I believe the Bible is wrong when it equates ‘lusting in one’s heart’ with actually doing something wrong. The Seven Deadly Sins are Pride, Wrath, Envy, Lust, Gluttony, Avarice and Sloth. The first four name feelings. The last three describe behaviour. Behaviour can be condemned.

However, pride in doing a bit of good work, wrath at injustice, envy in feeling deprived when it is merely the luck of the game that somebody else has something you desire and lust are merely normal human emotions. Since I entered the teenage hormone jungle there has not been a day gone by where I have not felt lust. If I had not had that feeling I would have no descendents. It is unreasonable to regard a normal feeling as a sin. To do so creates unreasoning guilt. There is enough actual wrong done so one should not feel guilt when one has not done anything wrong.

One result of equating feelings with acts is that a person can feel it is no more wrong to act on the feeling than to merely have it.

Religion can be a mechanism of control. Where it creates feelings of guilt for normal human reactions it is antihuman.

Who you trying to convince, Troll?.

davidf

<< Religion can be a mechanism of control. Where it creates feelings of guilt for normal human reactions it is antihuman. >>

I agree, religion is very much about control. It's part of why I'm an atheist.

StG

<< Who you trying to convince, Troll?. >>

For someone whose recent 'rant' is that OLO is like a train wreck that leaves him with a negative feeling, I would have thought you'd be the last person to try and derail this particular carriage with such a negative reponse.

I actually wrote in the other thread AFTER writing in this thread.

Unfortunately I can see past someones last comment and am able to consider someones total contribution and for the likes of "davidf" the total contribution is specifically designed to make those of faith feel bad about believeing in what they do and apologize to him for it.

For people like your yourself, Bronwyn, and David and Co., religion has been USED. It's about as retarded by blaming people of faith for past deeds as it is for blaming the whole of Islam for deeds of the suicide bombers.

I'm a Christian, but I'm not naive enough to believe that hundreds of years ago people with murderous and selfish agendas who at that time were the ONLY ones that had access to, and the ability of changing for the purpose of control of the masses or for personal gain. That quite obviously happened with 'the church' during the times of burning witches and the inquisition. You don't think given the opportunity the Spanish rulers wouldn't have done it?...you're kidding yourself if you do.

Religion for me is personal. It's an agreement between me and the universe not to act in a way that I don't wish others to act. I agreed to "God" - whatever your defintion may be - that I wouldn't judge you for what you do as long as your acts didn't harm me in any way. "God" knows that if you do I will defend myself.

I have no issue with Atheists - however hypocritical the concept may be - and you won't see me writing posts about how Darwinism is only 100 years old as compared to religion's MILENNIA or that you can no more prove evolution as I can prove design. In reality, there's more evidence of design than there is evolution. And evotuion is just as much a faith as religion is. But that's another topic.

David is out to harm. That's what I take issue with. What's worse is that he'll disguise it as "debate".

StG..< "David is out to harm. That's what I take issue with. What's worse is that he'll disguise it as "debate"."

No StG, I disagree with you here. David is merely expressing his opinion. Like many people 'of faith', you don't seem to like anyone disagreeing with your beliefs.
So how does that make you any different to what you said about David?

David, you have made me think about the seven deadly sins like I never thought about them before!

As a young Catholic schoolgirl, the nuns taught us it was a sin to think lustfully about any man other than your husband.

I then felt sure I would be going to hell when I was madly in love (lust?) with Garth Porter, a guitarist in the band 'Sherbet' when I was 14 years old.
I was almost certain this guy was never going to be my husband!
Very confusing to young, hormonally charged girls, I can tell you.

I know that these days the church teachings are not as strict as they used to be. This only goes to prove though that we can all read exactly what we want to in any of the religious texts, to go with the popular feelings of the day.

All a bunch of crock really!

Cheers,
Sue

Bollocks. I enjoy a debate and theological discussion is important. Doesn't make sense to me why an Atheist would CONTINUOUSLY and FREQUENTLY attempt to undermine the beliefs of others unless there's an agenda. His agenda is as ugly as a hat full of a**eholes.

Dear StG,

Yes, I do have an agenda. However, it is not to harm. It is to prevent harm. I have been appalled by the harm humans do to each other. In the twentieth century millions were killed because people of faith showed their devotion to their faith by their willingness to commit atrocities. It was not just religious faith. Nazis and Marxists also showed their devotion to their faiths by acts of brutality and murder.

When I was a child I heard about Abraham's willing to murder his son to show his devotion to God. I asked dear old Dad what he would do if he heard a voice telling him to kill me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. My faith in Dad was strengthened, and faith in God started to disappear. It is unreasonable to have any faith that demands atrocity to show devotion.

My agenda is to encourage people to question rather than to believe without questioning. This string on the Seven Deadly Sins is because I questioned, and I wonder if anybody would care to join me in my questioning of sins that I don’t think should be considered sins.

I don’t think the Holocaust would have happened without the centuries of hatred promoted by Christianity. In Northern Ireland Protestants and Catholics have killed each other because of their different faiths. They look alike. They have the same accented English. The difference is faith,

In the former Yugoslavia Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims have been fighting and killing each other. About a thousand years ago or so they were all Orthodox Christians. Then the Turks conquered the Balkans, and some became Muslims. Then Catholic Austria-Hungary took part of the area from the Turks, and some became Catholic. The three peoples speak the same language, have a shared ancestry and kill each other. They are driven by their different faiths.

DNA analysis shows Jews and Palestinians have a shared ancestry. They are driven by their different faiths to kill each other.

My agenda is to promote questioning and the realisation that we all are human beings.

David f writes

'I believe the Bible is wrong'

You can believe what you want and obviously do. The fact that you think you know more than God shows what state your heart is in. To pretend your agenda is noble shows how self deceived you are.

And that's the whole problem with your hatred and intolerance of others. You confuse religion and faith for the actions of those with personal agenda of evil.

People like you blame God for the evils of men. God isn't responsible for war, or rape, or incest, or murder, or intolerance, the free will of man is and everyday we both make decisions not to break the law. There's been PLENTY of opportunities and motivations for me to take a bat to thead of others that 'trespass against me' but not once have I put myself above the laws and morals as laid out by those who demand equality for everyone. I understand your questioning of religion, and much of it is justified, but the way you do it is your measurement against others and those from your foundation are measuring up against the Nazi's you yourself said did it in THE NAME OF GOD. They did it in the name of hate and intolerance. You can't see that?. I believe you can and you're just some lonely little twisted average man with an average existence and this stuff you do for the same purpose those 'religious' extremists end up doing what they do.

Really? An apocryphal collection of folk stories scraped together from nomadic Bronze Age shepherds might wrong about the human condition? Don't be silly, David f.

Next you'll be telling us that pi doesn't equal 3, that the sun doesn't orbit earth, and that god won't send you to hell for wearing polyester.

I'm not sure why I keep posting in discussions about religion, as they all seem to head down the same track. I'll try to keep to the original topic here and avoid the old 'religion is bad' 'no it isn't' 'yes it is' conversation.

My understanding of the Seven Deadly Sins stems in part from my Catholic catechism and partly from my ability as a human being to think about and rationalise things for myself.

The principle behind the nasty seven is that they are the root causes of all other sins. It is not the pride that is a problem - it is what pride can cause us to do. The belief, for example, that you (a wonderful Aryan specimen) are better than others can cause you to treat your fellow humans with disdain and, in some cases, in a particularly evil manner. Take that pride in your genetic good luck away and you may well take away the other sins.

Realistically, I think the idea of the Seven Deadly Sins is a good, but entirely theoretical idea. I can't think of many nasty acts that do not stem from one of the seven, but on the other hand each 'sin' can lead to good things. Envy of your neighbours can cause you to work harder, save harder and provide a better future for your kids. And I don't really believe that, if your kids want to make you proud, they are part of some sneaky plot to lure you into sin.

while there are plenty out there who would condemn me for endorsing a 'thinking man's Catholicism', I think many Christians are like-minded - they are aware that lusting after your neighbour's wife is a bad thing, but that controlling that lust and refraining from acting on it is a virtue that balances out the sin.

Dear StG,

I blame God for nothing. I see no point in putting guilt on imaginary entities.

I remain appalled by what human beings do to each other justifying it by their beliefs in fantasy objects or unprovable propositions.

I feel STG that you do not like me.
That in no way stops me believing you are one of the best posters here, always have been.
But you are prone to lashing out , just as you did in that other thread, probably at me.
My ego is unharmed by criticism, I often see in my posts something not quite right.
But your belief is your right Davids is too, I share his view.
ALL religion is controlling, all of it must not let us think for ourselves.
And it strongly needs fears to exist, once man was frightened of the dark of rainbows and so very much.
Gods so very many of them came into our lives via our imaginations.
I have no reason to fear that, but every reason to dislike others who want freedom of religion stopping Dave and me asking for our rights, to not believe.

david f opens his opening post with the statement "I believe the Bible is wrong when it equates ‘lusting in one’s heart’ with actually doing something wrong.", and proceeds to speak of 'the seven deadly sins'.

The Wikipedia entry for the seven deadly sins (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Biblical_Lists ), for what it may be worth, says, among other things, that:

"The identification and definition of the seven deadly sins over their history has been a fluid process and the idea of what each of the seven actually encompasses has evolved over time."

and;

"This process of change has been aided by the fact that the personality traits are not collectively referred to, in either a cohesive or codified manner, by the Bible itself ..."

I suspect the Wiki entry is substantially correct. The point of significance it makes is that it is not the Bible (whether that Bible be as accepted by Jews, or such with additions as variously accepted within the different strands of Christianity) that makes these assertions, but various religious traditions.

david f concludes with the statement "Religion can be a mechanism of control. Where it creates feelings of guilt for normal human reactions it is antihuman." Too right it can, and too right it is.

My only disagreement with david f's position is with his equating of religion with the Bible. It is my opinion that 'religion' has to a large extent been built upon straight-out misreadings or misunderstandings, as opposed to misinterpretations, of what, within its full context, is written about in the Bible. Such misunderstandings, perhaps deliberate, would seem to be the foundations upon which the control freaks, be they of extremist Jewish or Christian sects (including the biggest one), have commonly sought to build over the centuries with such devastating effect.

The infamous misunderstanding, in its context, of the words 'let him have it' (meaning 'surrender the weapon to the policeman') as meaning more colloquially 'shoot him', that once sent a young petty criminal to the gallows as an accessory to murder, illustrates my point.

Dear Forrest Gumpp.

Of course, I should not equate religion with the Bible. I should not equate religion with belief in God either. There are non-theistic religions such as Buddhism which do not mandate a belief in God. I also accept your point that Bible-based religions conflict because of various interpretations of the Bible or even ideas such as papal infallibility which have no Biblical sanction whatever. Bible based religions have different versions of the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have a version whose translators are not even made public so other Biblical scholars cannot question or discuss with them.

Dear StG and runner,

I regard the Bible in the same light as I regard other books. All books including the Bible were written by humans and are subject to questioning by other humans. StG has questioned blaming God for evil. Since I think God is a human invention I think it is ridiculous to blame God for anything. However, in the Bible God identifies himself as the source of evil.

From the King James Version Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

quote<<..I believe the Bible is wrong.....
when it equates..‘lusting in one’s heart’..with actually doing something wrong.>>...let those without sin not cast stones

as a precautionary measure...to reveal none is without sin...by this measure..if we thunk it..its in our heart...see lust as the active of envey

see the next realms have no such inhibition...we are free to lust ans envey till the cows come home...see that spirit laws are you think it ,...an lo behold it is...

just because we are nice here...dosnt mean there isnt sin in our heart...sure we seek to control it...now...but in the next life there are no secrets...what we think..is wrote large on our faces..for all to see...so best to learn..not to even think it now

but were not perfect...we can only lust after that we lust for...find out why the lust now/here..or why the envey...its not our lust or envey...it belongs to the one lusted...think of it as stealing..from the one lusted after...less lust means more trust

<<The Seven Deadly Sins are Pride,>>..as previous respondants have explained...racial pride is very destructive..it often leads to rightious...lol..<<Wrath,>>...based on fear rooted in<<Envy,>>bigitry

envey fear hatred into to Lust,..for revenge..even if only >>in ones heart,...in the next realm..leads to spi-ritual<<Gluttony, Avarice and Sloth....hell

<<The first four name feelings>>..warning signs...its best to avoid<<...The last three describe behaviour..>>it strikes me that pride/full..wrath-full..[fearfull]..slothfull..are proper words..

but rightious-full..envey full...averise full...gluttonyfull..are not

<<Behaviour can be condemned.>>but by our deeds will we be known...in this realm...by our thoughts in the next...we are preparing for the next realm

<<However,..wrath at injustice>>>..sees a man finding reason to be doing ill to others..so a man thinketh in his heart he seeks to do,

<<envy in feeling we have been or are being deprived..lol..in some way..when it is merely the luck of the game..that somebody else has some thing..you desire...<<and lust are merely normal human emotions.>>..to desire is human..to lust is an obsession

<<It is unreasonable to regard a normal feeling as a sin.>>.i fully agree...feelings are divergent of passion...god loves our passsion..just as we get joy from others..so too god love our passion

<<To do so creates unreasoning guilt>>..the angels have hundreds of guilts...or ways of dividing the goods..from the good..and the bads from the bad...so much so..that even as to what we think..

our thoughts attracts more of the feeders off those thoughts...and those spirits who would feed off them...see thought create enegy..thinking it in our heart creates it in heaven[and hell]...sends in a root..that ties us into the darknes or the light..each good has its fruit...so too each not good

<<There is enough actual wrong done..so one should not feel guilt when one has not done anything wrong.>>see how it works...you think evil..good cant come near...you think good..evil cant come near...

see if good is here...only you can push it away..by thinking of vile evil..cccrapp..know much more is given..than we are aware of...our mindset...sets up light..or darkness...yes im a sinner..yes i have tasted some of the sins of the flesh...

but in those times..we must realise were playing with fire/demons..who have the same passions..get energy from our negative thoughts...and will in time claim their own...certainly we shall meet..in that lust place...but its allready rooted into our heart

<<a person can feel..it is no more wrong..to act on..the feeling than to merely have it>>.straw clutching david...by our deeds will we be revealed..in this realm..our feelings/thought...create the next

<<Religion creates feelings..of guilt for normal human reactions..it is antihuman.>>..only god is perfect,..but see how evil LOVES its vile/passions...much more than the do gooder/passions..does its good

Belly,

Don't not like you. Don't know you, so I can't not like you. What we see of each other here is a one dimensional view. There's more to me than what you read and I'm 100% sure the same can be said for you.

The people like davidf look at religion is like how someone would look vehicles by describing the engine. A car isn't just an engine. But he wouldn't know because he believes - (and refuses to budge from that POV because it may end in some understanding which ISN'T what he wants) - that the bible is religion and faith summised, in text.

I've read the bible, but I don't trust the content as whole because of almost guarantee that MAN has altered the content for personal gain. You also don't find faith in the bible, you find guidance and read about others experiences of faith in it.

I don't go to church. It is run by man, and man is flawed. A church is full to over flowing with hypocrites.

I believe there's a place for abortion in our society. I don't agree with 'lifestyle abortions' as there are millions of couples who can't have children naturally and would benefit greatly from someone elses unwanted child. I believe there's a place for genetic testing and screening. My partner has Cystic Fibrosis and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I bet my basic life philosophy really isn't that much different to yours, Belly. I'm sure if we lived next door to each other you'd treat me the way you'd want to be treated and I'd do the same in regards to you. But the diference between you and me is that I thank MY God for the existance I was given.

Do I deserve to be ridiculed for living that way?. This is the sort of stuff people like davidf refuse to understand or comprehend because of the blinders he wheres for whatever reason but covers that truth with smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, I spark off Belly, but that's my only flaw. ;o)

David f you write
'I regard the Bible in the same light as I regard other books. .

Other books don't describe your the human heart and motivations accurately like the bible does. Other books also fail to show you how you can be cleansed from your rottenness. The bible describe all men as liars and the only exception was Christ Himself. I think it is much wiser to listen to Him rather than your twisted view on the world and God's character.

Why do the religious make statements like "thinking you know better than God" to an Atheist?

Surely that is an impossible scenario.

I agree david f although some of the 'lessons' have merit from an altruistic point of view. Lust is an interesting one given that we need to have lust to be able to continue the species. Perhaps it is only bad when you lust for your neighbours wife? There are some good messages in the Bible in regards to greed and envy but they are delivered in such a violent tone of retribution and fear.

Even if the Bible were less bizarre (the version I read was barbaric), there is a tendency I have noticed, with some religious folk merely to make up their own rules to suit. The rise of groups like Hillsong and evangelical groups in the US is evidence that even religion holds no higher moral ground on greed, but can actually foster it.

I worked with a very religious man who used to overcharge his clients and underpay his workers so that he could pay a tithe to his Church and still be able to buy properties. He also made a lot of money and used to argue that God would want his followers to do well not just be meek and poor - (even if they were rip-offs?).

People will rationalise what they will to justify their own behaviour or greed, religious or not.

This is not to take away from those religious folk who do live good lives (do no harm) just as those who achieve the same through other means and spiritual values.

I once saw a T-shirt with the words:

"Seven deadly sins ...
Why stop at Seven?"

And another with:

"If there are Ten Commandments,
why only Seven Deadly Sins?"

I guess it's all relative.
Commandments come from the Bible, Deadly sins from the
early Church ... Right Forrest?

Whether one follows a set religion, or not, whether
one believes or not, is a personal matter (- to each
his own), as long as your beliefs don't harm anyone
else. I wouldn't presume to judge other people's
beliefs. Nor do I want to convert anyone to my own.
(Although I know my earlier Headmistress, Sister Mary
Virgilius - wouldn't agree with me).

What I do know is - I have a conscience for a reason,
and I try to act accordingly. I don't always succeed -
but I'll keep on trying to be a decent human being.

As for lust - I try to keep that under control (giggle).
The same goes for the other deadly sins. As I wrote in my
weight thread - "everything in moderation.

*The fact that you think you know more than God shows what state your heart is in*

No runner, the real problem is that you actually think that you know
what god thinks. Osama bin Laden thinks the same and frankly neither
of you have a scrap of substantiated evidence. In your case you
won't even acknowledge that the heart is little more then a pump,
that we can replace it with another heart, or a mechanical heart
and it does not make a scrap of difference to a person's character.

Excellent points Davidf.

Pride, Wrath, Envy, Lust are emotional responses

Gluttony, Avarice and Sloth; behavioural.

Pride:

The creating guilt out of the first four "sins" definitely enables control over people. Nothing worse than seeing a child's glowing face when they have completed or created something reduced to tears when told by some 'adult' that "pride goeth before a fall".

Taking pride in either our achievements or our loved ones is a positive and progressive emotion whereas arrogance is the problem. An example of arrogance is Runner describing Davidf as "rotten" because David does not follow Runner's version of religion and has the temerity to critique religion.

Wrath:

If someone tells me they never get angry, I think I am looking at a liar. Anger is necessary if we are to assert ourselves, rather than be a doormat. While it is normal to FEEL anger, it is unwise to ACT in anger.

Envy:

I have felt envious of and happy for friends simultaneously, wishing I could've achieved or done something as impressive yet happy to know that it is someone dear to me who has. Admiration perhaps?

Lust:

Without it where would capitalism or advertising be? Hmmmm, must think further on that.
But sexual desire, as others have noted we would never reproduce without it.

Gluttony:

Eating too much, as David said is behaviour and can be modified.

Sloth:

Some people are without a doubt lazy, but then that is a judgement, one person's lazy might be another's required relaxation. I love reading, some people think that sitting reading is doing nothing AKA lazy.

Avarice:

Best to give example; far too many CEO's. People who award themselves huge pay rises while expecting lower level staff to take pay-cuts. Not unlike the examples Pelican gave. How much money and power is enough? How many homes can one live in? Cars can one drive? Businesses owned before it is pointless? Denying a fair deal for others, in favour of ones own personal requirements is poor behaviour indeed.

Seems to me that many Christians like to talk-the-talk, but fail to walk-the-walk.

Welcome to the diatribe, Fractelle!

I scrolled the sermon line by line,
it getting better and better all the time.
When my eyes first on the words did light,
the userID was out of sight.
So when at last it hove in view,
it gave new insight. Who are you?

I hesitate to suggest where else you may find some of such sentiments expressed. Something to do with camels and needles comes to mind.

All I can say is be very, very careful as to who you might be traveling with, if you should ever take the road to Emmaus.

And Psst. According to the wordcount in my Gedit, you have beaten the OLO word limit with a total of 358 to your credit.

You must have real Ubuntu!

The nature of the sin of "pride" is certainly not referring to a good feeling about onself but a gloating over other people's weakness or misfortune, with the attitude of reducing others status making them as lesser persons.

It is the backbiting that pervades the office coffee machine about stupid, arrogant work colleagues. The opposite of pride is humility and that means caring for a weaker person, of esteeming others achievements and serving others in an endeavour to lift their status. Take a personal interest in the stupid and assist them to develop better social skills, that also includes the gossip at the coffee machine, and the negative poster "on line self opinionated".

I am a Christian and am proud of the teachings my Church has given over the years. That means I am self assured when I see others achievements, I know I am accepted and forgiven by others for my weaknesses. They encourage me to be a better person and remind me failure is not final. "You have what it takes"!

Yet Another debate on religion albeit the seven deadly sins.

I thought "Where are you Fractelle?" but towards the end I wasn't disappointed. As I have said before on OLO, you always get to the heart of the matter with a very balanced and articulated prose and I really enjoy the logic behind your arguments.

It has been said here and in previous posts that we atheists try to persuade the devout believers in our midst to adopt or just see our point of view. This may be true, but we generally try and do it through logic and example, whereas the theists spend more time I feel, from pulpit to door knocking quoting their written books. Perhaps they forget that we regard all this written word (apart from some of the philosophy behind it} as absurd and not the word of of some deity. This gap will never be bridged I fear.

Pelican writes

'This is not to take away from those religious folk who do live good lives (do no harm) just as those who achieve the same through other means and spiritual values.'

Sure does make us feel comfortable in our self righteousness when we feel that our good outweighs our greed. Your observations on greed are spot on. Your answer could not be further from the truth.

runner
I have never assumed you were anything but comfortable in your self righteousness. You are continually telling us how much better you are than anyonelse who does not share your philosophy.

As for greed, are you uncomfortable with the fact that there are people who are not greedy who do not believe in God. I am not sure of your meaning.

Ah yes, it's the many Christians who
like to 'talk the talk, but fail to
walk-the-walk.'

The rest of the human race simply has
faults!

Foxy, I would expand that comment to read -it's the many Christians and proponents of many other religions, who like to 'talk the talk, but fail to walk-the-walk'!

As usual, these sort of religious discussions end up with some contributors (come in runner!) angrily swatting all the other apparently annoying contributors who fail to believe in the fairytales told by the bible.

Surely everyone has met some very good, caring people with a strong moral countenance who are very religious, as well as others who are not religious? Goodness does not always follow a religion.

from the Gershwin song:

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

Li'l David was small, but oh my !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !
He fought Big Goliath
Who lay down an' dieth !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !

Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !...

Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo' he made his home in
Dat fish's abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.

Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water
Till Ol' Pharaoh's daughter,
She fished him, she said, from dat stream.

Wadoo ...

Well, it ain't necessarily so
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De debble's a villun,
But it ain't necessarily so !

To get into Hebben
Don' snap for a sebben !
Live clean ! Don' have no fault !
Oh, I takes dat gospel
Whenever it's pos'ble,
But wid a grain of salt.

Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years ?

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show,
It ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't necessarily ... so !

My words to Five Foot Two, Eyes Of Blue, I sang it on 4zzz in Brisbane

The Imitation of Christ

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?

Pelican you ask
'As for greed, are you uncomfortable with the fact that there are people who are not greedy who do not believe in God. I am not sure of your meaning.'

I am yet to meet someone without the adamic nature Pelican, so could you please inform me of those who I have or should meet that would make me uncomfortable? All have sinned with only One exception.

You seem to deliberately misrepresenting me. You are either being deceitful or naive. The only righteousness I have ever claimed comes from Christ not myself.

Runner < "I am yet to meet someone without the adamic nature Pelican, so could you please inform me of those who I have or should meet that would make me uncomfortable? All have sinned with only One exception."

Only One who hasn't sinned aye Runner? How many babies in this world could possibly have sinned Runner? You must feel very humble in your own presence if you can presume to tell anyone else at all who has, or has not, sinned.

What of all those poor deluded souls that lived in the thousands of years before Jesus walked the earth and a group of men wrote what they thought he said in a book 2000 years ago?

Surely without the bible to guide them, they must all be burning in the fires of hell as we speak? Hell must be very full indeed!

david f,
I do not think “the Bible ... equates ‘lusting in one’s heart’ with actually doing something wrong”. The closest I could get was “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Mat 5:28). There is an obvious difference - not equation - involved here between “doing something wrong” and “doing something wrong in your heart” i.e. in your thoughts. The Church has always interpreted this passage in the sense that God will judge you for both, although humans (courts) can judge you only for your actions since they cannot know your thoughts.

“Lust” in my dictionary can mean both “very strong sexual desire” and “a passionate desire for something”, e.g. power. If restricted to sexual desire I agree the Church has been neurotic about it, however I do not think it is a bad thing to remind people that they should not even desire what when acted upon is wrong, even evil. Obviously, wishing another Holocaust is not as bad as acting upon that wish, nevertheless it is right to remind people that also the wish is amoral.

If insistence on a moral code - that is not reducible to e.g. the criminal code of law of a given country - you call control, so be it. (Of course, like everything else, this insistence can be - and was - abused). Even atheists speak of a moral code and conscience (that comes also with feelings of guilt) acquired through evolution and written into our genes. Catholics call it “natural moral law” underlying whatever else Jesus - or the Church - might have added to it.

Whatever the personal reasons for your criticism, accusations and condemnation of Christian beliefs and Christianity, I have always benefited from your posts - even if I disagree with most of your conclusions (that I see as non-sequiturs) - because of the clarity in which you present your views. They make also a Christian think, and thus acquire a more rational and realistic background for his/her beliefs.

Philo wrote: “[humility] means caring for a weaker person, of esteeming others achievements and serving others in an endeavour to lift their status.”

Not really.

Humility means to be humble. It’s a real stretch of the definition of humility to claim that it says anything about caring for weaker people or serving others.

The universe consists of billions of galaxies, and to think that it was all placed here for us not only lacks humility, but is the ultimate expression of arrogance.

I like Runner’s ‘Adamic nature’ theory though (ie. That we’re all flawed beings). Such rock solid proof of the Christian God and the Genesis story.

Because, if God didn’t exist, then we’d all be perfect, wouldn’t we?

Seriously though, an omnipotent God, that creates life knowing that it’s going to fail, is ultimately responsible for those failures.

An omnipotent God, who creates life with desires and emotions that are supposedly “bad”, then punishes them for acting out on, or feeling those emotions is an evil God. And the ‘God-has-given-us-free-will’ argument is futile, because that’s exactly how everything would play-out if God did not exist.

An omnipotent God, who creates diseases and creatures that are dependent on our suffering such as the worm that can only survive by burying itself in eye balls, then allows it all to be inflicted upon his “beloved” creations, is ultimately responsible for those inflictions.

Since Davidf has become all poetic now, I feel this is an appropriate time to share a poem I heard recently. It goes a-little something like this...

Continued...

...Continued

Jesus loves the little zygotes
all the zygotes of the world.
Jesus loves them until they're born
then abandons them forlorn.
Jesus loves the little zygotes 'til they're born.

Jesus loves the little children
all the children of the world.
Jesus gives them heart defects
measles, mumps, and ring-wormed necks.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Jesus lets their parents beat them,
bruise their bodies black and blue.
Jesus gives them birth defects,
scurvy, ticks, and palette clefts.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Jesus gives the children cancer.
Earaches, lice, and scabies too.
Bowel obstructions, altered lips,
blighted brains and twisted hips.
Extra chromosomes to help them when they pray.

Hallelujah.

Jesus gives the children acne.
AIDS and leprosy galore.
Germs and worms of every kind.
Things to make the children blind.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.

Scientists and unbelievers
wiped the pox right off the earth.
Jesus still gives gifts to kids,
broken noses and burnt eyelids.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.

I think there’s something in that for all of us, don’t you?

*DavidF*

" ... Religion can be a mechanism of control. ... "

Indeed and it calls to mind a comment by that person pell not so long ago when speaking about mary mckillop. I don't recall his exact words but it was something like:

" ... Even when the church leaders were treating her deplorably she remained faithful to them. ... "
(I wonder if that's a sign of a being a Saint? LOL)

This is the sort of idiocy that some religious people hold up as an example for the masses. It is beyond me as to why this individual gets any airtime at all.

And again my "hat" off to you *DavidF* for uncovering another frothing at the mouth fanatic. And I quote *StG*:

" ... David is out to harm. ... "
" ... with your hatred and intolerance of others. ... "

And I quote a response to this incoherent gibberish from a more enlightened poster.

" ... Like many people 'of faith' (*StG*), you don't seem to like anyone disagreeing with your beliefs. ... "

Well said.

I actually suspect that in reality *StG* is accusing *DavidF* of intolerance and hate, which has no basis in fact that I am aware of, because *StG* is "intolerant" of others when they question his blind, dogmatic, claptrap and in the metaphorical death throws of his irrational ego when confronted with the truth of his delusion, vents "hatred" himself by way of bearing false witness and false accusation against *David,* in a perhaps inane attempt to engender support from others.

..

Reminds me of some "hearsay" that came my way today re an Islamic Cleric here locally who comes out with all this flowery language about interfaith harmony and tolerance during his *(Un)Holy Week* speech, and then follows up allegedly with a vile anti-jewish rant.

Dear George,

The former President Jimmy Carter gave an interview in which he confessed to "lusting in his heart" and apparently made the equation with actually giving way to that lust. He apparently felt guilt for merely having the feeling.

This is not restricted to Christians. On Yom Kippur Jews repent for having evil thoughts. My personal morality finds the idea of "evil thoughts" an unreasonable sort of mind control. I remember as a 15 year old boy lying prone of the lawn as our next door neighbour, possibly ten years older, would disport herself working around on her lawn in a filmy yellow dress so sheer that the outline of her body and what she was wearing underneath, sometimes nothing, was quite evident as the benevolent sun shone through. I am sure she knew what effect she had, as I was lying prone to conceal that effect. She knew I would do nothing about it, and I remember her with gratitude. It seemed most unreasonable to feel guilt at what was an innocent pleasure freely offered and freely appreciated.

Religious people sometimes seem to regard non-religious people as not having understanding of their feelings of devotion. I can understand it, as I have had great feelings of devotion along with my doubts of God. I have felt that I had to obey all the strictures of religion and felt great guilt when I inadvertently bought and ate a candy bar during Passover. As the taste of chocolate lingered on my palate I begged the God I had doubts about for forgiveness.

It is not just Christianity or religion that I question. I question unreasoning belief in dogma whether the dogmas of religion or of a secular faith like Marxism. It seems very wrong to me to have faith in unprovable propositions. I can’t see that as a virtue in any way. Questioning and doubt seem natural and good, and faith seems a vice.

It was a long inward struggle before I finally gave up the idea of a supernatural. A great feeling of liberation accompanied giving it away.

Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

During His lifetime,no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere...That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea,..it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves.."Jews"...Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea...They existed at that time in Asia, their.."homeland",..and were known as Khazars.

In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a.."Jew"...The term originated..in the late eighteenth century..as an abbreviation of the term Judean..and refers to a resident of Judea..without regard to race or religion,..just as the term.."Texan"..signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called ..Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history..that there is one record,..prior to that period, ..f a race religion or nationality, referred to as.."Jew".

The religious sect in Judea,..in the time of Jesus,.to which self-styled.."Jews"..today..refer to as "Jews",..were known as "Pharisees"..."Judaism" today and "Pharisaism"..in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced.."Pharisaism";..hence the words,.."Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees,..Hypocrites,..Ye Serpents,..Ye Generation of Vipers".

JESUS WAS NOT A Jew
by Jason Collett

Many denominational Christians and even church leaders are under the mistaken belief that Jesus was a Jew...But nothing could be further from the truth.

Judea and Galilee..were two separate states and political entities,.as illustrated on the map of Palestine in the time of our Saviour in your Bible...Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean) or resident of Judea,..He was a Galilean or resident of Galilee (Matthew 26:69; John 7:41),..and a Judahite or descendent of the Tribe of Judah...The Judeans of prominence were not of the Tribe of Judah,..but of Edomites.

Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign.."Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans"..for the Cross (John 19:19).//That is,.."the Galilean who was King of the Judeans,"..as in "Queen Victoria of England,..Empress of India."..Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee.

...John Hyrcanus forcibly assimilated the Edomites as a national group..and they became.."Jews"..in about 120BC.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89GlA5temPA
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=jesus+not+judean..not+jew&btnG=Search&meta=

Dear david f,
I tried to argue that the quote from the Bible did not “make the equation”, not Carter, although even without knowing the context of what he said, I doubt he would “equate” “lusting in his heart” with “adultery” or even rape.

As to your experience at age 15, I think that is normal, though I did not understand whether you wanted to say that being neurotic about sexual matters was not restricted to the Catholic Church.

The feelings of guilt serve the purpose of helping individuals to adjust to the community/society they are part of, whether or not you accept a divine imperative. Like many other things, feelings of guilt can be misplaced or exploited by those who want to manipulate people for whatever reasons that might or might not be related to the Church or other religious authority.

Thank you for the sincere words explaining your frustration with the religion of your youth and the “great feeling of liberation” when you gave it away. As you know, today there are also many ex-Christian people with similar experiences.

I myself first encountered this kind of sentiments when after finishing my high school studies some of my classmates expressed “feelings of liberation” from having to study (and feel guilty when under-performing at exams), whereas I was looking forward to studies at the University, where everything was on an even more challenging level.

This, however, does not mean I feel superior, or what, to those classmates, since I know that there are many people who stopped at that level with their formal education and achieved more - in whatever sense, including moral - than many of us who spent our lives in the academic “ivory tower”.

I think something similar could be said about my feelings towards those who stopped at a certain level with trying to understand their faith (c.f. Anselm’s fides quaerens intellectum), and either accepted or rejected it with that level of understanding.

DreamOn,

Apt name. You generally make stuff up as you go?. David is intolerant. Pure and simple. He won't deny it either. He has no time for religion nor understanding or comprehending what that might mean to those involved....like you, apparently.

Evolution is just as much a dreamt up theory as you propose Creation to be. But here you are sitting on your little pedestal of self righteousness spruiking condemnation for me!. Ironic, considering your rant.

I don't care if no one agrees with me or if anyone is convinced at what I say. Unlike you, and David.

Nice personal attack from the side lines though. Classy.

It still blows my mind that you guys CONDEMN those with faith. There is no attempt to understand or live and let live. It's just total quashing.

BE interested to hear your thoughts on multiculturalism.

Lust is not to be equated with natural attraction but with scheming in the heart. It is the attitude to gain for ourselves somthing that rightfully belongs to others. It is the planning in the mind to take for ourselves, without mutual agreement. e.g. Drink spiking is an act of born from lust.

runner
I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse. No human being is perfect but not every human being possesses each and every 'mortal sin'. You can still be vain without being greedy. Or lustful without being envious.

We are complex individuals - no one person can possess all good as no one person can possess all bad as you seem inclined to cast your own species.

It seems when humans behave badly you raise the the adamic nature argument but when humans behave in altruistic and positive ways it suddenly is only due to God.

Cake and eating it comes to mind.

Dear George,

Neuroticism as to sex is certainly not limited to the Catholic Church or even Christianity or even religion. It pervades society. Both fascist and Marxist regimes have had puritanical repression after taking power. To me freedom from political or religious repression also promotes freer sexual expression.

I don't think a feeling of guilt is necessary for any purpose. I think one should recognise where one has been wrong and try not to repeat the offense.

I appreciate the beauty arising from Catholic tradition. I have a season ticket to the musical performances at St. Stephen's Cathedral. Once during the year the church puts on a spread for season ticket holders at which the archbishop gives a little talk. Archbishop Bathersby told me how he happened to be in Australia. In his words it was due to 'one of his Irish ancestors having an inordinate fondness for other people's horses'.

However, I object to your sentence, "I think something similar could be said about my feelings towards those who stopped at a certain level with trying to understand their faith."

I did not stop trying to understand my faith. I did understand it. I reject religious faith or other faith in general. I thought I made it plain that I regard faith as a vice, and my rejection of faith was due to understanding it.

I also object to your analogy of feeling freedom from religious belief with freedom from the obligation to study. I think it is just the opposite. I think freedom from religious belief enabled me to look at the human condition with more understanding and a greater empathy with people from other cultures. Just as your graduation meant the opportunity and the obligation of future learning my loss of religious belief meant the same for me.

Dear Foxy

I happen to regard you as one of the few Christians on OLO who actually does "walk-the-walk". Please don't take my criticisms personally even though I can understand the difficulty. In Australia Christianity is the most common religion, therefore it is going to receive most of the attention.

The "seven deadly sins" have been used to control and dull and demean many people by many different religions often in league with political will. An argument regarding these "sins" was bound to devolve into a debate on semantics.

For example, I would like to ask Philo if he never feels good about helping others? Feeling good about something one has created or completed or aided is pride and very human, very normal, it helps us continue to create, complete or aid.

BTW Philo - drink spiking is not about lust, it is about control. But only someone who has been indoctrinated into a very fundamentalist version of Christianity would think that.

Dear Suze,

Of course goodness is not simply the domain
of the religious amongst us. And neither is
evil anyone's domain either. Things in life
tend to be more complicated.

I don't believe in finger-pointing or questioning
someone's beliefs/or lack of them, (as long as they
don't harm others). Live and let live.

The point I was trying to make was - we've all got
flaws.

As I've written in other threads, religious institutions,
as such, are not the only arbiters of religious
experience. They are consultants and frameworks,
but they are not God Himself. We should not confuse the
path with the destination.

Lately I've generally avoided discussions at OLO that concern religion, since they inevitably all end up in the same intellectually irreconcilable space of faith vs reason. However, I'll stick my nose in here, since some of the religiously-inclined seem to be attacking dear old davidf personally for having the temerity to reject religion and to provide lots of sound arguments backing up his position.

I think that the early Christians incorporated the "seven deadly sins" in their religion because their internalisation functioned well to attenuate antisocial behaviour in the small-scale tribal societies that characterised the Middle East a couple of millennia back. In such societies religious beliefs and edicts function effectively to facilitate people living together while avoiding internal conflict and enhancing group solidarity. "Faith" or its equivalent is critical, because such societies rely on people controlling their own behaviour in accordance with social and cultural mores, without recourse to the elaborate legal, civil and moral structures that characterise more complex socities.

Of course, now that we have those structures of social evolution, the internalisation of "sin" and its accompanying feelings of guilt etc are largely redundant, although religious beliefs and their anachronistic notions of morality are still powerful forces in the world - and indeed, in Australian society, where the unfortunate resilience of these elaborate mythological systems generally manifest in conflict between 'believers' and everybody else.

Fractelle,
The pride the Bible talks about is the attitude of superiority that is ill, hurtful and demeaning of others. It is not about feelings of self worth or achievements, unless it has an element of spite.

Quote"For example, I would like to ask Philo if he never feels good about helping others? Feeling good about something one has created or completed or aided is pride and very human, very normal, it helps us continue to create, complete or aid."

Think again Fractelle - you said "drink spiking is not about lust". Wrong! The attitude that schemes personal benifit from others is LUST. The scheming for control of others for power is also Lust.

It is interesting to me to read what *StG* writes.

This particular individual does not as yet appear to have insight, or the ability to consider Self objectively, which goes to support *DavidF's* hypothesis.

In the instance of very gentle initial impersonal probes by way of *DavidF's* opening remarks, regarding the validity of certain aspects of particular belief systems, he responds with what appears to be borderline paranoid emotional hostility.

I wonder additionally whether his behavior is obsessive and this in part goes to the core of *David's* topic. That is to say that if an individual observes repetitive (ritualistic) practice in an obsessive manner, and or strict blind adherence to dogmatic doctrine, that their consciousness literally becomes so full of it to the exclusion of most other things that the ego becomes inflamed and tender when challenged, out of fear perhaps of having no other substantial thoughts to fall back on.

" ... May I find in U oh *Lordy* a fortified tower, in the face of the *Enemy* ... "

The word stultification/fossilization/crystallization comes to mind and dear *Runner* is a classic example. Whereas her self professed *Lordy JC* was reputed to be able to commune with all manner of people, she her Self seems to be about as diverse in her views as a "pillar of salt."

A rough hack admittedly, but I think that both these two characters could do with some time apart from their own religious views for the good of the development of their own individuality.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can freely admit that at times I become thoroughly bored with my own Self and the emanations of my own consciousness, which is one of the reasons I come here, to be refreshed and nourished by the diversity and richness of the OLO garden.

Read it up, think it over, thrash it out, have a feed, have a kip, wake up and see what, if anything, new pops up in my thought stream. Not necessarily something entirely new, but often a new way to look at things.

Dear Fractelle,

Thank You for your kind words.

I used to think I was not religious, and perhaps
I wasn't. I didn't like what organized religion
had done to the world. I still don't. I've come
to see, however, that true religion is internal,
not external. What some have done in the name
of religion, projecting their neuroses, even
perpetrating evil on the world, doesn't make
religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid.

Secularized organized religions have become, in
many cases, as calcified as other institutions that
form the structure of our modern world.
That's why they're often rejected. Our religious
institutions have far too often become handmaidens
of the status quo, while the genuine religious
experience is anything but that.

Unless organized religious institutions step up to
bat religiously, they will wither away, for the
simple reason that people today demand relevance
and meaning from their Churches and won't permit
their God to be reduced to empty ritual and
all-absorbing law.

Ramen,

I'm sure his noodly goodness wouldn't mind me posting his eight 'I'd really rather you didn'ts'

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.

2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, Okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuschia.

4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is go fock yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.

5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the girls.

6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?

8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

AJ Philips

No doubt your spiritual father helps you feel at ease with your self righteous rants blaming Jesus for the ills of the world and presenting man as the answer to the problems. It seems with all man's scientific wisdom they still can't come anywhere near the miracles Jesus did in healing all kinds of disease and sickness. Your blasphemous rants are similar to those who crucified the Only one who could save them from their depravity. I sincerely hope you one day see your arrogance before its to late. Your little bit of candy that you insist on sucking here on earth is not worth the price.

Your blame shifting of responsibility from yourself onto God might make you feel a little better but is really quite pathetic. Your puny little fist shaking at the Creator of the Universe would be funny if it was not so sad.

Suzi writes

'Hell must be very full indeed!' Unfortunately yes Suzi it is and you along with anyone else who rejects Christ as Lord and Saviour will end up there and it won't be the party many mockingly make it out to be.

Pelican

The idea of mortal sin is largely a human invention. Compared to true righteousness we all fall miles and miles short. That is why the prostitute enters the kingdom before the religous (because they know their own righteousness is as filthy rags to God). It is only pride which blocks us from a clear knowledge of that. Your righteousness along with mine will count for nothing.

Runner,

<<No doubt your spiritual father helps you feel at ease with your self righteous rants blaming Jesus for the ills of the world and presenting man as the answer to the problems.>>

I’m not sure who this “spiritual father” is of mine that you refer to, but just so you know, I’m not blaming Jesus for the ills of the world. For Jesus to take the blame, he would actually have had to exist first, and we have about as much evidence for Jesus as we do for the Father and the Holy Spirit...

Zilch.

<<It seems with all man's scientific wisdom they still can't come anywhere near the miracles Jesus did in healing all kinds of disease and sickness.>>

Oh, you read the poem! Yes, the last 5 lines were my favourite part too. I had a lump in my throat reading that last bit.

Powerful stuff!

To think that an almighty God created diseases and us mere humans are able eradicate them... Heck, we even one-upped God with some of his creations. Just take a look at what we’ve done to wheat and bananas.

<<Your blasphemous rants are similar to those who crucified the Only one who could save them from their depravity.>>

So this monster you worship is soothed by the sacrificial death of his son? It’s no wonder he asked Abraham to kill his son. Just as well he was only joking, eh? That God of yours is such a crazy kidder!

Seriously though... What frightening little reality bubble you live in!

<<I sincerely hope you one day see your arrogance before its to late.>>

Thanks for your sincere concern, Runner.

But just so you know, I already have two questions prepared for when I die, in the event that God does exist...

1. Which God are you? Apollo, Thor, Allah?
2. Why did you keep yourself so well hidden?

Continued...

...Continued

<<Your little bit of candy that you insist on sucking here on earth is not worth the price.>>

I find it extremely offensive that you assume I’m indulging in something immoral. My lack of belief comes not from what I want to do, but from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for any of the religions of the world.

<<Your blame shifting of responsibility from yourself onto God might make you feel a little better but is really quite pathetic.>>

It’s like Epicurus said:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

But like I said before, an all-knowing God who creates humans knowing full-well that they’ll fail is ultimately responsible for those failures.

My point still stands.

<<Your puny little fist shaking at the Creator of the Universe would be funny if it was not so sad.>>

How can someone shake their fists at something they don’t believe exists?

Anyway, thanks for the response, Runner. At least you had the courage to respond to what I believe was a poignant point. It seems other some of the other religious here would prefer to either pretend the point was never made, or that it was intellectually or morally bellow them.

Runner- <"...you along with anyone else who rejects Christ as Lord and Saviour will end up there and it won't be the party many mockingly make it out to be."

Settle down there Runner or you might be nasty enough to earn your own path to hell! I'd rather party with the sinners myself....

All the best, wherever we end up!

T’ain’t No Sin

When you hear sweet syncopation
And the music softly moans
T’ain’t no sin to take off your skin
And dance around in your bones

When it gets too hot for comfort
And you can’t get an ice cream cone
T’ain’t no sin to take off your skin
And dance around your bones

Just like those bamboo babies
Down in the south sea tropic zone
T’ain’t no sin to take off your skin
And dance around your bones

DreamOn,

Bark little doggie. Good BOY. That's a GOOD boy.

Dear david f,
>> one should recognise where one has been wrong and try not to repeat the offence <<
This is exactly how I felt when after thinking I finished the proof of a (mathematical) theorem I found a fatal mistake. However, I think life - the question of responsibility towards others, towards the society you are part of (and God if you believe in Him) - is more complicated than that.

>> I object to your sentence, "I think something similar could be said about my feelings towards those who stopped at a certain level with trying to understand their faith."<<
I am sorry if you misunderstood me. Those who are absolutely sure they understand why and what they believe or do not believe, and do not need further clarifications, are aplenty on this OLO. I find it futile to engage in longer debates with them.

I thought you were not one of them, that, like myself, you took part in these OLO discussions in order to better understand your own world-view, what you believe (or do not believe), which is not the same as expecting to be converted or wanting to convert others.

Having a complete understanding of concepts and assumptions pertaining to one’s world-view sounds to me like “knowing the truth” which for me makes sense only as part of a religious faith. In my opinion understanding of one’s world-view (and even more of others’) is a process (that can be voluntarily stopped at a certain level) not a final goal that should/could be achieved. Anselm’s dictum also refers to a process: it means “faith (or what might take its place as a system of presuppositions in one’s world-view) seeking understanding”, not “faith that has found understanding”.

One does not necessarily have to stop looking for a deeper understanding of things relevant - in a positive or negative way - to one’s world-view even after one suddenly feels like having been freed from what was perceived as mental shackles, the usual sentiments expressed by people after conversion one way or the other .

A.J Phillips

'I find it extremely offensive that you assume I’m indulging in something immoral'

The fact that we are born into sin makes it inevitable. Also I am surprised that you are offended as your definition of immoral is sure to be different to what the bible declares immoral.

Dear George,

I was separating guilt from responsibility. Guilt is a feeling of having done wrong or failed in an obligation. To revel in guilt is pointless. Continued guilt without doing anything about it is simply a neurosis. I am given to that neurosis. I wake up in the middle of the night and think of my moral failures. I recognise the pointlessness of such churning but continue with it nevertheless. The Catholic confessional is a most healthy institution.

I don't have religious faith any more. You have it. If there is a God I am sure he is reasonable enough not to resent the conclusions I have come to. I am bothered by the attitude of some on this list that one is immoral or wrong simply because they do not accept certain beliefs. That means a petty deity. I have no argument with you, but I would like some on this list not to be condemnatory of others merely because they do not believe the same thing. I have been a religious believer, but I have never believed in a God that would condemn a person merely for their religious belief or lack of it. I think it ugly to believe we are born in sin.

We can try to understand each other, other people both with and without religious faith and the processes involved. I am reading "God's Funeral". It is an account of the decline of religious certainty primarily in England but also in France and Germany. It was well on its way before Darwin's publications. In fact Darwin did not bother more sophisticated believers as they accepted the findings of science as revelations of God's will.

God's Funeral is the title of Hardy's poem. Apparently the Ur skeptic was Hume. I read much on religion both by believers like St. Augustine and Maimonides and non-believers like Dawkins and Dennett. I like your postings, and I like the combination of religious belief, love and understanding in Foxy's posts. I am 83, and it gets a bit difficult to get around so OLO is really my socialising.

Runner,

<<The fact that we are born into sin makes it inevitable.>>

Speaking of original sin, what purpose did the metabolisms of Adam and Eve serve when they were immortal?

And what kind of a punishment is “You shall crawl on your belly for the rest of your days” for a snake? He certainly got off lightly, didn’t he?

<<I am surprised that you are offended as your definition of immoral is sure to be different to what the bible declares immoral.>>

That’s actually a very good point, Runner!

The God of the Bible endorses slavery and animal cruelty; commands the stoning of disobedient children. He even tells us that it’s an abomination to eat shellfish, yet it was allegedly he himself who made them edible!

Oh, and before you, or anyone else tries to claim that the Bible was written in such a way so that it could be understood by the people of those times, then you need to explain why this God of yours is incapable or re-writing the Bible for our more modern times - Otherwise you are simply making assertions.

Or could it just be the more rational explanation that the Judeo-Christian faiths are based on the ignorance of simple, primitive goat herders? After all, a God that keeps us guessing with out-of-date and largely irrelevant texts is an unreasonable God.

david f

It is your own words that will condemn you and not anyone else. The rejection of the only One who can cleanse you of your sin is yours and others greatest crime. To reject such love is equivalent to spitting in the face of the ones who love you the most. I pray you soften your heart in time.

Dear runner,

You haven't a clue as to as to what is in my heart. I am a real softy who is sometime suffused with love. Occasionally I have other emotions.

Words do not condemn anyone. Belief or the lack of it does not condemn anyone. We are condemned because we do bad things when we shouldn't and don't do good things when we should. It is not a crime to recognise your mumbojumbo for the nonsense that it is. No one can cleanse me of wrong-doing. It is a primitive idea that someone else can take one's sins away. We are responsible for our wrong-doing and we remain responsible.

The only one who can do anything about whatever wrongs I commit is myself. Runner, you may be a decent fellow, but I think you have an intolerant, unreasonable religion.

!WooF! That's amazing *StG*

By the powers of your undoubted Saintly Godliness u've devolved me into a pooch.

I think I should straight out cock my leg and relieve mySelf on U. <snicker>

Then U could be like that painting called *P!ss Christ*

;-)

A healthy vital society is not one in which
we all agree. It's one in which those who
disagree can do so with honour and respect
for other peoples' opinions, and an
appreciation of our shared humanity.

There seems to be a tendency on so many people's
parts to think their way is the right way and that
people who disagree with them are 'bad.'

We can disagree vehemently yet appropirately.
Disagreement must be respectful or the disrespect
itself poisons us more than either side's position
in the argument ever could.

Dear david f,
I agree that “to revel in guilt” - like in many other things - is pointless or worse. This includes collective guilt, felt or made to feel. Here, in Germany, I met a psychotherapist who told me he took out an extra degree in history in order to be better able to treat patients who had problems with what their grandfather did, or failed to do, during WWII.

I really appreciate your sincere words. I can understand your sentiments towards people who accuse you of being immoral just because you do not accept their religion. I myself am irritated by these people, as well as by those who accuse me of being irrational, dogmatic, illogical or engaging in “mental gymnaistics” etc just because they cannot accept/understand the presuppositions (axioms) of the rational framework of my faith. It is an integral part of my world-view and I do not think it is necessarily less rational than theirs. The same as an atheist’s world-view does not need to be less moral than that of a theist.

In what I myself believe about God, He certainly is “reasonable enough not to resent the conclusions you have come to”, though instead of “reasonable” I would say “magnanimous”. You see, I believe that He will reveal Himself to each one of us during the process of our dying, which - objectively measured - might take only seconds, but subjectively will be an experience lasting long enough for us to “know the truth” about why we, each one of us, was made to exist at all, and whether we deserve another existence on a higher level (heaven) or non-existence (hell). I shall not continue, since these speculations about transcendental hope, supported by nothing but (Christian) faith, are hard to communicate across different world-views.

I agree that religion, notably Christianity, is on the decline in the West (not worldwide). However I see this only as “passing through a purgatory” or a process when quantity is being traded in for quality (moral as well as intellectual).

Dear George,

Your worldview is consistent and rational. I neither can nor wish to argue with you in that area. We simply have different unprovable premises. However, I can try to understand yours and how it expresses itself.

I also agree that collective guilt can lead to excesses. Germany has confronted its past in a remarkable way. Sometimes they have gone overboard. On a visit to Sydney I was exploring the Great Synagogue as it is beautifully constructed. A woman dressed in the garments of what looked like a religious order asked me if I was Jewish. When I answered, "Yes" she looked at me with such an expression of love and admiration that I felt uncomfortable. She was a member of the Evangelical Sisters of St Mary, a Lutheran order set up by Basilea Schlink. From their website: "As a citizen of her country, Mother Basilea longed to make amends for the sins of the past in the spirit of Daniel 9 and to find practical ways of expressing love for God's chosen people." I felt such an expression of love and admiration was as uncalled for as hating me because of my antecedents. I prefer to be regarded as merely another human being rather than a stereotype or icon.

However, I think what Germany has done is better than what the US South has done after their defeat in the Civil War. They have nurtured the politics of resentment. Black people cannot be held in slavery any more, but they can be held down. I felt that the recent outburst in Congress by the representative from South Carolina where he yelled out, “You lie!” to a dark skinned president was an expression of that resentment.

If Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated I think he would have had the wisdom to direct a healing process where the South could have come back into the Union without resentment. President Obama may have the wisdom and capability to help banish some of the resentments that reside in both US blacks and whites

david quote<<asked me if I was Jewish...When I answered,.."Yes"..she looked at me with such an expression of love and admiration that I felt uncomfortable...She was a member of the Evangelical....>>i must say that is a shocker....did you tell her that as a goy she cant get into heaven

anyhow you must know only jew can get to heaven...or is it only judeans...or just not any goy..

AJ Philips<<..you need to explain why this God of yours..is incapable or re-writing the Bible for our more modern times..Otherwise you are simply making assertions....i agree...the xtians have been subverted by the pharosees...instead of following christs messengers in series..

mahamouds words needed to be absorbed..to realise the sun is not the father...the reform left out the wrong texts...all should have been included...luther..swedenberg..mary baker eddie...a course in miracles..even the philistene heracy...god lives realmtime..se its an ongoing teaching

<<Or could it just be the more rational explanation that the Judeo-Christian faiths are based on the ignorance of simple, primitive goat herders?>>>when we see fisher know fisher of men
where we see sheppard we see shepard of men
its a common theme...know mosus followed satan/nature...for all the natural negatives

>>After all, a God that keeps us guessing with out-of-date and largely irrelevant texts is an unreasonable God.>>>egsactly thats why we can chose to reject vile
listen to his living loving logic via the still good living loving voice within
we know gods voice because it listens..hears...loves ..honours...has grace mercy infinite good and plenty...that not loving not good is not from god...why it is allowed to egsist is to reveal god judges no one..sustaining all life to live...loving the least of life equally as loving the most

Dear OUG,

Your story about, "only Jews can get to heaven,"
reminds me that Sister Mary Virgilius (my headmistress
in primary school) taught all of her classes that heaven
was reserved only for Catholics. When I asked her, "Where
does everyone else go then, when they die?" I was told,
"To Purgatory - until they converted to Catholicism!"
It wasn't long after that lesson that my father had me
removed from that school...

All this reminds me of the following joke:

A nun was teaching a class of girls and she decided to
ask each one what they wanted to be when they grew up.
Most girls answered with ,"A doctor," "Lawyer," "Teacher."
Finally one little girl said, "A Prostitute!"
The nun was shocked.
"Mary Ellen what did you say?"
"A Prostitute," repeated Mary Ellen in a clear voice.
"Oh Thank God," replied the nun looking relieved.
"I thought you said Protestant!"

Bigotry will always exist, I guess ...

david f

I appreciate your civil tone. I can learn from that.

I could not disagree with you more than your statements

'The only one who can do anything about whatever wrongs I commit is myself.' 'I think you have an intolerant, unreasonable religion.'

If man was able to fix his wrongs the cross of Christ was a total waste of time. You call it a primitive belief. I call it the greatest act of love in history.

The only unreasonable part of what you call my religion is the fact that the Son of God would die for a wretch like you and me. I suspect you measure yourself by the standards of others. It is quite likely you have lived much better than most. However if godly men who served God all their lives desperately needed a Saviour I suspect very strongly that you do to.

I once thought as U do in regards to issues pertaining to civil discourse *FoxY*

But no longer ..

It comes down to this for me, if some religions and its followers want to have their own little group limiting the aspirations of women and homosexuals, encasing the mind's of their adherents in the brain plaque of dogma by way of insidious indoctrination in private that's one thing, but if they through a variety of the world's political systems also want to project that out on mass in a very real attempt at subjugating millions of people, then that is another thing altogether.

I personally do not approve of them and make no pretense otherwise.

And that's not to say that I'm anti-Christ or otherwise. As I've said before in this place there was a time when I was cared and nurtured by a very eccentric group of Christians, but their cosmology and mentality was so radically different from the likes of *Runner & StG* as to arguably put them in a different class altogether.

To them the risen Christ is a Divine Super Being, who somehow bequeathed a portion of his Being to the whole of Humanity that we may further evolve. (Past, Present and Future generations included)

And bear in mind, their concept includes a non-corporeal essence of Humans being around before the big bang, evolving materially through mineral, plant, animal and finally to where we are now, with a future outlook of transcending our current bipedal form and going on and on forever in one form or another until the stars themselves all die out, existing temporally, then off into the non corporeal realms, and then back again, male to female to other and round and round and round.

For me, I care little about the details of these believes or any others for that matter any more BUT what I do LUV and greatly appreciate is that EVERYONE is allowed to participate.

.. and whilst I have not seen them for more than 10 years, something of the distilled essence of what they are about I choose for now to keep and nurture in my Soul, so if the likes of *StG* wants to start accusing people of hatred and intolerance whilst indulging in bigotry and prejudice themselves then let them suck it in and taste a bit of it which hopefully will give them pause to think twice before doing so again.

Dear DreamOn,

Religious institutions, as such, are not the
only arbiters of religious experience. They do
not own the Truth, for Truth cannot be owned.
Nor should they think they hold some franchise
on our spiritual life. As I've said earlier,
they are consultants and frameworks, but they
are not God Himself.

I believe that organized religious institutions
should be in for a huge transformation, for the simple
reason that people want freedom from legalistic
Churches that try to transform the simplicity of
a personal and Christian love into a world of fear
and guilt. Many people struggle to find God, they've never
be taught how. They've only been taught to keep
laws, to avoid sin, to fear hell, and to carry a
cross that they've built themselves.

As Father James Kavanaugh wrote so many years ago:

"The world has become man-centered, meaning centered,
and the individual measures the traditional truths
in terms of personal value. He refuses to accept
irrelevant sermons, a sterile liturgy, a passe
and speculative theology which explores publicly
dry and distant formulas, a law which does not explain
its own origins. He demands a pastor who reaches him
in honest dialogue. He will not be bullied by an
authoritarian demand...nor by moralizing which ignores
the true and complex context of modern life..."

These words were a soul-searching plea of a Christian
(a Catholic priest) for an evaluation of what was Christian,
and what was simply tired and imperious tradition. James
Kavanaugh wanted to remain a Christian, but he refused to
be terrorized into believing that the present structure of
his Church was an adequate representation of the Christ of
Gospel and history.

Sadly, James Kavanaugh did not get his wish.

jesus didnt die for us on the cross...lets face facts..he didnt die for our sins..no scapegoat can take the others sin..in fact someone else taking the credit...or blame..is theft...and jesus wasnt a thief..and while were about blame...see any blame needs a judgement..who are we to judge others

see jesusw died ans was bornagain...to prove death isnt dead..to prove that 'judgment day is wrong...good/god dont judge..thus no judgment day...no smouldering in graves waiting for ';reserection...lol..day..

understand that judeans believed..in this deception of a judgment day WRONGLY...jesus died to destroy that myth...jesus didnt look upon our sin...didnt die to take away our sin..but to reveal he saw no sin...see that good from god is the only truth..that lies arnt from god thus not based in gods reality...we have allowed lies into ours

lies such as holy lands when all land is wholy gods lands..all fermameant belongs to god...the lie of gods people...who living was not given their life to live from good..[god]

religious held guilt or special privledge is a delusion...that we did to the least we did to god...but we did it...how can jesus say he did it if he didnt...jesus saw no sinner..only hating the sin..you cannot hate others without hating god..that we did to the least we did to the most..

jesus reveals grace and mercy...but not for his sake but for the fathers..love god by love of neighbour..one cause for all life..[all of us livings father..one god of all living..god within us all

Hmmm .. *FoxY* .. James Kavanaugh .. I am not familiar with him, but reading your words have merged and stimulated a memory from when I was in Montpellier France in the year 2000 inside a quaint little art gallery with a lovely collection of Christian paintings.

I only did a little tertiary level art appreciation but however, suffice to say, I very much liked the early, early church works but then at some point, I forget the dates, but the choice of symbol, highlight and emphasis all quite radically changed to portray quite different things, at least in my amateurish interpretation.

Maybe there is someone else who can more articulately extrapolate on issues of significance regarding Christian (or others) Art history.

I'm thinking of the change, if there is one, between the glorification of one set of values to another using imagery.

..

Perhaps this thread may care to differentiate between what are "reasonable" feelings of guilt as distinct from those that are "unreasonable."

From here at OLO to places international, I get the sense sometimes that the world is struggling for a "universal code of acceptable behavior" or a "universal conscience."

But as of yet, at least in my limited experience, the things that divide us appear to have pre-eminence over the things that could potentially unite us.

*OUG*

If my memory serves me correctly, "to sin" in old greek, means:

" To miss the point. "

So, at least in terms of the original biblical works, as much as we know of them, the concept of dieing for our sins has little to do with with some of the views that you have just expressed. That is not to say that what you have said has no relevance, but however ...

DreamOn < "From here at OLO to places international, I get the sense sometimes that the world is struggling for a "universal code of acceptable behavior" or a "universal conscience."

I totally agree DreamOn.
I am hopeful that eventually all the people of the world (maybe through an organisation like The United Nations) will agree on acceptable behaviours for us all, as human beings.

All the different religions/Gods of the world have disagreed over so many issues over our world's history, leading to terrible wars, poverty, and heartache.

Surely leaving religion out of the equation, and just focusing on acceptable human behaviour, will lead to more world peace?

david f

I've only been skimming this thread, so I apologize if I've taken something out of context, but this sentence rather jumped out at me.

<< The Catholic confessional is a most healthy institution. >>

Surely, David, you're not suggesting the practice of fessing up ones 'sins' to some faceless priest in a dark box and saying ten Hail Marys actually has some merit, are you?

Quite apart from the sheer absurdity of the practice itself, one has to wonder at how many sexual assaults have occurred down through the ages in the dark recesses of these archaic little boxes.

<< I wake up in the middle of the night and think of my moral failures. I recognise the pointlessness of such churning but continue with it nevertheless. >>

I'm no doubt much more of a wimp than you are, David, but I know if I was waking in the middle of the night and wrestling my moral demons, I'd be upping the magnesium or melatonin or whatever it took to have me sleeping soundly. :)

Dear Bronwyn,

I have never experienced the Catholic confessional , but I understand it's effective in discharging guilt. One can get a good night's sleep.

runner wrote: If man was able to fix his wrongs the cross of Christ was a total waste of time. You call it a primitive belief. I call it the greatest act of love in history.

Dear runner,

"I call it the greatest act of love in history." Do you know about all the acts of love in history and have some means of comparing them to each other? I am quite serious in asking as I think this is one of the formulaic statements that religious people often make without really thinking about it. By what standards can you substantiate that it is the greatest act of love in history?

There is real meaning in my statement that it is a primitive belief since there are elements in your belief that existed a long time ago.

From: “PAGAN & CHRISTIAN CREEDS: THEIR ORIGIN AND MEANING” by Edward Carpenter

About 2,000 years ago there were Temples dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, etc. Many of the following features were common in those beliefs:

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.
(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.
(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.
(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator,
Savior, Deliverer.
(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to
the Heavenly world.
(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples
were received by Baptism.
(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals

I can't really imagine too much sexual abuse going on in a confessional. They tend to be small, cramped and uncomfortable. I'm sure it has happened (plenty of strange and distasteful things have) but I'm also sure that most lusty priests would have ample opportunity to carry out their desires elsewhere.

Dear david f
>>I have never experienced the Catholic confessional, but I understand it's effective in discharging guilt.<<
Yes, but not exclusively. For centuries the confessor was the precursor of the psychotherapist, the confessional that of his couch. At least this is how I understood my grandmother’s reminiscences about the psychological support she was receiving during the hard WWI years when she was left with five children while grandfather had to go to the front.

Now the function of confession - as I understand it, leaving out its religious meaning - is more symbolical, the priest just reciting a brief exhortation, acting more as a “psychotherapic catalyst”. There are exceptions, of course, when even in our times the priest can - or has to - still function as a counsellor, e.g. during the Communist era in East-Central Europe.

One experience convinced me about the importance of having somebody who just listens to you, who acts as a “catalyst”. One of my PhD students wanted to talk to me about a (mathematical) problem he encountered while writing up his thesis. He came, talked for half an hour, scribbled on my whiteboard and finished with a “thank you, now it is all clear” without me having opened my mouth during his exposition. I acted as a catalyst, a function that e.g. his grandmother could not have fulfilled, since his subconscious would not allow it: he would not have believed she could understand his exposition. So I played the role of a passive “mathematical catalyst”, whereas in some analogous way today's confessor plays - or should play - the role of a “psychotherapic catalyst”.

I remember my times in the Confessional quite
fondly. I used to feel quite guilty that I
didn't have that much to tell (I was in primary
school), and so I fel obliged to make some things
up so that Father Kennedy would have something
of substance to listen to. I think he finally
must have realised what I was doing, because he
told me not to come back.

There was however, one priest that all us girls
would pray he never got to hear our confessions.
The priest was as deaf as a post. And when you
got inside the Confessional he'd yell loudly,
"You did what?" While you nearly died of
embarrassment - and had the additional humiliation
of facing your giggling girlfriends
while you tried with some difficulty
to conceal your red-face as you quietly sneaked out
of the box and sat down in the nearest church pew.

Those were the days...

However, I alwsys felt better afterwards - despite
everything.

*SuzeOnLine*
" ... leading to terrible wars, poverty, and heartache. Surely leaving religion out of the equation, and just focusing on acceptable human behavior, will lead to more world peace? ... "

I'd have to include the Godless in the above assessment and note further that some of our finest scientific minds have also been devout religious people as well.

And some of history's most depraved have been from amongst the "Godless."

No, I think we need to dig deeper to quantify and qualify those universal attributes which we can all agree upon and to some extent the instruments of the UN have.

For starters, underpinning the

Freedom of Religion
is the
Freedom of Thought.

..

Some thoughts .....

I like the sound track *Enigma Deep Forest Meditation* and would like to see the progressive Spiritual/Churchies unite with the Greens, the progressive left and maybe even a few genuine blues for the Forest and traditional/organic/new tech farmers.

I want Green houses which store enough energy for the household and combine packet sell surplus generated energy back to the grid, for greater supply to industry for the development of new tech and other manufacture for enhanced local and national security via increased independence.

Also homes that filter and compost our pooskinerus direct into the home grow chamber, combining sun, artificial light, regulation of same with the assistance of gardening rangers.

In many economies the farmers don't get paid and have to subsist off the land and provide their surplus to the state. Now that it appears that the likes of red china are going to begin to mass produce green tech I expect that in addition to not paying the farmers (or perhaps just at a miserable local economy rate), households will become even more profitable to the state by contributing to the energy needs of their international product producing industrial sector.

What a crime that Aust's housing sector was not regulated to initiate this process during the boom.

Now, I'm not so deluded to think that we can perfect the energy circle and snap out 100% efficient solutions straight out,however

Dear DreamOn,

I'm more optimistic.

I know that I can't change the world -
what I can change is my own mindset.
And by doing that I may possibly help
towards having a positive effect. At
least I won't contribute to some of the
negativity that's already out there.

If we could remove from our hearts the
illusion that we are separate. If every
nation and every people and every colour
and every religion could at last find
the one heartbeat that we all share then
perhaps we could remove the walls that
separate us and the chains that hold us
down.

*FoxyLoxy*
" ... If we could remove from our hearts the illusion that we are separate. ... "

Hmmm ... would U like to read one of my dearly departed Nan's poems?

..

Let Australia stand for liberty
Freedom, hope and unity
Destined now to be a nation
With a higher valuation
Of what life on earth should be
Not in social degradation of the weary and the weak
But with pledge in honour keeping
Giving to each human being
Human pride and dignity
Let us then a new world hasten
Work for peace to right each wrong
Treat all others as we would brothers
Heed not either creed or color
Sing our own dear country’s song
For the god of all creation
Waits the unity of nations in to one great family
Let Australia then the guide be
Beacon for the world to see
Australia

Copyright Annette H.A. Schofield

Dear DreamOn,

Thank You for the poem.

The words ring true, especially in today's
troubled world. We have to learn not to try
to make a place for ourselves in the world,
but to try to make a place in ourselves for
the world.

As the philosopher Schopenhauer once wrote:

"Every truth passes through three stages before
it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed.
In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it
is regarded as self-evident."

Many still linger between ridicule and opposition
but millions of people throughout the world
are beginning to regard as self-evident principles
of ancient spiritual wisdom.

Living in a society that undervalues the spirit,
we who embrace it are tempted to apologize for
our interest. We must stop apologizing. It is
afterall, the answer to global hatred. To
invalidate spiritual life is to shoot at the
fireman who's putting out the fire.

The seven deadly sins are core attitudes of the self centered person and are the basis of impure motives for behaviours that destroy good human relationships. That is why they are deadly. Our thoughts form motives for our responses. We may attempt to hide them and deceive others for a time but they will be exposed eventually as our personality will be absorbed by them.

Sin is attitudes and behavioural outcomes that do not reflect the character of purity - the devine is pure - God is pure. God is expressed in the highest ideals of selfless sacrifice for the happiness of all. The sin of mankind nailed the innocent Jesus to a cross because of its envy and lust for power, indifferent to his life of purity in blessing the weak in society.

But what's "Spirit" *FoxY?*

I get the impression people simply equate "Spirit" with their own God concept/Belief system. Spirit to me rather is the other side of the black hole, the non corporeal, ..

And I am reasonably certain that I have no consciousness of the non-corporeal.

Surely the mind must be the overriding factor in all of this?

..

To come back to *DaveO's* point, and it is nice to see *Philo* chime in, my view is that in forming concepts of what is wrong in order to try and do what's "right" or only that which is in accordance with "Divine Will" is just playing out the "echoes" of our consciousness.

And in part I don't see anything wrong with that provided we recognize that we are imperfect/fallible and that it is healthy to learn from ones mistakes, and not to be so Holier than Thou as to exclude enjoyment of our shared Humanity and I again recall *DavidF* expressing views in an earlier thread in this regard as to the attitude of Judaism towards sexual gratification and other enjoyable pursuits.

And some may well say that that is just a rationalization for self indulgent hedonistic behavior, and here again that may also be true.

To speak of my Self, whilst I am told that I can be capable of acts of kindness and consideration for others, I also like to indulge in a variety of wicked behaviors as well and would cautiously liken this to the development of an overall healthy and vital immune system by judicious exposure to pathogens.

My view is sometimes it is good to sloth out and be lustful etc and having limited concepts of of what is or isn't a behavior in accord with El Goddo's Will coupled with the assumption that it is appropriate for all people at all times regardless of their individual circumstances or development, is in reality just a thinly veiled control mechanism concocted by both clever and devious political organizations who are astute and adept at manipulating base human emotions such as guilt.

Dear DreamOn,

To me spirituality is an inner fire, a mystical
sustenance that feeds our souls.

Many people view peace and love as soft and weak,
yet our planet's survival depends on their dominance.
We have to recognise that our individual minds
create our collective realities and we have to take
responsibility for the world by taking more seriously
our individual contributions to it.

Anyway, I feel that for me this subject has run its
course. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
I wish you well.

I believe in man.
And in an idea that proves our worth.
That every God was made by us.
That all the great and wonderful ideas came from our minds.
Like any good book great book if you wish every play every movie that brings a tear to our eyes.
Humanity can be great it can be bad or worse but if we ever harness the ideas that bought God, any God to life we will be very much better for it.

That sounds like a bellyclose ending.

The essential aspect of the teachings of Jesus is not condemnatory but he taught forgivness even to 70 x 7 because we all fail; and we grow to be a better person by love and encouragement.

To the woman found in adultry (John 8) whom the old religious school wanted to stone he said I do not condemn you go and sin no more. To his murderers who felt he was a blasphemer he prayed for their forgivness. He was about encouragement to live a fulfilling life knowing the love of forgivness and acceptance. Those that do not know true forgivness and acceptance have the nagging sense of shame and self rejection.

It is important to be true to personal values that transcend being part of a mob.

*FoxY*
" ... To me spirituality is an inner fire, a mystical
sustenance that feeds our souls. ... "

If there is any reality to that, I am wondering, how is that U think that any of us can separate that from any variant "echo sensation" which originates in our own consciousness and has its basis in our own inner understandings and desire.

What about an example? A doco recently on laypeople entering a catholic nunnery. The short version, the girls have their consciousness soaked in Jesus talk and do affirmations of wanting to be "spiritually" united with the Savior for a period longer than a week, and then, during a "secret" catholic meditation ..!Boing! .. one of the 3 girls "hears" the voice of Jesus in her own mind and everyone is amazed and celebrates.

Same deal with the nature of hallucinations. In some cases, what the individuals are experiencing is an "echo" of sorts which likely stems from a part of the brain wherein there are localized neurochemical imbalances or functional deformities which manifest in accordance with the prevailing mood of the individual at that time.

So, if U soak yourself for an extended period in doctrine of this one is a good behavior and that one is a sin, then the mind will in all likelihood produce "echoes" of a sort in response.

Oooo ooo, I did a kind thing for Jesus and I feel good
Sob, sob, I did something very mean and now I feel bad.

That is what is called indoctrination. And propaganda? Take the little seedling and push its head under the ground so it sees no more and bring it up again in a locale of "your" own choosing.

Indeed, *DavidF* has keen insight and undoubtedly in the case of some religious practices, it is very much a case of "Unreasonable Guilt" by indoctrination because fundamentally it is not accompanied by the cultivation of intellect and insight.

The blind leading the blind perhaps, in cases other than the nefarious?

I further suspect that in the case of some organisations, that there have been so many lies told for so long that they no longer know what is real and what is not.

A fable example from something that has again been raised recently from the bible and to which again I will offer the version of the story from the Islamic perspective from a group of people who have been effectively isolated for a very long time.

..

Ibrahim (Abraham) is none too bright, and consequently none too rich, but considered a loyal and faithful servant of *Lordy* by the rest of the flock. As the Holy time arrives, he finds himself without a sacrificial beast for the blood offering and is troubled by the potential of not being forewarned of what the future may bring.

So he grabs one of the kids. At that point an Angel (the local rich guy) turns up with a goat for the poor, as is the custom, and shouts

"Ibrahim U d.head, what the !#!% r u doing? Here have a goat u silly twit."

..

And in the bent christian version, Ibrahim "hears" the voice of God and the rich guy is an angel and Ibrahim is held up as being the most loyal and faithful of them all.

And today we have the likes of "priest" pell standing up and saying:

" ... and even though Mary McKillop was treated awfully by the church leaders she still stayed faithful to them. ... " or something like that.

..

Some religious people are truly hollow in their pathetic efforts to substantiate their non-sense with bastardised books and a legal framework, deploying beliefs as if they were facts.

As to Universal conscience, the catholics in particular should be prohibited from preaching the virtues of limiting the aspirations of Woman and Gays by way of an enshrined Human Right. But then, I'm sure they'll find support from the liberal party in opposing this.

Dear DreamOn,

I do not depend on rationality alone. I have feelings which I cannot explain. I even have some feelings that could be called spirituality. I am thinking of Foxy's statement. " ... To me spirituality is an inner fire, a mystical sustenance that feeds our souls. ... "

Foxy has not contended that these feelings are rational or that she bases economic or other worldly decisions on them. We operate on different levels. I know that the light from one star may be reaching us years later or earlier than the star which is closest to it in my field of vision. I also know that the light is a consequence of nuclear reactions in the stars. However, I look up in the sky on a starry night and am filled with wonder at the sight. It is a reality that I am filled with wonder. Right now I am sitting at the computer and listening to "La Clemenza di Tito" by Mozart. I am aware of what goes into a computer as I used to design them. I am also aware of the laws of physics by which the sounds of the overture are reaching my ear.

Nevertheless I have a feeling of wonder that my mind is generating thoughts that make strokes on the keyboard which will be translated to meaning which Foxy and you may react to. A soprano is singing, and I am reacting to the female voice. I am aware on another level that my reactions are dependent to some extent on natural selection of the many generations before me who have reacted to the voices of the opposite sex with the result that I am here.

Foxy also wrote: “We have to recognise that our individual minds create our collective realities and we have to take responsibility for the world by taking more seriously our individual contributions to it.”

Foxy and you have no reality to me other than what I get through the medium of electronic pulses. That is also a source of wonder.

Dear DreamOn,

You obviously have not been reading my posts.
I've stated previously that I don't like
what organized religion has done to the
world. That I've come to see however,
that true religion is internal not external.
What some have done in the name of religion,
projecting their neuroses, even perpetrating
evil on the world, does not make religion as
a mystical phenomenon invalid.As I've stated
earlier - secularized
organized religions have become, in many cases,
as calcified as other institutions that form the
structure of our modern world. Again, as I've stated
previously, our religious institutions have far too
often become handmaidens of the status quo, while
the genuine religious experience is anything but that.

Experience of the spirit breaks through illusions of our
guilt and separateness. It is radically committed to the
natural goodness and inherent openess that lies at the
center of who we really are.

Anyway, we're obviously not connecting on this subject.
And I'm finding it rather tedious to keep on repeating
myself. I'm not looking to convert you or anyone else,
nor do I claim that my belief is right and yours is wrong.
It's simply right for me.
I respect your right to believe whatever
you wish. I only ask that you do me the same courtesy.
As I've written in other threads, I don't fear hell
because I can't fathom it. I don't seek heaven because
it offers no image I can grasp. I only struggle to find
myself, to love my fellow human beings, and to hope that
in this way I am truly loving God.

I shan't be responding to you any further because as I said
earlier, for me this subject has run its course.

Enjoy your day.

*FoxY*

Nobody has asked you to respond. And yes I have read your aLL your posts, but I attempt to write for everyone so no, I am not only addressing you. That doesn't make you any less important in my mind but only just as important as everyone else.

<snip - have run out of words>

Even now as we speak it is reported today that the victorian guvment are going to further modify equal opportunity legislation to allow catholics to refuse to employ gays or single mums. I wonder who the other religious organizations are going to make rules on excluding?

and Dear *DavidF*
" ... I even have some feelings that could be called spirituality. ... "

I too am not entirely devoid of thoughts/feelings/experiences that I cannot explain. Quite the contrary.

I saw an interesting documentary on Nat Geo from memory. It was about a patient who woke up from op, and promptly reported in detail to her doctor precise details of the procedure. So precise in fact, that her doctor for the sake of scientific curiosity tested her with scientific methodology. If true, and I haven't tried to verify it, the results are quite outstanding.

Maybe .. Maybe .. I make but an impartial observation and "layer not the flute with gold and jewels."

Within my lifetime I too have had a so called "Out of Body" experience. Not a lucid dream ..

Yes. An O.B.E. but not something that I overly dwell on. I just put it in the bizarre category and if nothing else, it re-inforces my belief that an open mind is a trait worthwhile practicing and that the human brain is an amazing organ.

But how can everyone keep an open mind when some institutions, on state owned property I might add, continue to indoctrinate, repress and demonise parts of the population - and often very vulnerable parts in my view?

How many gay people have suicided over church inflicted "unreasonable feelings of guilt?"

DreamOn,
In a post above I spoke of being neurotic about sex. However, had I devoted almost 700 words criticising and attacking other people’s attitude or orientation towards it, you could rightfully accuse me of being neurotic about sex myself.

The same about spirituality, religion (“organised” or not) and other matters where one’s position and orientation depends on personal preferences and life experiences (especially if they cannot be communicated across different world-views).

Belly,

I just thought I'd say that I really like your post (the one that begins with 'I believe in man'). While we differ in the sense that I am a religious person, I agree that as humans we have great potential to do good things. When you look at the world's religions, each is a collection of great (and, at times, not so great) ideas. Between the lot of them, there are some great guidelines for humanity, some inspiring stories and some thought-provoking questions. If the human mind can dream these things up, then we can be very proud to be humans. We also need a kick up the pants to keep our creative juices flowing and unite the good ideas for the sake of humanity. Maybe it's not religion, but rather religious bigotry that is the problem.

DreamOn, Sunday, 27
It is obvious that you are ignorant of the historical context of Abraham. He lived in a society where child sacrifice was practised and he was rejecting the idea of polytheism but as yet had not abandoned their cultural practises. He was having conflict in in his mind of the religious practises so his thoughts turned to a more humane way of sacrifice when he saw the goat caught in the thicket.

This was a development in his faith to be respected as he recognised El Shaddai (his celestrial and only God) did not delight in human sacrifice. It was a milestone in religious thinking and defied the cultural practises of his time.

*George*

"Freedom of Religion" i.m.o does not extend to discriminating against others on grounds of their sexual preferences or marital status. Nor does it extend to their demonisation and accusations of their behaviors being unGodly, which in turn can lead to indirect incitement to violence. So called "Poofter Bashing" was a practice which was alive and well when I was growing up in Western Australia and others more informed than I in the area have already commented on perceived religious sentiments being involved in the persecution of Gays, the Retarded and Others during WWII.

Neither does it extend to labelling
"sicko, bent, child abusing priests"
as homosexual.

And neither does it extend to inflicting "Unreasonable Religious Guilt" on children as they grow in adulthood and sexual awareness.

So, is your apparent dismissive attitude to such issues any different to the alleged dismissive attitudes of some priests when they dealt with grave accusations of child abuse?

*Philo* if you want to debate based on factual substance you are welcome, or again you are welcome if you want to express a contrary belief labeled accordingly, but if you insist on deploying belief as if it were fact then if it is not already apparent, I for one simply am unable to take you seriously.

Contrary to your comments, I am of the view that it ought be quite plain to reasonable and rational people that I did report the oral tradition fable of a different related monotheistic belief system for purposes of comparison and contrast. Your conclusions to me are not surprising.

*Otokonoko*

Bigotry is a problem. In 1971 from memory, a dearly departed friend "married" two gay girls in Perth. There was a sh!t fight championed by the likes of the bigots in the mainstream churches. That is indeed what you call complete, religious intolerance of an Australian independent denomination. They continue the practice to this day under the auspices of a ceremony entitled the *Covenant of Luv* though it is yet to have legal status pursuant to ugly Australia's tin pot marriage act.

DreamOn,
My comment was a reaction to your wordy “dismissive attitude” towards spirituality and religion in general, not about homosexuality. What you condemn as inappropriate, or even scandalous, treatment of homosexuals, I condemn as well. However it is irrelevant to what I wanted to say.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/29/2699690.htm?section=justin

" ... Bill Clinton's gay marriage backflip sparks hope
By News Online's Sarah Collerton
..
Labor's gay and lesbian faction says it hopes Bill Clinton's change of heart on gay marriage encourages high-profile Australian politicians to follow suit.
..
A spokesperson for Australian Christian Lobby, a key interest group against same-sex unions, told the ABC that that they do not wish to comment as they do not see Mr Clinton's views as relevant to the Australian debate on gay marriage. ... "

..

Oh! BC has gone AD. That's beautiful!

..

The above view of the so-called australian christian lobby is not indicative of all Christians and they ought be made to change their name.

And I quote the following from some old friends:

http://www.ica.org.au/page_philosophy_sacraments.html
" ... *Marriage and Covenant of Love*

Marriage is the public declaration of the love two people feel for each other – an act which has both earthly and spiritual repercussions. Those who wish a sacramental marriage consciously recognise that they are spiritual beings, that there is a spiritual dimension to their relationship and that the decision to marry was prompted from above. The wedding service is a blessing upon this decision, giving not only strength for the years ahead but also a spiritual understanding of the relationship and the new “community” which is formed by the marriage.

The Centre’s wedding services acknowledge the freedom of each individual and the gifts they bring to the union. The Centre has different marriage ceremonies which reflect the ideals and purposes of the couple, from a simple service to a full Nuptial Mass.

The *Covenant of Love* ceremony is available for couples who - for various reasons - are not able to legally marry. This service gives public recognition to their love for one another and bestows a blessing upon their union. ... "

I would encouragage questioning the bible and exploring the topics in question with vigor. The exploration of faith need not be ignorant. I was an agnostic leaning very much toward athiesm and funnily enough with the help of Dawkins and Sagan etc. I opened my heart to Christ.

Whatever means you choose to explore this life do so with an open mind for both science and theology. Don't believe without investigation and don't not believe without contemplation.