Religion and god are constructs of man, IMHO. It seems to me that there is an element of very fruitful imagination behind all the religions or manifestations of god that have appeared throughout the history of man. But then it also seems that those who follow any religion suffer from a lack of imagination.

So, is religion a product of an active imagination?

Or is it a result of a lack of imagination, especially within the masses that allow religions to gain credence and prominence?

Or is religion just an inevitable product of the evolution of the human brain, with our expanding powers of observation and the resultant curiosity about everything around us always proceeding well ahead of our ability to explain it all, leading directly to the invention of perceived supernatural forces in an attempt to explain and understand it?

Yeah yeah I knooow, it’s all been gone over on OLO bfor. But you never know, someone might just present a different perspective which gets us all thinking a bit outside of the normal parameters.

so we cant reply the topic
so rephrase the question

this is the third spin off from my topic
[creationists need not reply]

the other is explain god
the other spin off [mine wasnt accepted
but 18 hours later

explain god was accepted[but out of context to its genesis]
ie evolution unable to explain its theory

then off topic troling trying to change the debate
into me writing MY opinion about god
not a part of THAT topic

but to reply
please define which religion
[the response replies to]

and how the claimed product [fruit?] are the result of overactive imagination

OR LACK OF IT
ie blind adherance to dogma
isnt imaginative
infact reveals a LACK of imagination

just like the philosophy of evolution
is blind ignorance masking as science fact
with its own 'saints' who can do no wrong

your bias postulates god as a creation of man

man

[will some response be responding to that one provocation[bias] i wonder]DUH[lol]
talk about a troll topic

but lets see what the tide brings in eh?

let me guess athiests seperating from thiests
eacxh suporting their own fears .hates and bias

but built on a faulse presumption from the first feeble line

it is lack of imagination that has created believers [followers]
in any field[those who can think create the idea
those who cant think follow ,thus help flesh it out

you added meat to my topic
this is the meet for yours
cheers

loved your input
thus returned the barter
by respondinmg to yours

Religion is the product of an active imagination coupled with a distinct lack of originality.

seems the same old thing
bugsy i have rebutted that point at this link'

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

ps i enjoyed your description at describing god

but bro cant you see followers FOLLOW
because the havnt got imagination

what imasgination is revealed in mindlessly ranting a mantra?

im preciclly duplication a ritual[BY THE BOOK]
be it science method [or religious belief]
they are the same UNIMAGINATIVE ritualised murdering of free thought

revealing NO imagination
that we cant concieve we disbelieve
i cant see chance 'evolving by chance'
life makes life

it takes a lot of flawed belief
to concieve life comming from NUTHIN

when the facts of life are loife breeds life
except when a bad mutant dies

[like making life are witnessed by our own life
comming from OUR own living parents
it took real imagination to create life comming from non life
but there you go

as i wrote elsewhere

those who got imagination may get followers
who can not follow their own imagination's

so whoreship others who can

[or seem to ]
but it is up to each of us higher evolutions
to prove [or disproove] their own imaginings

A more appropriate title for this post would be 'atheism - the denial of the obvious'. Just look at the lengths that the earth worshipers go to in order to deny their own corrupt natures. It really is quite hilarous to read the dogmas that are promoted daily by small men and women waving their puny fists at their Creator. 'You don't exist' is their cry, 'we are the clever ones'. You really don't know how pathetic you sound.

Dear Ludwig.. ur really hot to trot lately ain't ya :)

Mate.. let me put it kindly, and briefly..

"You need a lot more than a fertile imagination to die for something you KNOW is not true"

It's one thing to believe something.. no matter how skewiff it is..no matter if it's purple people eaters with polka dots on the moon.. it doesn't matter.. if you BELIEVE it..and people say "Deny those purple people eaters or die"....well..if you believe it strongly enough, you will die before denying them.

BUT.. to die for something you KNOW is not true....now.. it's a different kettle of fish.

The early disciples KNEW that Jesus rose from the dead...and if they knew otherwise.. it is psychologically inconceivable that they would die for their faith. J.W. Montgomery a human rights lawyer says "It is utterly absurd"

Ignoring the plaintive cries of those who have managed to convince themselves the world's only five thousand years old and a single boat managed to carry a pair from all the world's species, I'd say that you're pretty close to the mark there Ludwig.

I think it's important to differentiate between god and literal religion. I see ritualistic religions as a very narrow way to view the world, but seeing as god has no definition, it's different.

The old chestnut runs as thus: If we simply define god as 'everything' then by definition 'everything' exists.
It comes back to whether we define god as an intelligence. If god is omniscient, then it can't be intelligent because intelligence as we know it is reacting to stimuli and learning.
An omniscient entity can't learn. Knowing everything is similar to knowing nothing, there's no parameters for measurement.

I don't think we're anywhere near answering lifes biggest mysteries, though it's a joke to think the answers are so childlike as those in religion.

I say ritualistic religions are a narrow, small and unimaginative way to view the world because they imply that belief, membership and participation are prerequisites.
That's the biggest joke of all - the idea that if there's a god, it gives the slightest consideration to whether you're in a church or temple. The idea that it cares if babies have water poured on their heads strikes me as incredibly silly.
The child-like simplicity of the creation story and the Garden of Eden sounds so similar to the legends told by primitive people, when we live in a complex world.

I think literal belief is childlike - but that isn't to say that religious beliefs can't be more sophisticated.
When religious tales aren't seen literally they can be mined for pearls of historical wisdom and philosophy. This requires people to be more independent and willing to scrutinise and criticise.

It's the unimaginativeness of those who require a literal straightforward guide to live their lives that seems narrow, I think.

Some answers, you just can't find in books. Not even your favourite one.

Dear Ludwig,

Dare I suggest that there exist two elements (a) the neurologically penchant for survival in our reptilian brain and the need to rationalise death and (b) the desire for an after-life (not all religions. The neocortex, confrabricates a solution, between survive and an dilemma; resulting in Shaman, spirituality and religions. This is innate imagination, of a kind.

On the other hand, institutions can leverage igorance for the purpose of levaging power. Reinforcement (Skinner) often requires indwelling (Polanyi) in a performance of a rite. This act is deliberate and plays to the imagination of the inner desires peoples.

Perhaps, religionists could seek to be treated with SSRIs? These pharmaceutals might inhbit the growth of neural networks, supporting obsessive thinking.

KR,

O.

Polycarp, of course people would never be willing to die for something that they felt was not true. So the fact that millions have been willing to give their lives for their god throughout the history of religion indicates that they totally believe in their god….and in the afterlife, and that their god will treat them well in their next incarnation if they are good disciples in their earthly lives.

So how have they come to believe in something for which they have not only no proof but not a shred of real evidence?

Simple. When your whole tribe or village or country believed in a certain religious doctrine, you didn’t have much choice. You were not in a position to question things too much. You found out early what thoughts and points of discussion were out of bounds. And you didn’t get any education or contact with outsiders that might make you inwardly question your faith. In fact, your education was totally in line with your religion. It was an intimate mixture of the facts of life and the myths of your religion that were purported to be facts.

Even today, with vastly increased communications and contact with other cultures and religions, many millions of people are really not in a position to question the faith that they are born into.

So…millions come to totally and utterly believe in things that are fantasy, or greatly distorted! They THINK that they know these things are true. And they think that they know that anything that runs counter to these beliefs is not true. When they think they know that dying for their god would be a good thing (and they think they know that they would be securing a prosperous afterlife as a result), then it is easy to see how they would be willing to die for their god delusion.

A lack of self confidence is a significant factor - being part of something perceived as grand, powerful and which also allows the believer to think they are somehow superior to people who don't share their belief certainly indicates much imaginative self delusion.

Some of the most arrogant and insulting posts on OLO come from very religious people. I can only assume that their sense of self is very fragile or they wouldn't need to pass judgement on others all the time.

'A lack of self confidence is a significant factor - being part of something perceived as grand, powerful and which also allows the believer to think they are somehow superior to people who don't share their belief certainly indicates much imaginative self delusion.'

Sounds very much like secular humanism actually.

'A lack of self confidence is a significant factor - being part of something perceived as grand, powerful and which also allows the believer to think they are somehow superior to people who don't share their belief certainly indicates much imaginative self delusion.'

Sounds very much like evolution's THEORISTS really

why do they need to accept their idols theories
as certified fact?

cause they dont have imagination?
or the skills to test them?
or need to follow laws?

or love talking about their idols?

not many imaginative posts so far ludwig
yet some great insights

Dear Ludwig,

Many definitions of religion
have been offered in the past,
most of the ones we are familiar with come
from the Judeo-Christian ideas about religion.

That there exists one supreme being or God:
that God created the universe and all life,
and takes a continuing interest in the
creation; that there is a life hereafter;
and that our moral behaviour in this life
influences our fate in the next.

Is religion a product of an overactive imagination?
No. Religion is a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward
some sacred, supernatural realm.

The phenomenon is of such universal social importance
that it has long been, and remains, a major focus
of sociological interest.
(Ian Robertson, 'Sociology,').

There is an inherent need to be loved and cherished. Ergo man creats god / allah etc.

I see under one dog muttering again.

Ludwig walk with me a while imagination, not a word to be afraid of we all have one.
Think of the best ten books you ever read, all from mans imagination, some moved you so much if reading gives you the same joy it gives me.
Best ten movies you ever saw, mine move me still Gandhi, one about Nelson Mandela, and the killing Fields are just three[ not bad for the red neck racist some call me]
Man has always invented storys.
On dark cold nights in blacked out camps century's ago it must have been comforting to believe God, Baal, Allah, was in charge and morning would come.
To be able to think loved ones did not die just moved into a heaven and wait for us.
For these reasons I understand we will never get rid of Gods, any of them.
But if those of us prepared to live our lives without props could only undo the real harm religion has done, and continues forever to do.
Today however I heard a truth we can not denie if you or I fell on true hard times it would be a Christian who first thought of helping.
Imagination made every God, some who follow our invention are quite mad, some are good people.
If only we who do not believe could convince them to stay out of almost every thing in our daily lives.

Dear Belly,

You, without doubt,
are a very special man!

Please don't ever stop posting.

All The Best,

Poly,

Above you draw the metaphor of the various Christian denominations seeing the one event from three different perspectives. From a Jewish perspective, how, by proxy, of course :), would see Jesus Christ vis-a-vis Melchisedec? Both were agenealogetos, i.e., without parents, and, priest-kings. The Bible refers to Melchisedec as like the Son of God, whereas Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man.

My earlier posit about ordinary time was that time itself came into being, with higher entropy, as a cooling process, and, there is no need for a Creator, before Planck time.

Cheers,

Oly

runner,

Did you appreciate my rationale in allusion that not looking at the results of Super Collider experiments over the next few years, is like not looking through Gallileo's telescope, where Christians maintained that there only seven heavenly bodies. I posit that there are many times seven bodies. I would even go so far as Carl Sagan (in his book) to say there are Billions and Billions of these bodies. It is honestly hard for me to believe that COBE photographs and those taken of the planets are not real or a "joke," as you posited.

Regards,

Oly

Good points Fractelle.

.
“Religion is a system of communally shared
beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward
some sacred, supernatural realm.”

That’s about the size of it Foxy.

“On dark cold nights in blacked out camps century's ago it must have been comforting to believe God, Baal, Allah, was in charge and morning would come. To be able to think loved ones did not die just moved into a heaven and wait for us “

Belly, yes. It is easy to see how religions arose and gained widespread followings.

But really, with our vastly increased knowledge of the world around us, including a good understanding of many things that were completely incomprehensible to people when the major religions came into being, let alone fifty years ago, how can religions still hold so much sway over peoples’ lives, especially in countries like Australia….or the US, where it is huge and apparently increasing ahead of population growth?

Oliver's comments about SSRI's gives rise to a different sort of thought in my mind, more along the lines of medical explanations.

(I think though that for some people allowing serotonin to surge uninhibited would be to stimulate them, depending on the relative balance per individual of course.)

What's a good example. .. How about Moses .. a great leader of humanity perhaps, if nothing else. So how does the story go?

There Moses is, saddled with a pack of ungrateful wingers who are bemoaning their homeless plight in the desert, all looking to him to make all their dreams come true.

And ol Moses, being sick of their b.s. decides to do a bit of solitude thinking and goes up the mountain. Well, with all the huffing and puffing, the higher he goes, the more wacked he gets on the fumes from the volcano (was it still active then?) and finally, he arrives on the summit, exhausted from the climb, exhausted from the stress of leading and not knowing the immediate solution to keep the people sufficiently together not to disintergrate and fall upon one another, when by co-incidence if nothing else, a spark ignites one of those "petrol" bushes, and at the same time, being a pious God fearing individual, his sub-conscious unfolds into his conscious mind a potential solution - offer the people a canon of law bound in the Being of a God concept.

Now perhaps being already endowed with a dopamine rich, pictorial consciousness (plus stress, exertion and fumes) he has a very cool hallucination, thus .. Ludwig's thread.

And I would add for good mirth, mayhaps the wonder of some of these "Prophet" like characters lies in the fact that they cared so much that, at that moment when their consciousness cracked so to speak, they gave birth to more than just consideration of Self.

;-)

in my studies i have learned that words are slippery
add to that the fact this isnt gods realm
[nor jesus's realm;he was 'offered ' it but refused it]

clearly this realm is hell[for there is but two realm
[those who love and those who love to hate]

here clearly we have lovers of words
[next page we have lovers of pictures]

the thing is why are these words and images so beloved?

perhaps because they fire our imaginings
perhaps that words become swords by making the 'words'sacred

[sacred/words = s/words]

imagination is how you created us and your creation,
but your messengers followers fail to see the joke this creation forces upon us
a [the] lie of self; and sepperation

[when we are all a part of the oneness ,your imagination lord alone could create ,i chose to live in imagry of the word

[for i too hold it sacred
]i will use my s/words to unlock the inherant imagination into realising the living god sustains us all to live ,via your imagry

[and via our imaginings reveal more than we could have imagined alone] anyhow god

it might be said it is my imagining [but i know it is thyne]

thank you for letting me see more than others could imagine
what is it about thyne imagry that makes men so afraid?
their own imaginings

Ludwig for me you have hit on the very heart of the issue.
Even I can point to so much real damage done in the name of God.
My childhood saw those in a very small country town subjecting non members of their church to isolation.
We all know about stolen generations and forgotten generations, Church's sometimes played a part there too.
In our beds religion tells us how to lead our lives.
But most important of all, show me one religion of the three men follow most, that has not called for the death of others.
That is what turns me from religions, the devision it imposes on man.
Yes some good people are Christians.
Just maybe men should [for those that need it] invent a new God.
One that finds no difference between races color or sex.
Imposable?
We live with invented religions every day.
One growing wealthy is far less than 100 years old.
OUG you grow further from reality stubbornly not addressing questions, is it not true other religions believe in their God just as much as you?

I think this is probably the most interesting question, Ludwig.

>>...with our vastly increased knowledge of the world around us, including a good understanding of many things that were completely incomprehensible to people when the major religions came into being, let alone fifty years ago, how can religions still hold so much sway over peoples’ lives, especially in countries like Australia….or the US, where it is huge and apparently increasing ahead of population growth?<<

My theory stems from my conviction that the concept of a deity, and the religions that flow from it, are purely individual mental constructs.

At one level, our knowledge of the physics of the universe continues to expand. The "how" of our existence is slowly becoming increasingly apparent, although I suspect that it still has a long way to go yet.

However, the "why" of our existence does not become any clearer with the increased awareness that science brings.

As the gap between the two gets wider, it brings major discomfort to people not entirely satisfied with the way their lives are progressing.

The population of the United States have had it pretty good over the past century. So why, asks the general population in their quiet moments, do I not feel any better about myself?

And this is exactly where religion comes in.

Unable to find mental comfort in plasma TVs or bigger and better RVs in the driveway, the citizen will look for that spiritual "something" that doesn't need money, or explanation, or a 4.0 GPA, to fill the gap.

In effect, it is the other end of the bell curve that starts with primitive man asking "how", and modern, so-called civilized man, knowing more of the "how", now asking more of the "why"?

Neither has an answer.

So their personal insecurities are let loose to fill in the details with an imagined external force that cannot be defined.

To the primitive, it explains the physical - why the sun rises and sets, etc.

To the modern, it explains the spiritual - why am I not happy with my lot in life.

Ludwig,

I'm surprised at you. Your initial post sounds like an unusually nasty, arrogant and patronising comment for you. It belittles the beliefs of most of the world's population. That doesn't seem consistent with a vast number of your posts that I have read. What is going on? I know this isn't a very responsive post but that is what I'm curious about.

A curious post indeed mj.

I’ve asked straightforward questions. Where does your perception of nastiness or arrogance come from?

Are you suggesting that the questions I pose or the expression of the atheistic views that I hold should be out of bounds on a forum like this?

I’m battling to understand where you are coming from. It is a topic most worthy of discussion I would have thought.

“It belittles the beliefs of most of the world's population.”

Well, I’m certainly questioning these beliefs….and at a very fundamental level. Is there anything wrong with that?

DreamOn,

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibiters are used to alleviate depression, which is fairly well known: Also, obsessive behaviours, which is my point. My citation is Susan Greenfield, the neuroscientist.

When I studied neuropharmaceutology and behaviour, as part of a Pych. degree, in the early 80s, earlier generations of drugs were used. I claim know special knowledge of SSRIs, but have read a little about that class of pharmaceutical.

I understand that survival centres of the brain are also closely aligned to olfactory responses. It is intersting incense or fires are burned during the reinforcement (Skinner) of the indwelling (Polanyi) of religious rites.

Some of what is happening in the basement of the brain needs to be rationalised by higher centres. The neocortex has the capacity to confrabulate a subsistence (religion). Confabulation, rather than fabrication, because real inputs and survival instincts are involved. Subsistence,rather existence, because the sign stimulus, is a real-fiction, e.g., like, James Bond and Lucy in Peanuts, are not non-existent nor real, yet these have a subsistence as characrters in a performance. Both 007 and Lucy are a part of real culture and even have pesonalities "commonly" known to millions of people.

In there is truth in the above, perhaps, Philo, might suggest that it is the work of a spirituality from an external divine entity? Just the same, rites can be programmed into chickens via the use of (feeding) reinforcement schedules.

O

So, if I asked the following you wouldn't think it was insulting?

Is atheism a product of an active imagination?

Or is it a result of a lack of imagination, especially within the masses that allow atheism to gain credence and prominence?

Or is atheism just an inevitable product of the evolution of the human brain, with our expanding powers of observation and the resultant curiosity about everything around us always proceeding well ahead of our ability to explain it all, leading directly to the invention of the idea that everything must be material not spiritual in an attempt to explain and understand supernatural events which exceed our personal experience?

Ludwig mate.... you said:

"So how have they come to believe in something for which they have not only no proof but not a shred of real evidence?"

You are missing a most important point (as are most others from the tabernacle of cyncism:)

The EARLY disciples...those who were WITH JESUS.. during His ministry.... THEY were the ones on whom the growth of the faith depended.

It was THEY who went here and there proclaiming the risen Christ....
It was THEY who were crucified, hacked to death.. killed in various ways FOR that belief.

THUS.. for them to proclaim something they KNEW was not true.. and then to die for it.. makes absolutely no sense psychologically!

Once they passed on..and the Church was established.. THEN.. you can ask the question 'why' regarding people who died for their faith..
ANSWER: Whether or not they have sufficient evidence is not the issue.. BELIEF is the issue.. they actually believe that their faith is true..that the events did occur...that Christ rose from the dead....

BUT... they no longer have access to the living witnesses. That period only applied to those who were with Jesus..

The difficulty for you and others is not appreciating or attributing the correct weighting to the fact of the Apostles from Jesus own period dying for their faith in the resurrection of Christ... which, if, the Cynical Tabernacle Choir here is to be believed .. didn't happen.

Such Cynicism is utterly absurd and does not hold any rational basis whatsoever.

So...I end this post with the most rational, valid and historically reaonable fact: 1Cor 15:3ff

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

and that he appeared to Peter,

and then to the Twelve.

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living,

We obviously think in a fundamentally different way mj. I can’t see the slightest undertones of insolence in my questions or in your inverted questions.

In fact your questions are interesting:

“Is atheism a product of an active imagination?”

For those who have been brought up in cultures with strong religious beliefs, it would indeed require an active imagination, or a very broad-minded attitude, for them to embrace atheism.

“Or is atheism just an inevitable product of the evolution of the human brain…”

I think that atheism WILL be an inevitable product of the evolution of the human brain, when we en masse realise the folly of the god delusion. I see religion as a phase that we have to go through in the evolution of intelligence and the accumulation of knowledge, and that eventually humanity will do away with it entirely.

A curious complaint from mjpb, but I think I see the root cause Ludwig.

At the moment there are two threads coming from opposite directions. One explicitly asks us to assume there is a God, and so if such an entity exists, then what would it be like?

The other (this one), implicitly asks (or takes the authors point of view), that if there is no God, whence religion? Why do we have religion?

Only one has drawn a complaint. I believe it was because the premise wasn't EXPLICTLY stated, and therefore was deemed insulting. Nevertheless, I don't think it really matters, most premises that start with God not existing are usually going to be offensive to a believer, as it will always imply that they are either stupid or irrational, and most of the time they are neither

A somewhat unfortunate rationale, Boaz.

>>The EARLY disciples...those who were WITH JESUS.. during His ministry.... THEY were the ones on whom the growth of the faith depended. It was THEY who went here and there proclaiming the risen Christ... It was THEY who were crucified, hacked to death.. killed in various ways FOR that belief.<<

Such self-destruction has been known in more recent times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540209.stm

"The bodies of 914 people, including 276 children, have been found in Guyana in South America. Most of the dead - members of the People's Temple Christian Church..."

So being with Jesus or being with Jim Jones doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference where religious fanaticism is concerned.

People do the strangest things, Boaz, for their own reasons.

To me, BASE jumping is a ridiculous way to spend one's time, but I can readily envisage its appeal to some.

Steve Fossett's belief that courting death through high-altitude ballooning is a better way to spend millions of dollars than reading a book came to a predictable end, but is also totally understandable.

And the guy who stood in front of that tank in Tienamen Square with his shopping bags gets my vote for selflessness in the face of imminent death, every time.

So the antics of some first-century religious extremists, and their possible fate, shouldn't be too surprising.

Incidentally, who were they? And is there any actual evidence that they were "were WITH JESUS.. during His ministry"?

Or is this just hearsay too?

Ludwig,

"We obviously think in a fundamentally different way mj."

I'm open to that.

"I can’t see the slightest undertones of insolence in my questions or in your inverted questions."

That satisfies my curiousity. Given the way you consider it you obviously had no intention to insult.

Bugsy,

"most premises that start with God not existing are usually going to be offensive to a believer, as it will always imply that they are either stupid or irrational, and most of the time they are neither"

Thank you for noting what you did at the end of your post.

Have you considered that just because most discussions in here include either an implication or a overt assertion that believers are either stupid or irrational doesn't mean the topic couldn't be debated without that? An atheist could believe that they had the better view based on the evidence and argue their case with a believer who had a contrary view. Each could respect each other's opinion. If atheist had no other option then converts to atheism would have a problem.

Theists traditionally argued that the universe must have a cause and God is the cause while atheists argued that the universe has always been there so no cause is needed. No stupidity or irrationality was needed to counter the theists position. Physics was relied upon.

mjpb, I did say 'most'. There is a certain element of religion that relies almost completely on a subjective feeling (anyone for some divine ecstasy?), that totally precludes rationality. The rest of the time seems to be spent applying rationality to justify that feeling.

Any thought that enters the human mind is based in imagination. All advances in ideas, images and products came from immagination - yes fertile ones. Lidwig is an immature thinker. There is nothing inhuman about immagination, it defines man above other creatures. Even the post that came from Ludwig was created by his fertile mind. His vain attempt at put down defines his own mind, attitudes and character.

Oliver

Looking at space with or without a telescope speaks more a of wonderful all power Creator than it does of some unlikely big bang theory. I seem to remember that you seem to pluck 300000 years from some totally obscure formula to somehow try and justify your position. Others pluck billion of years or millions. What is numbers when you are just guessing? No one is arguing about how immensely big our universes is. Some astronomers put it down to God while others have all kinds of wild theories. All are faith based. The 'joke' I referred to was for you to really believe that science backs up the theory you have adopted as your position.

“To the modern, it explains the spiritual - why am I not happy with my lot in life.”

That seems to be a highly plausible theory Pericles.

I guess it is a matter of people feeling deep in their soul that…

all their increased material wealth hasn’t really improved their quality of life,

that the mantra of strong economic growth leading directly to great improvements in their lives, that has been perpetrated upon them for decades, is essentially an enormous fallacy,

that things are not looking at all good in the not too distant future,

that they are perplexed and disillusioned by the strongly contrasting messages that they hear from politicians, scientists, economists and environmentalists,

and that even if they do agree with a certain course of action, they feel powerless to meaningfully contribute to it.

So they turn to Christ.

That’d be wonderful is American Christianity was aligned with environmentalism and sustainability. But alas it just ain’t so.

.
Philo, I can’t get the gist of your post. What “put down” are you referring to?

runner,

Thanks.

It was a COBE photograph of the Universe "at" 300,000 of age, look back over twelve billion years, and its presence was predicted by before it was taken. If memory, serves both Pluto and Neptune were discovered as a results of physics.

One point I was making in a recent post was that the CERN Super Coller will soon be testing some of that funny physics, wherein, the fundamentals of the beginning will be confirmed or refuted.

Religion has been scientific in that on many occasions it has predicted the end of the World. But we are still here. Actually, I suspect the predictions really related to the first and near century, with second coming and the apcolypse no necessarily enjoined as one expect. That is, the second coming probobly was likely first seen to be a first century (Gregorian) calendar event coinciding with the Jewish fourth millinium, whereas Paul was writing decades later, on an island. He writes in the style of Daniel, yet, the metaphors align very closely with the Roman military movements of his period.

Regards,

O

Quote *OliveR*
" ... Perhaps, religionists could seek to be treated with SSRIs? These pharmaceutals might inhbit the growth of neural networks, supporting obsessive thinking. ... "

Thanks for qualifying Oli. Of course, SSRI's are only for certain types of depression, and highly not appropriate for others. I of course wanted to point out that agonists/stimulants, are not likely to inhibit growth of neural networks unless perhaps given to kids in high concentrations, but then, my knowledge also is limited in this area.

I haven't seen *WEST* for a long time.
;-)

*RunneR* U just say things to support yr own conclusions. If u read a bit of science, then u would b aware that some things we can measure. Say, the speed of light and thus, we can get a pretty good idea of how far and how long ago something say like a star went nova and turned into a black hole. So, to say, oh, but yr just guessing about these things no different from fanciful interpretations of old scriptures is nonsense.

(No sex makes some people go potty you know?)

And Brother *bOAZy* What's this U say?
" ... After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, ... "

PrayTell Brother *bOAZy* Did he giv the boys a mission? Some guidelines? I'm guessing JC didn't make an appearance just to make wine and party on?

No Dreamy..he gave them the Great Commission:

"GO into all the world, make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and I am with you to the end of the age"
(Matt 28:19ff)

GENTLE REMINDER.... for all those who consider the Christian faith as a result of human imagination. (say what you like about other faiths..and ur probably right)
The human imagination generally invents things which it perceives as beneficial to this life... good crops.. lots of kids... lots of money...lots of power.

Jesus said:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

Does 'THAT' sound like something humans would invent

I know you are again trying to duck the issue Boaz, it's par for the course with you. But I thought just one gentle nudge might be in order.

I asked:

"So the antics of some first-century religious extremists, and their possible fate, shouldn't be too surprising. Incidentally, who were they? And is there any actual evidence that they were 'were WITH JESUS.. during His ministry'? Or is this just hearsay too?"

Can I assume perhaps that you rely on your claim...

>>that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living<<

Still living, Boaz? I somehow doubt that - even Solomon only lasted 950 years.

Who were these people? Where are their stories? Where were they when Jesus "appeared". Was this in the same way as he "appeared" to Saul? Who had difficulty remembering the details, and gave different accounts at different times? Did these five hundred have similar difficulties, perhaps, in recalling events?

Documents are one thing, Boaz. Accurate reporting entirely another.

Incidentally, do you believe that Noah lived for 950 years? And Methuselah even longer?

Ancient documents. Accurate reporting.

Pericles....the evidence is there for your perusal and study.

The extremely long ages of the early patriarchs/identities fits in rather well with many other observations. (Population/City names)

Regarding the reports of those who witnessed the risen Lord.. Paul was the one who related the events, including the bit about 'most of whom are still living'.. i.e. at the time of his writing.

The main problem for you Pericles is the evidence. "Ancient document rule" :)

Hearsay does not apply to such.... rememmmmber?

But if a Jury is convinced of a persons guilt based on their reputation... no amount of evidence to the contrary will persuade them otherwise.. just so for you..

You need to help me out here with a little more explanation, Boaz.

>>The extremely long ages of the early patriarchs/identities fits in rather well with many other observations. (Population/City names)<<

Boaz, there is no archaeological evidence for any man living for anywhere close to that length of time. All available evidence points to lifespans considerably shorter, not longer, than our own.

>>Regarding the reports of those who witnessed the risen Lord.. Paul was the one who related the events, including the bit about 'most of whom are still living'.. i.e. at the time of his writing.<<

And as I pointed out, Paul was even unsure of the circumstances surrounding what was apparently the most important event of his life.

Not a particularly reliable source.

"After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep" 1Cor15:6

What would be surprising to me, and possibly to a jury, about this statement is the lack of corroboration. Where did these people meet, and what was said? Does it not strike you as just a little odd, that an occurrence as apparently momentous as this, doesn't rate the tiniest mention by anyone other than Paul?

Wouldn't one of the five hundred, considering that "the greater part" were still alive to do so, give Paul some idea of what went on? And would it not be natural, given his normally verbose nature on such topics, for Paul to have let slip even one, tiny detail?

>>The main problem for you Pericles is the evidence. "Ancient document rule" Hearsay does not apply to such.... rememmmmber?<<

The ancient document rule, let me remind you, allows a court to accept the legitimacy of a document, given certain physical conditions. It does not, repeat not, speak to the veracity of the document's contents.

A fact that you conveniently, and perpetually, ignore.

>>But if a Jury is convinced of a persons guilt based on their reputation... no amount of evidence to the contrary will persuade them otherwise<<

Not reputation, Boaz.

Credibility.

Hi to all,.

We live in three different worlds. one is real and positive the other 2 are false and negative.

The real world is the universe and all of those beings and things that have no choices. They can only be what they were created and gifted to be by the Creator.

The second world is the man made world which had it's beginnings about 4 to 6,000 years ago. When the first kings appeared who were the gods representatives on earth and they had more power than the priests. The kings and the priestly class ruled without any checks or balances but for the masses they were governed by state laws as well as religious laws.
They were enslaved by laws. The thoughts from this the world was the criteria used by the early doctors of the Christian church law down the irrefutable and unquestionable truths. They are false.

The third world is the one that is locked into our attitudes as that are full of those unquestionable and irrefutable truths. They are imbedded into our language These came down from the man made world in which all of the gods were man made.

Having a spiritual as well as a physical dimension, having a body and a soul, having a thinking feeling heart when it is only a pump need to be challenged as well as the sin /salvation theory is a load of man made garbage dersigned to keep the masses under control. This negative world is the result of all of the violence and destruction that we are experiencing today and it will pnly get worse.

We were created and gifted to live in the first world itt was specifically designed in the minutest detail to support our existence. We will never be happy nor reach any positive potential outside of of the Creator's world.

Doxa

Oohhhhh c'mon *bOAZy!?*

I thought U were gonna tell us about the 500 hundred brothers still living now, who got on the p!ss with JC, a renowned part boy, and got updated missions for here and now.

:-(

Hey, did u'all see the news about the legal push to hold the vatican accountable for its filthy child abuse cover ups and further abuses post cover up. Making good progress but still more hurdles to come.

Mmmmmmm....

DreamOn,
Do not colour God by the sin of man, or claim that such action is of God.

Hmmm? What's that U say *PhilO?*

It seems to me that it is quite plain that I was not associating party boy JC with filthy child abusers and their gaggle of cronies.

Thus, I can but assume that U r objecting to me referring to JC as a wooblah drinking party boy, who just like many others, is gregarious and likes to have a party from time to time.

Now, mayhaps my God concept is somewhat different from yrs, but I do not make a habit not of pushing it down the throat of others and wld suggest to u if u know what's good for u, u will refrain from doing the same. People, of whatever persuasion, who like to dictate the behavior of others invariably attract violence and aggression unto their own person.

Now, u perhaps may consider that this makes U a martyr in the cause but I would suggest to the contrary, in that it makes u but a fool with a big mouth and delusions of grandeur. As, if it was not an issue of said delusions, you would not take it upon yrSelf to order others pertaining to yr own arguably dogmatic, blind faith which is based on little other than heresay, perversions and misinterpretations.

My view is that very likely JC was a great example unto humanity but, thereafter he was a human being and his wife was Mary.

Religion is the comfort woman that appeases our fears.It is also the double edged sword that the political forces use to control us and subjugate us.Religion has nothing to do with spirituality.Those who aspire to truth and reality,do not seek religion as their mentor.

The concept of god is a failed illusion.The reality is logic and the laws of physics/maths.Religion is just a reflection of our egotistical impotence.If religion was truth,surely it's foundations would not be so obiviously flawed.Is our ideal god so imperfect that he/she,reflects our most base desires?The traditional religions are dead.Something better must rise from their ashes.

If anyone had overactive imaginations it is sick paedophile artists like Donald Friend. Of course many of our modern day humanist artist defend him.

As reported by Andrew Bolt we have

a former WA deputy art director saying of this child molester

' don’t consider Donald’s sexual interests to be highly immoral Donald’s like was to be homosexual and he liked young men.'

He is described by National Library’s Paul Hetherington as

'In terms of his expression of himself he didn’t see himself limited by what we might see as conventional Judeo-Christian values

The irreligous are quick to damn other beliefs but fail to see the sick perverted outcomes of their own. By their own standards paedophile catholic priests are not highly immoral. What a sick mob secularist are and a bunch of hypocrites who love to take a self righteous moral ground.

Runner,to be truely religious,we have to accept the reality no matter how unpalitable that we are just an advanced form of ape.We as human beings,are really no more important than other intelligent animals on this planet.When the memories fade,so do we as human entities.

T.S Elliot summed up our human condition in J Alfred Prufrock really well."Some infinitely gentle,some infinitely suffering thing."He was deeply spiritual.

Humans ,since time in memorial have have sought a spiritual plane that will release them from the reality of mortality.Judging by the Burial Crypts in Ancient Egypt,it is just an illusion.

PAEDOPHILE PRIESTS... and the Left/arts community jumps up and down in chorus about how evil they are and how they must be punished.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

PAEDOPHILE ARTIST... and the arts community runs for cover and re-interpretation. Disgusting Hypocrisy in the extreme!

Paul Hetherington, who edited three of the four volumes of Friend’s diaries:

f his expression of himself he didn’t see himself limited by what we might see as conventional Judeo-Christian values. >>

err..YEAH...right!

I note that NON paedophile actities are linked with Judao Christian values....and that Friend strayed from them...and had sex with a boy of possibly nine, but definitely 12.

TOPIC. It is reported that Aldous Huxley in "Ends and Means" 1937 said:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ah_quote.htm

<<"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom;>>

Now..HOW many people have been influenced by Huxley..and to what extent have his ideas AND motives filtered down through our education system?

Then suddenly, young people influence by this sick man emerge from schools thinking their atheism is original..... (choke, cough, choke)

Runner Ludwig just posted his point of view there's no need to attack him for it and call him pathetic.

Runner and Polycarp have a point. Serious misbehaviour of Christians could have the effect of compromising the appearance of integrity of the entire community but trotting out sexual abuse of youths in the Church is getting increasingly thin. A response based on the underrepresentation of the relevant abuse can be countered with the high expectations for people who undertake to teach moral values. However the effect disintegrates when there is double standards for that type of misbehaviour.

When the Pope vowed to sweep the filth from the Church (sexually abusing priests) his take on things was radically different from authorities within secular communities. They appear to be more likely to defend the behaviour of their offenders. There are good and bad in every group but recent events severely compromise any claim by atheists to have the monopoly on good community standards simply because they can cite examples of clerical abuse. In the circumstances citing bad Christians doesn't automatically prove some high moral ground.

It reminds me of a point made by an historian regarding clerical sexual abuse. The same liberal journalists who condemn priests for having sex with 16 year old boys praised a novel where a homosexual man "initiated" an 11 year old boy.

My view is that the issue of sexual abuse is one of many abuses that does not get anywhere near enough air time in the public domain. These people who want to run around in the shadows like the severely deluded pope and take care of matters in their own way do so in my view for purely selfish and self serving reasons.

One of the cons is that they refuse to accept that it is they themselves and their absurd rules regarding sexuality that in no insignificant manner forms the foundation stone of the abuse. They just want to make out that a systemic problem is one merely of a few renegades and these same people often as U, spin out to accusations against those of homo or bisexual persuasion.

And in the reason in my view that they argue "no jurisdiction" is simply because they fear exposure, no different from any other corrupt political organisation.

Incidentally, I am told that there is almost a mini city under the vatican, with level after level devoted to housing "treasures," from different ages of the world. Does anyone know if this is true? I cannot be certain as I was told this by a drunk.

Dream On,

I have a friend who, as a priest, worked in the Vatican for two years. I'd also heard the folk wisdom which credits this underground trove. My friend assurred me that, not only is this true, but that the amount of supressed literature, documents artifacts etc. which would prove things about the life of Jesus that the party line disputes, is also immense. Working with these documents is what caused not simply Jon's crisis of faith, but his leaving the priesthood.

I have no reason to think he is not telling the truth. But then again I have no proof that his account is the truth either.

Interesting.

" .. Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely .. "
" .. All who gain power are afraid to lose it .. "

Perhaps some of the others would like to express these sentiments thru the glasses of other disciplines.

But for faerie tales and fanciful allegory, let us consider for a moment that they at the Vatican like everyone else, also have opportunity to "climb the mountain" so to speak, and of course, must come to terms with our *Lord Satan*

Perhaps in the smashing of the ice of dogma, bigotry, blind faith, etc etc "we" will as a collective be able to assist in their redemption, for as none of us are perfect, we all at time need assistance in humbling ourselves do we not?

I have heard the view expressed that all of the world's religions have something unique to contribute towards our concept of El Goddo and in the instance of the Catholics, that they retain something of the "Mysteries" in their Rituals.

I would prefer to see non lethal weaponry deployed by those willing to sacrifice sooner than shed blood, as opposed to those with the pig stickers.

Around the time of the Blood Red Moon as seen from Perth in '97, I wondered what was behind the alleged suicide?

Dream On,

“My view is …”

Agreed. If it doesn’t relate to a pastor / can’t make Christianity look bad media don’t normally report it. See relevant albeit American article excerpted below. I excerpt below as it is only accessible to subscribers online:

Looking for sin in all the wrong places

by James O. Clifford Sr. retired award winning reporter and editor.

"... the mass media and its dropping the ball on national coverage of another sex scandal: sex cases and cover-ups involving public school teachers. There's a scandal within a scandal here because the media appear to have engaged in their own cover-up.

...The Merc story didn't bother me. The Church authorities, I felt, deserved what they were getting. Can't blame the messenger, I told myself. The shock came not long after, when an educational organization held its convention in San Francisco. One of the topics on the group's agenda was sex cases involving public school teachers and the possible legal ramifications...

Teachers, who have charge of children, seem to have escaped unscathed in the media. The profession had this apparent immunity despite the fact that we all have to pay taxes for public schools. (No one is forced to support a Church.)

When the priest scandal took off like a rocket, I expected the teacher troubles to follow the same path. After all, school dealings are usually a matter of public record and open to press scrutiny. What I saw was a double standard growing and growing....

Oh, yes, there would be the occasional well-covered titillation story about a woman teacher having an "affair" with a student...

CONT.

I witnessed this while at the AP and kept my mouth shut. At my age and a retread, I was lucky to have a job. Now I am free to speak. If you want, do your own search on the Net. As far back as December 1998, Education Week was reporting on "Passing the Trash," recounting how school districts freed sexual predators "to hunt again." Education World followed a year later...

I hope I have connected dots so well that some reporter will run with this and win a Pulitzer. Why not? The Globe did when the dots were priests”

The above article highlights that cases of priests sexually abusing young people get the lion's share of media attention as if it is the main source of the problem. However, in just one Australian state there was 6486 child molestation charges between July 2005 and June 2007 but in a country with the population of the US of A, using an extremely broad definition of sexual abuse, there are only 4,392 allegations of abuse by priests of people up to age 18 between 1950-2002.

As regards:

“...they refuse to accept that it is they themselves and their absurd rules regarding sexuality that in no insignificant manner forms the foundation stone of the abuse.”

Dream on Dream On agreeing not to have sex doesn’t affect your sexual orientation. Do you get a strange attraction to male youths if you go without for a while? Why would they?

“They just want to make out that a systemic problem”

I’m not clear on what you mean by systemic. Are you implying that all clergy are molestors or something else?

“…is one merely of a few renegades and these same people often as U, spin out to accusations against those of homo or bisexual persuasion.”

I was referring to priests of homosexual persuasion who molested youths and gave the Church a bad name. Yes they were proportionally few. What do you mean spin? The problem was molestation and breaking vows and trust. The coincidental orientation doesn’t affect people who don’t molest.

I think we invoke retrospective powers, get the cameras live and online in the court rooms and then cross examine you slime before the people of the world, and find out all the facts, including who made what decisions when on the basis of knowing what.

As for sexuality, if left a lonely boy for too long, I bar up like a mallee bull and think about breaking out the velcro gloves and gaffer tape, taping up a lamb and ...

I know, how about an after hours prayer session?
And then, we'll blame the *Devil*

Though, I personally think that's bearing false witness mySelf.
How about U?

"You need a lot more than a fertile imagination to die for something you KNOW is not true"

The early disciples KNEW that Jesus rose from the dead...and if they knew otherwise... it is psychologically inconceivable that they would die for their faith. J.W. Montgomery a human rights lawyer says "It is utterly absurd"
Posted by Polycarp, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:56:12 AM

Porky and how do YOU know that is true?

Isn’t that what the Terrorists say just before they bomb and kill people- that they KNOW they will go to heaven and have plenty drink and many virgins.

Seriously I am not anti Christ just anti most organised religion and Church Leaders.



YOU like many others sit back and do NOTHING about the cruelty- then you dare come in here and preach to us on your higher moral ground- 'you think.'

Well here’s news ‘we are doing the lords work while awaiting all the hypocrites going to hell.

Their SILENCE and refusal to speak up about Live Exports and intensive farming + all cruelty matters is deafening.

the topic is relitive but i thought long resolved
[what sort of imagination could ever concieve this creation]
athiest and thiests got imagination[we collectivly cant imagine more than god[but is that open to interpration or oppinion]

anyhow live export is wrong
but is it wose than child molestation[or aids]

like i just read this disturbing to vegetarians not vegans apparently]
or is it those who think to eat only organic [whatever that is]as far as i can tell no artificial fruit/veg/beast [ie a macvhine made as opposed to produces from a living thing]

anyhow here is the link [the main reason for posting]
http://www.infowars.com/?p=6354

it takes no imagination to see where they are going with this selling angle[branding]maybe that will help your campain[we could brand the meat of the exports that way people who eat meat know its not that bad meat [from exports]

any death blashemes god
killing ANYTHING is murder

yes giving catle an ocean voyage prior to murdering it is cruel, but this is life [we suffer till we die]my objection is that not every beast gets abused

[a lot depends on how marketable the 'meat' is [stressed animals get tough to eat meat[so anyone ruining the quality control [by abusing the meat ruins the meat] so the process of shipping is as stress free as they can logiclly do it

the real problem is why beast's still need to be murdered just so i can eat meat[sausages arnt meat] im a big meat eater [but all meat was murdered] its guilt i have imaginativly controlled [knowing my own 'guilt']i cant blame others for what they need tyo do to get it

anyhow all this blabber was only to post the link, cause i thought you posted the topic ,but it wernt part of the topic only incidental

i dont want my response or the link to become the off topic troll; just to post the link to the live export person[and let off some un imaginative steam]

"You need a lot more than a fertile imagination to die for something you KNOW is not true"

The early disciples KNEW that Jesus rose from the dead...and if they knew otherwise... it is psychologically inconceivable that they would die for their faith. J.W. Montgomery a human rights lawyer says "It is utterly absurd"
Posted by Polycarp, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 10:56:12 AM

"Porky and how do YOU know that is true?

Isn’t that what the Terrorists say just before they bomb and kill people- that they KNOW they will go to heaven and have plenty drink and many virgins."

But we aren't talking about religious zealots who die for the faith they have been taught and the hypothetical implications are we? The disciples didn't just behave like zealous terrorists. They knew Jesus died on the cross. After Jesus died on the cross they were a bunch of cowards who had thrown in the towel because the one they believed to be God on earth got killed as a criminal. Then they changed to a bunch of people who were prepared to die for their faith. They reckon it was because Jesus met with them and showed them the holes from the crucifiction and they knew He was fair dinkum because He rose from the dead. What is your explanation for their transformation?

"Seriously I am not anti Christ just anti most organised religion and Church Leaders."

Is there any organised religion or Church leaders that you aren't anti?