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.

... 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.

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'.

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.

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.

"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