What danger is created when religion is taken to the extreme. Recently in America Lori Vallow was convicted of the murder of her two children, daughter Tylee (16), and adopted son Joshua (7). Vallow was also found guilty of murdering her husbands ex-wife. Vallow's husband, Chad Daybell is awaiting trial on similar charges. The couple are thought to have met through their involvement in a religious cult movement that promoted preparing for the end of the world. Chad Daybell was an author of fictional books which focused on the apocalypse, and were loosely drawn from the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). In their extreme minds of biblical beliefs the couple thought people were of two spirits, the "light" and the "dark" spirits, and further believed that those of the "dark", that their souls could only be saved by killing them, Lori Vallow applied her religious beliefs to her two children, resulting in their murders, she is non repentant, and believes she was carrying out the will of God. The question is how dangerous is religious beliefs when taken to the extreme? How entrenched is religious extremism, Christian and other in Australia, just waiting to do a Lori Vallow's on all those non believers?

Dear Paul1405,

Religion is dangerous even when it is not taken to the extreme. The words of Martin Luther, founder of a large branch of Christianity wrote "On the Jews and their Lies".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

"In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. Luther claimed they should be shown no mercy or kindness,[3] afforded no legal protection,[4] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[5] He also advocates their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[6]"

The book may have had an impact on creating later antisemitic German thought.[7] With the rise of the Nazi Party in Weimar Germany, the book became widely popular among its supporters. During World War II, copies of the book were commonly seen at Nazi rallies, and the prevailing scholarly consensus is that it may have had a significant impact on justifying the Holocaust.[8] Since then, the book has been denounced by many Lutheran churches.[9]"

The Holocaust was justified by mainstream Christianity.

Hello Paul,

The concept of the rapture, known theologically as dispensational premillennialism, is most commonly adhered to in evangelical and fundamental churches.

This belief in the rapture, so prevalent in these evangelical churches in the U.S. causes what is now known as "Rapture anxiety".

“Rapture anxiety" is recognized by some faith experts and mental health professionals as a type of religious trauma.

It can cause an increase of anxiety, depression, paranoia and even some OCD-like behaviours.

For some like Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell their extreme religious beliefs have caused them to show no human regard even for their own family members.

Maybe this lack of empathy in some evangelistic Christians helps explain why Scott Morrison was recently described as a ‘bottomless well of self-pity’ with no ‘mercy’ for Robodebt’s real victims".

Hi david f,

What were the underlying reasons for Luthers animosity towards them?
What was his real beef, why did he feel that way, and was there any merit to his reasoning?

Hi Paul,

I think extreme religious beliefs can certainly be dangerous to others
I've seen videos of muslim extremeists throwing alledgedly gay people from the top of buildings, and while I'm not gay and do not support the gay agenda, I don't think it's right that they should've been thrown of buildings.

While on that topic though, there's plenty of borderline mentally ill trans people, who have perpetrated mass shooting for their resentment of christians and others who don't support them.

All beliefs if taken to an extreme of 'end's justifies the means' can potentially become dangerous to others.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Luther pointed out the corruption and failings of the Catholic Church. He apparently thought Jews didn't become Christians because of Catholic corruption. He founded a new religion supposedly free of Catholic corruption. He expected Jews to adopt his new religion. When Jews didn't adopt his form of Christianity, he became angry at them. My previous post cited an expression of his anger which was consistent with Nazi hatred of Jews. The Nazi hatred didn't come out of nowhere. It was inspired by Christian hatred.

Jew hatred has been around long before Luther. Long before Germany existed. I recall an obscure Arab rabble-rouser from the 6th century who also preached Jew hatred. Oh and Sargon II from the 8th century BC seemed none too fond of the Jews either. Oh and Nebuchadnezzar II seemed to have a special dislike of them. Oh and.....

And religion taken to extremes becomes extremist. The religion of Marxism taken to extremes results in the Holodomor and the gulag.

As regards Vallow et al, it seems they were just insane, but if you look at their belief systems, its closer to Zoroastrianism than Christian.

Dear mhaze,

The atrocities of Marxism are not due to Marxism taken to the extreme. They are basic to Marxism.

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693

is an article I wrote on the subject.

https://jcpa.org/article/the-egyptian-beginning-of-anti-semitism%E2%80%99s-long-history/

"The initial indication of a negative attitude toward Jews is found at the beginning of the third century BCE in the writings of an Egyptian priest called Manetho. This Greek-speaking Egyptian devotes a large section of his main work, which deals with the history of Egypt, to the Exodus of the Israelites."

Making a distinction between secular and religious
violence is misleading and unhelpful. So called
secular ideologies like nationalism, liberalism,
can be just as
divisive and irrational as so called religious ones.
People are violent and kill for all sorts of things.
Political, economic, and the list goes on.

Under what conditions do certain beliefs and
practices turn violent? jihad? the sacrificial
atonement of Christ, the role of the US as world wide
liberator?

Lets take a look at religion compared to politics:

! Religion focuses on ultimate concerns. So does politics.

2) Religion builds communities. So does politics.

3) Religion appeals to myths and symbols. Politics mimics
this in devotion to the flag, war, memorials, and so on.

4) Religion uses rituals, rites, and ceremonies. Politics
depends on rites and ceremonies.

5) Religion requires followers to behave in certain ways.
Politics and governments, and political parties also
demand certain behaviour.

Religion and politics are closely inter-twined. We should not
warn of the dangers of religion and ignore the violent
tendencies that politics can bring.

Let us not forget that religion was not considered as
something separate from political institutions until the
modern era - and primarily in the West.

Egyptian and Roman "religions" were not separate from
Egyptian and Roman states. Was Aztec "politics" to blame
for their bloody human sacrifices or was Aztec "religion"
to blame? The separation of religion from culture, politics,
economics, nationalism, and other areas of life is an
invention of the Modern World.

Solely blaming religion is misleading and everything needs
to be looked at in its proper context.

You have to be a pretty desperate sort of atheist to jump on the actions of a lunatic just to attack Christianity. And an extreme lunatic this woman is - an extreme lunatic, not an extreme Christian. She is no Christian at all. She will now rot in jail for the rest of her life - which might not be long. Kid killers are not all that popular among prison populations.

Foxy a good article.
However, a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ should not be associated with Christianity per say or founded by state powers. He wept for his Jewish brothers blest them and desired his followers to share his teachings with the Nations. His way, His truth, His demonstrated life with all persons. Christ teachings are about care and character for all persons even opponents.

Dear Josephus,

Even those you call pagans like our First Nations people
and consistently criticize?

Perhaps you need to practice Christ's teachings more
and preach less.?

Dear Josephus,

The Synoptic Gospels attribute the following quotes to Jesus: "Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters" (Matthew 12:30), as well as the corresponding statement, "Whoever is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:50; Mark 9:40).

The above breeds hate. I don’t want to be a follower of Jesus, but I don’t want to be an enemy of Jesus or his followers. The above quote doesn’t allow neutrality. You are a follower or an enemy.

Jesus in the above is intolerant of those who don't follow him. He breeds hate.

I would like to present a relevant verse from a poem, "Bhaja Govindam" by Adi Shankaracharya, which calls people to seek God and overcome the various obstacles on their spiritual path - verse 14:

"One ascetic with matted hair, one with shaven head, one with hair plucked out one by one, one in ocre robes – all these are distracted ones who, though seeing, do not see. These different disguises are only for their living [belly]."
http://ahambrahmasmi4.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bhajagovindamverse14/

(that page contains in-depth commentary, which I therefore need not repeat here; and the full poem can be found in http://www.shankaracharya.org/bhaja_govindam.php)

Buddha also said:
“A man becomes not a Brahmin by matted hair or family of birth. The man in whom there is truth and holiness, he is in joy and he is a Brahmin. (Dhammapada 393)

Of what is the use of matted hair, foolish man, of what use your antelope garment, if within you have tangled cravings and without ascetic ornaments? (Dhammapada 394)”.
http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/matted-locks-shaven-head-four-leaders-criticism

In other words, nothing is new about people who use external appearances to show off as being religious for the sake of material gain.

Presenting oneself or one's movement as religious does not mean that one or one's movement are indeed religious.

Taking the example of Christianity:
Presenting oneself as a follower of Jesus Christ does not mean that one indeed follows Jesus Christ.
Presenting Christianity as a religion does not mean that Christianity is indeed a religion.
The presence of a verse in the Bible does not mean that it indeed was divinely inspired.

I believe that many people, at one time or another in their lives, do use Christianity as their religion, yet there are also others, and even the same people at other times, who use Christianity for other, improper and potentially dangerous, purposes, which should never be confused with religion.

---

Dear David F.,

«Jesus in the above is intolerant of those who don't follow him. He breeds hate.»

Assuming that Jesus actually said the above and that the quotes are accurate and not out of context.
There's every chance it was otherwise.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I wrote 'attributed to Jesus'. That doesn't mean he said it or that he even existed.

David f,
Jesus just stated the obvious, it is not hate speech. You are opposed to me, but I would not consider your opposition to me as hate speech. You do not follow my views, so you are not supporting me. Get it?

Dear Josephus,

Any kind of communication that may do harm, that
attacks, demeans, or uses pejorative or discriminatory
language with references to a person or group on the
basis of who they are is considered as hate speech.
That is what you consistently do towards our First
Nations people all because of their Voice to Parliament?

And you a self-proclaimed Christian trying to influence
others?

I doubt if you will ever get it!

Dear Josephus,

I am not opposed to you. You can believe whatever nonsense you like, and I am free to think of it as nonsense. You are free to think of what I believe as nonsense. That does not mean I am against you. I am just not with you. The problem is that some do not accept it when others do not hold their beliefs. They send out missionaries. They penalise people for expressing or holding different beliefs.

We don't know what Jesus said or even whether there was a Jesus. I believe the Bible is mostly fiction. I don't think it is the word of God since I don't think there is a God. However, you probably think there is one. My opinion is that God is a human invention as is Zeus, Apollo and Thor.

I do know that Christianity has a horrible history of intolerance. Early Christians were persecuted. However, Christians have been more persecutors than persecutees.

In 1971, Christians represented 86.2% of the Australian population. In 2021, Christians were down to 43.9% of the population. As ancient people gave up polytheism, modern people are giving up Christianity.

I hope they will also give up hate. That is probably too much to hope for.

Posted by Josephus

Jesus just stated the obvious, it is not hate speech. You are opposed to me, but I would not consider your opposition to me as hate speech. You do not follow my views, so you are not supporting me. Get it?

Answer- Kudos Josephus. Point of view often bites one in the a**e.

You could argue that Hebrew's created Christianity therefore they caused any harm that Christianity- if any- that has been caused. Perhaps Christianity was a Middle Eastern Hebrew sect that was used to destroy the European/ Roman Empire. Remember the Chinese Golden Horde who could have carried the Black Death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

European's vs Middle Easterner's vs Chinese

Human's and organisation's are imperfect- and territorial- like mammals.

Why on earth is religion still allowed in Public ?

" ....modern people are giving up Christianity."

True. And that's why 'modern people' are flushing themselves down the gurgler, and taking Western civilisation with them.

Why is it that those who preach the most about
religion, freedom of speech, differences of opinions,
are more comfortable seeing two men
holding guns than holding hands?

David f, So, you only see one view as free of hate and it is yours, all other views are hate speech. I do not follow your atheistic views, so by your definition you must hate me. Otherwise, you have double speak.

Dear Josephus,

I don't know what you're on about. There is much hate inspired by Christianity. That doesn't mean that there isn't also good things to be found in Christianity and in other religions and philosophies I don't share.

You seem determined to make me your enemy. However, I am not and won't be made so. Probably, you think you're a good person. I won't argue with that.

David f, by YOUR definition of HATE, I am your enemy. You fail to see the meaning of your own words. If you do not accept my words by your definition of HATE, "you are not with me, you [stand] against me". [Jesus]

In the last 12 months 83,000 Christians have been murdered in Nigeria, and no one has stopped this slaughter, or taken up arms against the murderers.

Dear Josephus,

You may try to make me your enemy. However, I will not be your enemy. I have nothing against you. I don't approve of the ugly religion you follow. However, I have nothing against you and will not be your enemy in spite of the ugly words attributed to Jesus. I don't know that he even said those words or even that he existed. I would like to see a world where people live in peace with other. We differ from each other in belief and thought. People who differ from each other can live together in peace if they want to. You may hate me. I can't control your feelings. However, I don't hate you and won't be made to. In fact, I don't hate anybody.

Dear Josephus,

Most high school shootings in the United States were
done by people of the Christian Right. We have anti-
abortion violence. We have anti-minority violence.
We've seen the Christchurch mosque shootings on the
news. Of synagogues being required to have security
guards, and the list goes on.

Fundamentalists and extremists
come in all sorts of religions. Christians do not
have a good record. When religion is taken to the
extreme - we all suffer.

Hi David,

I find many "involved" Christians I speak with, certainly people of good character, they spend a lot of time in discussion minimising the past failures of Christianity. I often attend a weekly Christian fellowship, where questions are put, and discussion takes place, and interpretations of biblical scripture is made. This week it was a discussion on what Jesus had to say about "wealth", and how modern day Christians should act in relation to materialism, none seeing it as necessary to jettison their material ways in favour of a "come follow me" philosophy. I find that these mainstream Christians, simply interoperate scripture in ways that leads to an accommodation of their own circumstance, their own morals and their own beliefs.

Dear Paul1405,

There is a Christian saying: "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." I will hate the sin of Christianity but will not hate Christians.

David f, finally you get it. You can hate beliefs and actions, but care for the perpetrator. That is what Jesus was stating, if you are not supporting me you are acting against me. This is not hate speech, it is an obvious position. To oppose a person's beliefs with a better argument is not hate. The scripture teaches, pray for your enemy, give a cup of water to a thirsty enemy. As Jesus did, he healed a daughter of an occupying Roman guard. He had among his followers several zealots that were willing to murder Roman guards, he told them to put away their swords as those that live by the sword will die by the sword.

The communist left only believes there is one truth that must occupy everyone's mind as in Communist China, to oppose is hate of the State and must be subjected to brain washing of incarceration from the public as in the case of Uighurs. "The Chinese government is mounting a hardline campaign against the Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups, such as Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Hui, in the large western province of Xinjiang."

Similar things are happening in America and in Australia to only have one idea of truth and it is determined by the State. All other beliefs are considered hate speech. Some here hold that position, that to oppose a belief is hate speech.

Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting, or
prohibiting freedom of speech.

It means keeping hate speech from escalating into
something more dangerous, particularly incitement
to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is
prohibited under international law.

Shared values, it's all crap. It's feelgood western bs.
- It sounds nice, 'virtuous ethical principles' and the like...
until you see that they really have no values at all and are a bunch of hypocrites.

EU bans RT, Sputnik over Ukraine disinformation
http://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-bans-rt-sputnik-banned-over-ukraine-disinformation-2022-03-02/

"Russian state-controlled media outlets RT and Sputnik will be banned in the European Union with immediate effect for systematic disinformation over Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the 27-country bloc said on Wednesday in an unprecedented move.

The sanction means EU operators will be prohibited from broadcasting, facilitating or otherwise contributing to the dissemination of any RT and Sputnik content."

EU 'Strongly Condemns' Blocking Of France 24 And RFI In Niger Jug/raz/ach
http://www.barrons.com/news/eu-strongly-condemns-blocking-of-france-24-and-rfi-in-niger-jug-raz-ach-36ca2648

>>The European Union on Friday "strongly" condemned the blocking of French media broadcasts in Niger, where last week's coup sparked protests against the country's former colonial ruler.

"This step is a serious violation of the right to information and freedom of expression. The EU strongly condemns these violations of fundamental freedoms," EU spokeswoman Nabila Massrali said on Twitter, recently rebranded as X.<<

What shared western values?
What's the story here exactly?
'We always tell you the truth, but we can't have you listening to another point of view, as they are liars. You must ONLY listen to us'

Hmmm....

"It means keeping hate speech from escalating into
something more dangerous, particularly incitement
to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is
prohibited under international law."

Tell me Foxy, did you vilify the unvaxxed during the height of the pandemic?
- It's funny how these worldly well-meaning people can have such double standards.

Cracking down on media freedom is frequently used to label a government a regime.
Looks like the EU is openly no longer a democracy, if it ever was given the way they bully, threaten and coerce their member states.

There must be a distinct separation between church and state.
The state should always prevail.
And I am distinctly uneasy when it takes second place.
For example, allowing knives to be carried by students for 'religious' reasons.
NO.
This nonsense should cease.
No religious concept should be allowed to override the safety given by logically applied law.
It is time for the law to stand firm.
All these absurdities in the name of religion is almost horrifying.
When laws appear to have contradictory aims, a balance needs to be realised.
And that balance must always favour safety.

Ipso Fatso, you cannot exclude values from the laws. All laws are based on values, and values come from how one views the world - that is religion - or faith.

here is an article I just read from archeology.
The Moabite Stone
In 1868, a missionary in Jerusalem found a stone tablet for sale that appeared to be from ancient times. The sellers broke the tablet into a number of pieces to sell them one at a time to make more money.
Fortunately, a copy of the tablet was made prior to the break (this copy is in the Louvre today). On the tablet is a text written in Moabite dating to the ninth century BC. It was perhaps a victory stone erected by King Mesha to commemorate his military achievements. The text begins, “I am Mesha son of Chemosh, king of Moab.”
Prominent in the text is the king’s version of a war fought with Israel in 850 BC, in which Moab revolted against King Jehoram of the northern kingdom of Israel soon after the death of Ahab. Of particular interest is that the Bible records the same incident in 2 Kings 3. The two accounts differ in perspective. Mesha emphasizes his victories over Israel in capturing cities under Israelite control. The biblical writer, to the contrary, highlights Israel’s successful counter attacks against the Moabites.

In my opinion it is better to ask questions and doubt than to have faith. Faith can lead into religious crusades, following a great leader or believing in an eventual classless society. Separation of religion and government is necessary to establish a democratic society. I would trust more in values derived from a rational consideration of alternatives than I would in faith. The Bible is not an adequate guide for a modern, democratic society. The Bible accepts slavery, and slavery is not acceptable in modern, democratic society.

Regarding laws and values?

Laws are always changing and reflect the morals and
values of the society we live in. Laws are made by
the government responding to societal change.
Existing laws change when they require updating and
are no longer relevant.

Some religious people condemn abortion, euthanasia, same-sex
marriages, and so on. We now have laws governing those things
not religion.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«There must be a distinct separation between church and state.»

So far so good, I agree.

«The state should always prevail.»

God and His laws always prevail, no matter what states try.
No matter what states legislate, apples will keep falling down to earth and not up to the moon!

And those who do evil will inescapably suffer as a result: this is built into this universe, no human-made law is required for it and no human-made law can change this.

«For example, allowing knives to be carried by students for 'religious' reasons.
NO.»

So you are concerned about violence - very well indeed, but how come you are not concerned about state-violence, in this case against religious people who only try to follow God and never wanted anything to do with the state to begin with?

«And that balance must always favour safety.»

Physical safety is a pipe-dream: everything that ever started is going to end; and everyone who was born must die. The only way if one really wants safety, is to cling to the unborn Eternal.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "God and His laws always prevail, no matter what states try. No matter what states legislate, apples will keep falling down to earth and not up to the moon!"

It is a myth that there is a god and he/she/it makes laws. Humans make laws and myths. Humans may say those laws come from god. You will keep bleating about god. Humans make laws, and one can hope the laws are fair. The law of gravity is a consequence of the observation of behavior of matter - not something ordained by an imaginary deity. Organisms not aware of the law of gravity are subject to it.

You wrote: "Physical safety is a pipe-dream: everything that ever started is going to end; and everyone who was born must die. The only way if one really wants safety, is to cling to the unborn Eternal."

The first sentence is true. The second sentence is nonsense. May you survive in good health for a while.

Dear David F.,

Thank you for your good wishes.

It is not that I am fond or approve of human-made law, but legally speaking, not knowing about a law does not constitute an exemption from that law, nor does ignorance of its source, nor does considering that law to be nonsense.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't know of any meaning for the phrase, unborn Eternal.

The word, law, is used to describe governmental regulations and the behavior of matter, two very different things. The first is made by humans, and the second is a consequence of human observation of the behavior of matter. I don't share your belief in mythology. It is a primitive concept. I remember as a child seeing movies starring Jack Holt with tribal people observing, "The gods are angry." when observing the volcano erupting. You might grow up and dispense with your childish beliefs. You may be happier clinging to your childish beliefs. Whatever. Be happy.

The Universe is governed by laws of physics, Humans body function are governed by laws put in place by its creator. Human moral behaviors are governed by moral laws that are universal, and persons can accept them or reject them because they have free will or are ignorant.

There are three areas where moral laws apply, lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and pride of life. The Flesh things like gluttony, or lust for sexual gratification outside of loving marriage, lust of the eye is covetous of others property or persons, pride of life looking for praise of or power over others.

Dear Josephus,

It is odd that the universal moral laws in which you believe are found in your particular superstition. What a coincidence. Different societies do not agree on a universal morality. Tibetan morality used to accept polygamy with many husbands for one woman. Mormon society had many wives for one man. What is considered moral varies from society to society. In Biblical times slavery was accepted. That was not immoral then - just a different morality in a different time. Most societies now condemn slavery. Some religions still condemn people who are not heterosexual as sinners. Morality is not constant or universal but varies with time, place and society.

Dear David F.,

«I don't know of any meaning for the phrase, unborn Eternal.»

I think you are sufficiently intelligent to understand what it means, you just cannot find any examples, as indeed, nothing in the world is unborn or Eternal.

So when I wrote in my previous post, "The only way if one really wants safety, is to cling to the unborn Eternal.", I meant that instead of looking for safety outside in the world of objects, one should turn inward.

«The first is made by humans, and the second is a consequence of human observation of the behavior of matter.»

Human observe the behaviour of [not just] matter and put it to words, yet that observed behaviour does not depend on the words and formulations they use.

«"The gods are angry."»

I mentioned nothing of the like. If someone else did then you should take it up with them instead.

«I don't share your belief in mythology.»

I don't share your belief in mythology either, especially that primitive myth that claims that you are a human called "David" who was born at that particular date, time and place, a belief that was enforced and ingrained into your young brain by your parents before you were equipped and capable of critical thinking to reject such nonsense.

David was born and will die in the coming years, peacefully I hope, but you were never born nor will you ever die. It is that myth which makes it so difficult for you to see that truth.

That David has in fact died long ago - because not a single atom in baby-David's body is likely still present in your old body today. You cannot logically be both baby-David and old-David, you cannot be both dead and alive, yet the myths we learnt with our mother's milk are extremely difficult to shake away.

The replacement of the atoms that make up our body is not death the way I understand death. I still don't share your belief in mythology.

However, at the moment, I enjoy your nonsense. My wife experienced real death on March 26, and I miss her.

I hope we and others will not die as a result of the use of nuclear weapons. In August 1945 I thought they would be used again long before now. I'm happy to be wrong.

If one wants to attack Martin Luther for any anti-Hebrew views one should look at the evolution of his thought. Initially ML was very favorable to Hebrews but over time him came to believe that the Hebrew establishment was manipulating the government as if they were foreign agents.

Dear David,

I'm so sorry to learn of your wife's passing.

My most heartfelt condolences.

Dear David F.,

«The replacement of the atoms that make up our body is not death the way I understand death.»

Obviously you are not dead.
It's only the baby-David that is dead and scattered across the globe.
Fortunately you are not it!

(that reminds me of the Jewish story about the guy who went to synagogue and requested to say "Hagomel". When asked "why? what danger have you been in?", he responded that he noticed his coat hanging on the cloth-line and is so grateful that he was not inside)

Just as you survived the deaths of baby-David, child-David, youth-David, young-David and middle-aged-David, you will similarly survive the death of old-David.

Sure your experiences were different with each of them and you can well expect your experiences to change again - maybe even, at the most extreme possibility, there will not be any experiences following old-David's death, in that case you would become experience-less, but that does not change who you are in the slightest: still the very same one who experienced life as a baby, as a child, as a youth, as a young man, as a middle-aged man and now as an old man.

«I still don't share your belief in mythology.»

As I see it, you just believe in other, different stories, no less illogical.

«I hope we and others will not die as a result of the use of nuclear weapons. In August 1945 I thought they would be used again long before now. I'm happy to be wrong.»

I can only wish myself and yourself a quick death, not like my mother who died a horrible slow death of Parkinson, locked up in her body without being able to express herself in any way.

Dear Yuyutsu,

My mother spent her last 7 years in a comatose state. My father was cracking jokes up to a half an hour before he died.

What illogical stories do I believe? I think it quite reasonable to believe that death is the end.

I hope that we both do not end up like our mothers. The baby David is not dead. He has been transformed as a caterpillar is transformed to a butterfly.

My wife had Parkinson's and died of VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking). Her Parkinson's made her eligible for VSED.

May we continue to live and differ for a while more.

Please don't mix up the physical body with the mind. (brain)
The physical body changes radically throughout life.
As someone pointed out, the physical body we have today is mostly not the same one we had at birth.
But the program 'running' in the mind stays much the same, and it is the real us.
It retains its basic structure, and changes (and improves?) with learning.

Life began whenever the program that is us became viable.
Life continues until the mind (brain) ceases to function, and the program stops.
Then all that is left is the physical mind, the grey brain substance which ran the program.
And the physical body which supported and nourished the brain.
But neither of these is alive.

A program is intangible.
You cannot touch it or weigh it, but it exists.
It is like an idea.
Think of the operating system in your computer?
You know it is there, but you cannot take it out and wrap it up in brown paper.
You COULD make a plan of your computer operating system though.
An awful lot of ones and zeroes.

Until your mind switches off, you are alive.
Afterwards, without a running program, you (THE PERSON) have ceased to be. TOTALLY.
You will not be lurking anywhere in another dimension.
The physical body which housed you will change for the last time, and be absorbed by the land.
So get used to the idea, and life will suddenly make sense.

Dear David F.,

Sorry to hear about your wife's illness.

Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is a traditional method used by sages and saints when they were no longer needed on this earth. It is revolting that anyone needs permission to practice it. When my mother could no longer eat she was fed directly to her stomach, we think she approved of it but we cannot be sure.

«The baby David is not dead. He has been transformed as a caterpillar is transformed to a butterfly.»

And Julius Caesar is not dead either. He has been transformed into worm-food and atmospheric carbon...

This is a sentimental approach, expressing attachment and nostalgia to someone we loved. It also has some useful applications for everyday practical convenience, yet it has no rational ground, no scientific rigour.

In recent years this erroneous thinking is centered around the popular misnomer, "identity".

We know what identity means in logic and mathematics.
But this word is especially misused these days for what is not at all identical.
And unfortunately most people are being raised up confused about it from age 0, by parents and society.

It may be necessary for practical purposes to assign people (i.e. human bodies) with names and documents, so that for example, if one commits a crime, they cannot escape by claiming that they are not the one who did it, or if one earned money and puts it in the bank, another cannot come and take it.

We often habitually forget, though, that what is conveniently named and documented are bodies, not us.

The relationship between us and our bodies is often described as of ownership/possession, as we commonly say: "MY body", "MY leg", "MY brain", "MY gender", "MY sexual-orientation", "MY age", etc. While that is not overly precise, this suffices to indicate that there is some relationship there, rather than an identity.

Your documents and credentials can be stolen or faked, perhaps even your body, but how could anyone possibly or logically take away your true identity?

[continued...]

[...continued]

«What illogical stories do I believe?»

Could it be any of the following?

1) That you are a human called "David" who was born at that particular date, time and place, etc.
2) That consciousness can be born of matter.

And as corolaries:

3) That when your body dies, you too die with it.
4) That the only natural laws in existence are those governing matter.

«I think it quite reasonable to believe that death is the end.»

Yes, death is the end of that which dies, that alone.

---

Dear Ipso Fasto,

Let alone your claim that the brain is a computer running a piece of software: one way the brain is fundamentally different to computers is that it has no program-counter register(s), nothing at all even close to that essential feature of digital computers or anything else that can run software.

Without program counter(s), whatever may be giving direction to the brain, cannot be similar to computer software.

Never mind, that is sundry and not as important as how you summed up your claim:
«Afterwards, without a running program, you (THE PERSON) have ceased to be.»

Yes the person have indeed ceased to be, everyone probably agrees on that.

But what has that to do with you?
You seem to mistakenly confuse and identify yourself with something you just happen to have (or are somehow otherwise related to).
While David F. seems to confuse himself with his physical body, you seem to confuse yourself with your person or with that which runs your body - yet you are neither of these things.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't confuse myself with my physical body. I am nothing else beside my physical body. When my physical body no longer lives, that is the end of me. Meanwhile I live although the atoms that I am composed of are replaced by other atoms. When I die, I no longer live.

I think you are confused when you think we are something other than our physical bodies.

Julius Caesar is dead. The atoms that composed him while he was alive are scattered.

"I sometimes think that never blows so red
The Rose as where some buried Caesar bled;
That every Hyacinth the Garden wears
Dropt in its Lap from some once lovely Head."

Dear Yuyutsu,

One does not need permission for VSED. However, if you do it in the hospital, you are checked to see if you are in pain. Relief will then be supplied, and you are made comfortable until the end. I held her lifeless body and grieved. She had lost bladder and bowel control, lost control of her hands so she could no longer do wood carving or knit and could longer concentrate to read. She wanted to die. I could do it in my unit but want to go on living for the time being.

One needs to have a medical condition for VSED in the hospital, and she had Parkinson's.

Analogies are approximations, or indications, of something.
They are not meant to be point by point duplicates.
But we ARE like artificial intelligence, without the artificial aspect.
We are the real deal instead.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt we are the output of a computer like program (is that better?) which is part of the structure of our brain.
A very advanced computer it is, but they needed more at Bletchley.
So our brain is good at some things, not so good at others.

It is a living computer, and its output is us.
When and if it stops, we cease to be.
The body which supported it remains.
But without the brain, that is just material.
We treat this material as the person, because that is what we could see when the person was alive.
We couldn't see the brain, only the physical support system.

What we are is so clear and obvious that it surprises me we even need to talk about it.
Every person should be fully aware of this from an early age.
They should also be aware that temperature should not be described as hot or cold.
(will that pass for a sheldon-like fun fact?)
The day might feel hot because the air temperature is high?

But we ARE like artificial intelligence

People are becoming dumber in the age of wokeness
I'd argue we're becoming artificially unintelligent.
Too many idiots running the show

Dear David F.,

Thank you for clarifying about your dear wife's last days.

«I think you are confused when you think we are something other than our physical bodies.»

But I did not claim that we are something!
(that would actually be impossible because any-thing has an end, even if it is not a physical body)

«I don't confuse myself with my physical body. I am nothing else beside my physical body.»

The very fact that you interpose the possessive determiner "my" between "myself" and "physical body" indicates that even you do not believe that you are your physical body.

Otherwise your claim would become recursively,
"I am nothing else besides the physical body of my physical body"
"I am nothing else besides the physical body of the physical body of my physical body"
"I am nothing else besides the physical body of the physical body of the physical body of my physical body"
...

WHOSE is this body?

You need not feel bad about this confusion between yourself and your body - because almost everyone is confused.

This occurs because identification with our bodies, irrational and logically-impossible as it may be, serves an important practical purpose: it is required for all interpersonal transactions.

Since you are not a thing, others cannot see[/hear/touch/taste/smell] you, yet in order to have anything with you on a practical level, they need to "identify" where you are and make sure that the one they dealt with yesterday is indeed the one they are dealing with today - they need a face and as society grows they also need a name and all kinds of documents in order to be sure that they are not dealing with someone else.

This is a very practical approach, good enough for everyday dealings, it is a convenience but that does not make it the truth, nor is it backed up by any evidence or logic, in fact it defies all logic.

[continued...]

[...continued]

An example:

Drivers often identify themselves with their car.
Whatever their car does, they say "I went", "I turned", "I stopped", etc.
So when a policeman stops them and says "you were driving at 80km/h", they don't respond with "No sir, I was sitting right here in my chair at 0km/h", even while they know that to be true.
For practical-only purposes, both the driver and the policeman seem to mistake the car for the person, even while at other situations they wouldn't make such a mistake. They know that the car only belongs to the driver and is not the driver herself, yet they agree to be practical in their dealings.

With drivers, policemen and cars, they normally eventually remember the difference.
With persons though, we are so intensively involved in transacting with others by presenting ourselves as persons, that we tend to forget ourselves and start believing that we actually are the person we present ourselves to others as.

One way to realise that we are not the person we constantly try to present to others, that "I am my person" is a mistake not unlike "I am my car", is to temporarily stop transacting with others, quieten the transactional mind and turn one's attention inside. That is called "meditation".

Another example:

When playing a computer game, we often get so involved that we forget our bodies and think of ourselves as that little figure on the screen. We become so afraid of the surrounding "monsters" that sometimes when they are about to kill "me", when "I" am about to die, I involuntary kick my physical leg as an emergency fight-or-flight response.

If I accidentally kick the on/off button on my computer and the screen goes blank, I may not like it, but am forced to admit that I'm not and never been that silly little figure that used to appear on that screen!

«When I die, I no longer live.»

1) Correct.
2) Some do not live even while their bodies and brains are fully functional.
3) It's a moot point because we never die anyway.

Regardless of your rubbish, I am nothing outside of my body. No part of me exists separate from my body. When I cut my nails, spit, urinate or defecate, the discarded matter is no longer part of me. I do not have a soul, spirit or any other imaginary entity attached to me.

The more you spout nonsense, the clearer it becomes that you are very confused. I live in an old folks home. Many of the residents suffer from dementia. It is another tragic retreat from reality.

I cannot compete with you in defying logic or coherent thinking. You are expert in that.

Perhaps, you have been playing too many computer games. Perhaps, you could use a course in general semantics. One of the points made in ge is that a name is merely a label, not the object itself. My body is not a label. It is I.

Since it apparently pleases you to spout nonsense, enjoy yourself.

Dear David F.,
(Ipso Fatso, you may also be interested)

Man used to believe that the sun revolves around the earth, which was intuitive and practical.
With the use of logic, mathematics and experimentation it was shown otherwise, but people never stopped speaking about "sunrise" and "sunset", which is alright because it's practical, so long as we understand the limitations of these concepts.

I only seem to be an expert because I stand on the shoulders of giants.
The ancient sages used logic and experimentation to delve into the essence of what we are - I only translate their words into modern language.

For a while it was thought that energy is a product/derivative of matter.
Einstein used logic, mathematics and experimentation to prove the opposite, that matter is a product of energy, matter relies on energy, matter cannot exist without energy but energy can exist without matter.

If even energy isn't a derivative of matter, how could consciousness be?
Ipso Fatso's view is closer to the view that consciousness is derived from energy rather than from matter. That also is intuitive and practical, yet the sages refuted that hypothesis too.

According to the sages, our body is a vehicle through which we can live on earth. We use it to interact with its matter, including with other people, and that we call "life". Without a working body we cannot interact with the world, thus we are considered dead for all practical purposes, even while we are not truly dead.

Suppose we had a body that was only comprised of energy, then we could use it to interact with Ipso's "personality-generating program", but not directly with people who would therefore still consider us, from their practical point of view, to be dead.

Even such a body would still only be a vehicle we happen to use, not us.

---

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I don't like to confuse David any further, but the sages acknowledged that such subtler bodies do exist, yet they are not the end of the story, just vehicles and not the ultimate truth of what we are.

Hi Yuyutsu,

In fairness David is not "confused" at all, he is very clear in his thinking. Many people seek the meaning of life, Monty Python, possibly one of those sages you refer to, said the answer was "42" which is just as rational as any faith based interpretation can be. Believers when confronted with the reality of life, and the possibility it could be meaningless, will quickly retreat to their comfortable position of "faith", which requires no explanation, as they cannot accept that life could well be meaningless.

Dear Yuyutsu,

While I was away in the US, Marie got a caravan and drove around Queensland. She filled three notebooks with an account of her travels, encounters with people, poetry & philosophical musings.

Shortly before Marie died, she gave me those notebooks.

She wrote the following on Wednesday, August 11, 1993:

I think it's the absence of any goal that has given me this freedom just to be. We are always told we must have a goal in life, whether it be to accumulate wealth, achieve professional success & recognition or to make the world a better place. One must have a goal. I have always unconsciously rebelled against this idea, the idea of an "ultimate aim in life." There are always "goals" in the plural that give life zest & meaning - the goal to reach the mountain top & enjoy the view, the goal to help a friend in need, the goal to pass exams so one can work in an interesting field.

The "ultimate aim in life" I think is life destroying, a negation of the present, which is after all, all we ever have, and ultimately, I believe unachievable. When is rich, rich enough, power great enough, recognition satisfying enough?

The meaning of life is life itself. How it came about is a wonderful question to explore. "Why" is meaningless. It implies purpose. It implies a creator. It implies that we have a purpose in the mind of the creator....

She was happy when she wrote that. She was free of God nonsense, and she helped me to free myself of that garbage.

Hi David,

I was very close to the 'Old Man', and we often discussed these things later in his life, the Old Man's been gone around 35 years now (1987). We once made a pact, that ever who went first, (I was banking on his demise before mine) would contact the other from the "after life" if at all possible, the Old Man is yet to keep his end of the bargain. then again I might be at fault, and just not receptive. What do you think?

Dear Paul and David F.,

I did not refer, not on this thread anyway, to the "meaning of life" (if such a thing even exists). I have no idea why you chose to introduce this new topic at this point in time, so late in this discussion.

«Believers when confronted with the reality of life, and the possibility it could be meaningless, will quickly retreat to their comfortable position of "faith", which requires no explanation»

Whether or not life has a meaning, everyone confronts that reality, believers or otherwise. Some retreat to their faith, others to their booze. Faith does require an explanation, which is why there are books upon books to explain it. Anyone who understands faith knows that life is hard and will not automatically become easier without right effort, that mere belief in whatever won't make a difference.

«as they cannot accept that life could well be meaningless.»

I can accept it. That question whether or not life has a meaning doesn't even bother me.

«She was free of God nonsense, and she helped me to free myself of that garbage.»

There is so much nonsense people create around the concept of God.
It is good to be free of it.

While one can become free of any concept(s) of God, one cannot become free of God Himself/Herself/Itself, because that is who they truly are: one cannot be free of oneself!

«the Old Man is yet to keep his end of the bargain. then again I might be at fault, and just not receptive. What do you think?»

Silly, why would you expect anyone to remember you or their pact once they no longer have a brain? Even people with Alzheimer Disease don't remember it!

Dear Paul1405,

I think you loved the Old Man, and I loved Marie. Possibly, some people have a life without love, so they have to invent imaginary entities or accept imaginary entities that someone else has invented. It fills a barren life, and a life without love is a barren life.

Shakespeare wrote:

"To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?"

Death is an undiscovered country. When we encounter it, we are no longer capable of discovery. While we are alive, we can live and be open to love.

I shall call my son, William, in a while. We live in different time zones so I have to be aware of that so I don't call at the wrong time. A great thing about love is that it is elusive but not exclusive. Usually, talking to him gives me joy.

When I was in rehab in hospital recently an older
man during our life-style exercise program asked me
what did I intend to do for my "salvation?

To be honest - I didn't know how to answer that.

All I could come out with is - "I will try to obey
God's commandments."

I did not say anything more.

How would any of you have answered the man?

Dear Foxy,

When asked an intrusive question, I think it best either to ignore it or ask a question in return. eq. "What do mean by salvation?"

Hi Foxy,

When he asked, about Salvation, you should have answered with. Join The Army... The Salvation Army, humm. Then again you could have burst out in a stirring rendition of 'Bring In The Sheaves' and asked him to join in. Nothing like a bit of old time Southern Baptist Revivalism.

Just for you; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad54bH-nQTM

Dear David and Paul,

Thanks for your advice.

I took the question seriously and it could have been the
medication I was under, or the fact that I didn't want to
insult this old man. But it did make me question things
within myself.

cont'd ...

In any case, he did not raise the matter again
and ended up bringing me a piece of cake and
some lovely small tomatoes that his family had
brought in for him the following day. He wanted
to share them with me. I gave him some fresh fruit.
So it was all good.

But I admit his question was unexpected.

The Southern Baptists split off from the other baptists because of their support for slavery. I prefer my grandmother's attitude.

I remember her questioning both miracles and the Messiah. Orthodox Jews are not supposed to light fires on the Sabbath. One Friday in the twilight she saw my grandfather crouched down next to the woodshed smoking. She said in shock, "Goldberg, it's still shabbas!" He responded, "Goddammit to hell. I forgot!"

In that incident my grandfather was violating the law and my grandmother was concerned with observing it. Yet my grandmother was a sceptic, and my grandfather was a believer. She observed rigidly, but her mind roamed free. My grandfather was a thorough believer, but apparently his God was one who wasn't going to get his knickers in a knot if an old Jew had a smoke on shabbas. She exemplified the misnagid attention to ritual, and he exemplified the devout belief of a Hassid.

I loved them both, and they loved each other.

Hi again Foxy,

The question is only answerable if one believes they need to be saved, and then saved from what, themselves, others, God, the Devil. Generally those who ask that question, believe we are inherently bad creatures, sinning against God, and need to be saved from that sin, there's those commandments for you. One of the basics of Christian belief is that humans are weak creatures easily susceptible to "temptation", Adam, Eve and the apple stuff. I'll be okay, after I've done my 10,000 years in Purgatory, as Sr Mary reliably informed me of that fact, when I was about 8 years of age in 3rd Grade. Do you think I might get time off for good behaviour?

"Monty Python, possibly one of those sages you refer to, said the answer was "42" which is just as rational as any faith based interpretation can be. "

Nup. Actually it was from 'the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy' and was said by a massive compute called 'Deep Thought'.

Thank you everyone for your help.

I was raised a Catholic. I went to Catholic schools
the head nun thrashed my hand with a cane so hard
that my hand swelled up. My father removed me from that
school. I don't go to church every Sunday and I'm
probably not a very good Catholic. I have no wish
to preach or convert anyone. I think that respect and
kindness are important. Except for those who behave like
arse holes. (joke).

I like this quote:

Morality is doing what is right,
no matter what you are told. Religion
is doing what you are told, no matter
what is right.
( H.L. Menchen).

Ah, those Sisters of Mercy.

Thanks mhaze for the correction it was indeed 'The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy', that is even more compelling evidence that the meaning of life is indeed 42, and no one should argue with 'Deep Thought'. Fro memory I think the answer came out on a punch card, how antiquated is that.

Dear Foxy,

«How would any of you have answered the man?»

I agree with David F., it was none of his business.
This is strictly between you and God, that means privately between you and You alone.

---

Dear David F.,

«She exemplified the misnagid attention to ritual, and he exemplified the devout belief of a Hassid.

Three Hasidim were arguing whose Rebbe is greater:

The first Hassid said: "My Rebbe was traveling in the woods when a huge storm arrived, the rain lashed and drenched us and we could not see a thing, so my Rebbe waved his arm and said: "Water to my right, water to my left" and our wagon traveled in the middle, perfectly dry".

The second Hassid said: "My Rebbe was traveling in the woods when a huge fire raged and was about to devour us, so my Rebbe waved his arm and said: "Fire to my right, fire to my left" and our wagon traveled safely in the middle".

The third Hassid said: "it was Friday afternoon and we were traveling home, but the road was rougher than we expected and the sun was setting, the Sabbath was coming an we could not afford to be stuck there in the middle of the road for another day, so my Rebbe waved his arm and said: "Sabbath to my right, Sabbath to my left" and we continued on in the middle till we got home straight to the Sabbath dinner".

Funny to watch the habitual totalitarian statists in here, regard human beings as a plague of noxious pests and approve mass political killings, who worship the State as a superbeing, over and above society, aiming at ends of its own choosing, the apotheosis of the greater good, the source of moral and economic goods, charged with guiding us from the paths of error, our salvation and redemption. It can cure the sick. It can fine-tune the weather in 500,000 years time. It can make economic goods "free".

So brainwashed and gullible, believing they're so clever and superior, patronisingly clicking their tongues at the 'religious'. Laughable.

Perhaps you should be the change you want to see?

Oh that's right, you only do slogans and forcing others to obey, you're not interested in actually practising what you preach.