraints. You lack imagination dude.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 11 March 2007 3:08:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs,

No offence taken. But SCience treat information and knowledge discovery in the same way, as a religionist [often denominationalist]. Scientists will admit to be perpetually in the "twighlight" [Locke] of knowledge. Sells believes, he has found the light, stop. (a) an untexted a priori assumption and (b) the Church is not about informaton exchange, but experiencial "indwelling" [Polanyi] in a perfomance, like a play of indoctrination. What " authority" is, differs between science and religion.

If Sells honesty studied theocracia, it is possible would findds a less doctrinaire God, if there is such a thing, based on the many manifestations through history. In the Middle East some not dissimililar to Christianity.

I thought my earlier post suggested an answer to your quest to West. That is, one cannot "prove" the existence or non-existence of Dod. But one can see theocrasia operate and how huuman devised gods played their roles in societies.

Yes, these religions are linked to governments throughout history.

Sells and other religionists have a medieval approach to knowledge discovery,rather than reaching their conclusions in a more seasoned manner. It is how they think nbot so much their conclusions, I feel odd.

You mention reality. I don't a some knowledge of ONE reality. Rather, I place [tentative] probabilities for many different realities, based on the prevailing evidence,

Donnie and Kerein,

Will address your matters soon.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:34:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Thanks again for your contributions. We still have the matter of your sources, regarding the alleged Greek god, "Demon" and according to you Woodhouse being WRONG [Your emphasis]the Greek meaning of "Demon".

Closest I can find is Deimos [nasty character]. What source do you have in educated [Attic] Greek that questions Woodhouse (1910, page 210)? As you know, translating from the Vulgar Latin into Koine Greek is less reliable, i.e., poorer vocabulary and greater chance of "Chinese Whispers".

West and Keiran,

Note Sells the Silent, remains silent. His right, I guess, but, it strange behaviour for Forum author initiating the topics. Philo does and, hidtorically, George and Aslan did engage.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:55:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks aqvarivs for making it clear that I don't need to take any further notice of your posts, since you clearly don't intend them as contributions, just a bit of "lookitme, lookitme."

Fair enough, we all have hobbies.

But before I go I'd like to understand whether you are doing it deliberately to get a rise out of your fellow-posters, or out of a lack of balance in your personality... you know what I mean.

>>Scientist may shout from amongst their beakers, "It's alive. it's alive." But not the why. Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer. At least the same amount of time as religion. Science ought to be abandoned as a tool of human exploration and understanding.<<

To which I responded that it is not the task of science to tell us "why", but to tell us "how". In reply, you said...

>>Pericles, it's not my logic. I'm merely pointing out to those who claim their non-belief is superior, by using their logic.<<

Leaving aside the straw man "who claim their non-belief is superior" (who they?), what exactly were you "pointing out?"

Or did you deliberately leave that part out of the sentence so that we could fill in the blank from our own imagination?

Mind you, I have to confess I really love the idea that you are unable to prove your own existence to yourself.

It must make breakfast at your place an absolute hoot.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 12 March 2007 3:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, My apologies. I always make the mistake of assuming everyone can follow the conversation that develops with each thread.
Unfortunately I haven't the time or the inclination to go back to the beginning to explain in detail the development of this conversation and just how it has strayed from the topic.
For my own part I got very tired of West's contemptuous ranting on about religion as being responsible for the expression of mans baser nature. Start at the top and work your way down but, please don't make me responsible for whatever it is you think you think.
I have enough problems of my own staying on top of what I think today never mind how or what I might think tomorrow.
If you can not extend your thinking to imagine a God. No amount of words will ever be sufficient to illustrate the concept of a monotheistic approach to God vs. a polytheistic approach.
If your a good teacher and are well versed in the atomic sciences you may be able to educate someone to the intricacies of that behavior. They may or may not believe. Science has a history of failing. People have become skeptics. People choose not to believe. People choose to have or exercise faith. It isn't always a matter of evidence.
What ever that choice, to believe or not to believe, it doesn't include ridicule. If nothing else try to understand that.
Now, have I given you enough lookitme lookitme time.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For atheists that look for a physical being of god - sorry to dissapoint. There isn't one. As I have stated before "God is spirit" not a spirit as a localised being. God is revealed in character, actions, attitudes, wisdom, virtues, creativity, purpose, design, purity, sacrifice etc.

Take love for instance - the most perfect expression of love is self sacrifice - a parents love for a helpless infant. We can explan what is happening chemically in the body - that is science. Can we explain why the parent gives sacrifically to help an infant reach full potential, while depleting their own potential?

Again it is the act that displays the character and the spirit of the person - this is the nature of God. It is in the purity of this act we perceive the character of God in whose image we were designed to function. It is in the meditation of this purity we find God - it is this purity we admire (worship).

Define for us your character and attitudes and you will discover who you are; you will define your spirit. Now place it all in terms of science - physical reality. To do so places you in the death of your spirit you are not more than a living organism without purpose, direction, hope.

The human need is greater than just the body need, we have needs that are not fulfilled by science, to merely measure chemical reactions does not fulfil needs. There is a spirit world, but not spirit beings as the ancients immagined.

The discovery by the Christian Louis Pastuer cast out demons and uncovered bacteria that the ancients believed were present in unclean places. The ancients believed there was somthing there that was evil spirits and attributed them to all things they could not explain.

The evil spirits that ought to be exorcised still remain in the character, attitudes, actions and lack of wisdom that some display. But since they fail to worship the pure spirit (holy) will they ever find God? Do they ever worship another more more pure than themselves?
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 3:29:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs all I ask is where do you get your intimate knowledge of God from? Why is that such contempuous question? You know gods thoughts , his preferences , his personality, his being because you know he exists and what he does.

From experience a lot of people speak from the ego or from the heart as they politically correctly call the ego. Maybe you are the first ever honest god believer and actually do know everything you claim to know about god , enough at least to speak of a real live god. All I ask is where did you get such information from? Because everybody else just makes god up.

Before you get all depressed and hide your fetishised shadow with a torch from discovery like I keep saying I dont care if you believe in Jehova , Mickey Mouse or the Wolfman. It is the public realm of worship which is a danger to society because of the heights those who "have God" look down upon the world.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 9:23:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

What do you have to say about the contributions of Greece, Judaism and Islam to scientific endeavour?
If my memory serves me rightly the revived impetus to scientific endeavour in the west in the renaissance was due to the 'rediscovery' of Greek and Islamic works which inspired a few courageous rational thinkers to explore the world with new eyes and that the Trinitarian Church has consistently persecuted those who pursued the scientific endeavour from Gallileo through Darwin to the current batch of stem cell researchers.

Judaism and Islam are monotheistic in the sense you suggest but are hardly 'anti-scientific' religions. One might also point out that Judaism has remained strong for over two and a half thousand years without any need to postulate trinitarianism, or any other esoteric abstractions.
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 10:18:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

You said
"The liberalism of Protestant Churches, so like the Latitude men of the 18th century, who thought that such theological niceties were not important, is not an option. They may feel that they can more easily communicate to the man in the street, but who would be excited about that communication?"

Kevin Rudds article "Faith in Politics" is a typical piece of Protestant Liberalism and his political popularity suggests to me that he has tapped into a very large group within our society who like what they heard from him. It seems there ARE people who respond to the 'communicative' power of Liberal Protestantism.... and plenty of them.
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 10:28:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, Ego, one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that is completely unconscious and is the source of psychic energy derived from instinctual needs and drives.
Now please, if it's about ego then it is subconscious and not an active intent and the individual is unaware of the on going battle of the psychic trinity. Id , Ego and Superego. What your saying is that belief in a God is an instinctual need, an instinctual drive. You answer your own questions over and over again. So I must assume that while you "believe" instinctually that God exist. You want a visual exercise to cement what you feel naturally. It isn't that you don't believe. It is that you don't personally trust what you believe. Your afraid of your lack of faith in your instinctive knowledge and unable to reconcile that with everyday learning. Your comfortable with the three R's because they don't demand any thing from you. It's a simple matter of rote.
You want a hug from God so you'll know that in the end you'll be safe from the big bad world. And since there is no physical hug forthcoming you demand contact like a petulant child whinging for it's mothers attention. It's not the God Head your searching for but, the God Teat.
Oh my, Freud would love my analysis. I even worked in the Oedipus complex. A couple more sessions and we'll have you fixed up as new.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 3:52:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy,

Welcome to the thread. If you stay around like me for 4-5 threads initiated by Peter Sellick [Sells], you will find that he only enters the debate to label his "opponents". Else, he ingores some pretty heavy physical scientists, historians and anthropologists. It will be interesting to see if he replies to you.

Spain plays a key role in your posit. By the time, the Western Roman Empire fell [476 CE], the West was on the path to feudalism and a dark ages. In fact, both occurred. Much [Educated] Greek knowledge had been lost to the West. On the hand, Byzantine Empire [Muslim] which was not held back by the Christian knowledge retentive state, flourished, having captured Greek know-how and possessing a more positive attitude towards knowledge discovery. So, by comparison the West was backwards.

The Muslims expanded into what is now Spain and the West retook Spain. Although, the Christians destroyed much of the ecclectic culture, destoying universities and buring books; some of the supior knowledge took hold. Centuries latter we had the Enlightenment and the Renaissiance. Then the Great Divergence [c.1760], when people started leveraging technology using theory. Unfortunately, we might still have not left the Age of Ignorance: But least the powers which would deny Humanity knowledge are being challenged. My guess is it could still take 300-400 years, even in the West, or, our successor civilization.

There is an irony though, the Church of England [when it wasn't suppressing the Irish] did support the idea of a general education of the workforce. That knowledge brought about leagacies it did not foresee. Governments, science, and churches can be questioned, and, the plebs can provide equal and better arguments the Church, in matters at the heart of our existence.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 5:46:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs not at all I don’t want a hug from a god or any other fantasy character. If I want a hug I will get a real one in the real world. Let me be clear on the belief of god and the position of ego. The belief in god is a superstitious belief based on the self centred view from the ego. That is a god believer believes in god so therefore the ego will give him/her the feeling god exists that feeling is superstition, the believer looking inwards is ego. The desire to be immortal, to believe one is saved is egotistical it is a self focus, immortality, salvation of course is superstition. To want loved others saved of course is egotistical; the selfish view one cannot bare loss or parting for ones own benefit because damnation and salvation is superstition. To want strangers to believe in god is egotistical because it is a threat of superstitiously constructed outcomes to force others to reinforce ones own belief. All religious or spiritual discourse is to satisfy the ego and egos don’t like to be thought of by others as being wrong. There is the falsehood of community within churches a construct to protect and strengthen the institutional ego. Misogyny found in all formal spiritualism is a product of male ego. Animals and plants mere resources put on the earth for man by god another self centred view of the world and over nature with man sitting on top of earthly existence of the hierarchy in nature – ego.
The character of Jesus Christ in the New Testament and ST Augustine in his Confession of a Sinner to name a few works is all “me, me, me”. No wonder in most religions the world is at the centre of the universe because man is on earth, followers are the chosen people, the saved, their gods requiring never to be questioned. Spirituality aside from being superstitious is narcissist.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 10:33:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs, you are saying something like ....."I WANT to believe. . . So I DO!" . From what I've found among your expressed thoughts here, there is this one and only WILL to believe which you apply to everything including others like Westyboy and myself who in fact apply the exacto opposite. The WILL to believe is simply search an ye shall find which in nearly all situations means you will find nothink, nothing and zilch. i.e. Trying to match any factual finding to a presumption/belief is where you will only find your ego.

So Aqvarivs, why is it that your will to believe is seriously dominant to your will to find out (or find and ye shall seek)? i.e. Is it possible that you haven't learnt how to find anything in your life?
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:15:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, the will is everything. Your perceptions are all false. They're deceptions of a reality beyond your pathetic understanding. If you were capable of understanding the world. The Universe. life. As it really is you, you would have much more efficient tools at your biological disposal. That you think your clever at word gaming is all part and parcel of your pathetic incompetent inferior biology. That you can not imagine beyond the weak biological chemical responses of your design is not your fault. That your more or less inept as the next person is a mater of degrees not an inferior or a superior design. That others have the capacity of being able to imagine the existence of a God, that the very same chemical reactions develop and trigger different images for them is not a fault. Different is not a fault. Ridicule of something beyond your capacity is a fault. It's the sign of a weak mind. Biochemistry baby.
Read a little Carlos Castaneda. He writes about increasing awareness. Very different from fixed and entrenched perceptions. Read about near death experiences and out of body experiences. Step out of your mainstream educational dictatorship. Break the bonds of the limited thinking of either, or.
Expand your mind.
Careful though. Once you open that door... all things become possible.
You are then no longer limited to on or off.
Or you can end up like West, barking at the stars in the full light of your own self importance shouting ego. All is ego.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:41:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it quite humorous that West, and now it seems Kieren, place their beliefs about spirituality and God and criticisms thereof firmly on this concept of a thing called the "ego" which is itself an abstract deriving from the theories, and yes - beliefs!, of Sigmund Freud. Freud's theories, and the practices which arose from them, are highly questionable and their scientific basis is tenuous at best. You don't have to look very far for controversy over Freuds works.
It appears the pot does actually call the kettle black.
Ironic isn't it?
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 1:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe Kevin Rudd is Catholic not at all protesting against the Catholic Faith. Since we have this amazing claim the West is scientifically backward, Where does most modern scientific knowledge currently reside? Almost all Muslim countries (Middle East) stifle the free expression of knowledge. This only allows Eastern countries like China, South Korea (68% Christian), and Japan who all have received most of their advanced education from the majority Christian West.

However clinical science has virtually nil to do with spirituality. Spirituality has everything to do with character and social relationships.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 1:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aside philo that spirituality is egotism , spirituality depends on self obsession, science exists wether a person percieves a personal benifit from science or not. It is no more than self adulation to talk about god or the spirit without first proving the existence of such. Philo just because as you have pointed out a lot of people are superstitious , live in a fantasy world and directly operationalise self delusion to look out for number one still does not make god , Jesus , the Jolly green giant, Casper the friendly Ghost or what ever anybody calls their self stalking fetish to physically manifest.

Whatever you or donnie or arqarvis say abvout god is about your self worship about your love of yourself ,your desire to become immortal, your belief in your central position and importance in the universe. You are only angry with me because I wont share in that delusion and it is proven delusion because you base your hostility on a god you have no proof of which means every claim you make of god is made up , an untruth , a willful deception, a fantasy. You are also angry with me because you moralise ego , because for god believers life is a moral panic and everything must be judged and condemned or blessed on grounds of arbitrary constructs of sin. Although spirituality is fanatical egotism ego has an important function to the person when well balanced. As skyhooks once recognised ego is not a dirty word.

Aqvarvis post modernist drivel that nothing is real also does not make god exist. Those views gained momentum with the hippies in order to embrace a diversity of culture within political decision making. Now religion has hijacked it to make lies sound justified. The post modernist mantra that there is no such thing as absolutes is as hollow as rhetoric gets, if you dont believe me , next time instead of taking the stairs ,try and fly.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 2:28:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Precisely Aqvarivs, what is easy to imagine is that you are a common seeker and believer, which simply means that you haven't found anything. The proof is that you have read my posting and have not comprehended, believing it is superficially something to do with tricky word gaming or such. Far from it in fact but how does one please explain this to an endless supply of suckers that can only be sold the thizzle and not the sausage. Belief addicts are easy pickings for big business and for teddy too. I suppose when you have a virtual globe of belief addicts it is easy to feed the addict's habit by playing on their weaknesses that stem from the two baser instincts of humans ........ fear of death and desire for power.

The WILL to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the WILL to find out.

The WILL to believe plays on fears, myths, superstitions, irrationality, bigotry, fantasy, fictions, illusions, veneration of faddism and power structures, etc .

The WILL to believe is a drug but there are no solutions in pure selfishness, ignorance and lack of imagination.

The WILL to believe is simply saying believe in belief with no connection between thought and action considered.

The WILL to believe is nothing more than a cultural codification of ancient magical thinking, a solipsistic dream often simply leading to self fullfilling prophesies of destruction.

e.g.
How can people in all seriousness continue to want for the end of the world? We even have our Australian Parliament begin proceedings with an absurd religious playpen ritual known as a prayer to a fantasy teddy which goes something like this ... "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation." Which is then invariably followed by the most filthy, hypocritical behaviour. It's abysmal, nobody is listening and for myself here, this WILL to believe is just a big vomit.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 2:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
Kevin Rudd is Roman Catholic but currently practices his faith within the Anglican Church (his wifes denomination). I guess he is pretty ecumenical given that his theological hero, Bonhoeffer, was a German Lutheran. I would not say he was 'characteristically' Roman Catholic.
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 3:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Welcome back. Who is your alternative authority to Woodhouse [1910], regarding the meaning of "Demon"? Please don't let that slip.

I have access to resources and would like to check. As fair as I can see, so far, the Greeks "did" believe possession by evil spirits [people and statues] and that there was no Greek god called, "Demon". There was a god called Deimos, as any amateur astronomer knows [one of Mars' moons].

I find that Theological Schools too often work from Koine Greek translations from the Vulgar Latin [as mentioned]. The educated Attic court Greek would be a better source, I posit.

I have also read [I.F. Stone], that the Roman mistakenly read Greek satires as historical accounts! Also, who made the [Ancient Greek] might have relevance. On esoteric matter Plato would speak for himself. On vulgar matters the same Plato would speak through a proxy [Gore Vidal].

It is important to place linguistic matters into context. The Christian Church is wrong about Moses having horns, based on the real words in religious text. These guys are the masters of spin and superficial interpretation. Unlike a good Science, the Churches don't the difference between "accuracy" and "precision". Being precise [hundreds of years of scholarship] using the wrong language is inaccurate.

O.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 4:21:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, The whole point is man and by extension his conceptual thinking is limited by his biology. Mans life experiences are all false. Your personal belief is no more valid than the next persons. That you THINK your superior is all fallacy. A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning. Man can just barely cope with his biochemical and genetic reality, yet his ego is such that he has no difficulty using scientific hypotheses for playing at God while using the same hypotheses to denounce God. You have no concept of the true reality and are dependent on falsehood from conception to death.
Both science and religion play important roles in providing grounding for mankind. That as institution they fail us from time to time is no "reason" to do away with either.

God is dead. Science is dead. Humanity is dead. All is dead.

Science is alive. God is alive. Humanity is alive. All is life.

One or the other.

With either or concepts there is no picking or choosing. It's one or it's the other.

Open your mind. Allow for many possibilities. And many become possible.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:39:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarvis your last post was fallacy based on fallacy. I think you internalise everything then it relates back to you. Yep again thats the ego at work. With science man can do clever things , create glass windows, design door knobs, drink through a straw, build straw shelter , pick termites out of nests with a stick.Science is learning based. Science then allows a species to imagine internally the possibilities the external world contains. Here is the crux , those possibilities are soley dependent on the realities of the external world where as religion or spirituality is a deep dwelling within the mind. Dangerously close to a delusional mental disorder. Superstition including god belief holds many of the hall marks of obsessive compulsive disorders. What you said above is complete rubbish. You are expressing your preference for superstition you are not articulating reality in any form or shape.
Posted by West, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:50:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, I can prove using science that your concepts of reality are all based on misconceptions imaged through clumsy senses relying on inferior biology. The truth. You can't handle the truth. You haven't the sensor capacity to cope with reality. One wayward biochemical spasm and you think you see. That you understand. Bah. Your a plant, a cockroach, a field mouse. Your dependent on the very planet and nature that you willingly pollute in the name of a self-righteous science.
The science knew man was an environmental poison. That's why from the very moment of conception man begins to die. It is written in the science. Man is a dis ease. It is written in the science. All hail the science. Science is God.
Oh, you poor misbegotten fool. You have no idea. No conceptualization of the moment of creation. The beginning of time and the end of your time. Your whole existence is a useless biological process and nothing more. You eat. you breathe, and you crap all over everything beyond your capacity to imagine. You call on science to prove your disbelief as valid not understanding that science was there before you in the beginning and hasn't the answer. Science can not create something from nothing. There is only one power that can do that and that is a truth that lies outside biology or physics or Freud's chemical dependency.
I feel sorry for you. Your a base biological mass that has no purpose other than to consume the planet it relies upon for it's very existence. Your a locust. Devouring everything to a single end. Your demise. What a pathetic existence. It must really suck being you.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 15 March 2007 2:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs says .. "Read a little Carlos Castaneda. He writes about increasing awareness. Very different from fixed and entrenched perceptions." lol

Cannot believe someone here seriously recommending that I need to swallow the deceit from this fraudulent story-writer. This all gets back to Aqvarivs saying something like ....."I WANT to believe. . . So I DO!", which is true of hedonistic self-indulgence too. It then becomes easy pickings to feed such a belief addict with all manner of delusional mumbo jumbo. BUT there is always this endless supply of suckers who are such easy pickings and the beauty is they don't know it or in some cases may vigorously deny with some delusional "proofs" of their own.

This Castaneda deceitfully uses a pseudo-mystical manner to hack in on the vulnerable and exploit the technique of student/master and then on to disciple I presume. Now, where have we seen that before? But look, here he cynically exposes belief addicts to this idea that hallucinations are really unconnected with the drug-taking, LOL, because they are all part of being and belong to the objective reality. i.e. Drug induced delusions are true perceptions of the objective reality. Aqvarivs would read this as providing some measure of respectable evidence for the paranormal and not realise that Castaneda like all true teddy virus writers, has had great success and penetrate all bases by disabling mechanisms essential to human functioning.

I've run my virus check on Aqvarivs and he has come up positive so the issue now is one of disinfecting and rehabilitation .... (i.e. the really hard work).
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 15 March 2007 3:36:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, I knew Carlos Castaneda would be out of your troll zone. That you nearly transcribed word for word some one else's opinion from Wikipedia proves your biological ineptness. I didn't demand you believe his work. I suggested it as a tool to expand your mind. But trolls like you lot have little capacity for thinking outside the narrow confines of your self-imposed reality. Of course your misuse of science and language that provide for your self-righteous and contemptuous view is but a by product of having no belief system or sense of value beyond your right as a victim of society. Your contribution being a deserving leach. I don't wonder you have the opinions you do. I wonder why your found haunting threads that you have no intention of contributing to other than providing a disruption and consistently taking the matter in discussion of track. Oh, right your an intellect. Your well read and have something to contribute to the subject that may give other pause to think. NOT.
Goodbye loser's. I see Sellick has a new thread going, better get over there and work your magic. Don't ever let anyone convince you disbelief isn't a viable argument. Pound away with your post modern humanist existentialism. I'll give you credit for one thing though. Abortion. Keep up the good work. The idea that you'd propagate would be an oxymoron. Remember, science is God.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 16 March 2007 3:21:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarvis I like being me , Ive had a good ride and I am looking foward to the rest of it. You do demonstrate your total immersion in your own ego by thinking because I am not ignorant and superstitious nor paranoid about delusional fetishised idolatry as believing in god or am so self adoring that I suffer the delusion of thinking such childish fairytale nonesense such as a soul exists that my life sucks. If my life sucked then obviouysly I would hate life and so believe in an afterlife and worship death as do all god believers. As the god believer believes they will be rewarded in death by being magically given god like imortality as a reward for stroking their own ego's throughout their life and adhering to magic occult rituals suchy as prayer or abstaining from some useless act.Effectively you are saying because you are deeply burdened by paranoid superstition, moral panic, a belief and adherence to fairytales and your reward for your devotion to ignorance is a gamble , your life sucks and so you think everybody elses does too. Because why ? non -believers are not shooting up on god , the fairytale nicotine patch, your imaginary teddy to cuddle? Grow up , get a grip.
Posted by West, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:36:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,
You fail to understand others points of view.

You said by implication you are not delusional, childish, or believe fairytales; "I suffer the delusion of thinking such childish fairytale nonesense such as a soul exists ..."

In your denial you are saying in this quote you do not exist as a living human. Your view of the science of the human body places you as an innamitate construct. It is just that you argue against your own existence that makes you appear ignorant of reality. The denial of what is identified as the "soul" identifies you as not being alive. The soul is the life and the living behaviour expressed. Since you are not alive, obviously there is some opposing spirit communicating this on OLO. Do I believe in a spirit World? Obviously my previous denial of spirits other than expressed by living humans is being challenged. The dead do speak, at least write or haunt this forum.

You I believed were alive - obviously dead, and promoting death to humanity.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 16 March 2007 11:29:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs, for your information I'd long forgotten this fraud Castaneda and couldn't believe that someone like yourself, in this day and age would be recommending him with "he writes about increasing awareness." When I started reading his first book more than thirty years ago I don't think I even made it to the end of the first chapter before realising he was a con artist of the worst kind. There were plenty of these types about then but where are they now? Of course this was long before your Wikipedia, too.

You are quite wrong when you refer to me as some sort of "intellect"... "with your post modern humanist existentialism" because I'm simply a nobody and if "nobody" is perfect then I am perfect. The reason I sometimes post here is simply because it abounds with all manner of funny/unfunny stuff written by belief addicts and boyo you are an alarmingly unfunny, tragic mess. How did you get like this?

If we are moving on to the confessional (i.e. Peter's next article), then I must now make a true confession here with everyone ......... I cannot comprehend non-existence. (i.e. Which translates to the universe always existing and infinite in the three spatial directions.)
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 16 March 2007 11:30:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems this discussion is degrading into name-calling.

I challenge the idea that a belief in God is some sort of "virus" or "mental disorder", that West and Keiran are suggesting.
Obviously it serves their disgust for religiosity quite well though.

The reductio ad absurdum of that proposition is that any belief in the unreal, unknown or unproven might arise from the same affliction.
This would then mean that every human being probably suffers from it, including West and Keiran with their belief in the "ego", an unproven and potentially unreal abstraction from Freuds theory of mental structure.

Actually, there could be a gold mine to be tapped here if a concensus is reached and we conclude that it is necessary to "treat" these people diagnosed with "Goditis" or "GDD (god delusion disorder)" (I can hear the "cha-ching" from the drug companies already). Maybe it's best to catch it early when "Santa Syndrome" is observed in children - the onset of GDD. Or better still, if we can isolate the "deus dependency" gene we can probably eradicate the disposition to it altogether. I expect some hefty government grants for scientists in that field would be necessary to get the research underway.
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 16 March 2007 11:46:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Philo either you can prove bthe soul exists otherswise you are making it up. The same goes for god , either you can prove god exists or you make god up. If you have not got proof then what is the source of your knowledge. The fact that Christians and other superstitious cult adherents talk about god without a single shred of evidence of their proposed fallacies means god does not exist , the soul does not exist.
We can debate that the origianal descrption of the soul in the yods was the regard the living for the dead , but that is not what you or any other occultist is claiming , you are claiming a ghost like consciousness which is pure fantasy to support an ego with a mortality crisis.

The soul, spirit god are all part of voodoo mumbo jumbo dungeons and dragons fantasy game playing and nobody who does not believe in spiritual drivel is denying reality. It is those who indulge in god belief who deny reality and so have no understanding , no comprehension of reality. There is no omnipresent magician to discover , no magic to be evoked by ritual , no supernatural truth.
To believe in god is to literally be off with the fairies.

If you wish to be taken seriously then help yourself by proving god , magic and the soul exists and they are everything you claim them to be.
Posted by West, Friday, 16 March 2007 12:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

If you look back on earlier posts, it is noted that the [primitive] Limbic System seems play a role in religionism. The [higher] Neocortex might suggest belief in god to be irrational but the posit is the more primitive [survival] system clicks-in and overrides the "thinking" part of the brain. This position is different to Freud within the Ego is the executive system moderating between the Id [or It] and the Superego.

If we were to try a cure a "religious state" via brain surgery, the correction is likely damage vital survival mechanisms. Thus, it is more logical to have the religionist "indwell" [Polanyi] in the rational sciences and histographies and essentially be de-programmed.

Greenfield [neorscientist] notes that excessive networking occurs in obsessive compulsive neurosis, wherein, blocking the reuptake of Seritonin is indicated. Herein, education [above], implemented by an SSR Inhibitor could be indicated to treat Religionism.

Moreover, as Dawkins el al. note, there is biological evolution and cultural evolution. In regard to the a bird species might a knew "note" in a song that is latter carried into the future by members of the species. Likewise, Shamanism and its consort Religionism, can be a culturally adopted [product of ecology (Triandis)] -- once upon a time - carried forward into a society's future, beyond its used-by date. Recall, there were priesthoods and temples [read churches] before the Old Testiment, wherein, these instruments were anthro-organisational enties.

Belief in God delusional? No, such a belief could rationally beheld as hypothetical construct. Maintaining the belief in god based on
our knowledge of the Religions in History, against overwhelming scientific and histograpghical evidence must sail close to the use of defense mechanisms seen in delusional states.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 16 March 2007 4:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Errata: "held", "neuroscientist".

Lakatos, and, less directly, Kuhn would posit that disciplines should protect core beliefs. Herein, it would be rational to maintain a belief in the geocentric universe, "in the first instance", given the need for significant proof to replace an entrenched "paradigm" [Kuhn].

In this way, perhaps, it was "once" reasonable to hold-on to the idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe, of the Earth was created in 4,004 BCE, that a person called ascended from the Middle East into [3-D] Space. [descended from the othe side of the Earth?]Similarly, in the twentieth century, Einstein was relunctant to accept QM. But, the resistance must not remain forever.

Likewise, to believe in a god, AS POSITED BY THE RELIGIONS, in the face of secular science/knowledge is not apposite. The [anthropological] history of theology presents too sound an alternative.

Accordingly, one could rationally maintain:

(a) Not to believe in a god(s). Absolute impossibility.

(b) At most, believe in god as a degraded heuristic, an improbability, not an impossibility. [me]. Accept a scientific paradigm, but test the null hypthesis [by all available means]. [Basically, god does not exist, but listen to counter-arguments.]

(c) God exists; by different to the accounts of the religions.

I put it to Sells and this Forum, that the Religionist posit was not irrational in 1607, but it is irrational 2007. This is how we strike a balance between new knowledge discovery [theocrasia are invented] and throwing out the baby with the bath water [contemporary science is all-knowing].

Sells and non-Catholics,

- Do you believe the Sun fell towards the Earth at Fatima?

O.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 16 March 2007 5:00:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From an antitheist point of view what I believe makes no difference to the sun.
Posted by West, Sunday, 18 March 2007 3:03:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
A nicely posted argument (if not a little heavy on the appeal to authority).

"Herein, education [above], implemented by an SSR Inhibitor could be indicated to treat Religionism"
Using drugs and "re-education" sounds oddly like brainwashing, although i am sure you didn't mean it that way.

Man's former and contemporary religious doctrines and establishments may be past their use-by date, as you suggest, and we may indeed evolve beyond their function. But it does not follow that a belief in God or gods, which could translate to any belief in the metaphysical - adopted by man to answer existential questions - is also irrational, or immature, or that it arises from some sort of mental failing.
Anthropology shows a long, winding and perhaps unfruitful path that Man has tread in search of these answers and the various points he has stopped or tripped over along the way. But it does not prove that such endeavour will be futile or should lead to the ultra-materialist notion, nor does science and technology prove this. You yourself have settled on 3 rational standpoints which almost covers the spectrum anyway (atheist, agnostic, theist - albeit non-mainstream).
I think it is important to differentiate between the institutions that man puts in place and the underlying motive that they serve and judge them exclusively.
I do not believe a motive for greater (potentially spritual) awareness and/or existance is irrational. Maybe some of the results of this are and the ideas some have accepted as true are, but not the motive.
Posted by Donnie, Monday, 19 March 2007 12:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

Good one.

We, or at least our atoms, return to the Sun [or the next generation of the solar system]in about five billion years.

Donnie,

Thank you.

I wouldn't really advocate using SSRIs on Religionists. But, these substances would seem to mitigate obsessive behaviour [other uses too]. Referencing was partially for Philo's [of Alexandia?] benefit. He/She seems to have read significant Church authorities, I was merely counter-balancing. Regarding Philo, there appears to be some commitment to [localised] scholarship, herein, might find broader readings interesting and challenging to prespectives.

Busy in the non-cyber world. More soon.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 19 March 2007 3:27:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West you are truly ignorant of what is defined as the soul. All living things make an imprint of their life upon the Earth. The soul is not a thing to be viewed by a microscope; it is the you that is expressed through your body. Obviously you never knew the love of your mother, or listened to the instruction she gave you. These are evidence she was alive - that was her soul. Please show us the evidence that such love and instruction existed and we will believe at least she had a soul. Obviously you prefer to believe you are not more than a collection of biological functions - but so is a compost heap. The soul is the real person expressed not the chemical analysis of bodily functions. Your soul demonstrates some emotive anger and hatred of those you dissagree with. Please try to dispell that evidence and I will believe you do not have a soul after all.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 19 March 2007 4:18:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo without sounding like we are chasing each other through the threads I can only remind you.

Your assertion that a soul exists is based on your preferences to what you want to believe and your preferences alone. You made your soul up. Yes you confuse the background noise of your mind with a supernatural being. Let us time travel to 2500 years ago when the Hebrews did not believe in an afterlife. The soul as far as they were concerned was an epitath. They resisted the greek concept of body worship which deified heroes and thus gave them immortality (salvation) right up until a century before the alleged christ. Some Jews still dont indulge in body deification or ever lasting life , ressurection , heaven belief.

I put it to you Philo that you judge nature through the coloured glasses of superstition thats why life seems meaningless to you and you can not fathom a psychological connection between people unless there is nonsensical goblins or gods involved. I even turn the tables and suggest you diminish the importance of life as believing you are an arbitrary creation of a god makes you a mere toy akin to a robot.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:56:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think it is important to differentiate between the institutions that man puts in place and the underlying motive that they serve and judge them exclusively." - Donnie

-- Agree. God, Church, Catholicism [and its offshoots] are separate constructs. Motives, govenments, familial instruction, ambitions and politics are moderators.

The idea that one can't put God [or the soul, Sells] under a microscope is the tail wagging the dog [i.e. the belief/results determining the propositions.]

"I do not believe a motive for greater (potentially spritual) awareness and/or existance is irrational."

-- Nor do I, abeit, I might substitute "ill-defined" in lieu of "greater". Mechanical science keeps us tethered to the nineteenth century and very physical realities.

Freud held that his Ego, Superego and Id would at some future [to him] day be explained by brain science [neurology]. In this way, Freud presented a metaphor.

If we are to have a physical[real]- metaphysical [mystical] metaphor for a period of time, I guess that is okay. But, given the current state of knowledge, we need to be mature enough to recognise the model as, just that, a metaphor.

In the twentieth century, notions of clearly defined realities have been called into question; e.g., superpostioning of states in QM, phase space and smudging of the spacetime preceding Plank Time. In these cases, the metaphor coalesces on the loci of physical realities and metaphysical realities, wherein the " meta" [beyond]realities are non-mystical, rather, these meta-realities [and elsewhere realities] are components of a larger system, now not well understood.

Regrettably, we may never sufficiently understand. Perhaps, the evidence tail has gone cold and is beyond the reach of forensic reach, or, we are simply not smart enough to understand. In the latter cases, I posit, we should be honest enough to accept an incomplete model than invent mystical [godlike] explanations [Keiran's Teddy]
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:59:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells and Philo,

If in the first case, one accepts that the existence/non-existence of god cannot be categorically proved: Why not venture to a second case, the study of, the known theocrasia in history? Here, we can map godheads in the same way, as we do elements on the periodic table [as mentioned before.]. The exercise would be at least be informative and support firmer propositions than pure speculation.

If myths [even identified by you] do not have godheads, creation stories, gods' views on war and morality, priesthoods, temples/churches, epiphanies and sacrafices, then, it would seem that Christianity does not belong in the myth set:

Herein, the null hypothesis for the substantiality of the Christian religionist posit is that the theocrasia of myths and Christianity are highly similar. Else put, if the hull hypothesis is confirmed, the substantiality of the Christian religionist posit is deemed questionable and should be reformulated
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 6:12:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--Anyone out there?

Perhaps, it is just that everyone is busy. But I think we have a few loose ends here, while, awaiting the next Amazing Adventures of Peter Sellick. Or is we have all agreed to disagree?

Peter writes about once each month. It would better, if he wrote once a quarter but engaged the Forum. A little too aloof, methinks. [which, of course, is his priviledge, right and, importantly, character]. I am sure he has a contribution to make. Debate is better than proclaimation.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 23 March 2007 1:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver I guess that is where this journey was destined to lead to. Being accused of being ignorant of that which does not exist which sums up the spritual discourse of the last few hundred years and the discourse of sectarianism. My reaction to your second to last post was an odd thought as the rocket of god is effectively grounded by the engineering of politics, was Leonardo Da Vinci politically reflexive? See you on the next Casper the friendly ghost thread.
Posted by West, Sunday, 25 March 2007 6:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

I guess when it comes to spritulaity, rationality doesn't have a ghost of chance.

What narks me is, we have been using history and science and theology, to present our points of view; but, the idea of belief before understanding [imaginings before thinking], seems too strongly engrained in the thoughts of religionists.

The religionists on this thread will join a mud fight, but, generally wont engage in proper debate on matter of substance.

As above noted, one CAN look at the context of the religions, join dots and draw some pretty d*rn good propositions about the origin/need of/for these types of systems.

Might cross paths again on a future thread. Will think about Di Vinci.

Cheers,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 26 March 2007 4:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The substance the religionist holds is that god and spirituality is constructed from their preferences. Even within Christianity , this is where I cannot comment on Islam there is much shopping around for sects to suit the individuals perspectives and tastes.

There is no factual base for claiming god nor is there an ontology stemming from nature in theology. There are no diamonds of fact or truth in the theological mine. Instead the theological mine is a labyrinth of myth tunneled in the sands of time who's delicate walls are held up by faith always threatening to collapse by a wisp of doubt.

ha ha enjoyed writing that one.
Posted by West, Monday, 26 March 2007 5:31:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Allow me to comment objectively on this.
It has really been an ad nauseum debate with people just repeating their side over and over again.
Unfortunately West, you are have committed numerous fallacies in your line of argument. To summarise some of your posts:

- Religion is bad cause look at all the bad things that have been done in the name of it - fallacy of suppressed evidence or "slanting", ie selecting the evidence to support your argument without also looking at all the good things that have been done in the name of religion, helping the sick, supporting the poor, repairing relationships, building communities, fostering peace and goodwill, understanding and cooperation, etc. etc.

- The soul does not exist because there is no proof, therefore it does not exist - fallacy of appeal to ignorance, just because something is unproven it does not follow that it is untrue. One possible reason is that technology has not yet advanced enough to provide sufficient evidence, eg. belief that the universe is actually made up of tiny particles was not proven until technology was capable of it.

- God does not exist, therefore a belief in such is a product of the ego which proves God does not exist - fallacy of circular reasoning, ie. presupposing what you are trying to argue. Not to mention the appeal to authority of Freudian theory which is scientifically paper thin in itself.

And another technique i have seen used often is straw man, in which all these silly names like goblins and ghosts and magicians and "teddy's" are thrown in to describe God, which then makes it easy to ridicule. When in actual fact this imagery has been added into the definition of God by you, not the opposition.
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:46:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, from what i gather your posts are not really an argument as you are saying we should look at history and the development of man and his ideas which would give us a more solid basis to decide on the existance or non-existance of God. I don't see a problem with that, but i wouldn't conclude that it would a) lead to positive evidence either way, and b) lead to firm proof that there is no such thing as God.

Really, the problem with arguing about whether God exists is that the concept of "God" does not really have a solid definition. It is transient and varies, often from person to person, so is very difficult to know you are arguing about the same thing.
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:46:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie you misunderstand. The soul does not exist because the soul is made up. Just like all gods. When a soul is claimed nothing true or real is claimed other than a creation of fantasy.I put it to you that fairies and trolls do not exist for the very same reason why a soul does not exist.

The superstitious will believe a soul exists because they would like a soul to exist there is no reason other than self delusion or superstition that would evoke a person to claim a soul to exist.

My criticism of what religion does not only its history is simply because it is the nature of the beast. If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm.

Christianity as an example cannot escape its past for a number reasons. Unlike secular politics religion cannot change to prevent its darkside to manifesting. Christianity for example worships a man if he existed was dead by 2000 years ago making all homocide in the cause of Christianity (being millions of them) much fresher than the death of their deified idol. If the lives of the victims of Christianity have no worth because they died in the past then Jesus has even less value as he was the first in that trend if he did actually ever exist. Another reason is the crimes of religion carry on to this day ,it is not as if by any stretch of the imagination Christianity has stopped inflicting harm and stopped seeking to interfere with peoples lives.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 11:11:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

Knowing whether a god or gods exist is a taller order, than explaining the presence of religions, cults, sects, denominations. If one goes back to the matter of first cause,issues like did god precede the universe, arise? As you say, it is a matter of definition, and, there are plenty of definitions out there.

My posts maintain that history and anthropology can indicate of architecture of religions, cults, sects, denominations. For example, in the 1940s, in New Guinea, "Cargo Cults", arose. That is, the indigineous tribes people, saw planes providing supplies to the Western soldiers, and, convinced themselves the aircraft were sent by the gods to give them gifts: Only, the foreign Westerners were interceding and stealing these gifts from the gods. What is significant: One can construct what happened. It is history.

Similarly, one can re-construct the environment and mythologies of the first century Jesus cults, how there were Judaic and Roman mystery cult borrowings, how Saul (Paul) Hellenised the religion and how latter Roman emperors institutonalised the religion. Moreover, the same process can be applied to other religions. It is history.

Whether god exists or not, is a separate issue to whether aeroplanes are sent by the gods or Jesus is god, in human history. Herein, I would posit, neither aeroplanes nor religious pretenders, are divine, in history.

- What Sells and Philo, wont do is to treat Jesus in the same manner as they would an aeroplane in an alternative cult. Guess, that is their priviledge, and, perhaps, myth, does have valuable organisational input into [a needingly ignorant] civilization.
Whether the messangers of gods are from the McDonald Douglas Corporation or Heaven, it might be we still need these training wheels cum cherished fabrications for a few centuries yet.

Because there are pretend gods [in history], it does not follow there are real gods. If [big if] there are real gods, it is a totally different model [to religion].
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 2:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm." -- West

Interesting point.

Allied to this matter is why there is evil? A god would supposedly have a fore-knowledge of its creations' [Satan and errant humans] dispositions.

Free Will? Just a cop-out... Especially, with AI, computer programmes set ranges of activities within nested parameters. What sort of God could not allow free will but without evil [not an oxymoron]... We can jump, but not to the moon; we can readily perceive 3-D space, but, 4-D spacetime is perceptually elusive. Thus, a property can exist, within limits. But why not have free will "within" a non-evil behaviour set? The lack of the same, points the arrow of defective authorship director towards the [supposed]god.

Jesus might have been an okay carpenter [i.e, woodworker, metal-wright or wheeler maker], but, his godhead makes a Z-grade programmer [of nature].

Relatedly, I find the Insect World incredibly cruel. The broader Law of the Jungle, too. -- Very loving, very kind? Ha! [The supposed]God's solution to transfer energy [say protein] in organic interaction is sadistic in the extreme. I do hope that such an insane monster does not exist. Who could trust It?

A loving [supposed] God, as you say, for religion, would find it "impossible" to harm its creation.

Cheers,

O
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would just like to add to Olivers post on the logic of god. How is it a creator of the sun who created the sun within 7 days and vastly more complex than living organisms made such a mess out of humans? How is it a creator who created a universe which is larger than human perception can concieve could only communicate to one or two people at a time within a tiny spatial area? Why would a sun builder make it rain for 40 days to flood a world when every planet hes made makes it obvious he would have gassed the earth and let survivors merely breath the gas , even water for that matter, or exterminate life and start again or wiggle his nose and create a new planet. The bible does not talk about a god that is connected to nature. Why would an intelligent designer capable of designing a star design a small child to linger in pain for months or years to die , why is there not equal death? Why die to go to heaven and hell, death is a messy , naturally dirty solution to transmission to other worlds.

When dealing with the notion of god using science, reality, facts or truth god simply does not make sense. Even when you try and justify god using supernatural discourse God still does not make sense. Sorry believers I find god a really odd thing to believe in. I would even argue that sprites , gnomes and fairies, specialist creator spirits make more sense because those myths at least have one conceptial connection with nature and nature is all we have.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,
It is impossible for blind people to see reality outside their feeling experiences. West's continual denial of his own life existence is based in his blindness to human reality.

He denies character, attitudes, and wisdom have any reality because he cannot accept they have any reality. He denies his mother is a soul because he never knew her tenderness, love, care, wisdom. In his world all these things are fantacy and imagined - they have no reality. We recognise God is expressed in the purity of these spiritual realities.

The soul of the person is the spiritual aspects of expression evidenced in the body. West believes he was born merely a blob of organic matter and makes no impression on living because he denies he is a soul. Let him remain in his delusion.

A person does not have a soul, A LIVING PERSON IS A SOUL. The soul is not a thing it is the spirit of the person. He cannot comprehend that because he is merely a blob of chemicals without any character, wisdom, or human attitudes. He believes is not a soul! Perhaps he is right about himself after all. He is dead!
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 1:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By your own logic Philo, a soul is what we make of it and does not exist in an objective reality. Character, attitudes, and wisdom are abstract concepts created by us to describe subjective experiences. They have no reality outside of our own thoughts. Just like God.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 1:08:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo are you saying the soul is personality? If so why not say personality? Or are you saying a soul is magic , has magical properties? If so then explain those properties and how you came upon such factual knowledge. Please do not become angry with me , look at it from somebody elses perspective who is not psychic , from the outside of your head it appears if you make such things up. All I am asking here is you explain in facts so that we can not have such a misunderstanding. Obviously if you have proof of souls you have not made the soul up and it is an actual thing. All I know personally from historical sources is origionally the soul was an obituary. You on the other hand have discovered an additional fact, you should share what exactly a soul is and how you can confirm it.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 1:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,
Maybe i am misunderstanding you but i still don't see much difference in what you are saying. To say the soul doesn't exist because it is made up is a bit like saying it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. That's still basically a claim not an arguement.
The idea of a soul (or non-material life-attributable entity) is a theory to explain the mind-body problem and life force in philosophy. That is one reason it is "made up", not mere superstition.

"If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm"
I don't know where you get that idea from. It's preposterous. Things that are good can still cause harm, they would just cause less harm than good.
As for a "Religion" and Christianity committing crimes. That's impossible. People commit crimes. Belief systems are not causative agents, humans are.
But if you were to assert that a belief system will allow someone to commit crimes, I would argue that materialist and nihilistic belief systems are more oriented towards the permissiveness of harm than religions. There is an inherent irresponsibility for future generations in these doctrines in the idea that once you are dead you're no more and there are no consequences after death to bear for your actions.

Oliver,
I don't disagree with you. Religions do evolve and are influenced by environmental factors and indeed ignorance can play a part. But like you say this doesn't prove the non-existance of God nor the idea that there is more to existance than the material alone, which you could say is the fundamental seed of religion.
As for your musings on God, that comes down to an argument of what God actually is which is what i think the majority of God debates boil down to, an effort to define God and what He should or shouldn't be or do and various other parameters for Him to live up to or fail to live up to, if He did exist.
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 1:33:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Bugsy says: "a soul is what we make of it and does not exist in an objective reality. Character, attitudes, and wisdom are abstract concepts created by us to describe subjective experiences. They have no reality outside of our own thoughts."

Bugsy you purport character, attitudes and wisdom have no reality. So they are not real - try operating without consideration of them. Certainly not human! These are spirit realities, just because you cannot examine them under a microscope does not mean they do not exist. It is in this sphere that spiritual reality is expressed.

I ask do they exist? Do you have thoughts? Do you really have human experiences other than what you see and digest? Are the ideas essential to the human experience? Are they the essential reality of the human experience; or are you just an organic blob of predetermined and deteriating chemicals?
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 2:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where you go wrong here is that you are chasing ghosts Philo.

I will borrow from Robert Pirsig here for an example: While gravity may have already existed before Newton devised the Law of Gravity, the Law of Gravity itself did not exist. It is a ghost, an abstract, it has no physical reality.

Now, personality and character and wisdom etc are basically aspects of information exchange, they don't exist in some higher form or plane of existence. They are ghosts, concepts used to describe the process of information transferral, processing and decision making in our own brains. They are what are called emergent phenomena. Emergent phenomena arise to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts through information processing. Consider the computer, would you say that its software and functions exist in some higher plane of reality or that its basically just a collection of deteriorating chemicals? If you really think about it, neither is true and the dichotomy you propose is ridiculous.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 3:16:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie "If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm" - What I am saying here is in context of the claim of god or a perfect supernatural entity. If god existed and was perfect then the system he requires would make it impossible for mistake or deviance.

Take deviancy for example. Harm in the name of jesus is not deviancy as far as practitioners of the cult of Christ are concerned. Nor are terrorists in Islam. Yes they are criticised by individuals but they dont risk rejection by either dogma or god.

Road laws are good and it is impossible for road laws to cause harm. All accidents creating harm are products of deviancy not the road laws. We drive on the left hand side of the road in full knowledge we will not have a head on collision with a driver who is driving within the requirements of road laws. If a driver deviates the driver if caught will lose their licence. A deviant driver faces rejection for deviation.

Many Christians would possibly argue that police are not everywhere , deviant drivers can argue in court ect but road laws are not god, are not supernatural and not magic as is neccesary for a god to be. God is supposed to be everywhere and the occult fairytale of the bible is supposed to be inspired by god. If god existed and was good and the bible were good like road legislation then deviancy would cease to exist. By good I mean it actually worked well. Trouble is Christians want it both ways talk the talk but not walk the walk, yet spiritually it makes not the slightest bit of difference. On what premise do they truley expect to be taken seriously? "If religion was good then it would be impossible for it to cause harm".
Posted by West, Thursday, 29 March 2007 1:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy you do prove you don't really exist, only the chemicals of your body exist. Obviously that is the only reality you know. Then stop trying to prove you don't have a quality of life outside the chemistry of your own body. Your world-view is just a fantasy it has no reality it does not affect anyone else outside of your body, you believe – so stop writing. Your ideas have no chemistry to be analysed - they do not exist. Just follow your own conclusions about reality.

For me the real identifiable you are not merely the organic chemistry of your body, or the things you possess. These things do not impress me! You are the imprint you make in society, revelation, education and relationships. These are the things others recognise about you. These things you are legally and morally held accountable for – your behaviour, your attitudes, and your effect on having lived as a man – are the actual person (soul). Since human life existed man has been making that accountable imprint, and it is on that imprint we are worthily congratulated or condemned not because you had a good specimen of a body.

Only these impressions can be identified and argued as really you. Your body is merely borrowed from the chemistry of the Universe and it is through that medium that you – the real you – is expressed. Of course you believe you are merely a blob of cellulous structures, evolving into non-designed no purpose nothingness – that all your reality happens in the chemistry of your own body. Be enlightened about life!

Computers have no purpose for being other than to assist information exchange. It is the information exchange for the purpose of enlightenment of attitude and action that makes the reality of the computer important. You argue the body is the only reality. I argue the body has no purpose other than to express the character, attitudes, actions, wisdom and revelation of the person. A deaf, dumb, blind paraplegic cannot express who they really are; nevertheless they are more than their body.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 29 March 2007 1:56:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure Philo, the information patterns that make you up and manifest themselves as you may be what a soul is, I don't disagree with that.

But what happens when you "cease to be"? Many Christians would argue that your soul continues to exist, just somewhere else. This implies that is has a physical being of some sort. Information cannot exist entirely by itself, it needs a medium, just as you said our bodies are our mediums. But when you die, the only information that is left are just memories from other people and the things that were created while you existed. The actual information that comprises you, is gone. Non-existent. The disk is wiped.

If you think that there is another plane of existence where it goes to, that is where we differ.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 29 March 2007 3:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West:
"Harm in the name of jesus is not deviancy as far as practitioners of the cult of Christ are concerned"
From my knowledge of this, the message of Christ was not one of harm but one of peace, and those that harm in the name of Jesus would be guilty of blasphemy.
But I'm not about to jump fully into the Christian corner as i do not consider it to be a perfect religion either. As a doctrine, I believe it has produced more good than harm in our world overall, but it has definately fallen short of ridding the world of wars, injustice and inequality, if that is what it was hoping to achieve. I would definately not say that it causes more of these conditions, as you are claiming insistently. But i would admit that it is easily corruptable and manipulated in the hands of wicked-minded and foolhardy individuals, which can give it the apparency of being a "bad" religion.
As for God, well i opine that He would probably view the religious institutions of man as "much of a muchness".
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 29 March 2007 3:25:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie this is the difference between our opinions. I am saying the harm created by Christianity is not corruption of the “spirit” of Christianity as persecution and exclusionism is central to Christian nature. I will even go as far as saying the character of Jesus in the new testament is exclusionary and thus immoral and as the Christian mind through the belief of the bible – believe - in salvation that excludes non adherents to occult superstitions and rituals that makes the foundation of their beliefs persecutory.

As far as harm is concerned I don’t confine the definition to wars and waves of violence that the belief in the phantasmagoria of religion creates. I include the destruction of families which is a major problem especially with new age cults such as Pentecostals and evangelical movements. Harm is also in the corruption of politicians which let their beliefs in god interfere with democracy. Attempts to ban abortion is a good example of this sort of harm , banning gay marriage another. Other harms is in the organisation of social levels where we no longer see people as people valued by the arbitrary invention of morality which itself became into existence to give the believer a belief he is morally superior.

Bugsy , Philo makes the same mistake as most god apoligists. He is claiming in his rhetoric that the soul is an immortal magic entity with its own consciousness and somehow its kryptonite is the deviation of social rules and norms called morality and occult laws of the bible.

Yet when it comes to explaining it Philo discredits the soul by explaining something completely different , an atomic based structure to try and give it a little semblance of reality, but it was not what he claimed in the first place.
Posted by West, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:26:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,
"I will even go as far as saying the character of Jesus in the new testament is exclusionary and thus immoral"
I think you'd have to provide sufficient bible evidence to support that claim (without slanting either).

"Christian mind through the belief of the bible – believe - in salvation that excludes non adherents to occult superstitions and rituals"
Quite false actually, the Christian doctrine is that anyone can be "saved". It's not exclusive. It does require an effort on the individual to "repent" and live up to certain moral standards, which may be difficult for some, but they are not exclusionary. Superstitions and rituals are generally superfluous.

As for your claims of social harm, i think you'll find that views and voices on these various issues you mention are as widespread amongst the Christian denominations as they are in the general body politic. I reckon you need to start being more specific with your attacks rather than blaming "the whole bloody lot of 'em".
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 30 March 2007 12:42:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie what do Christians believe happen to non-believers in the afterlife? This influences their treatment of 'others' in the real world.
Posted by West, Friday, 30 March 2007 1:48:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Granted. However, the treatment of "others" based on this belief can fall either way.
One might take on the holier-than-thou, "i am saved but everyone else can go to hell" attitude which is exclusive.
Another might take on the "spread the word so that all my friends can join me in heaven" attitude which is inclusive.
So the difference in treatment lies not with the belief itself, but rather with what the individual chooses to do about it.
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 30 March 2007 3:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I actually find the second type the most irritating and offended when their "help" is refused or told that it won't be necessary. I wonder if that what makes the first type?
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 30 March 2007 5:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West and Donnie,

"Harm in the name of Jesus is not deviancy as far as practitioners of the cult of Christ are concerned"

The Jesus Cults of the first century were household affairs. There were stories and levels of (Jewish) exclusivity. There was Christian civil disobedience [not willing to pray for the safety of the Emperor], loutish [before baptism behaviour and reinactment of cannabalism, placed them at odds with the Pagans [The word Pagan is related to our notion of civil).

These early believers were somewhat on the back foot socially. Anti-social athiests to the rational Roman. No wonder these people were scapegoat of first choice for Nero.

The "harm" [to others] bit comes, I suggest, after Cult(s)tranmutes to become a Denomination, under the latter Emperors. The cults faded into history, and, politics and the established Church, then gave us the horrors of Christianity, and, the millions upon millions of deaths wrought in the name of some itinerant holy man. The [real] Man fell from the stage, and, the substitionary spin has been well spun,to become the Western and Orthodox Christian churches.

In sum, Jesus is only the skeleton, around which, others have built the Christian denominations. The Christians were in the first instance seen as antisocial, readily making them a easy target for the superstitious Romans, when Nero et al., needed to deflect civil anger. The instutionalised Christian church(es)is what became harmful, but, it was a different entity to the original cults.

Philo,

Do high social mammals have souls, in your view? Whales, chimps and dogs are sentient, social, have a sense of self and recognise and others. If high mammals do have souls, why does god punish them, via nature? If not, why must we? Why can't West be correct in alluding to we being an electro-chemical cocktail, to which, I would add, being constantly modified by culture, within ecology. [We are, because we are, Philo.]

What about ameoba? Does a soul need an intelligent host? Why? Why not?

In the interim, I posit Soul does exist. It is form of popular music. :-
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 30 March 2007 7:42:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
All thinking forms of life have a soul. They make choices that affect other living beings. Choices define the being. Intellectual choices are not merely chemical. Trees have a body of organic chemistry determined by the environment over which they have no intellectual choice. They do not posess the capacity of choice.

What remains eternal are the principles of relationship that reflect the pure character of God. All matter is constantly changing - however we express more than what is determined by the matter of our chemistry. God is eternal, and the character that reflects God in truth remain in Him. While you continue to look for physical beings in the after life there are none. God is spirit not a dimentional being. The spirit afterlife we inhabit is the nature and character of the spirit we live in now. It is a corporate character and attitude a unity, not a diversity of beings (spirit beings).
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 1 April 2007 1:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where did you get that information from Philo?
Posted by West, Sunday, 1 April 2007 2:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Soul: Is your posit, the soul is closer to the concept of psyche, rather than something ethereal? Herein, the soul would subject to conditioning, in the same way behaviour is in general?. If so, this would run against the grain of free will. Those in ecology A. will act differently to those in ecology B., having developed different capacities towards independent action (choice). Something super-added and derived from biological function and cultural engagement, such as, personality, as mentioned by West.

A neonate has little or no intellectual capacity beyond recognising sensory tableaux (Piaget). An adult chimp would be much smarter and better equipped to make choices. You have answered the question: Does a chimp have a sould [yes?]. What about the infant?

Nature: Assuming you mean "pure" in a favourable way, in reference to God, why is it, nature is so savage? Is there not some inconsistency, here?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 1 April 2007 4:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Re-read your post:

" The spirit afterlife we inhabit is the nature and character of the spirit we live in now."

-- Temporal and Ethereal?

" It is a corporate character and attitude a unity, not a diversity of beings (spirit beings)."

-- Please explain. A homogeneity of spirit in the after-life, in collective unity, rather than individuals? A compound not a mixture?
Is the source concept the Bible, Philosophy or Theological interpretation, other?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 1 April 2007 6:55:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

You are correct to think that I don't understand what a soul is. I also don't understand crystal healing, pyramid power or why aliens haven't made themselves known to us. But that's ok, I am sure it's my own fault.
But at least we can probably agree on one thing, a foetus would not have a soul, because it is neither a thinking being nor able to exercise choice. I wish the rest of Christianity could see it too.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 1 April 2007 7:24:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy [and Philo],

I looked back on a few posts between Philo and yourself. I gained the impression Philo sees the body as a conduit for the soul. Philo I have noted before has, I think, strong OT leanings. Herein, I note, after some quick research "soul" is indicated by the words nephesh and psuche. From Genesis, I gained the impression it is the breath of live that makes inanimate, animate. Moreover, as we shift,to the NT, the Christian proposition of the Body and Blood of Christ, could be extended to the death of psuche (soul) of their god. That is, with the alledged Ascension, Jesus lost His [human] soul. It died.

Note the above account is different account of Soul, as in the Mind and Body, in Attic Greece:

While Paul nee. Saul (ahem) Hellenised scripture; in Roman territories, the esoteric Greek philosophies had declined significantly by the time Julius Caesar and Cicero. The Christian claimed substitutionary random of Jesus, occured about eighty afterwards, and, the Gospels written 40-90 years latter still. [Albeit, some claim a Quelle document can be regressed/composited, maybe a generation before.]

Perhaps, taking the Hebrew perspective, the Soul has a anthromophic phase, that stage, it lives and dies, with the body of all living things. If so, what goes to the Christian heaven?

An alternative hypothesis for life is that replicative properties in inorganic substances [eg crystals] can transmute to become become organic replicative substances [amino acids/DNA] [See Dawkins].
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 12:27:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A computer in a robot could be given emotions, all is needed is software to tell the computer it feels certain things. Love - a sense of excitement with a higher temeperature and pressure in the designated chest, and a lower focus quality of optical hardware. Hate - a sense of hostility and urgency with a higher temperature in the designated head with a microscopic focus to optical hardware and more energy fed to hydraulics. Compassion, enjoyment, annoyance, shyness, extraversion, frustration ect. All else is needed is recognition software and sensors to transmit data it picks up from the environment and programs to react to schemas. With the complexity of data coming in the robot will dream, imagine , form ideas as it would be doing what we do, probably confuse its feelings with a soul and feel there is a higher power.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 10:05:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The computer/robot comparison to man is problematic.
Robots and computers need to be built, programmed and operated.
Even if totally automated, they still need to be built and programmed at some stage. There is no avoiding this fact.
It raises the question that if our bodies are robots and our brains are computers, who or what built, programmed and/or operates them?
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 11:58:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It raises the question that if our bodies are robots and our brains are computers, who or what built, programmed and/or operates them?"

-- Nature and Nurture. Genes and the Environment. Not all programmes survive. Fundamental genetic material [genes] can have greater longevity than chromosomes. Computer programmes can work like this too. A job control language can execute severel different languages and produce temporary work files but also carry some [not all] values [fields/records] across routines. I think when we are better able to understand the relationship between geology [geothetmics?] and primitive biology, we might understand, "what"?. Personality within families and communities, embedded in culture responding to the environment conditions, promotes/eliminates and programs and de-programs. These posits, which can studied and tested for validity, realiability and falisification.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 12:29:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not a question of who.
Humans are a product of nature like an island lagoon. An island lagoon is created by the uplift of tectonic plates and the erosive power of waves and rain. We dont ask because we can build a marina then 'who' built the island lagoon? Or because we make light bulbs then who built the sun? Or we write Tv screen plays so who wrote the story of our lives? Asking who is like saying the moon is round , basket balls are round, spalding make basket balls therefore Spalding made the moon.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 3:21:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Though confidently stated, this answer is still not necessarily a finality. Nature can be considered a system, nurture a function, genes may be a program, and well the environment would be an environment.
The computing world includes authors, if it is to be analogous to the natural world the possibility of authors would exist there also.
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 3:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Careful there Donnie, you might actually expose the fact that all analogies break down under close inspection and should only be used to make a point. Which is exactly how they were used, they should not be extended to try and support an absurdist argument.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 4:22:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

Thanks for your post.

In 1615, when Harvey realised the heart is a "pump" aiding the circulatory system, it was soon after human technicians invented the mechanic pump. The mechanic pump, authored, if you wish, was template for the "discovery of", not the evolution, of the heart. Although, the heart is the more complex, it is a product of circumstance; whereas, the mechanical pump,is a deliberate,"imitative" consequence applying human cognition. Humbling, is it not? Even a weak anthropromophic principle [non-human human-like authorship] need not apply to the heart's development of time.

Philo,

Did I represent you fairly, regarding the soul and your [assumed] penchant towards the OT? Shifting to the NT, did Jesus loose his human soul when he died? Relatedly, did Jesus commit suicide? What is the consequence of suicide on a soul, if any
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 11:12:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie I disagree but after considering it you pose something interesting. Robots , computers, marina's and basket balls are man made. Who made the spalding basket ball? Humans did. Everything preplanned , designed then constructed was done so by man (not withstanding birds nests, beaver dams, ect). The claim of god says of god that god mimmics man. Man designs so god designs the way man does. Man lives in spatial existence , so god lives in spatial existence. Man has laws, gods laws mimicks mans laws. Man constructs values , gods values mimick mans values. Man is on Earth , god focuses on earth where man is. Gods require the worship of man. Who made us? Who made the moon ? Who? questions can only lead to one conclusion = Man is god. This so because the only thing in existence which does everything a god is supposed to do is mankind.This question of who leads directly back to god being the ego.

On a technological note it is often said that the imaginings of science fiction lead to future advances. Moon landings , air craft, big brother ect. There is a wiff of evidence here that through the spititual imaginings of history God is being created for real as man is becoming god. Theology is the pasts science fiction. Theoretically in the distant future for instance humans could be created through genetics, be ressurected through genetics and nano technology and even become immortal through bio-renewal. Perhaps the authors of the new testament and scriptures of other religions are the Jules Vernes of the past.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 11:43:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, i'm not 100% sure what you are saying. I think if an analogy breaks down then the point it is meant to support falls along with it.

Oliver, your welcome. You may very well be correct, but you do illustrate one of the main points i guess i am trying to make in this discussion:
"the heart is the more complex, it is a product of circumstance".
"Product of circumstance". This is the article of faith of the materialist. Just as some have conviction in authorship. It is this question of fluke or authorship, remaining unestablished, that when one affirms a position they close one eye and cease to search for truth but instead seek only confirmation.

West, quite a good post, interesting spin.
Only again with the ego. Maybe you can define it for me? All i know is it's an unscientific term. The main references on it are either Freud's abstract theory on the structure of the mind or the spritualist or Buddhist concept.
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 12:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Donnie, let me explain. As an example lets look at a big flat rock and a wooden chair. Now, a rock can be analogous to a chair because you can sit on them both, while having lunch or whatever. You can move them about etc. the similarities are indeed many fold, but the point has been made about how both can serve the same purpose and share some properties. However, if you take the position that a rock is just like a chair in that a person made it, you would be mistaken. This is because a rock is not a chair. They do not share the same origins, and general similarities in their origins cannot be inferred by similarities in a limited subset of their properties. A rock may be used as a chair, but a chair cannot necessarily be used as a rock.

A computer can used an an example of an emergent phenomenon, of how a whole thing can be greater than the sum of its parts. It can even be used as an analogy to describe how "programs" can interact with each other to produce decision making and behaviours etc in processes of information exchange. Indeed the similarities can be many fold. But it isn't a human, nor even biological, and inferences on the origins of both (ie both having a "creator" or "author") are stupid because the analogy was taken too far.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 1:43:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, that's a little too close to doublethink for my liking.
It's like saying "I can use this analogy to argue my point, but you can't use it to refute my point".

If you are using the "computing world" as an analogy in a debate about the possibility of authorship and/or superintendence (eg. gods and/or souls) in the natural world, and using it, i might add, to support a claim that there is NO such authorship or superintendence in the natural world, then you cannot ignore or exclude the fact that authorship and superintendence - in the form of human mind agents - is EXTREMELY prevalent and possibly inseparable in the computing world.
Therefore, either the computing world analogy is actually not analogous to the natural world at all OR it really lends itself more to the claim that there is or might be authorship and/or superintendence in the natural world.

Furthermore, you along with some other posters here are blatantly begging the question by presupposing that there is only physical existance and then arguing on this premise towards the identical conclusion.
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 4:06:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

Not "Faith", rather a commitment towards a proposition, that needs to validated be confirms and tested for falsifiability. Faith is more to do with a priori position, "indwelling" [worship] in an experience and seeking out verifications [as with some Marx and Freud, in Popper].

Science is a methodology which makes tentative posits and constantly challenges [except the pride of some individuals, perhaps]the status quo.

In earlier theads, I have mentioned Church/Temple/Mosque is about experiencing worshiping and affirmation, not knowledge exchange.

Donnie, in the RCC, how often have seen a parshioner stand-up and debate the priest? Yet, as university lecturer, I have had students challenge me.

What would happen were you to ask/call out in the middle of a Easter sermon, Did Jesus commit suicide? Alernatively, in Management lecture what, if I were state that Sales Volume is a poor dependent variable to measure as a scale? The former has solidified its answer. The latter, is open to attack.

That begs the question who provided the answers, in the first place, well councils from Ur to Luxor, from Luxor to Nicaea, and, from Nicaea to Vatican II and beyond. The Kernels are politics, poor and control and priesthoods,leveraging ignorance and overlordship. Even Abarlard and Lurther saw it, but, did not achieve escape velocity. Today, suspect, these guys would have been Sagans and Dawkinses.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 4:56:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

If you cannot see how using an anaolgy to illustrate a principle, and should only be used as illustration, is different to extending that analogy to form the BASIS of an argument, then good luck in Logic 101.

We (at least I) have only used the computer analogy to illustrate how information processing can work and be more than just a pile of parts of metal and silicon. But thats where it ends. You on the other hand have used it as the basis of an inferential argument, ie, that if we are like computers then we must also have creators like them. But we are not computers, we are not digital, and we have not stated that we were, and so your inference breaks down, as all analogies must under critical scrutiny. After all, they are only illustrations of principle with a very limited applicability.

If you want to argue that an analogy must hold up under all circumstances, then thats stupid. Observe:

Smart guy: "A brain is like a computer, in that it processes information"
Idiot: "oh, so it's made of silicon and metal and microchips and stuff?"
Smart guy: "No"
Idiot: "So, it needs to be rebooted and needs to be defragmented after long periods of use? Needs constant updating of software? Can have its memory replaced?"
Smart guy: "No"
Idiot: "Then how can you say it is like a computer? It's not like a computer at all."
Smart guy: "Moron"
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 5:46:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie ego as in the self, self perception and the bias the perception of self creates in the intellectual analysis the brain conducts of the outside world.

I use ego because it is a noun and selfishness doesnt really fit all that ego implies.
Posted by West, Thursday, 5 April 2007 12:51:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
At the death of Jesus his body no longer expressed his soul till he was resurrected. As I have said the body is the medium through which the soul is expressed. It was not till his ascension when he had completely left a natural chemical body.

Focus on the body does not the give adequate recoginition of the true person. The true person is the expression of the life lived. Death as is life are beautiful demonstrations of the creativity of our designer (Eccl 3: 2). Wether we are 19 or 90 our bodies have changed by decay and renewal but our soul is still "me". The very cells of our bodies have completely changed every seven years.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 5 April 2007 11:30:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Thanks.

So you are saying that the Body of Jesus lived for 33 years [renewal of cells aside]? Herein, his soul existed before and now exists after his death? The Body a conduit? The souil, lightning through a lightning rod? Please confirm or refute or correct from your perspective.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 5 April 2007 11:56:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
"Science is a methodology which makes tentative posits and constantly challenges ... the status quo."
Could not agree more, which is why i say it is also foolish not to constantly challenge materialist insistency.

Bugsy,
I understand what you are saying and if I had made that blunder i'd recant, however if you look back over my posts you'll find i was only raising a question about the computer-robot analogy, not making an argument FOR authorship but merely showing that this analogy - when used to assert a materialist viewpoint - is problematic. That's all. Oliver followed this up well with his nature and nurture posit but i argue that this still does not verify physical monism.
I don't deny the existance of emergent phenomena and if that is all the computing analogy is employed to show and not as evidence for absolute materialism, then fine, although it seems slightly irrelevant in that case.

My position with regards to this debate has generally been one of negation: challenging the steadfast materialist attitude (which i see as akin to the zeal of many religionists) and thus leaving open the *possibility* of authorship and/or superintendence.
The established religions of the world might all have it wrong and may be a liability to man, but this does not mean that materialists wield the truth nor does it mean that a dualist (or other) metaphysical reality is not a possibility. That's my arguement in a nutshell. Which is why i also argue that belief in God or non-material existance is not irrational or primitive, and religious pursuits are not necessarily pointless.
I find that many dig in on the materialist stronghold in reaction to the often unreasonable and annoying insistence of the religious vanguard. I think this response is likewise unreasonable.

West, thanks. It is the underlying question of what is this self or ego that is debatable. I don't entertain that we'll solve it all here and now on OLO seeing as it has been a mystery to man for several millennia (or longer?), but it is fun to argue anyway :).
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 5 April 2007 1:16:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

The computer-man analogy is only problematic when it is used as you have. I can only wonder how this error occurred and can only come up with 2 explanations: 1) You did not truly understand what was being said 2) It was a deliberate misuse of the analogy in order to refute a materialist point of view.

Examples that illustrate a point, but are not directly used as evidence to support it are not "slightly irrelevant".

From your last post I can summarise the whole argument (in a nutshell), to paraphrase:" I don't know what it is exactly we are arguing about, but I know that you are likely to be wrong, because my belief in God and non-material realities is not irrational.

Irrational isn't a word I personally would use to describe a belief in God, a Type II error would be a better description. Type II errors tend to continue to be made since no conclusions are drawn from them. A better question to start arguing is "what is the origin of a belief in God (or soul or whatever)?" Why, exactly, do people believe? There is a materialist and evolutionary answer which is testable, and a non-material objectively untestable one. From a logical/philosophical point of view, one is much stronger than the other. And yet humans still insist on the weaker explanation, for subjective reasons and reasoning.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 5 April 2007 2:13:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not arguing a pro materialist existence. The material or physical universe exists, it surrounds us , we are part of it, you percieve it , pinch yourself you are not dreaming.

I am arguing to say god or soul exists is completely baseless conjecture, Pure fantasy , castles in the air, delusion, fallacy, myth, deceit,artifice, is fraudulent, lies , phantasma, artificial, a mistake, wrong, a mis understanding, ignorance, denial, miscalculation, misread, misconstruement , mis conceived, ill concieved, innaccuracy , error. Because god as is soul is constructed from preferences of the self. Hence dowy eyed Baby Jesus snuggly in the manger has the pull of a kitten, homoerotic teutonic crucified jesus sprawled across the canvas and blood thirsty commander general God serving emporer Constantine. God answers Billies Prayers at passing the exam while Sudanese children starve. God answers Guys Sebastians prayers and wins a trashy tv competition while single mum dies of breast cancer.God always backs the winner and abandons the loser. How strange!! it is like he is not even there.

God and soul is the self, nobody has seperated the self from the claim of god and soul. as far as the magic or occult qualities of god or soul , they are baseless conjecture.

To Philo , please explain why a single galah in a random flock of galahs is not in purest fact your soul? Explain why an empty Jar in the back of a cupboard is not in purest fact God? Seems to me by all argument god and soul is anythin anybody says it is.
Posted by West, Thursday, 5 April 2007 3:59:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,
You introduced the computer-man analogy to support your own materialist views, and it appears you are placing unrealistic confinements on the analogy in order for it to suit your argument alone. I have *questioned* the USE of the analogy in the context of the debate and the confinements you impose and the moment i do you cry foul. I will not claim that the analogy only supports a non-materialist argument, but i do claim that it does NOT support only your materialistic one. I stand by the validity of this.

"Examples that illustrate a point, but are not directly used as evidence to support it are not "slightly irrelevant"."
I said it would be slightly irrelevant to raise an analogy about the existance of emergent phenomena IF it did not serve to either support or counter the existance of authorship or superintendence in the natural world because that is mainly what this whole discussion is about (or to use some more contentious terms - "gods" and "souls").
But you did use the analogy to argue a materialist viewpoint so the analogy WAS relevant, but as i've stated previously it does not really lend well to the materialist viewpoint.

My posts do not require paraphrasing as they are clear in their meaning as they stand. If you do require rewording just say so and i'll be glad to post it another way (but probably not for another 24 hours, or more - thank God for Easter ;)). Making up words that i didn't write can easily alter my intended meaning and will lead you into arguing against your own version of my views instead of my actual views. I generally ignore this tactic. I do not have a problem if you disagree with my as stated views or even with the logic of my arguments.

Now Getting back to topic again, What "materialist and evolutionary answer which is testable" are you talking about with regards to the origin of a belief in God, or reasons people believe?
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 5 April 2007 5:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Analogies are generally used as a clarification as to how an abstract idea works. I guess in this case it was a bad example because didn't make things clearer, it was altered and used to illustrate a different point to the one being made, and so became "problematic".

The materialist and evolutionary explanation of why people believe in God has more than one explanation, but I will present only one aspect for brevity. People believe in justice and fairness because it is an evolutionary trait necessary for even the most primitive social structures, this has been demonstrated in chimpanzees. In more complex social structures, civilisation if you will, this leads to a belief that "good" people (those who obey the law, morals etc) have some higher reward than the "bad" people who use others for personal gain. Generally, in smaller groups, being bad carries its own drawbacks, but in larger groups (ie cities and nations) being "bad" can be rewarding because those people can be essentially anonymous. Social evolution acts as it becomes necessary to convince people of a higher "being" (or power or whatever) that keeps a watch over them. A universal policeman if you will. One that deals out ultimate rewards and punishments. A form of social control that is necessary of any large "nation" or civilistaion is to exist. And its self perpetuating.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 5 April 2007 6:43:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"... which is why i say it is also foolish not to constantly challenge materialist insistency." - Donnie

True, methinks, my good Donnie. But one must are articulate the inconsistency and preferably posit a solution that does not contain the same inconsistencies: vis~a~vis Newtown vs. Einstein, Durac vs. Einstein. The Newtonian mechanical world is true, within the limits of the more everyday referential frame. In QM, Phase Space and Singualarities, it [our apparent world existence] breaks-down. However, I see nothing mystical about this.

We are here, otherwise we would not be. Else, under conditions were cannot be, we are not.

Philo,

1. West and I been trying to gain traction on your concept of the "soul". Perhaps, if you were to provide four adjectives and nouns at or proximal to your understanding of this construct. Thanks.

2. Did Jesus have a soul before his human incarnation and after the third day into perpetuity? What created that soul?

3. If god has a soul. Was it god or god's soul that had the first thought?

4. Why is the insect world so cruel, if god is all good? [repeated question]

5. Do you feel that Roman Empire [gentile emperors] usurped Jesus as an exclusive messanger to the Chosen People? If you had a time machine, would have you been opposed to the traditional Jews, but seen Jesus as a Jewish persons Messiah? That is, you would recognise Christ as an extension of the OT, but felt less comfortable about Paul generalising the gift
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 8 April 2007 3:38:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

If you have not read Lawrence Kohlberg on Morality already you might find him interesting. I think the human-god relationship, in history, would based on reward and punishment would sit better with the OT gods. Law and order would be subsequent modifications. While a few [post-conventional]individuals might exist/existed [as noted by Maslow, via, self-actualisation]. Herein, I think hard to conceive on a a self-actualised society. The dark side of multi-sided civiliational organizational principles [race, politics, religion, wealth] breed war, crime, stagnation and conflict.

Also, I think "Followership" the flip-side of "Leadership", is dangerous, because it can build the mindless suspension of thought
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 8 April 2007 3:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we scale everything back to the sub atomic level then everything is material otherwise it does not exist.

Regressively as something is devolved to understand it it no longer the sum of something else. An ash broken down to carbon and sodium is no longer smoke, no longer wood , no longer a tree, no longer soil. Ash is neither soul or spirit of a tree, that history is extinct.

There is no alternative to the material.
Posted by West, Sunday, 8 April 2007 4:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,
What is light? Please explan its sub-atomic structure.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 9 April 2007 12:18:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

Out of curiousity...

Suppose a piece of hot iron rod gradually loses it's heat energy in a vacuum (in space)

Is it not correct to say the iron is losing something, (in this case heat energy)?

But yet the iron is not losing any material. It's weight and atom count remain unchanged.

How would you account for existence of such a "thing" (eg. lost heat). Is it possible to quantify in a physical, material sense?
Posted by GZ Tan, Monday, 9 April 2007 1:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
A 1.The fact that life has expression that's non-material doesn't make it fantacy, a deception as West maintains. Character, attitudes, motivations to behaviour, wisdom, understanding are as real as matter. It's these things that are spiritual and expression of soul (the real person).
Q 1. concept of the "soul"?.
___________

A 2. The eternal character of God was expressed in the humanity of Jesus. The soul, ie chartacter, attitudes, behaviour of Jesus exactly expressed the eternal character of God. Jesus humanity gave him his human identity, his character (soul) identifying his nature as very God. Material Creation is the handiwork of God - the soul is the breath of God (to use the Hebrew idea) influenced by spiritual input into the person and their reactions and responses. The fact we still talk about and admire and promote the the very character, attitudes, behaviour of Jesus means he is still living in those that adopt his character, attitudes and behaviours.

Q 2. Jesus have a soul before incarnation and into perpetuity? _________________

A 3. You are still trying to identify a spacial concept of God and the soul by asking if God HAS a soul. God is not spatial he is spirit. Has-means-additional-posession-of; God is expressed through character, attitudes and motivations.Does-God-have-character-attitudes-motivations-YES!

Q 3.If god has a soul?
_________________

A 4. Life is dependent upon devouring other living forms. Something dies that others might live even if you are vegetarian. Death is a part of living.

Q 4. Why is the insect world so cruel?
___________________

A 5. Jesus as is God are not proud nationalists. Abraham was given a family mission to enlighten and bless all nations certainly not to establish an exclusive nationalist regime. God intended to bless all men with his forgivness and grace. Racial nationalism is not a part of his agenda. He merely called a family to a mission which they abandoned in the face of threats from opposing nations.

Q 5. Do you feel that Romans usurped Jesus as a Jewish persons Messiah? That is, you would recognise Christ as an extension of the OT.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 9 April 2007 1:22:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Heat and light are energy which is destroyed through entropy. Energy does not last for ever. While it exists it exists , once it is gone it is gone, there is no ghost light or ghost heat. That beside the 'material' I spoke of includes light / photon particles , radio waves, friction, pressure ect.

Light and natural invisible phenomena are irrelevant when discussing occult fairytale concepts of spirits and souls. The spirit or soul suggests a conscious entity. For it to be so it needs sensory systems. Witch doctors for centuries have been claiming bliss in heaven. Without a brain with what does a phantom feel bliss? Witch doctors have been claiming pain in hell. Without nerve endings what does a phantom/soul/spirit feel pain with? Without a brain how can it suffer? Some witch doctors even claim a new immortal body in an "afterlife" with the down loaded history of the previous brain. If so then the soul or spirit is nothing more than transmitted datum from transmitter to receiver. It would still not be the individual who died. Even looking past that a new body then makes the whole life exercise pointless when the immortal body could have been put into operation in the first place as it then looks bad for the creator who demonstrates amazing incompetence by the whole spirit saga.Everything religion promises is in death, yet like a bad conman it has nothing to back up its promises.
Posted by West, Monday, 9 April 2007 3:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

1. I will need to print-off your answers and have a think. Thank you. I do have a concept of the non-spatial and non-time. Similarly, in QM the notion of infintesimal applies. God performing "acts" is also problematic, if spirit is without spacetime. That idea, could lean towards the Greek posit of the Unmoved Mover? Tenses and action verbs do not apply.

2. If you are interested in partical physics [photons] and have access to university databases, I would recommend an article by Richard Nisious [CERN Accelerarator], "The Photon Structure from Deep Inelastic Electron-Photon Scattering in Physics Reports 332 (2000), pp. 165-317. 153 pages! It would be a challenge for West to succinctly describe the phenomena [plural], owing to differences in states. Also, one should regard this aspect partical physics as work-in-progress
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 9 April 2007 5:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

I totally disagree with your comment that, "Heat and light are energy which is destroyed through entropy. Energy does not last for ever. While it exists it exists , once it is gone it is gone"

The law of conservation tells us energy (which includes light and heat) is never destroyed, but does last forever, albeit in different forms from time to time.

This phenomenon known as entropy merely causes an energy to be "un-usable".

I'm not debating the existence or otherwise of a spiritual God per se. I am curious scientifically first and foremost.

You argue that a spirit or soul suggests a conscious entity that requires a sensory systems (brain, nerve endings). In computer terms, I think such a sensory system is the computer hardware, whereas the "intelligence" embedded in such a sensory system is the software (programs).

Obviously such a model is far from explaining why human and other animals are different.

Do you have an explanation why human and other animals are different?

Or perhaps you believe all living things are exactly the same, once decomposed completely into basic elements?
Posted by GZ Tan, Monday, 9 April 2007 9:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZ if light or energy no longer exists as light or energy then they are in their post existence not light or energy. That is the point. It is like saying the mountain of iron was used to make nails so therefore the following nails are mountains. The same thing goes for a persons personality which some how is supposed to become a ghost/soul/spirit/phantom.

Yes each species of plants and animals are genetically different. Different genetic combinations mean different out comes. What is the difference between bread, tea cake , yeast buns , sponge cake, xmas pudding? Are they equal?

Although the soul is pure conjecture of fantasy to indulge in fantasy , given that the majority of human conceptions naturally abort due to a failure of construction. At certain stages of development many a fetus die with no heart or stomach or brain and some live and are born with out limbs or eyelids or ear drums. By the ghost believers rational then by nature people would be born without a soul. Explain the difference between you and a person who has no soul? Then you can tell us how you know you have a soul and others dont or alternatively why it is impossible to be born without one.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 3:59:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q: Why is the insect world so cruel? - Oliver

A: "Life is dependent upon devouring other living forms. Something dies that others might live even if you are vegetarian...." - Philo

Comment: My point is that this circumstance does not represent a merciful creation. How living bodies operate and the systems the a posited God are cruel. Contrarily, one can see an non-divine system or the system unfitting a loving god.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 5:35:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

1. Whether light may or may not exist as light forever is actually irrelevant. The crux of the matter is an energy exists forever, whether in the form of light or heat.
2. Light can indeed exists forever. Imagine a coherent light that shoots off into the space. Assuming this light beam NEVER enounters any influence from any physical object, it (should) theoretically travels forever as a beam of light.

Still, I gather above is irrelevant to this thread.

I do agree the existence of non-material "things" is no proof that soul or spirit may exist.

I suppose it may well be possible fetus may be borned with no spirit or soul. Perhaps such fetus can never survive, who knows? Do all mentally-disabled children have a spirit/soul? A dangerous moral question that I have no answer for.

However, I have problem accepting that "...the soul is pure conjecture of fantasy...", for the simple reason there is a gulf of difference between humans and non-humans, a difference that science simply cannot explain.

I think genetic differences are mere differences in software programs (in computer terms). The basic "hardware" may actually be identical between human and non-humans. Therefore, in genetic terms, humans and non-humans may be very much alike. In other words, genetic difference may not account for the gulf of difference between humans and non-humans.

I do suspect spirit/soul (or whatever you call it) fills that gap.

But perhaps it is fundamentally essential to first agree on this : "Humans are distinct from non-humans"

( I lack vocabulary to phrase this elegantly but you know what I mean).
Posted by GZ Tan, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 5:39:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZT,

"...gulf of difference between humans and non-humans, a difference that science simply cannot explain."

-- Neocortex.

[Moreover, the gulf between a bat and human, relates to the bat's impressive in-built radar. Wherein, a bat can fly [we can't ourselves]
around obstacles blind-folded. The gulf between a whale and human, includes the whale's ability to communicate [songs] over thousands of miles, because of its ability to utilise ultra-low frequency sound. A Chimp's muscles are seven times as efficent as ours. An alert dog can learn the sound of its guardian's car transmission [and approach]. A dolphin can hear in 3-D [I have used this example, before, but, think it imformative, now]. An albatross can fly in its sleep.]

--Yes, there are many big gaps between non-human animals and the human animal.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy can be viewed hand-in-hand with the Law of the Conservation of Charge [particle physics]. Positive and negative matter/energy mutually eliminate.

Philo,

Still working on the Soul. I had "the breath of god" [Hebrew] in mind when I mentioned a conduit [body]. That is, why asked about its existence before and after the "Life" of Jesus. The metaphor was life is a lighning rod.

If souls go to a non-dimensional place are they "all" unified into a singularity or remain distinct?
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 8:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

<< Humans are distinct from non-humans >>

What I actually meant as follow:

I regard humans distinct from non-humans in terms of things like intelligence, emotions and language (perhaps a few more attributes). Not because of difference in innate abilities and difference in physical form.

Say, if it is proven that bats exhibit high level of intelligence, emotions and language creativity then perhaps bats are in fact very human-like, even if they look completely different and have in-built radar that humans do not possess.

I suspect it is possible to model a non-human (any animal) completely whereas it is beyond our human ability to model ourselves, due to fundamental human traits (intelligence, emotions and language ability, etc...). This is partly what makes humans so distinct from non-humans.
Posted by GZ Tan, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 10:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GZ tan could you please explain how a 'soul' is not simply fantasy ?
Posted by West, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 9:10:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The soul is the expression of who you are, including the emotional, motivational and intellectual life demonstrating you are a living human as distinct from a soulless tree. The soul is you. Say it! "I am a living person. I am a soul". The soul of who you are departs the organic body at death. You have been a part of the eternal history of the universe. It is your life, your character, your attitudes your actions, your personal revelation that is much more relative to the universe than the chemistry of your body that will return to dust to form many other living organisms, which you already now contribute by excreation, exhaling and pirspiration.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 5:08:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The more relevant question West, is not is there such thing as a "soul", but rather are you or am i a "soul" or "spirit" or non-material entity or simply a combination of organic matter, chemicals, neurons, and what have you. Do you as you know yourself arise from the function of the body and the brain or is the function of such things subservient to you as an entity above this?
It becomes fantasy when you talk of soul in the third-person but when you consider it in terms of consciousness and the ability to think and reason it becomes a proposition that is more real.

Here's another interesting question to consider:
If a person dies but their body is still young and intact, and if the conditions that brought about death were removed, and the body was repaired of all damage and stimulated back to working order, would it stand to reason that the person would go on living again as they were prior to death?
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 5:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

Philo explained soul. But I tend to mix up spirit & soul (perhaps I don't care)

First, my problems with the concept of a supernatural everlasting soul/spirit :
1. God does not seem to show up. (Though I do accept God may choose not to do so)
2. soul/spirit of the deads never seem to manifest. (Though this can be explained away also)

Still, I believe soul/spirit is no fantasy:

1. Observations that humans are distinct from non-humans in very special ways suggest to me that humans possess something special. Call it soul/spirit if you may.

2. I do have an innate difficulty in believing that when we die, we are simply void. (You may rightly regard this a pure fantasy).

3. "Unfortunately" there are such things as religions that tell us spirit/soul is not a fantasy. I think you may only attribute a 50% chance that ALL religions are pure fantasies. So you are not winning here either.

4. Do you agree in fact science is unable to explain our existence? Creationism provides an explanation even if you disagree. Creationism is part of religions that tell us about spirit/soul. Unless science can explain life in a way that disproves religions, then spirit/soul is not a fantasy.

5. When I was little I played a Chinese version of "wiji board". We invited a "ghost" (through chantings) to move a little dish (with our fingers on it). That damn thing actually moved, and moved wildly at times. That we used to obtain answers to some questions. No matter how you explain away this supernatural phenomenon, I'm convinced that movement of our dish was NOT a result of pushing by our little fingers.

I suspect that "devils or satans" are more than happy to manifest themselves (even if God will not). But why is there apparently no "scientific research" into "devils or satans"?

Just then I quickly googled "wiji board" (for the FIRST time since I started surfing the Internet) and gee there are heaps on the web.

Perhaps some people do know a lot more.
Posted by GZ Tan, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 5:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

In the end, did some research and have much summarised an article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia on the Soul:

The soul subsists outside the human mind and body. It incorporates latent energies and ideas which are outside the mind but interact with consciousness, having free will and the ability to contact the mind. The continued existence of the soul after death is tethered to the spiritual “substantiality of the soul” after death.

Well now we have it. A three layer cake [soul: mind: body], which operates as of a spiritual realm, something like consciousness beyond the mind working through the individual [Jung would like this.], guiding us via the conscious mind and in “vegetative”
states (sleep), and is carried into the after-life, after death. [Where I think, Philo might add, the soul exists for eternity in a non-spatial, non-dimension?]

Sells and Philo,

[To Christians] The above would suggest the existence of the animated spiritual “through” the organic physical and the continuance of the substance of the former subsequent the demise of the latter.

If I can review nullifying perspectives to my perspectives. I find it hard to understand why religionists do not read material antagonistic to faith. It is good science specifically, and, makes good sense generically.

If one reads Middle Eastern history a few centuries either side of Augustinian Rome, it is clear why there was Jewish unrest and many Messiahs afoot. Likewise, gods and theocrasia studied from the view of cultural anthropology build sound perspectives… The dots are joined. The pieces come together. Fides quaerens intellectum [faith in search of understanding] is arresting methodologically.

One can’t see where one are wrong, based on an “I am right, stop,” as the primary premise. If we all thought like this, any Jesus could not have been a carpenter (carpentarius), becuase the wheel would not been invented.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 5:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The definition of a soul is a construction which serves to be a gap filler to try and make anomalies in the immortality/salvation/afterlife claim to appear possible. The fact still remains the foundation of the concept and belief in the soul is based on fantasy. Nobody has yet spoken factually about souls.

Souls are important because the soul is central into religion decieving the mentally vulnerable into becoming superstitiously paranoid about the afterlife, which is also occult conjecture based on fantasy.It is the economic bread and butter of organised religion. Without superstitious paranioa religion would have to depend on a god which is not there and so they will go extinct instead they depend on the money which allows them to exist. Money is the life blood of religion and the concept of soul is central to their advertising spin.

The probability a soul is likely to exist is the same probability Titan is populated by three headed English speaking mackerel. One could argue the possibility exists based on the existence of heads, fish and the English language but at the end of the day is there three headed English speaking mackerel on Titan and what is that claim based on. Certianly if there was it would be by pure luck of random guesses and not by knowledge such a claim was based upon?

If Titan was populated by whistling krill , no doubt the Titanese Mackeral claimant would swear black and blue this is what he meant.

Think about what you are suggesting. A soul based on absolutely no knowledge and what a soul does (saved, damned) without any shred of evidence for a soul in the first place. Clearly you make the soul up, certainly the soul is fantasy.
Posted by West, Thursday, 12 April 2007 11:04:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Think about what 'you' are suggesting." - West

Trust you address religionist Forum colleagues. I was merely stating what a major religionist source states on the topic, as some of the answers seemed to have not addressed your needs.

[The information provided was the generic thread. The Greeks broke the soul down to attributes and the Hebrews, breath [as Philo notes].

The religious soul seems to be a top-down concept [from spiritual to temporal]. Contrarily, the reptilian brain, base mammalian brain, the advanced neocortex is a bottom-up process [Evolution]. Eventually, self-consciouness becomes more separated from general consciousness.

A priest and a neuroscientist would approach any attempt to explain these "higher" sentient perceptions from different directions. Moreover, the religious former would hold his/her position without question, the scientific latter would test the proposition. As is always the case with Sells, the valid process of knowledge discovery [in my opinion]is compromised.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 12 April 2007 7:32:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sorry Oliver I was addressing the religionists here. My central question is really do soul believers know they do not make the connection between the soul and reality in their answers? Or are they just habitually jumping to conclusions based on personal preferences? It appears that the question about the soul is purposely avoided. Much of what is said of the soul and of god for that matter is crafted by theologians and delivered through sermons and tv evangilism. The question is is the source too purposely avoiding answering the question in order to decieve and control? Obviously when speaking of Christian and Islamic recruitment the answer is yes.

To the religionists- I would like to believe in the soul and in god , it would be great to not be responsible for ones self but I just cannot believe if the soul or god is not real. There is no question that without definite proof of both the religionist is making up both god and spirit. How is this different than proving the environment that caused the big bang? The big bang is not claiming social righteousness , authority or politically and socially interfereing with peoples lives and no scientist claims they are of the chosen people just because they carry out rituals paying homage to the big bang or claiming the big bang will create magic , judge , forgive or make up ridiculous social rules in order to look down upon others.
Posted by West, Friday, 13 April 2007 2:32:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West i think the problem is that you are looking for external proof. You are demanding others to prove to you that they, or you, are (or possess) a "soul" or that the soul in fact does exist.
I think you will find that most "religionists" will tell you something along the lines of "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" which means a) you have to find out for yourself and b) don't knock it until you try it.
This response is reasonable to one who is seeking answers for themselves. It would be unreasonable to one who already has a firm opinion on the matter and is seeking only to squash contrary beliefs.
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 13 April 2007 4:37:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

Moreover, "religionists" are "R"eligionists. Many tend to sit nested in a denomination within a religion with a broader belief in a god. Bible school/college might explore "Comparative Religions". Yet, the topic of discovering "which god?" is approached not as a cultural anthopologist would compare and contrast. Herein, with the latter approach one can identify histographic trends, map politicals and the actions of reference groups. This does not prove or disprove the existence of god, but it throws light on the invention of religions,
by humans.

West,

No problem. Just thought the views articulated in the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 13 April 2007 7:00:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The difference between soul and spirit is: all conscious animals exhibit a soulish life based in the primary senses. Only humans exhibit an extent of life in abstract thinking and reasoning. What we are demonstrating now here in reading and debate has spiritual dimensions of thought influence not capable in other living species. Spirit is expressed in character, attitudes and actions not governed merely by basic body appetites and functions. There is one character, attitude and demonstrated actions that we admire, most revere and would seek to emulate. West can identify the grace he expects in people but he cannot accept that character and attitude as God revealed incarnate.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 13 April 2007 8:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie should you take the word of a conman and try what ever he is trying to decieve you into believing? What is wrong with asking to see the merchandise before paying ? Why are religionists so afraid of proof? Why is talk of existence and truth so threatening to those who try and convince others that their personal belief in gods and souls is based on reality?
Why can god believers talk so much about nothing they can show evidence for?

How can a person claim god or soul without a shred of proof and thus has no knowledge of such a god or soul to offer yet claims immense knowledge anyway?

Philo my dog and the family of magpies that live here demonstrate all the things you claim the soul is. What actual proof of a soul have you based all you say on? If you cannot substantiate the existence of the soul then where are you getting all you claim to know about the soul from?
Posted by West, Friday, 13 April 2007 10:35:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Thank you for drawing those distinctions.

Apes can recognise their own reflection as themselves. Chimps can use symbols in sign language. Dolphins can herd human fisherman to train the humans, where to throw nets, for the dolphins' benefit [actions to occasion a future event].

Humans genernally are unable to appreciate full representational thought until around twelve years of age. A three year old would not understand metaphors or the math behind the operation of lever. It tests it can be demonstarted young children don't understand the Law of Volume.

My point is an adult chimp or adult dog is in many smarter than two year old human. Further, it is our neocortex that allow us to develop greater cognitive capacities. It has protected our species in the same as a shell protects a tortoise and has evolved to ensure the continuance of genes.

Just the same, cognitive awareness is not the same as intelligence. Ants act in an intelligent manner, but do they really plan war as would Alexander the Great?

Thus, some species have been selected for success on different bases, we, especially after three our four years of age, have cognition. But so do other animals to a lesser extent. Moreover, even non-cogitive [instinctual] intellectual can be genetically programmed in species.

Herein, neuroscience suggests sometimes under stress, fear, anger, we, humans, regress to upping the input from lower brain centres to dilute the operation of the neocortex. Issues to go with religion are posited to do with survival and after-life. Even Roman theorists suggested "religio" was related to management of "fear" by priesthoods, as the pagan (civil people) were superstitious.

I believe I am an animal. I believe humans are animals. If Jesus was the Son of Man, he was an animal. In this realm, I see of gifts a product of evolution. Moreover, other animals have other gifts. We preserve genes via different biological solutions.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 14 April 2007 3:55:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... cont.

So, would you say, when a troupe of chimps make war against rival chimps, knowing what they doing, that action represents soul and spirit. [higher social mammals have 'individual' character, plus in-group and out-group relationships] Whereas, warring ants are just soul, because these insects are operating by instinct? [ants are alive]

[Still not sure that we have included the loving god and cruel nature misfit.]

Philo, moreover, based on your recent comments are you saying about West's interpretions being incarnations of God, the an atheist could meet the benchmark of "deeds" [as opposed to faith. Luther?].

Thanks.

Regards,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 14 April 2007 7:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arianism is aliveandwell inthe mainstream church because very few people really understand the Nicene Creed. Three persons is clear enough but one'substance'is almost meaningless tothe western mind. It didnt mean much in 325CE either but itwasa good political outcome for Constantine. So, people are caught between their tacit adherence to trinitarian doctrine and their natural tendency to 'simple monotheism'. Arianism isthe almost inevitable consequence of this confused state and itis the prevailing condition of mainstream church members.
Arianism persists and isthe dominant position of practising Christians precisely because the Church is trinitarian and proclaims itas dogma rather than as metaphor. Properly understood as metaphor neither Arianism nor orthodox Trinitarianism would necessarily produce the dualism which afflicts the Church today.
Sells isquite wrong to say that Arianism produces dualism and Trinitarianism isthe solution. Dualism persists among Trinitarians and Arians alike.
The solution isnot to assert orthodoxy over heresy butrather to appreciate that Theology is metaphorical at its very core and not philosophical. Dualism isa product of philosophical thinking. It forms within Judaism in the post-exilic period under a range of external influences from Persia,Greece and so on.
The solution to dualism is not to persist with philosophical debate over the nature of God butto recover something of the Hebraic sense of the Divine. Hebrew language uses imagery and metahpor extensively and so is inherently religious rather than philosophical.
Contemporary thought is dominated by scientific thinking. We practise it at school,in our courts and in our politics and public debate. Scientific thinking is naturalistic and concrete and that is our accustomed way of thinking. Thinking concretely we also naturally listen concretely and literally. As Sells points out this prevents us from engaging metaphor and parable appropriately and prepares us for fundamentalism,be it fundamentalist atheism or fundamentalist religion.
Sells article follows fairly well the conventional justification of Trinitarian doctrine without bringing to bear modern developments in theology which might help him to remove his medieval eccliesiastic blinkers. He seems, himself, to walk a tight rope between orthodoxy and heresy. I suspect he is really a wonderful heretic just too timid to 'come out'.
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 16 April 2007 10:38:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West: "...should you take the word of a conman and try what ever he is trying to decieve you into believing?"
That depends on whether you know he is a conman or not. But even then you are left with the "Boy who cried wolf" possibility. I'd say it comes down to having trust in your own ability to judge the merit or truth of something.

"What is wrong with asking to see the merchandise before paying?"
Nothing. However experience cannot be previewed. A travel agent sells you the trip, not the experience.

"Why are religionists so afraid of proof?"
A bit of a generalisation i think - I wouldn't presume that they are all afraid of proof (by which i assume you mean "disproof"). But the ones that are afraid (of being disproved) would already be in doubt of their own beliefs anyway.

"Why is talk of existence and truth so threatening to those who try and convince others that their personal belief in gods and souls is based on reality?"
This is a confusing question. A person who talks about their beliefs in gods and souls IS talking about what they consider to be existence and truth. Why would they talk about it if they were threatened by it? Are you threatened about your materialistic beliefs?

"Why can god believers talk so much about nothing they can show evidence for?"
"How can a person claim god or soul without a shred of proof and thus has no knowledge of such a god or soul to offer yet claims immense knowledge anyway?"
Firstly, some consider subjective experience to be proof for their beliefs. Have you ever raved about a movie experience and encouraged someone to go and see it?
Secondly, lack of proof does not necessarily imply lack of knowledge, that is only your assumption.
Posted by Donnie, Monday, 16 April 2007 11:45:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie there lies the problem with the claims of god , I do trust in my own ability to judge the merit of truth in something and it is exactly what I am doing here. My ability judge the merit of what somebody is saying has not let me down in the past. I give all the benefit of the doubt but am not afraid to make the call a lie is a lie and god is a lie.

The credentials of a travel agent are based on the quality of service they provide, the claims of a travel agent should be tested by confirming with the destination services or the customer is taking a huge gamble. If god believers are to be represented symbolically as travel agents then clearly they are selling something that does not exist and yes are engaged in a con.

"Why are religionists so afraid of proof?" ok I guess they could be deceitful, what other explanations are there for them always avoiding relevant questions about their claims?

The truth is no god believer has proof of god/souls so all they say of god/souls follows not from proof but from fantasy. To face the truth a god believer has to admit the only grounds for their beliefs is fantasy and nothing more. That is what I mean when I say god believers are afraid of the truth.

Recommending a movie is nothing like the religious agenda. First of all I have never thought just because I enjoyed a movie then everybody else must be forced, manipulated , threatened , cajoled into seeing the movie and then has to enjoy it no matter if they like it or not. Secondly enjoying a movie has not led me ever into setting on an agenda of interfering with other peoples lives and thirdly I never have recommended a movie I have not only have never seen but didn’t even know if it was ever made or not.

Still all that we ever get from religionists is poor excuses and never direct answers about their claims.
Posted by West, Monday, 16 April 2007 12:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Sells is quite wrong to say that Arianism produces dualism and Trinitarianism isthe solution. Dualism persists among Trinitarians and Arians alike." - waterboy

Moreover, Sells being Sells, does not mention the other cults of Serapis, Ammon and Bel-Marduk developed a priestcraft, where there was no "head" temple. These quasi-divine teemple representations were representations with wide-spread altars were addressing the "unseen universal [pagan] trinity" [Wells]. In the second to fourth century, this lack of ranking holy places, familiar to ancients, supported development of a hierachical priestly [rather than pagan [civil] individual] polttheist religion.

So, rather than having Mecca more holy than other places, Popes are more holy than priests and priests lead a passive congregation. Think you get the picture.

Also, what is interesting is that Jesus' teaches are prophetic but the spin given to the Gospels post-fourth century is priestly. Sustitionary ransom would have made altar, sarafices and a conscecrated priesthood obsolete. But how can a Church recognise becoming the smile Chershire Cat.

Sells being Sells, side steps the Sebellianism, which was closer to monothesism, than the Trinitarian godhead. The former held the One God maintained many characteristics. It would seem that at Nicaea, a sort of pantheon when we are not having a pantheon won out, characteristic of the ancient mystery cults.

In Latter years [1054] the educated Greek church and the vulgar Latin Church split, because the theocrasically and linguistically ignorant Latins "themselves" added "Filioque" ["and from the Son"] to the Creed.

After Constintine Christians persecuted other religions to entrench e Christianity, the organised priesthood and the Trianitarian godhead. Civil (pagan) assembly was banned by the Christians and in 390 the great statute of Serapis was destroyed in [Taliban] fashion.

Gibbon notes that Galerius though a life-long tormentor of the Christians, nearing death allowed all to practise freedom of religion (331). Constantine, changed this: Only, the persectutors and the persectured swapped places.

The above is above History. I find it hard understand why Sells and religionists dismiss History. How can the rest of us take them seriously
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 16 April 2007 2:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, my point is that experience is subjective. It may be that the "merchandise" of religion is experience, just as when a person pays for a holiday they are buying an experience. If the person says "prove to me that i will enjoy my holiday" about all the travel agent can do is show the person that others have enjoyed the holiday and if they like such things then it's likely they will enjoy it too, but it still doesn't prove anything.

If you say prove to me that what your religion says is true, it might be a similar prospect, you may only realise its truth if you experience it... eg if you asked Buddha to prove to you that the state of nirvana exists, he would likely tell you to go sit under that tree and meditate for ten years. That may be the only proof there is. When you say "prove to me that souls exist and God exists", the answer of a theistic religion is okay follow this doctrine as outlined in this holy book and you will come to know your soul and come to know God or be in His presence or some such thing.

It might be all bunk and just a political method of controlling man "the animal", however you cannot really know this unless you travel the road yourself, even in spite of the history and the violence that obfuscate the matter. It is how religion is and perhaps always has been and possibly always will be. It's why faith enters in.
And if it is all a lie, and we do only exist in a physical monism, as objects of chance and natural selection, what matter is it to spend your one insignificant life chasing fantasies of immortality and gods?
Posted by Donnie, Monday, 16 April 2007 4:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie you are assuming people who are not superstitious are created out of a vacume. I personally have explored Christianity and Budhism and spiritualism and I can saftely say the travel agent is not selling holidays but selling slavery.

I will place Budhism aside because at some level there is an admittance that emotional/soul/spiritual existence is self delusion and the phantasmagoria is a neurotically constructed crutch to bolster what the individual wants to percieve. I have deep criticism of budhism as it is occult atheism.

Monotheism and spiritualism is fairyworld stuff , belonging more to Hansel and Gretel and less with spiritual reflexivity.

I can only conclude god belief/spirituality /religion is a form of compulsive obsessive disorder. That 'Islamists' and the 'Christian Right' and 'Budhist fundamentalists' and most likely communists and white supremists are merely hysterical or chronic developments of that illness.

People should be able to worship what they want, smoke, abuse the television ,shoot up on what they want whatever in the privacy of their own home as per John Stuart Mills. Its when Christians are interferring with childrens beliefs , systems of governance , Islamists putting down women and blowing people up or smokers blowing smoke in pedestrians faces, robbing pharmacists then we have a problem with the activity.

What Jesus said ,what mohommed said, what a person convinces himself of, whatever the hit is no excuse for interferring with 'others'. Also if religion is a mental illness then help should be avaliable as is rehabilitation avaliable for other syndromes.
Posted by West, Monday, 16 April 2007 4:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

You place excessive weight on the influence of gnosticism and the mystery religions on Christianity and appear to come to the erroneous conlcusion that Christianity is effectively a mystery religion.
You seem to be ignoring the historical evidence, starting with Pauls writing, that the Christians firmly rejected gnosticism and the mystery cults. Through various councils, credal formulations and the canon of scripture orthodox Christianity defined itself over against the mysteries.
You are perhaps falling into the trap of taking superficial similiarities and mistaking them for identifying characteristics.
In Christianity salvation was never achieved by the acquisition of secret knowledge as in the mystery cults. Salvation in Christianity is Gods grace extended to all not just to the elevated few.
Sorry to pop your balloon but your persistent reference to random mystery religions and the odd heretic do not form any cogent criticism of Christianity.
By all means challenge the Church and Christians to formulate coherent arguments but you would best do so by making your own arguments clear and base them on sound evidence-based historical criticism rather than random allusions to irrelevant religious cults without explanation of your supposed connections.
What are you saying anyway?
Christianity is just another gnostic mystery cult? That is just not supported by the historical evidence.
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 16 April 2007 5:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy,

Thanks for your reply. I will go though it again more carefully. In the interim, I would suggest that the gnostics mainly belong to a period perhaps two hundred years after the death of Jesus. In general, when writing to this Forum my references have been Gibbon, Toynbee, Wells, McNeill, Mack, Armstrong and Fox.

Paul was not a historian. He was a Hellenising a denomination out of the early Jesus cults. Successful cults become closed and develop credes, compared to cults [hear I not talking the weirdo cult stuff, but the evolutionary process described by Sociologists].

Albeit, perhaps, the churches have glued the cult onto some unspectiing, itinerant preacher? My read on Jesus is he said love each other, acknowledge the secular but in the long run The Spirit prevails [render unto Caesar...].

The conflict between Gnostic cults and the insitutionalising Christian cults cum religion by then, is around c. 250-325. Isis (Mary), the Serapis godhead, Mithras and others, were independent influences in the period. As Wells states, Alexandra of Jesus' time was a "God factory" and Jesus [if he existed] grew-up in historicall a Greek provincial city. Eygptian [afterlife] influence was strong in the times Julius, Augustus and Tiberius. [Just ask Elizabeth Taylor
;-]
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 16 April 2007 7:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,
"I personally have explored Christianity and Budhism and spiritualism and I can saftely say the travel agent is not selling holidays but selling slavery"
Exercising freedom of choice and freedom of religion and being free to do so. Those religions generally do not demand extreme investment, nor do they impose great hardship on an individual. Hardly slavery.

"I can only conclude god belief/spirituality /religion is a form of compulsive obsessive disorder"
Your conclusion of OCD is based on your presumption of the truth of physical monism. As i've said in a previous post this is begging the question, circular reasoning, ie: there is no spiritual existance, therefore believing in such is a mental illness of the brain, and because it is a mental illness - there is no spiritual existance.

"if religion is a mental illness then help should be avaliable "
The only thing that should be available to a person with religious beliefs, is the right and freedom to choose to follow or not to follow whichever religion they like. It is not a mental disorder to believe in something. The common nature of mental disorders is that they reduce quality and enjoyment of life. You certainly cannot argue that of religious beliefs.

"...no excuse for interferring with 'others'..."
What I think you are really protesting is violent intervention and authoritarianism. I have no quarrel with you here, they are dispicable means of control that serve only to harm the unwilling recipient. But you err in associating these practices wholly and only with religion. Religious groups have been guilty of these methods in the past and in some places in the present, but it is not universal nor inherent to the field of religion.
Criminal practices in the name of religion are dealt with by the law against the individual or individuals involved, not by blaming the whole religion or religions in general. That is punishing the many for the actions of the few, which is both horrendous and irrational.
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie bottom line. Are claims of god/soul/ghosts/monsters/magic/werewolves/curses /afterlife based on factual knowledge or not?

To claim the supernatural without the facts in the first place means that such claims are meaningless as the source of information can only be made up.

God is made redundant by the claim of god.

Obviously the belief in god is a symptom of a much deeper problem.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:48:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

I dont understand your obsession with knowledge being 'factual'. Actually Im not even sure what you mean by factual.
Can facts explain love or anger or wonder? Can they imbue life with meaning or value.

Scientists deliberately limit themselves to 'facts' as evidence for their theories and so they have no explanation for the mystery of being or even of simple conciousness but even scientists know love and anxiety and marvel at the things they see but cannot explain.

A religion based on 'facts' would be boring. A life constrained to the 'factual' would be tedious. The problem with belief in the supernatural world is precisely that some people, thinking concretely, regard it as a 'fact'.

Angels, demons, satan, god and all that mob are metaphors that have congealed into meaningless cliches that have little or no power to move the human spirit precisely because that are being taken as facts, boring, unprovable, undeniable facts. The imagination that originally breathed life into these words is now largely lost and talk of demons and gods has become concrete and mundane.

If the Bible doesnt do it for you then read something that does light the spark of your imagination... The Lord of the Rings... Midsummer Nights Dream... whatever but get the wheels of your imagination rolling and then see what you can do with God who creates worlds, chides and rewards her people, makes covenants and despairs over her lost children, who battles satan and who takes on this life herself in her search for a way to effect a universal salvation of the cosmos. Being imagination does not make it all untruth but rather is a powerful way of exploring truths that facts cannot approach. Out of imaginative exploration God emerges as a truth that imbues life with meaning and a wonder beyond our normal powers of explanation. The god who inhabits the parallel, spiritual universe is not the God who gives life here and now.
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 3:51:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

Thank you: But, I find your posts to me and West confusing.

My comments over several threads have related Mystery Cults to theocrasia and sycretism. I have said virtually nothing about gnosticism, except, perhaps, to Philo. The direction of the Mystery Cults divided after the Jewish excile to Pella. Some Jews became Christians to have access have to the Holy Land, others moved away from Pella to Syria (?). In this frame, and in previous posts, I have not been addressing the 200-325 gnostics or Zocoaster.

Rather, I have cited the godheads of other mystic religions having communities common to Christianity; Egyptian and Roman.

There is little new to the accretions appended to Jesus. Many of the theocrasic elements come from the Mystery cults and in Christianity. Where Christianity might differ is in its emphasis on Revelation through textual study and [feigned] histologies. [Paul also spun the cult into a religion]

Mysteries?

-- The Trinities, Sacraments, Transubstantion and the Transfiguration seem pretty mystic to me. Moreover, you critique West for trying to nail you down about Ghosts and Spirits. ---

Okay, now to my post that occasioned your response: My faulty historical accounts... What don't you believe? Where am I in eror?

-1- No Ammon (Ammon-Ra)? It was an Egyption god. The Ancients created composites, when lands merged. Heard of Tut-Ank-Amun? The last name is his god's.

-2- Sebellianism did not have a trinity?

-3- Galerius (313) did not allow freedom of religion and the Christians (325) overturned the rulung?

-4- The Christians, in Taliban facsion, destroyed the Great Statue of Serapis (390)

-5- That the Greek and Latin Churches split (1054) over the Filioque controvery?

Please number and cite your sources refuting the above 1~5. Refutation is valid. I will readily recognise any mistake. But you need to put up and show me wrong.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 7:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

Exactly what point are you trying to make about Christianity?
Once you make that clear then there might be some point discussing the evidence.
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 8:41:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, okay i can see what you are saying now.

To extrapolate a bit on your assertion - to claim *anything* without the facts in the first place means such claims are meaningless as the source of information can only be made up.

At cursory glance i would agree with this statement. My only counter would be to say that, even still, the content of a claim may yet be true or untrue, regardless of the baselessness of the claim itself. It would be kind of like guessing or speculating in this case, eg. gambling or fortune telling might serve as illustrations. But still, the actual truth of the matter does not depend on the factual knowledge (or lack of it) underlying a claim made about it - A blind person may claim that the sky is blue having never seen it (and having absolutely no other facts at hand - in case you want to get wise about it ;)).
So your reasoning that "God is made redundant by the (baseless) claim of god" is not necessarily true which means your conclusion of "symptom of a much deeper problem" is also uncertain.

I can also offer another alternative view only as an exercise of mental gymnastics, not as an argument for the truth of God or souls, and that is that it might be oddly possible that factual knowledge on which the claims of gods and souls are perhaps based was available or known at the time of the origination of these claims and has since been lost, become hidden, or is no longer possible to obtain.
With the focus and emphasis on materialism in modern times, perhaps the ability or capacity to perceive those facts that could serve as a valid base for such claims is obstructed, and all we are left with are the remnants from ancient times, the relics and scraps carried down through the ages that hint at but do not amount to conclusive evidence and so fail to substantiate the same claims made in the present.
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 8:57:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie no doubt all religions have evolved by chinese whispers from linear anthroplogical (family groups) threads. [Baseless Conjecture to illustrate a point ->]Possibly the story of the ressurection of various deities has evolved from the family myth that Uncle Ug [no offence to our ancestors intended, I am certain they had complex dialects] survived fever in the stonge age or the expected migrating herds of wooly antelope one season never appeared ever again during the Ice age thaw. It could be argued then that religion offers a level of wisdom although the lessons are lost in time just as simpler village life is lost in the complexity of urbanisation.

This being the case it does not matter if the sky is blue to the blind except to a blind sailor who's faith in the blue sky puts him/her at risk. There again the blind have the sight of the non-blind to give them the truth. If everybody was blind know one would know what blue was.

But this is not the claim of religionists. God believers are claiming an absolute. God believers are claiming laws which they claim govern everybody and even if these assertions are done passively such as the way Tony Abbott forces his ideological superstitions onto the Australian people it is still a form of violence.

The magic religion claims such as giving happiness just does not work often the god believer is the most miserable. The moral assertions religion claims are also myth. Christian fundamentalism in America for example is interlinked with the gun lobby. The MOST Christian devoted to modes of physical violence.

Moral guidence? There is something suspect about a person who needs external moral guidence in order to not harm others.

waterboy it appears you are arguing we must believe in myth for the sake of believing in myth.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:13:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Exactly what point are you trying to make about Christianity?
Once you make that clear then there might be some point discussing the evidence." - waterboy

1. Christianity in many ways is undifferentiated from the mystery cults. That a theist should statand back and look at a broader picture. This discussion is known to the oldies following Sellas and I across 5-6 threads, based on "How" does God exists (Sellick).

2. Christian spin looks at the deadly needs of the Romans et al., but were just as bad themselves.

3. Reply to your comment about mystery cults.

4. The Jesus cults of c. 33-100 grew into a religion.

You haven't answered my questions, where the history presented is wrong. Please do so. To many it is as factual as The Battle of Waterloo.

Early Point: Sells some threads back seem to recognise that Christianity was not a Mystery Cult, even though it shared many characteristics. My point was that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then... . Figuratively, one could take the components of Christianity and map then on table just as one can place elements on the oeriodic table. At the time, I think I said somethink like by rejecting Mithras and accepting Jesus, was a bit like accepting Helium and rejecting zinc. Look at the creation of relions, from the architecture of the theocrasia of the period, especially c. 600 BCE - 700 CE.

Please adddress the error in my histographies before countering the aforementioned. Thanks.

4. Address 1~5 that my citations are not historical.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, it seems we are dancing across a few contentions here. We are also switching between the generic and specific which can cloud the issue.

To risk another tangent: It is a usual assumption to believe that we have advanced as a species and that we have become more intelligent and more able, etc, and that the races and civilisations of the past are inferior or not as developed as we are, ie. less evolved (as the equation of evolution implies steady forward progress).
I do not necessarily dispute this, but it is a common assumption taken against religion , eg. those primitives back then didn't know what we know now and therefore they were mistaken and their beliefs were just superstitions.
I do think we can be a little full of ourselves sometimes. There are certain fields where one might wonder if we are actually advancing, such as the arts. And it is also true that knowledge and technology can be forgotten or lost or altered to become ineffective.

Getting back to claims, the act of making a claim should be differentiated from what the claim is being used for. These are two different matters.
You are now arguing against "claim-pushing", ie using some method to get others to accept a claim or belief, regardless if the facts are lacking. You have no argument from me on that one. I dislike authoritarianism as well as propaganda, manipulative advertising, and other such devices.

"Christian fundamentalism ... The MOST Christian devoted to modes of physical violence"
I'm not making the claims that you are refuting here, however, this is clearly slanted evidence.
It could also be argued that fundamentalism in any form is a corruption of religion not an extreme version of it - A destructive element cloaked in religious dogma.

"There is something suspect about a person who needs external moral guidence in order to not harm others"
So did you not learn anything from your parents on "right" behaviour?
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 2:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie I am not suggesting as far as religion or superstition we have advanced. I would contend we have stayed the same. Religion exists devoid of gained wisdom, devoid of progress. Yes stories and characters change and the type of political leadership which defines religion and spirituality changes but all religious beliefs are only a collection of fictitious stories which people happen to decide to believe to satisfy superstitious fears justify ideas of social hierarchies and reinforced through occult rituals . From the beginning religion was then only a collection of stories, religion has not changed. I stand by my position there is no justifiable ‘excuse’ for the claim of god and soul.

The ritualistic aspect of religion is an obvious clue to religions relationship with the neurosis, paranoia and fear and suggests the issues are not to do with magic or supernatural ideas but something psychological.

The fundamentalist Christian is the most Christian, the fundamentalist any religion is the most religious because they are totally immersing themselves in the ideology presented to them in religious dogma. Something Moslems and Christians like Kevin Rudd would be to afraid to accept. The fundamentalist encapsulates the totality of expression, the height that the given religion offers. If it means violence or slavery, misogyny, or any crime it is because those are the height that ideology will attain. It is no coincidence that fundamentalist Christians in the U.S are war like and 500 years ago Europe was wracked by sectarian violence, or those suicide bombers in Iraq are willing to kill and be killed for god and Janissaries 500 years ago were willing to give their lives to become human plugs in broken fortress walls. Violence is impossible by people who follow religions of peace (which have existed smattered around the globe).

How many adults have to ring their parents for moral guidance? Even if some do, do they do it often and do they expect others to ring their parent? I believe I probably have more refined values than my parents who are a little archaic in their views.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 4:11:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

Happy to discuss more specific matters, but you need first to show me, where I (and a legion of historians) are wrong. Can but wont introduce new subject matter until you justify the inaccuracies you claim for 1~5, above. We need take this first step to calebrate at least some histories, you refute and I in my ignorance believe. One of us is wrong about 1~5.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 7:31:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

Fermicus Maternus, in the 4th Century, described a group of Pagan religions being "religions with mysteries.." which were dualistic in nature believing that the soul was liberated from the body in death and thereafter persisted independently of any physical body. Furthermore, salvation was achieved through initiation into the truths or 'mysteries' of the respective religions.

Christianity affirms the resurrection of the body and is not dualistic in the sense of the mystery religions or in any sense. Salvation, in Christianity, is an action of God extended to all and not limited to the 'initiated few', certainly not achieved by any sort of initiation into secret knowledge or indeed by any particular personal effort. To be sure, there are Christians, and plenty of them, who do hold to a flesh/spirit dualism but this is not orthodox Christian Doctrine and to make the distinction between Christianity and the Mystery Religions very clear, in Christianity their divergence from orthodoxy does not preclude them from salvation.

While you choose to argue from similarity to identity, it is equally valid to argue from difference to non-identity. So, I say, along with Fermicus, who first classified the mystery religions, that Christianity is not a mystery religion.
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:36:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, I agree that religions are used for many different purposes, get mixed up with politics, get misinterpreted, get embelished, etc. I don't think religions are meant to be just collections of stories. The stories (parables) are meant to be mediums for "truth". If truth is unchanging then it stands to reason that a religion built on truth should not change.
I am suggesting, or rather speculating, that religions may have deteriorated from truth as opposed to your assertion that they evolve from fiction. I am not presenting this as fact, merely something to consider.

Perhaps ritualism is a clue to something psychological, but the rituals of religion are separate to the beliefs of relgion. One may hold religious beliefs and engage in none of the rituals.

Catholic Nuns are more fundamentalist than right-wing Christians. I don't remember Mother Theresa advocating war. Your generalisation doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The point about parents is that everyone gets external moral guidance at one stage or another. It doesn't make a person "suspect", perhaps not everyone is born with the "good morals" gene.
Not all followers of religion are constantly in need of repeated moral guidance anyway. That's another generalisation. Usually they have their moral code already, the religion may help refine it, but it would not be the sole or even the main reason they follow the religion.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:02:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Mother Theresa we know of is a parody created by the celebrity cult of the post war Vatican which had to distance itself from its alliance with fascism during the war. Certainly there are many who knew her who advises us she was no angel but who knows when truth has been muddied by celebrity cultism?

Nuns are directly based on the Vestal Virgins, priestesses of Vesta who despite their purity had many a scandal during their era. Like nuns they were slaves to a cult of superstition. The Vestal priestesses were kept in strict check by Roman law. Catholic nuns are famed for their child abuse and there has been no Catholic run orphanage or Catholic school which has escaped the test of time and has never had an instance of Child abuse. The question then is why is there a link between religion and cruelty, especially monotheism and other cults which worship humanesque deities?

Most likely it boils down to the type of personality which is attracted to superstition. The religious are obsessed with happiness, mortality and the righteousness of their own beliefs. A nun is a good example because she devotes HERSELF to HER god. Helping others can be done any time anywhere by anybody it does not take devotion to god to help others, helping others is an excuse to distract that the nuns agenda is purely selfishness. This drags god back to the ego, not only does god share the believers ideals, and looks out for the believers best interests but is limited by the believers imagination.

God is ego but dogma, prayer , miracles, religion , scripture is a game like dungeons and dragons. The parables in the Bible for example are not truth; they are meaningless unless they are attributed as meaning something by the reader. Again the meaning of Bible stories lead back to the ego. By ego I mean self worship here.

It is obvious that the religious is so self obsessed that it is impossible for them to recognise this self worship.
Posted by West, Thursday, 19 April 2007 12:45:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diatribes on nuns aside, you still generalise by picking out examples and incidences of specific religious groups that support your dislike of those religions and then you apply these with a broad stroke to religion overall.
I honestly don't blame you for hating religion when all you are able to focus on is negative aspects that have manifested in various religions over time.
But your generalisations just don't add up to me. There are always exeptions and positive examples to be found. I may not be able to convince you of this as i can see you are quite entrenched in your views. That's fine.

You ask why a link between cruelty and religion. I believe that man can be cruel, and man can be religious. Man being cruel while being religious would therefore be the only link. Perhaps the cruel man/woman enjoys the righteous cover of religion, i do not know.

On the subject of helping others you are right, it can be done any time, anywhere, and by anybody, but the question is HOW do you help, what is the best way of helping someone?
A nun has possibly decided that she will help, and this has left her with this question. Perhaps she has found a method of helping in religious service.

What i know of the parables in the Bible is that they are written to convey a (usually) simple message. They are not meaningless. Whether they contain a truthful message or not is then certainly up to the reader to decide or believe or whatever.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 19 April 2007 4:59:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie I just see that which you are saying as only an excuse. The claim of the religious is perfection , believe in their god and all sorts of magic follows. I give a general negative example because one example proves religions claims wrong. Obviously if a priest, a man who is inspired by god rapes a child then that destroys all positive claims of what a priest is and all that god represents. When god is spoken of it is a GOD that is spoken of there is no room for error by the believer who is already claiming something that is highly suspect in the first place. It is conveniant for a person to drivel on about the glory of god , the moral code of the religion on one hand in all of gods absolute and then pathetically excuse the deeds of those who are practising the ideology. Even if by some unnatural impossible development god did exist and he was what he is claimed to be then the deeds and the values of those who follow him have proved him worthless. As it stands they base their claim on nothing and thus prove he does not exist anyway.

Religion/god belief claims its superiority on the basis it is good and moral. I am saying that religion/god belief is definetely not good and definetely not moral.

I wonder why it is nearly everything that is claimed by religion is not true including the worth of believing in god there is no worthy argument supporting religion.

People can believe what they want but why not worship idols in the privacy of the home , indulge in the dungeons and dragons of the bible and churches and leave people out of it?
Posted by West, Thursday, 19 April 2007 5:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

Mystery cults have several characteristics, not only secrets. My comments about cults were one to three centuries before Fermicus Maternus. That said, I quote the Catholic Encyclopaedia, on mystery:

“In conformity with the usage of the inspired writers of the New Testament, theologians give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason. Mystery, therefore, in its strict theological sense is not synonymous with the incomprehensible, since all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; nor with the unknowable, since many things merely natural are accidentally unknowable, on account of their inaccessibility, e.g., things that are future, remote, or hidden. In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.”

- sod [Hebrew, mystery]: Proverbs 20:19, Judith 2:2
- Revelation: Matthew 13:11, Colossains, Timothy 3:9. 1 Corinthinthians 15:51
- Incarnation: Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:4 & 6.19; Colossians 1:26, 4:3

Obviously, The Bible is poor source but does provide some illustration.

Further, you are wrong. There were initiates. They were called, catechumen, whom waited two to three years for Baptism.

The mystery of Christ’s resurrection is related to the mystery of renewal of corn. There are also heaps of commonalities with Mithras, and, for the godhead Serapis.
“The grave of Dionysus was said to have been torn in pieces. His "resurrection" (revival) is variously related. The blood, [A Communion, added] it must be remembered, was both the seat and the medium of the life. Hence this act was probably regarded as aiding the development of the new life.” [Fermicus Maternus, in Thornburn 1916). Waterboy, you ask questions, but don't answer mine [1~5]. You said I was ignorant of history and used bad sources. Put-up. Please don’t quote the Internet at me. Provide real citations.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 19 April 2007 5:39:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

You have not formed a cogent argument linking your 'facts 1-5' as evidence to your conclusion that "Christianity is a mystery religion". Your 'facts 1-5' are completely irrelevant since their truth does not prove your thesis and their untruth would not disprove it. If you read my posts more carefully you will find that I have refuted your logic and your conclusions and not your 'facts 1-5'.

In this thread Sells is making the perfectly orthodox assertion that metaphysical dualism is not consistent with Christian teaching though this will come as a surprise to many contemporary Christians and perhaps to you also. This fact alone distinguishes Christianity markedly from the mystery religions, Platonic philosophy, zoroastrianism and Graeco-Roman religion in general.

Christianity is in a continuity with pre-exilic Hebrew faith (quite antithetical to Greek philosophy and eastern religion) and even if Christian religious culture has adopted some of the accidental characteristics of other religions that does not bring it into identity with those religions. This is a point you seem incapable of comprehending.

The "Christianity is just another mystery cult" argument has been around for 1600+ years without making much headway and hasnt made any worthwhile contribution to the human condition. It looks like a duck.. but its a dead duck!
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 19 April 2007 6:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

Thanks.

The "facts" did not all relate to mystery cults. Some did, some didn't. Various comments followed the ebbs and flows of thread.

In the first instance, I was addressing your assertion that I was using rubbish history.

Just the same, the what I said about godheads and attributes stands. Mystery cults is not on the secrets known the initiated. You still haven't shown were Toynbee and Wells are wrong.

Creation-Rebirth, Virgin-Birth, Blood Sacafice-Resurrection. Magic Meals, Meaassages from the gods. All this is not superficial. Your need to read some Roman and Egygtion history. If you have that little green Bible College Greek, forget it, read the court Greek of Alexander.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 19 April 2007 8:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi GZ Tan,

Apologies I just found a number of questions and comments you posted for me last month (I believe 25th March ).
I was overseas on holidays and wasn't accessing OLO.

Peace,

T
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 20 April 2007 6:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West I think that is where our basic disagreement lies on this topic. When a priest commits a crime, you blame the religion, i blame the man.

The funny thing is we both appear to despise the same thing, which is hypocrisy. The only difference is that you ascribe this generally to religion and the religious, I do not, i ascribe it specifically to the individuals and groups who are the hypocrites and believe there are many religious people and groups which are not.

"People can believe what they want but why not worship idols in the privacy of the home , indulge in the dungeons and dragons of the bible and churches and leave people out of it?"
I think the answer to this lies in the question of helping others from before. If religion were just a selfish obsession then it probably would be a private thing like playing dungeons and dragons at home.
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 20 April 2007 11:15:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"West I think that is where our basic disagreement lies on this topic. When a priest commits a crime, you blame the religion, i blame the man." - Donnie

Taking your point as said. How do you feel abour Church funds/resources being used to defend priests? Should a few Bishops be gaol for shielding pedaphiles? [I would!]

waterboy,

Busy for a while. Will come back
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 20 April 2007 8:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie in a game of football why do you think sledging or violence occurs? Is it because individuals are generally bad people or is it that the competitive nature of football drives a person to act out sledging or violence? Can football claim to set a good example (set morals) for children to learn good honest team work and fair play?

Is it wrong to say that because football is violent then its claim that it sets a good example for children is unfounded? Is it wrong to say because only men are allowed to play football then it is gendered biased?

I am sorry I cannot see any true claim that religion makes. Religion is as self serving as the belief in god is and the primary mission of religion and the god believer is to look out for number one.If it were not so there would be no myths such as salvation or heaven tied to the superstition.

I can not buy into the argument that if Robin Hood murders the rich to give to the poor (in the religious case himself and his followers) then he is helping as thus good. The god evokes good deeds argument is in effect unfounded and in principle a Machiavellian styled attempt at trying to appear better than religion and god belief in actual fact is.

Why not be honest and believe in god and know it is a form of self centeredness? Many god believers may find it is liberating to admit the truth. Why not admit god is a myth or at least admit claimed gods are totally unknown to begin with? That may be liberating to the believer too, to have no agendas , to not have to go out to convince others of that which clearly the believer has no knowledge of in the first place.

Sells is talking about Dungeons and Dragons and his article is an admission the rules of the game are arbitrary.
Posted by West, Saturday, 21 April 2007 5:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy Christianity has not made any worthwhile contribution to humanity, all progress in human rights and technology draw from other theoretical basis. Pharmacology owes more to paganism and Greek philosophy,needless to say in the Christian era of Europe Jews, Moslems and Wiccans performed the dark art of medicine. Our values of Justice and fairness came from the Greeks via (and in some cases strengthened by ) the Romans. The Roman law process extinguishing the validity of the story of the trial of Christ. Our sense of worth as individuals came to us from the Celts. The state protecting its citizens were a concept handed down from pagan ancient Britains , later the Vikings and the modern sense can be traced back to good King Wenceslas who stood up to the church of Rome in the cause that only a state can Judge a citizen and the Church has no right over his citizens.

Wenceslas was murdered in a church backed coup by his brother because like it or not the Christian era was a brutal era imbued with superstition, theocracy and a regression in morality that only secularism has saved the western world from.
Posted by West, Saturday, 21 April 2007 5:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

"Should a few Bishops be gaoled for shielding pedaphiles? [I would!]" Gaol the Bishops with priests that is. One can argue that some god is not evil, but some priests are evil. But on balance the history of the Christian church is evil, especially after the third century. O.

waterboy,

Busy still. Will return to the Mtsyery Cults matter later.

In the interim, please note, the OT contains at least two Churches [and a different godhead the NT), we then have the Jesus Cults, then the Raionalisation and Hellenisation of the Cults. As, the godheads, messenger from god, sacraments, incarnation, recurrection [rebirth secret, earlier accounts relate to corn] and transfiguration are all consistent with a cult. With cults, it is not just the mystery, as the name would imply. The other characteristics on mystery cited [from the catholic encylopaedia also relate.]

At the time of Constantine, there were competing trinities and different natures of divinities. Consolidation from a cult to an institutionalised church, is noted by Sociogists as part of a the Life Cycle of a successful church. Histographies of the eraly church suggest the faith spread vertically down generations and from the matrimonial line. Constantine [if he did convert], is a liekly example.

Before Constantine gave the universal Christian church the green light, at most 2% of the Roman Empire, practised the faith. When the faith was legitimate, and, belief was okay, upward social mobility [Fox] was not curtailed by believing in the Pauline doctrine cum Nicaean crede, which by then had undergone several transformations. The Christian fourth century church would have shared characteristics of the Taliban, destroying opposing cultures [Wells]. [Here, it is an institutionalised faith not a cult.]

From the Greek, we have the debate between Rhetoric and Dialogue. The Church imposing docrine and interpretation by a priesthood [Sells-like] takes the Rhetorical path. Contrarily, Greek preseverd via the Byzantine Empire, recognises dialogue [for/against]. The Christian churches, suppression of knowledge was eventually broken and debate and Episte & Techne rediscovered turbo-charging understanding over the past three hundred years.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 22 April 2007 6:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

"Christianity is in a continuity with pre-exilic Hebrew faith (quite antithetical to Greek philosophy and eastern religion) and even if Christian religious culture has adopted some of the accidental characteristics of other religions that does not bring it into identity with those religions. This is a point you seem incapable of comprehending." -- waterboy

The OT has roots possibly going back as far as Sumer. The Hebrews were Henotheists they married [like catholic nuns do] their tribal god, a Baal volcano god in this case. Jesus' teachings are Greek influenced. He [or his composite] grew-up in a declined Greek Greek-City state. The Jews were opposed to Greek and then the Roman occupation. Paul's Greek [but it is Greek] is not the educated Greek of Socrates. There is a four hunded year long wedge of vulgar Latin between the two.

The "accidential" adoptions are significant in nature, transforming the simple cult into a major religion.

Incidently, the major exiling of the Hebrews from Egypt occurred hundreds of yeras before Moses [if he existed]. Jews were exiled from the Holy Lands by Hadrian in the second century of the current era. Some Jews had seek the company of gentiles, feign dropping their core faith, to be allowed to visit Holy sites.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 22 April 2007 6:44:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
"How do you feel abour Church funds/resources being used to defend priests? Should a few Bishops be gaol for shielding pedaphiles?"

That first is an interesting question. Has the guilt of the priest been established?
The second is simple, it's a matter of law, an accessory to a crime can also be charged, tried and convicted.

West,
"...why do you think sledging or violence occurs? Is it because individuals are generally bad people or is it that the competitive nature of football drives a person to act out sledging or violence?"
Neither. Individuals are not "generally bad people". Competition may be a factor but it is not the reason. There are many players who do NOT have to resort to *undue* violence (some use of force is part of the game) or sledging, possibly because they are sufficiently skilled at the game not to need to.
Football would be in a better position to claim a good example, if all it's players and members lived up to it. Just like religion. But because many players have not set this good example it weakens the strength of any such claim (ie moral superiority, NOT the truth of the beliefs, two different arguments that your are switching between). It comes down to the fact that the individuals, or in some cases whole teams, do not live up to the good example, not that the game itself is generally bad.

Oliver,
"But on balance the history of the Christian church is evil, especially after the third century."
Very debatable and you're getting very black and white about it. But i care not to engage in lengthy debates about the actions of avowed Christians over the centuries.

Just because science lead to the production of the atom bomb, does not mean that science itself is evil. The same is said for religion.
The morality of the particular scientists who were directly involved in the design and production of the bomb could be questioned however.

I really make no point greater than this.
Posted by Donnie, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:50:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie you want it both ways , if a person acts badly it is because they are an individual , if they act kindly then its because they have religion. You appear to arguing that having an ideology has no effect on people and the environment in which they exist in has no effects.

Why is it that Family First a theocratic party based soley on Christian values are trying to pass laws in South Australia to allow parents to beat their children? Is the basis of Family Firsts attempts to legalise child and human rights abuse based on the fact they are a collection of individuals or is it that they are inspired by the ideology of Christianity? Is the need to beat children a pressing issue in Australia or is it an issue formost in the minds of Christians only?

Why are not secular parties rushing to lobby public support into allowing Children to be bashed by parents? Is it because secularists are influenced by secular ideology and Christians are individuals.

Then there is the question of perception , Beating Children up is morally good because Christians says god says so? Why is child abuse in my book morally abhorent? Am I a moral deviant because I dont agree with domestic violence since god blesses the rod?

If Family First are successful I contend that Child abuse will once again become normalised amongst the greater cult of Christianity as it was when Christians had more influence on the law as ideology is a way of seeing , not an influence on the way we see
Posted by West, Monday, 23 April 2007 1:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Donnie you want it both ways , if a person acts badly it is because they are an individual , if they act kindly then its because they have religion. You appear to arguing that having an ideology has no effect on people and the environment in which they exist in has no effects."

West, you draw too many conclusions.
If a person acts badly, they are an individual. If a person acts kindly, they are an individual. Ideology and environment are factors that influence individuals. I do not argue that these influences are redundant, but i do argue that they are not exclusive nor even primary cause of an individuals actions. I argue that an individual always bears some responsibility. You seem to be the one arguing otherwise, by saying that a belief or following a religion is the root of evil. To me that is ludicrous. But then how could you argue otherwise, because from a materialist viewpoint all cause is physical based on electro-chemical changes, random and unmotivated. How can a person be responsible when he is just a result of these material interactions? "Yes i killed him, but how could i not? It's in my genes!"
Posted by Donnie, Monday, 23 April 2007 2:05:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Christianity is in a continuity with pre-exilic Hebrew faith (quite antithetical to Greek philosophy and eastern religion) and even if Christian religious culture has adopted some of the accidental characteristics of other religions that does not bring it into identity with those religions. This is a point you seem incapable of comprehending." - waterboy

Apart from the examples provided above, I quote Karen Armstrong:

By the end of the second century some pagans [means civil] "began to be converted to Christianity and were able to adpt the Semitic God to of the Bible to to Greco-Roman ideal. The first of these was Clement of Alexandria [ca. 150-215], who studied philosophy in Athens before his conversion. Clement has no doubt that Yahweh and the God of the God of the Greek Philosphers were one and the same: he called Plato the Attic Moses"... "In the West, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon [130-1200] taught a similar doctrin. Jesus was had been the devine 'logos' who had become a man, 'so that you might from a man learn how to become a God.' " [Exhortation of the Greeks, 1.8.4, in Armstrong]

Friend, who are reading? [Religious tracts tend to have a theistic bias]

Donnie,

I am not saying that every Christian is evil. I said, on balance, the Christian churches have a history of prevailing evil. And as I pointed out to waterboy [in denial] that Christians destoyed statues and suppressed religions,as do the Taliban. You[?] and waterboy can believe that Christians did not destroy the Great Statue to Apollo [319]. Orthodox historians beg to differ.

A fiction with a point: If I went back in a time machine and said that in the twenty-first century the CERN particle accelerator sent me back in time; Plato or Cicero might humour me [a nutta in their midst] , until I showed them a hand-held calculator. They would be amazed ans ask about the future, me thinks. In constrast, Urban VIII would have burnt me at the stake.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 23 April 2007 7:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What theological state did not have the death penalty or did not violently persecute non adherants of one sort or another ?

What religious fundamentalist leader resulted in a benevolent and proto utopian state?

What religious sect has not got blood on its hands and no skeletons in its closet.

The Christian claim is Christianity is evokatve of moral action but the reality is that it is the opposite.

Even the Islamic states that were enlightened by the ancient Greeks and Egyptians to pass on mathematics and astronomy were not shy of head lobbing and turning tribal cousins into living ant food.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 1:15:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

The Church certainly has much to answer for.
Ironically, even while the church was busy murdering and brutalising innocents, it continued (and still continues) to preserve the story of Jesus which was (still is) prophetic condemnation of its own evil.

The idea that God chooses the weak over the strong is an enduring challenge to all political domination systems, particularly those in which the church itself participates. Jesus was crucified for his criticism of the joint domination system of Rome and the Church (Temple and priests). No doubt he would also have been an early victim of the inquisition.

It is a sad truth that even today the church's 'social voice' is disqualified by its own injustices... the UCA's equivocal stance on gay issues, the Anglican Church's discrimination against women, the Catholic Church's cover up of abuse and so on. Yet the church continues to tell the story of the Christ who would tear down their temples for their injustice and their abuse of power and the evil they perpetrate. Through the liturgy the church tells the story even against itself. Which government, which political party, which warlord does this?
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 10:06:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

But it is the Church of Paul, Constantine, Origen and Augustine. Doctrine was institutionalised. Moreover, I still maintain a strong Greek influence and syncretion of Roman mystery cults you deny. "The Church" as you call it, is patch-work of temporal priestly interpretations made under political pressure.

Also, following on the them of mystery cults, the "other" Christian Church, the Orthodox holds that some creeds, are mysteries, Holy of Holies, which are known only to the priests.

Even if Jesus was some extra-human entity, the debates about nature of divinity a generation either side of Nicaea seem to be undisclosed to church goers. If a religionist needs to revisit the debates, rather being led by the nose.

Cheers.

O.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 1:44:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

I love your posts.

In them I sense a determined effort to discredit the christian church. Your logic is flawed and your conclusions, when you eventually arrive at them, are delightfully incomprehensible while revealing a total misunderstanding of Christian theology.

I guess you are trying to discredit the christian church by discrediting its origins but that does not actually work and noone really cares if the origins of Christmas are pagan. They still love Christmas and they're not going to give it up for anything.

In fact it is much easier to discredit the church by reference to its actions in the world today. West's critique of the church is far more potent then your chaotic ramblings because it is relevant.

But keep trying. You might actually have an important point to make one day.
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 3:31:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The discovery of Christ's truth is not best represented by converted pagans and polytheists who call themselves "Christian" unless they have studied carefully the principles of his message eg, "love your enemy", and understood the character of God and live by the virtue of His principles.

The focus of Christian truth is not found in one individual or any one Church it is only found in Christ - the perfect expression of the word. All persons and Churches fail to always faithfully represent God - that is the nature of sin in man.

I suggest you look for character and attitudes you truly admire as graceious and just and you have a glimpse of God. However you undoubtly will fail to fully follow that image, but that is no reason to abandon the virtue of that image. The virtue will remain even if you live to it in violent opposition. Sin is always condemned, that Christians sin is not a condemnation of the virtue of Christ.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 3:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo and waterboy,

I have always regarded "The Church" and "Christ" as separate constructs. Churches and priests are social phenomena. If God existed in History, it would seem best, to examine the situation from the perspective of an historian.

Philo, I continue to respect your OT scholarship and knowledge of Hebrew tethers. No one can help but admire Jesus. However, there have occasionally lived self-actualised humans [Maslow]: Truly remarkable people. Likewise, only a fool would condemn the ten commandments, but great/similar codes are other societies too.

waterboy, from my reading of history, you seem to have been "fed" inaccuracies. Have you been provided tracts of made-up/blinkered history? Some Jesus' Jewish contemporaries were so Greek many didn't even understand Hebrew. Isra-EL. According to Karen Armstrong, "El" refers is to the Old God Cannite Baal. Some of this stuff caved in stone, literally. Read Psalm 82, there is a different godhead to that discussed at Nicaea. Some of the current era "Mysteries" are evident in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I do believe in the reasoned questionning of authority. I prefer Abelard and Luther, to Origen and Augustine. Doctrine and creed arrest cultures.

I do my best to provide citations. You just say things, stop.

Yes, I do believe "The Church" is potentially very dangerous. That said, I have many friends whose faith, comitment and conviction I greatly respect.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 26 April 2007 1:12:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy there it is , Christ and Church are two different things. I say it again I am not against peoples right to believe what they wish but I am against the god politic. Even in the home the parent trying to convert their child , the child trying to convert the parent, the Government acting as if its god is a normality and thus an subliminal message that all who do not follow the god of those in power are cast out too the fringe. This is nicely habitually demonstrated by our health minister and very much so by federal education grants in the United States which dont mind which god children believe in as long as it is in monotheism.

I stand to defend Oliver also because history is everything. History was everything past the last split second. We classify a serial killer by the history of his/her deeds and to be fore warned is to be fore armed. We know we love the Artichoke pie because of our experience of it before. We can also know what is true through history. The fact the history of the bible is that of a collection of fiction by known authors and out of context with universal history discredits all the claims of the bible as true. There is no point throwing garbage onto the front garden because Jesus will come to take us away from all this , simply he will not by the same reckoning Harry Potter will not. To quote George Santayana ? ? 'he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it'.
Posted by West, Thursday, 26 April 2007 11:03:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

You have a hangup about the church because itis less than perfect.
Check your history books again and find out which human institutions are perfect and therefore worthy of their place in our society or our culture. Well... none! History handled in the simple-minded way of the Olivers of this world is just as dangerous as the church! Consider the Marx-Stalin connection. History is notjust the awareness that certain things happened in the past but rather the way that the past informs the present. Oliver has no constructive agenda for the present and no really contemporary historical impetus.

The church is not going away and as you see in American Politics particularly and recently also in Australian Politics (Howard, Costello, Abbot and recently Rudd have all jumped onto the religious bandwagon) religion can become a potent political force. It is simply not good enough to pontificate about the evils of the church and look forward to the day of its demise because that isnt going to happen. It amounts to burying your head in the sand and leaving the field open for the real religious nutters.

The church must be challenged to be Christ present today because that is what it claims to be and that is its proper place in society. Theology is the mechanism by which the church is engaged and disciplined to hold to its proper task.

Your assertion that Christ and Church are different things is inappropriate. The Church ought to be the incarnation of Christ and to the extent that it preserves the Christ story it actually is one with the Christ. It matters not one whit whether Christ is an historical figure or if the religious culture has picked up a few extraneous embellishments over time. Christ is an organising symbol that informs our shared values and sense of meaning and that is true even for those, perhaps particularly for those, who have abandoned the simple-minded acceptance of Jesus as an historical figure and engaged the story through which they can imagine something that we can call the 'Kingdom of God' into being.
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 26 April 2007 2:56:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Church ought to be the incarnation of Christ and to the extent that it preserves the Christ story it actually is one with the Christ." Exactly and the church is not perfect because Christ is not perfect and Christ is not perfect because god is not perfect.

The point is not so much that god does not exist , the point is god , christianity (or Islam) or the values claimed by those cults are what the followers claim it to be , including its symbolism. For me and other that I know and probably a great many of Christianities victims the cult Christ is more of a symbol of repression and moral corruption. Christians will deny it but it is reality, no wonder Christianity as a whole has never been able to learn from history. Not so ironic since Christianity denies even its own true history.

The kingdom of god is a claim by Jihadists and Crusaders. The Kingdom of God was achieved by Mussolini and the Taliban. The kingdom of god has no currency in my world and the world of many. What is it then ? a threat to impose dictates.

Evidently the world is expected to give the Christian the right to believe in his god but nobody has the right not to believe. So the world is doomed to suffer the anti morals that religion forces upon it both legally and illegally.

Its easy to be smug about the immortality of cults such as Christianity given the polital pandering that gives the feeling to Christians this is their reign. A Hindu friend is absolutely beside himself that Christians worship a false god to him it is deplorable.
Growing is Christian converts to Hinduism.

Waterboy I have no doubt in 10 - 15 years we will still be debating this except you and Philo will be arguing for the virtues of following Vishnu and Siva. This isnt only about Jesus fiction, all religion follows the same pattern of superciliousness.
Posted by West, Thursday, 26 April 2007 3:53:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy,

I would posit that if the Western Da Li Lama entered Tibet, and, a High Priest and the Chinese Da Li Lama, took the Western Da Li Lama to Guo Jinlong [Governor of the Tibet, Special Administrative Region of China], and, further, the Da Li Lama was crucified along with two video-CD pirates, midst the Chinese New Year celebrations, there would be a secular historical record maintained
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 26 April 2007 5:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

"I prefer Abelard and Luther, to Origen and Augustine." - O.

Would you group these persons as progressives or institutions,as I have? That is, relative to their time?

West,

I waterboy appreciates the point of the Tibetan Tidbit.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 27 April 2007 7:21:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Institutionalists... that is :-) o.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 27 April 2007 7:23:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

I think waterboy is all leaked out. I expected a comment or two on the Dai Li Lama remark.

Your clarity of mind is appreciated.

Waterboy,

No more fertile scriptures to hydrate? An eye dropper of fact does not go far in a Simpson Desert of theocrasaic frabrication. I wish your religious compatriates would read real history.

Cheers,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 29 April 2007 7:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity holds itself hostage through its regulated spiritualism that holds morals and spirituality and self worth including the worth of others to a rigid fiction. It holds itself hostage to, absolutist assertions which it can not be defended and the very same assertions are untruths which then the Christian is abandoned by the nature of its god leaving the believer tangled in a web of absurdity.

Christianity is based on a system well tested since long before Minotaur at Knossos. The believer is ordered to listen to the master. A system of hierarchy and power, where the most powerful speaks for god and the subordinates listen and take each word as absolute. The preacher is a far cry from Lucy’s hunting and gathering great grandchildren where the spirits of trees and antelope were read not by the powerful but by those with the talent. The world back then spoke to us apes, it still does but now its called science. The spirits looked for by Lucy’s great grand children are sought by departments of agriculture, fisheries and bureaus of meteorology’s world wide. Long has religious man gone deaf and blind to the world? Now it is not what the external patterns which are important it is what is in the believer’s head that counts.

Ego ? Yes a symptom is my words upset the believer but god does not knock on my door to contradict me. Religion is Machiavellian, proof is religion is defended with claims of critical mass, can’t prove god does not exist, trust us we are moral, the non believer is immoral. Christians follow Paul and even then are not Christians but Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans ect ect …Loyalty to the club is the most important than truth.

Siddhartha Gautama warned that religion destroys meaning of spirit that religion creates a false perspective pandering to the desires of the believer. We hear Jesus is good but when we actually read Jesus without built up expectations of him he is not good. We hear that Christian values should be taught in schools but Christian values only serve Christian hierarchies.
Posted by West, Monday, 30 April 2007 12:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This debate/ conflict / argument/ discourse / conversation between Christians and the greater world occurs because Christians are dictating to us others of the world what we should think , who we should worship , what we should believe , how we should organise society , how we should treat those who do not join in.

We are asked to give up freedom for servitude, justice for dogma, to view women and others as inferior and to disrespect others for their differences and other competing ideologies. We are asked to give control over to those who throughout history proved that they cannot handle that control.

I do not expect Christians to be capable of seeing or understanding an exterior point of view. To go to church is to see the ego on a pedestal. Hands open palms to the air, eyes rolled back to the head or hands clasped together with eyes shut in total immersion within the self. The preaching always about self improvement, self comparison, self values it dawns on a very few that the motivational jingoism attempted by preachers does not work or only one visit would suffice.

The most important message in the sermon is loyalty to the institution , the corporation has Jesus as uts logo after all. If Ronald McDonald means fun, Jesus means moral, burgers and fries make for fat bodies; Jesus makes for fat egos. Christians are good for the sole reason they say they are good, god exists for the sole reason they say he exists, Christian values are moral because Christians say they are moral, history never occurred because Christians say history never occurred. Christianity is a cult of dictators, an obvious inheritance from the Romans. This debate/ conflict / argument/ discourse / conversation between Christians and the greater world occurs because Christians are dictating to us.
Posted by West, Monday, 30 April 2007 1:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I do not expect Christians to be capable of seeing or understanding an exterior point of view." - West

They are immersed in a performance, have an investment in a faith and usually have views reinforced by a peer group.

Even if you wish believe in a God, it would seem logical to read the form guides of The Gods. But Christians are confidently Christians, Muslims, Muslisms and Jews, Jewish. And none will willingly stand back and look politico-social constructs involved.

Although, I guess I shouldn't make generalisations: I know a cleric, who started collecting research on comparative religions for a post-grad. theological degree [Masters?]and became an athiest based on he read. He said to me, said it would wonderful to be have been true, "but it isn't". Telling his family was hard.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 30 April 2007 10:15:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

I think we have been left agreeing each other and reading Dawkins?

Hope we were able to encourage others to manage knowledge discovery in more plaucible ways and help waterboy and Philoto understand civilised peolpes do not require a guy with a long white beard watching them in the W.C.

For me a major disappointment has been how hands of Sells is, given he is a prolific writer. Perhaps, he too, was a touch of Olympus Syndrome?

Peace,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 5:08:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver and West, while you appear to be revelling in having the last word in this thread, nothing has been won here.
You perhaps have shown more aggression and persistance than the God/soul advocates but you haven't convinced anyone that your own materialist beliefs (and they are beliefs) are superior.
You fail to recognise that you as well as Philo and waterboy and myself are all believers to some degree. An adamant materialist is of the same colouring as a stubborn religionist, so certain and self-assured in their own views and beliefs that they are unable to consider alternate theories and instead only attack anything that challenges their own.

The materialist hero of the 21st century appears to be Richard Dawkins and it is clear that you both revere him, however he is also overly self-confident in his own rightness.
A valid criticism of Dawkins is made here by Steven Unwin: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1883586,00.html

It is also noteworthy that Dawkins himself admits the incompleteness of his own materialistic doctrine by his inability to explain qualia:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p4.html

Dawkins chooses to *believe* that the materialist theory is true and will one day encompass all, but for the moment beliefs will suffice on the matter. It seems you both do the same.

So to make my point again: we are all to some degree believers in that which we are not and can not be sure of.
As this is a symptom that West has described as a mental problem, perhaps we should all be diagnosed with the same physchological label that would be given a religionist. Perhaps that label should be "human".
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:31:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver it appears the wrestling has moved to "An uneasy marriage of necessity". Religion in politics.

I have friends in the U.S and Canada , all ex theologian students all atheists. An awarness of history seems to be the true enlightener. Certainly in any discipline it is the basic tool box for both theorist and practitioner. Apparently history is gods Kryptonite. I used to know a Catholic priest who had a theory that the devil was symbolic of truth , based on genisis. We used to enjoy a good argument but in hind sight I now see he was grappling with what is a proposterous belief and admirably trying to translate the bible to fit in with reality. I would argue a victim of wanting to know. This is not understood by the religious , the motivation of the scientist is to actually know , any easy answer is not good enough if it not the truth. Religion is emotion, it is not about knowledge, reality is irrelevant. Religion is emotion thus ego centred.

This is why it is important for Donnie to get in the last word on behalf of Jesus Ha Ha.

Donnie I am clean of superstition thus disproving your assertion. When I give to charity it is because I got it , they need it. Its that simple. A rose smells sweet because the nerves in my nostrils and brain interpret it that way and I like the smell and it evokes a chemical cocktail of happiness. Intellectually I appreciate nature. I am an organism from a long line of organisms in the environment of organism society.

I have ego just like Christians, the difference is I dont worship mine. I have emotions just like Christians the difference is I know my emotions are emotions , I am aware of my emotions. I ask questions just like Christians , the difference is I want to know the real answer and not just a slogan to reinforce what I want to hear.

I guess thats it ,

fairwell chaps.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:57:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West, you simply substitute belief in God or belief in the soul for belief in the ego. You believe in the materialist brain theory. You are a "religionist" in the cult of Anti-religion.

But good on you for unselfishly giving to charity, and good on you for wanting to know the real answers. These are both admirable qualities in my opinion.

And this is true for good scientists:
" the motivation of the scientist is to actually know , any easy answer is not good enough if it not the truth."
Real scientists do not rule out the unfavourable or the improbable when they have not proven the favourable or the probable. This works both ways in the religion debate too.
Posted by Donnie, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 4:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You fail to recognise that you as well as Philo and waterboy and myself are all believers to some degree. An adamant materialist is of the same colouring as a stubborn religionist, so certain and self-assured in their own views and beliefs that they are unable to consider alternate theories and instead only attack anything that challenges their own." - Donnie

D,

Conviction is the word you seek. The key idea is one holds a posit that is felt will be conformed at some indetermined (Polnayi) in the future. Perhaps, the difference is a religionist does not seek confirmation, because they feel they infallibly know absolutes. Somethinh, with whch, I would take issue and that is why Dawkins is not an athiest [7/7 point] athiest. Something, I have posoted even before read any Darwins. Whom incidently, I agree with only in general, and, would not make my top person top twenty list. In the God Dulusion he makes some minor errors I put down to having the wrong Reviewers, :e.g., he states the Israelites were initially monotheists. Acually, they were henotheists [key tribal god, with minor gods]. His ideas on group memes are better/more clearly managed, methinks,sio-biologists. He is also a little too missionary for me: Much like Peter Sellick [Sells], in personality, but on the opposite pole. For Dawkins, religion is an enemy. For, Sells knowledge is an enemy.

Where they differ is, a Dawkins would manage evidence in a different way. Were a geologist or a paleo-anthropologist, with evidence, show Darwin's he made a mistake, he would feel [or believe the ideal is] to admit, in public, if necessary. Were ancient document specialist or historian, pretty prove that the Council of Nicaea managed the documents inappropriately , and, therefore, Jesus did exist, but he was not divine. Sells would not bend to any evidence. In fact, the more unreasonable the posit in face of contrary evidence the greater his, "faith"...
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 3 May 2007 11:55:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...

Instead working from Creation? Gods? God? Jesus? Sells, takes the a priori position that Jesus is God, period. That is why in early threads I encouraged looking at the architecture of theocrasia, before making any commitment to godheads [different OT/NT] and looking at the history a generation each side of Nicaes [significant implications for the issue of the divinity of Jesus].

The OT and NT are tethered but also way out of synch. There is a difference between the Jesus house cults and denominational religion after Constantine? If you and Sells read this known history too and denigh it, religionism has created some sort of word blindness toward stronger alternative explanations.

Your are wrong if you feel I [and West?] have not reviewed the evidence. On the matter of the OT and NT having different godheads, when just needs to read the Bible. Moreover, on the characteristics of Mystery Cults, just about everything is borrowed [no just feast days to keep the Romans happy]. We see contradictions in reports between the Gospels. The OT god was clearly misognist warmonger who played cruel games with his creation. Jesus was more stable but, just the same, needed anger management. If Herod wanted him dead, he would have paid his thirty pieces od silver to some thugs to J in a back alley.

-- No one has yet explained why a loving god created the cruelty of the insect world? Do ants sin? Saying that its a matter of survival is just saying that God st*ffed up design. ----
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 3 May 2007 12:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver, nice point on conviction, i would concur with this. I suppose believing could be described as a degree of quantity, not actually a binary fact. It might range from bafflement to doubt to confidence to conviction.

"Perhaps, the difference is a religionist does not seek confirmation, because they feel they infallibly know absolutes."
I think a religious person IS seeking confirmation by adhering to the religion. Also what you are describing here is arrogance. Arrogance is a trait that is certainly not unique or endemic to the religious. And I believe the predominant ideal of religion (at least those i know of) is one of humbleness, which is in fact an antonym of arrogance.

What is this historical evidence you present meant to prove though? Perhaps i have lost track of the thread of your argument.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 3 May 2007 5:15:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Donnie,

My comments on History go vack several threads to Sells' article on "How does God?" An interesting question is posed. Different to, "Does God Exit"? History would sould suggest that the architecture of theocrasia regrading Christianity is typical of the Axial Period and into a century after Mohammed. In the first century there is a plenty of commonality among what are called, "Mystery Cults", shich more than just the Mystery. Things like sacrafice and Messagers from Heaven. Much more than borrowing Roman holidays. The first century Christians were in-house, small group worshippers. Saul-Paul Hellenised the "cult" (unstable doctrine) and later Constantine institutionalised Christianity as a "religion" (has a creed and doctrine). Paul morphed Jesus and generalised potential membeship to the cult. Constantine (aka Nicaea), ligitimised the religion. Before 325 (Nicaea)only 2% of Romans were Christian. Institutionalisation determined which of trinity and form of divinity became, The Chistian Church. Competing beliefs, were treated as heresies based on human judgements. In the time immediately afterwards the Fourth Century Christians acted like the Taliban do today. the Churches really sweep the first century under the rug and don't revisit the Nicaean debates with general congregations to re-consider validity.

Sells, I feel, is closer to Dawkins than you or I in personality; it is only the two maintain different ideologies. The alternative, is he is using the threads to test responses of theists and atheists, to see how our social paths evolve over time. I think the form, if he is a preacher.

O.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 4 May 2007 4:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to comment ,even though this conversation can only go around in circles as I cannot believe fiction is truth and god believers will always reject anything that threatens the illusion dungeons and dragons promises.

History proves the bible is fiction so it follows claims based on the bible are fiction. Because Christians for example , as it is now known to be true of all religions deny their claims are fictionj then it is certain they are not seeking to know but are searching for confirmation, justification that what they decide to believe is some how magically true.

It is not only that the authors of the bible are known, that historically sequentially the bible has evolved and introduced concepts are dated or that much of the new testament was written in geographical, political, cultural and procedual ignorance of the lands and people it was concerned with. It is not only the fact that the bible was written in complete ignorance of the geography of the world , basic biology and even very basic astronomy. It is not only the fact the bible is literally ridiculous with claims of monsters, global floods, parting oceans, water walking ect. It is not only the bible is not supported by every contemporary of the alleged events of the bible. It would be a huge surprise to civilisations that existed that god created the world as they existed before god. Even Moses flight into egypt was unknown to the Egyptians let alone him parting the sea. The Romans had not heard of Jesus for over a Hundred years, son of god slipping Pontius's mind? Just like Harry Potter no claim of the bible is substantiated and most are directly contradicted
Posted by West, Saturday, 5 May 2007 11:33:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus in the Roman era if he had existed would have existed in a civilisation far more advanced than the following Christian era. It would be as if the Taliban took over ran civilisation into the ground and interpreted 21st century politics, economy, society. Superstition may have been fine in the dark ages although given it was a time when Christendom achieved massive ethnic cleansing , not even matched by Hitler so it should not be claimed that Christianity served society well. The moral claim of Christ was extinguished with ethnic cleansing and also sectarian, religious and socio-xenophobic based persecutions.

What is Christianity left with? Certainly no god or truth, no justification, only the need to convince oneself that it is not what it is in all fact is. That’s why it is also important to convince oneself that those who see religion for what it is some how harbour superstition. Reality is reality it is not dogma, ideology, mere perception. Evil is not the lack of worship of some deity , evil is the un-empathetic harm of another. Certainly the agendas of churches and the exclusionary nature of Christ and god and the agenda to fill minds with untruths is evil.

Religion does not monopolise arrogance but it is not atheists or antitheists preying on (recruiting) children, using brainwashing techniques to recruit believers, advertising false promises on television and radio, dictating to you what you must believe. Christianity does and worst besides.
Posted by West, Saturday, 5 May 2007 11:43:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

It is interesting that Christians wont revisit the architecture of theoocrasia,that faith in relation to mystery cults and the transition from cult to institutional religion. It is there in History, and, not examined with sufficient rigour by Christian congregrations.

With regard my recommendation that congregations and parishioners revisit the the generation either side of Nicaea, I not by way of parallel the way archeologists keep revisiting Troy, especially Troy 6 and Tro 7A, in relation to the "Iliad". Herein, the [lore ballard period of about 500 years between [a probable] Troy and Homer, is constantly being turned over for evidience, wherei, Sir Aurther Evans disproved Heinrixh Schliemann, and, much latter [1980s], Trojan dipomatic letters were discovered in [Communist] East Germany. Today there appears to fact and fiction stemming from investigations.

Herein, would it not be in the best interests of the faithful at large to analyse, analyse and analyse; rather, than listen, listen and listen [to a creed from a priesthood]? Is it not in the faithful's own interest to to discover the competing trinities and the processes that led to their religion, in the same way as a geologists interprets rock strata? If Jesus is not divine or at least reinterpretation of the political and sociological environment point to going [wrongly] done path "A", rather the correctly down path "B" [Jesus was not divine] is not important that people this, so that billions of dollars and millions of man years of effor better employed/deployed? Maybe, Jesus did live and maybe had some good advice for an ancient religious civilization AND a modern, post-Enlightenment, but, it is a great leap to say that he is divine on much less evidence than the city-state "we call" Troy existed. Troy is referred to in the Minoan language, even manifests of products [BBC Michael Wood], but, there is no equlivalent for Jesus. Sell, IF... IF, his divinity is a fabrication, would you want to know?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 6 May 2007 2:03:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

Postscript to the above post: The other thing is that when looking at something like Troy, the Scientists and Historians, will usually mention schools [plural] of thought, what appears to be fact, what is not known, what is up-for-debate and what is spectulation. Christians, I accuse have creed, dogma, articles of faith and catechisms. Anthopologists are open to new knowledge discovery and priesthoods are later closed new knowledge discovery.

Probabity and Common Sense [even for theist]: What is more likely God Exists or Jesus is God?

Regards,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 6 May 2007 5:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have moved house over the last weeks and my computer had crashed. But I note the ardent evangelists of the negative still chant out their brainwashed doctrine - "There is no god and those that believe that man is essentially spiritual are deluded!"

I prefer to be deluded in their eyes, because I see the evidence of changed lives - from paths of self destruction to becoming responsible contributors to our society.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 7 May 2007 9:15:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Hope you are now happily re-established in your new home.

Troy [above] is an interesting topic and it draws parallels with Chistrian religionism. Historians and anthropologists keep turning over the data and re-evaluating the situations [when, how, what level?]. The investigators with label their findings as [tentative] facts, unknown and spectulation. I contrast this approach to the period around Nicaea, and, instead of honesty and pragmatism, see creed, artcles of faith and catechisms. The latter does not let old interpretations to be revisited, in new light. If the accepted god is wrong or Jesus is not divine, would you not want to know? Should not parishioners and congregations be involved in the analyses? [not led by a priesthood: an institution that predates Christianity by at leat 4,000 years? [i.e., in the pre-Western thread, it started as a means to control property in Sumer. Before the OT Hebrews, before Jesus, before Constantine.]
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 8 May 2007 12:27:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Four things Philo. Who exactly is brainwashing me and for what purpose?

You being deluded or not deluded is not the issue, the issue is power and impact onto and over 'others', the debate is not about you or what I personally think about you.

Thirdly I have never said religion does not change lives. Alchohol and narcotics are beneficial to some people. People are not designed, not created , are not the robots that creation implies. Instead we are concieved and we grow therefore are a diverse lot. That religion is measured as changing lives is testimony that religion and spiritual beliefs is ego centred.

I actually do not know one self destructive atheist or antitheist. There must be some but of all the Christians I do know the majority (not all) are self destructive because they are neurotic , self obsessed , reputation competative, morally ignorant,socially ignorant and egotistical whilst being self ignorant. Not to mention theyve wasted decades of their lives waiting for armageddon. These are people who's lives are out of control and they have no tools to control it outside of superstition, its why they need Jesus or a rabbits foot , or a Tiwi. I am not taking a shot at you Philo , this the the fact in my experience
Posted by West, Tuesday, 8 May 2007 3:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as the religious becoming responsible contributors in this society , what utter nonesense. The weighted majority of religious people are too obsessed with themselves, too busy trying to get a grip on their own lives to even to begin to contemplate another human being other than the way the religious choose to see people. The claim that religion makes people responsible is bogus, you are taking superstition and moral panic too far. Like the good or bad , a person is either responsible or irresponsible regardless of religion and beliefs.

If we go by the current state of beliefs, religion is at best irresponsible. A president called by god has gone to war with one people because another bunch of people were called by god to kill themselves with as many innocents as possible meanwhile a political party in this very country formed to represent god has called in the past for burning Lesbians as witches and now calls for beating little children. While god run agencies are lying about who they are so they can dump their superstitious load on pregnant women. Where is the responsibility? Ask Jim Jones, Geoffery Dharma, Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh and Robert Yates.

Hate to burst your bubble but Brittany Spears had a christian upbringing, it did her a lot of good.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 8 May 2007 3:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello *Computer Poppets*

I am most pleased ..., so now, I would like 2 express a personal view or two:

1. Nobody ought b concerned about having 2 defend *GoddO* He/She/It is big enuff & ugly enuff 2 do it itSelf.
2. We say, the Divine is In U, the hope of glory & yes indeed thereby has a close association with the "I/Ego." Of course, *poppets* have the choice of considering any aberations within consciousness to b within the sole purfew of BrainDopers & Shrinks. In the 1st instance, this is very important I would suggest.
3. Whilst *Poppets* like *Poppet West et al* appear 2 @ least superficially 2 b closed minded, indeed Godless, blasphemous, heathen *Poppets,* they do in fact fulfill a very important function in our *Lordy's Host,* verily even akin 2 our *Uncle Satan* (who despite the word being "Pulang, masih nggak mau.)

U c *Poppets,* @ this particular time, verily as it is written, is in fact "The time of *Gentiles*" & Heaven wants 4 us 2 purify our desire nature & grow a brain.

Again as it is written, a sign will not b given 2 the "group" as we already have too many ding-a-ling *Poppets* who wish 2 lay down their own *I* 2 something "other" which is of course to sin (in the greek to miss the point) & is counter productive in terms of personal evolution.

So I say unto our fellows *Poppet West et al*
HaHaHa!
;-)

" ... Go forth *Poppets!* Let Luv b the motivation & theMind always the overriding factor. Purge "our" Living Church of blind faith, dogma, child abusers & that which *Goddo* is not.
Beware the sin of the closed mind to experiences outside yr personal experience along the way. That can lead to, for want of a better term, a crystallisation of thought form, which again is to "sin," being counter productive in terms of personal evolution & inconducive to assisting in the process of elevating the consciousness of other *Poppets*

Fond Regards to All,

...Adam...
Posted by AJLeBreton, Thursday, 10 May 2007 12:56:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Satan is my favourite biblical character. The charcter of Satan in the bible is always honest and he is persecuted often immorally for it by god. Satan warned Adam and Eve when god lied to them , Satan warned Jesus when God lied to him , Satan even warned God when he was lying to himself - the story of Job. Satan therefore is symbolic of truth and/or pragmatism persecuted. The same thing happens to Judas.

You have to feel sorry for Satan , origionally Christians believed Satan created the Earth and man in his image, God was too perfect to be a man. Nicea made certain that texts supporting this view did not make it into the bible as it undermined authority and besides - the ethnic cleansing of pagans had begun. Satan remained a man for hundreds of years until paganism proved tenacious and so Satan joined the more mumbo jumbo of characters and earnt the horns and hooves and hells of the northern gods.

Satan stands for persecuted truth and you accuse me of serving his purpose , may I ha ha poppet? I merely make comments.

God is always on the believers side, funny that.
Posted by West, Thursday, 10 May 2007 1:47:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have U know *Poppet West* that Dungeons & Dragons is a most excellent game. It should b put on the curriculum of all schools in my humble view as we did @ our college many moons ago & not just on the curriculum of the elitist "special" schools for primary students, to further encourage the faculty of imagination & pictorial perception, which are both highly valuable attributes when it comes to creating "new" things.

As for "our" irrepressable *Uncle Satan,*
indeed I have heard a very "wise" *poppet* say that it was he/she/it that gifted us with our "individuality," but that there remains an outstanding question as to the timing of that gift.
(I'm out of my depth now though & must confess to just regurgetating heresay.)

Perhaps for good reason *Auntie/Uncle Satan* was reputed to b much Luved & favoured by *GoddO* in the mythological stories of ages gone by.
Posted by AJLeBreton, Thursday, 10 May 2007 2:15:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJLeBreton now you are getting too profound for religion not only dangerously close to "uncle/ Aunty Satan" but profound enough to accept your tea and coffee without milk and/or sugar. To borrow from another religion - Tarot, progressing from the Heirophant to the High Priestess crossed by the Devil. That is taking ritualised conformity to take a higher meaning but bonded by the need for it to have meaning. At the heart of the matter tea and coffee are flavoured water, we choose to flavour those beverages based on our preferences.

Profundity is the art of reading life and the universe, the esoteric is knowing what are you chosing to read into it and why you read what into what.

I dare say the real game of Dungeons and Dragons would be enlightening for some , but would for many become milk and sugar to again hide what is heated water.

One thing about the Bible is originally in Superman comics Superman stood for "Truth and Justice" it was only after the 1960's tv show he stood for "Truth and Justice and the American way" which does change the meaning. The Bibles own meanings have also evolved and have had meanings deliberately attributed to it.
Posted by West, Thursday, 10 May 2007 3:08:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

The Bible/Christianities has different meanings because its kernel has five gods, godheads aside. ... Adraham, Moses, Jesus, Hellenised Jesus [Pauline doctrines], and, institutionalised 'divine' Jesus [Nicaea]. Moreover, these god architectures draw on scores of other religions. [You know them]

Before 1500 BCE, religionists did, probably unintensionally help civilisation. Suprise! Some guys in the Middle East, called themselves priests, and decided to charge peasants for conducting religious services. The money earned subsequently supported the creation of an artisan class to meet the needs of the priests. [McNeil]

Cheers,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 11 May 2007 6:45:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
4 the International stage 2 b set bak 2 a
*Peaceful Footing*
it is my view is that if *Browny* was already *President* we wouldn't b involved with shooting "enrichment waste" @ Sand People
&
it follows unlikely 2 b fighting with the "Islamic HardLiners"
&
the housing & resource boom would have been harnessed & turned into subsidies so that everyone's homes now wld b replete with *GreenTech* (RainWater systems, poo water recycling, mayb solar magnification & special materials, sales bak 2 the grid - The Works!)
so that we all mayb safe & secure from the climatic ravages that are predicted to come.

...Adam...
Posted by AJLeBreton, Thursday, 24 May 2007 1:07:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its all politics. Faith Vs risk assessment, dogma Vs outcomes, loyalty Vs values. Salvation Vs ultralism, ritual Vs science, tradition Vs information. Heirachy Vs equality, majority Vs minority, pride Vs reality, spirit Vs life , moral ideals Vs morality.
Posted by West, Thursday, 24 May 2007 1:49:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As 4 the State of the Vessel & U235 EnRichment Waste Munitions:

Confirmation that Ionizing Radiation Can Induce Genomic Instability:
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., and
Egan O'Connor, Executive Director, CNR. Spring 1998.
.. " When a mutagen has induced genomic instability in a cell, some of the cell's descendants will experience new and unrepaired genetic abnormalities at an excessive rate, even though the descendants themselves received no exposure to the mutagen used in the experiment. This occurs because such cells have inherited a genome which was injured with respect to maintaining genomic stability. "

...

Uranium 238: Depleted Uranium
Broadcast on ABC RN on Saturday 15/6/2002
Dr Helen Caldicott:
" .. The men who fought in the Gulf War, they are excreting uranium in their semen; they call it 'burning semen' and their wives notice it too. Now what’s in the semen? The genes for all future generations. ... "

...

Oh Dear *Poppets*
HaHaHa
What if there's a mix-up & baby *Jesus* comes bak as a
Mutant "Cyclops Baby" with SuperPowers?

...Adam...
Posted by AJLeBreton, Friday, 25 May 2007 1:42:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes and additionally there is the issue of radon from depleted uranium dust collecting in veterans grave yards.Farmers of the future beware.

Jesus coming back? The concept rubs against an omnipresent god. With an omnipresent god , whats the use of coming back? with the internet and television and radio , how efficient is coming back? The only reason why a messiah would come back to collect his chosen would be to rub the noses of the non believers in his return for not believing in something that only existed in myth that there was never a hair of evidence to support. So if he came back he proves himself immoral and is likely to have his nose rubbed in his own hypocracy.

You would think by 1800 years Jesus would of realised that coming back is a stupid thing to do with little purpose as it is kind of like a dramatic teenage tantrum.

Whatever , he aint ever coming back.
Posted by West, Friday, 25 May 2007 2:29:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But Christian revelation includes the revelation that the world is not the habitat of mind, this is why natural science arose in the Christian West despite the glitch of Galileo’s trial." - Peter Sellick.

Sells,

The theistic issue arising from Galileo was between the natural domain [Earth] and supernatural domain [The Heavens/Space]. That is why the Vatican atstronomers woudl not look through his telescope. Moreover, the broader recognition of the natural world, not under the Celestial Spheres, was not recognised by the Christian Church, arresting the development of civilization, since before the Dark Ages [which the Christians, in part, also occasioned]. The hand of that Church in opposition to popular, or, even specialist knowledge, prevented Galileo publishing his later works during his lifetime. Closer to contemporary examples would be Mendel [genetics] and Evolution [Darwin and last century the Monkey Trials].

Mind and body are Greek concepts. Applying The Mind via Episte to determine Techne is a creation of The Great Divigence [c.1760], and, is a stand at the opposite pole the Creations of Nicaea
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 28 May 2007 11:13:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science was a big issue for Ptolemy who as a benefactor of science kicked off what was to be later though of as European science. The Greeks articulted what science is and is not. According to Thucydides the Greeks in the Peloponesian war did to the sea vessel what WW1 and WW2 did to aircraft in the 20th century. Augustus Caesar collected fossils and the Romans worked out grand animals had once existed before the time of man. The Vikings like the Egyptians, Indians and Greeks worked out the world was round. Hindu scientists were pondering how stars were born and died long before Jesus and his flat Earth followers existed. If you were a sick Christian you would be treated by a pagan Alchemist , Muslim or Jewish doctor. Quite A few have had their cures or surgical techniques confirmed. The Romans experimented with surgery although successful techniques were banned under Christian rule. Chinese acupunture , older than Christ has been proved by German researchers to actually work only a few years ago. Under Christianity Europe technologically, economically, politically and scientifically went into decline. It wasnt until the rise of what was considered 'sinful cities' that the diversity of ideas that create free thinking enabled Europe to steer toward enlightenment. Even today Northern Europe is one of the most technologically advanced places on Earth and Christianity is in decline there. The U.S is also technologically advanced on par with Europe but in the Bible Belt and areas of strong Christianity the U.S resembles a developing country. Japan is a different kettle of fish.

Needless to say knowledge and science has flourished despite Christianity. It really is time to draw the real line between reality and mythology. If god really existed it is not logical that science has to be defunct because the god believer agenda is then arguing truth is blasphemy. If god really does not exist it is not logical to punish science because it cant prove fantasy and fiction are reality.
Posted by West, Monday, 28 May 2007 12:40:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WEST:
" ... Needless to say knowledge and science has flourished despite "Christianity" ...

REVENGE of the SITH:
Chancellor Palpatine
" ... All who gain power are afraid 2 lose it, ... "
Posted by AJLeBreton, Monday, 28 May 2007 5:44:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Preference the Greens!"

VOTE 1
*Browny* 4 Prez!
VOTE 1

YAY!
Posted by AJLeBreton, Monday, 28 May 2007 6:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West,

Good post.

I was reading Susan Greenfield [neurologist and university resident thinker]. The good Baroness writes of the personal ego versus the collective ego. The latter tends to be more nasty. In this frame. no doubt ordinary Christians have had their place in collective ego played with by Church leaders and religiosity in general, for millenia.

Around the eventh century, Islam was leaning towards liberalism. Unfortunately, this stalled. Likewise, we had the loss of intellectual growth in the West, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and subsequently, under the cruel and superstitious Christians. In China, spititualism leaned more towards ancestor worships and China being The Middle Kingdom between heaven and earth: wherein, everyday life was more secular, even in ancient and Medieval times. Feudalism was replaced 300 years before the common era. Secular-like Chinese Confucianism, did take hold. Regrettably, when the Chinese did have contact with Greek scholarship, they paid it little mind as the esoteric was not valued.

Practical Chinese inventiveness gave them technologies without much understanding of the Science behind their techiques. Given the relative absence of religion in China, the country progressed, without a prolonged Dark Ages. Humanity might have befitted had the Chinese applied Greek thought to the secularism; herein, we might have had the Great Divergence the eighth; rather than the eighteenth century.

Humanity has stuggled under the yoke of religionism for ages. I do hope, eventually, humankind can break free and stand on its own feet for its self-actualised, goodness sake.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 4:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the only chance human kind has of throwing off the yokes of religion is if it ever colonises other worlds such as the moon , Titan or Mars. The great anchor in all religions is geographic. whether it was Hellenistic sprite infested gorges, Rainbow Serpent landscapes, Mecca , Jerusalem , Orion (view from earth) all regigions are geographically specific. This is why Jehova, Elohim and Allah, were all ignorant of the world beyond the Tigris and the universe above beyond 2km.

No doubt superstition would stay with humanity but as geography becomes irrelevant so too does religion. Who cares if Jesus returned to Armageddon as far as an Earth Decended martian is concerned?
With environmental monitoring and technical knowledge just to keep alive , curses and smiteness will be replaced with technical malfunction, structural stress and psychological competence profiling.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 12:34:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" ... This is why Jehova, Elohim and Allah, were all ignorant of the world beyond the Tigris and the universe above beyond 2km. ... "

Indeed the situation 4 some of the Palestinian refugees has been unacceptable for too long. It seems that even the experience of WW2 is insufficient 2 bring the collective consciousness of some in "israel" to act with compassion 2wards their fellow Human Beings.

Why is it any surprise then that in the face of "tyrannical oppression" that some choose 2 throw off their shackles by force of arms? & Why is it any surprise that they have friends?

Perhaps if we cld escape the body 4 a bit,
& have a word with the *Mars Conscioussness*
visa vi the conduct of the romans & their allies during recent times.

...Adam...
Posted by AJLeBreton, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 3:25:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By "the conduct of the romans & their allies during recent times" are you referring to the Mussolini, Vatican, Franco and Hitler Quadrant alliance ? or the alliance with the free world after Italy was conquered by the science driven Fordist U.S.A and its industrialised allies? Which was fortunate because if Berlin fell first the Vatican would have no time to negotiate its survival.Thus today the Catholic Church would be broken up and Nazis would not have been able to escape intact as a group to Catholic South America.

If Berlin fell first - A nice 'What if?'
Posted by West, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 4:46:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 56
  7. 57
  8. 58
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy