ReligiousOutsider

[johnq]

Since those spammer religious threads at least brought out some semi-useful discussion, why not continue it in general.

Is it laughable to even try to discuss religion semi-politely and semi-adult manner? Ok well, we'll try...hehe...

...

Someone in the spam threads said that scientists often also profess belief in a Creator or somesuch (as some kind of "aha!" or proof?), and I was about to reply with this when the threads were locked...

...

Since we've never had the luxury of raising humans without their having access to the myriad legacy religions to sully their views, we've yet to have scientists that can easily be free from their culture's religions and any influences they have on their thought processes.

Many have tried to be as rational as possible and many have comes as close as you can get.

Unfortunately each culture's dominant religion is ingrained in a person's mind (plus whatever similarly arbitrary religions they've learned about), so they can seldom shake the fairy tales and see reality (or try to).

So do some of the best and brightest pure scientists also reserve the right to believe in a "creator" or god? I'm sure many do, but it isn't based on anything measurable they've discovered, only nagging remnants of earlier indoctrination.

This "need" to have an intelligence behind creation is pathetic. Yes, I called it creation, but lower case "c".

It is such a stifling, suffocating, ultimately infantile and insipid desire for humans to need to have a human/animal/alien/living/whatever type entity "behind it all" for this universe just for it to be deemed valid and justified.

We can make life MORE meaningful by exploring reality as it is, all of us united in a quest to get through all the chaos, as a family, find and make order from it as we see fit.

But instead we bicker over countless trifling dogmatic differences and the rare free thinkers or scientists dodge the swords, nooses and bullets.

I don't like the term Atheist or Agnostic in the same sense that I don't like being called or having to call myself a "non-smoker".

Not believing in any particular god/gods/goddess/etc is a default, natural state of existence.
Not smoking is a default, natural state of existence.

You're a smoker or a worshipper, but I'm just me, a human being. I shouldn't need to label myself an Atheist just because I don't believe that any of the available options are useful, attractive or valid to me.

Plus, Atheist has too many negative connotations.

Sick that not belonging to a given belief system makes one evil, corrupt or somehow bad.

[johnq]

Still, there might never have been a human day in which the concept of a god didn't exist, considering the incredible ferocity and cruelty of countless natural phenomena, and the hardness of conditions early humans had to endure.

The need to personify these terrible and occasionally beautiful natural phenomena is entirely understandable.

What is not understandable is why we still need to do it and let it rule our lives.

We've got this panoply of gods or philosophies yet they all freeze us in our developmental tracks as a human race, if not set us back centuries at a time.

[Mr Skills]

I know the thread was in the wrong place, and I know that it was started by a spammer, but I am disappointed it got deleted. Could it not have been moved? Or could the non-spam parts be copies to this thread? :???:

I'm just grumpy because I was pleased with my post :)

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
But instead we bicker over countless trifling dogmatic differences and the rare free thinkers or scientists dodge the swords, nooses and bullets.

This needs to be set aside, as the irreligious have killed massive numbers of people, far more than 'anyone' else, in our more modern history.


Originally posted by johnq
This "need" to have an intelligence behind creation is pathetic. Yes, I called it creation, but lower case "c".

It is such a stifling, suffocating, ultimately infantile and insipid desire for humans to need to have a human/animal/alien/living/whatever type entity "behind it all" for this universe just for it to be deemed valid and justified.

the true origins of the universe is not a question that science can answer, here is an interesting quote:
.....Creationism does not at all rest "on the premise that the Bible is literally true." Creationism, as understood by Islam, Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism and more, rests solely on the revealed truth that God created the heavens and earth ex nihilo, out of nothing. Whether the Genesis account is figurative or literal in its details is another matter altogether.

Evolution, on the other hand, and especially as articulated and promoted by men like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, rests solely on the premise that matter and mathematical laws are all that exist.

The two positions are mutually exclusive. Nor can science prove one or the other because both positions demand metaphysical presuppositions. Whether we got where we are as a result of divine purpose or of meaningless chance is not a question science can hope to answer.

Creationism has no quarrel with science, but creationism is unalterably opposed to materialism in any disguise. Anyone advocating against teaching intelligent design alongside of evolution exhibits a closed mind.


Originally posted by johnq
We can make life MORE meaningful by exploring reality as it is, all of us united in a quest to get through all the chaos, as a family, find and make order from it as we see fit.

Here is where you fail. I know it's fashonable to "just be" and "be nuetral" in personal beliefs, but you fail to understand that you have PRESUPPOSED that this it is true or even possible to be true -- you have even presupposed that your mind acurrately conveys to you the truth, or what is acually occuring around you and throughout the univers that you experience. "just being" might SOUND possible, but it really evaporates once you open you mouth, or vote, or leave the house and interact with others.

What is eluding you is that there are demands that society makes by it's existence, just as there are natural questions that arise to how knowledge is aquired, why we can know things, and what 'things' 'really' are. Academics in the last several hundred years, Locke, Hume Hagel, Kant, Smith and many, many, others realized, that "just being" didn't handle public policy issues, didn't write laws, and didn't satisfy the ethically curious.

Long ago, the greeks started to investigate the issues of 'being' and what it meant, and this has lead us all in very circuitous _path to the post-modernism that we see today: a system of "truth" that wars agianst the very concept of systems, I would imagine this is where you are coming from, unless you have adopted some form of primitivism or even some hedonistic worldview. Unfortunalty, postmodernism, like science's explantion of the true origin of all matter and being, is at a loss to explain the 'whys' of life in a consistent way -- it acutally makes a point of keeping us all in suspense of an outcome that can never 'truly' happen.

Speaking for myself, Christianity offers the only cohesive answer to the origins of the universe, morality, and very importantly WHY society can function in it's own best interests AND at the same time, the best interests of it's citizens. It offers an internally consistent system of truth that is denied to other worldviews and it anseers the question that has been asked, if only implicitly in our decsions, from the beginning of time.

[BRussell]

johnq - I agree with your second post more than your first. I think there is something innate about our tendency to believe in God and the supernatural.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by BRussell
johnq - I agree with your second post more than your first. I think there is something innate about our tendency to believe in God and the supernatural.
In the absence of knowledge and society, yes, that's true.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
johnq - I agree with your second post more than your first. I think there is something innate about our tendency to believe in God and the supernatural.

It must be innate, because there are plenty of otherwise obviously intelligent people around who believe in God.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
It must be innate, because there are plenty of otherwise obviously intelligent people around who believe in God.

As I remarked in another thread, Jung hypothesizes that the god-impulse (that is, the urge to look beyond ourselves for "something") is part f the collective unconscious.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
This needs to be set aside, as the irreligious have killed massive numbers of people, far more than 'anyone' else, in our more modern history.

Well, yes, humans have killed humans. But then, I don't make much distinction between a State and a Religion when they both behave the same as far as killing opponents. The regimes you speak of are just yet more pseudo-religions that make the People or the State the god. That's why this mishmash of religion and government is dangerous, anywhere.


Originally posted by dmz
the true origins of the universe is not a question that science can answer, here is an interesting quote:

I have no interest in answers only questions and theories.



Originally posted by dmz
Here is where you fail. I know it's fashonable to "just be" and "be nuetral" in personal beliefs, but you fail to understand that you have PRESUPPOSED that this it is true or even possible to be true -- you have even presupposed that your mind acurrately conveys to you the truth, or what is acually occuring around you and throughout the univers that you experience. "just being" might SOUND possible, but it really evaporates once you open you mouth, or vote, or leave the house and interact with others.

I haven't presupposed anything.

I know full well that I'm surrounded my humans that are in a religious and political tinged haze to various degrees all the day. They can't separate it and so I have to wade through it. I deal with it.

Thankfully some people can take a step back and take a fresh look around.

Our senses are all delayed, and see a fraction of the overall available data. None of us sees or experiences actual reality, only a sketch of it based on our senses and ability to process everything we sense.

How could I possibly presuppose something when my core being knows everything is an arbitrary self-interpetation? I don't presuppose, I question and try to observe best I can.

Originally posted by dmz
What is eluding you is that there are demands that society makes by it's existence, just as there are natural questions that arise to how knowledge is aquired, why we can know things, and what 'things' 'really' are. Academics in the last several hundred years, Locke, Hume Hagel, Kant, Smith and many, many, others realized, that "just being" didn't handle public policy issues, didn't write laws, and didn't satisfy the ethically curious.

I'm not saying be just a bump on a log, pondering one's navel.

Again, I say religions co-opted things like charity, love, helping, family, cooperation, etc etc but on top of it architecture, legal systems, science, math etc.etc. So too can political ideologies co-opt such things, but they are all essentially common human experience, no one should own them.

All those things you want to work will still work, and beyond.

Originally posted by dmz
Long ago, the greeks started to investigate the issues of 'being' and what it meant, and this has lead us all in very circuitous _path to the post-modernism that we see today: a system of "truth" that wars agianst the very concept of systems, I would imagine this is where you are coming from, unless you have adopted some form of primitivism or even some hedonistic worldview. Unfortunalty, postmodernism, like science's explantion of the true origin of all matter and being, is at a loss to explain the 'whys' of life in a consistent way -- it acutally makes a point of keeping us all in suspense of an outcome that can never 'truly' happen.

I know plenty about quantum physics, I don't need to have any nihilistic pessimism just because of quantum weirdness...

I just can't take this relentless unshakable blind belief that so many have of myriad religions.

My belief is is that we are blind :D

Indeed, we've made machines that can see/hear/sense past the limitation of what humans can perceive and even these machines are primitive and limited. Yet so many humans think what they see really is reality. Worse yet, religious leaders paint thickly over what little reality people can see, to spin yarns that keep the people in line and keep themselves in power.

Originally posted by dmz
Speaking for myself, Christianity offers the only cohesive answer to the origins of the universe, morality, and very importantly WHY society can function in it's own best interests AND at the same time, the best interests of it's citizens. It offers an internally consistent system of truth that is denied to other worldviews and it anseers the question that has been asked, if only implicitly in our decsions, from the beginning of time.

I don't know where to begin with that, so that's my cue to stop. :D

[mattyj]

Johnq do you think that those who believe in a form of a God believe in the Renaissance Christian model, an actual being?

People use the word "God" to describe different things. People look for a God as apparently it is within our very brain chemistry to look for a deity figure.

[johnq]

Originally posted by BRussell
johnq - I agree with your second post more than your first. I think there is something innate about our tendency to believe in God and the supernatural.

One thing is that humans, er, us adults, tend to flatter ourselves a bit too much. So much of some of our core beliefs (really I mean delusions or misconceptions) and fears stem from early childhood. And I think that even at 37, although I am more dextrous and have more chatter in my head and can be self-sufficient, I think I'm only slightly different from a child. Same goes for the rest of you. ;)

But some make their religion or government become their father/mother, but I don't mean to play Freud (since he's pretty wrong on a lot of things).

Lightning if it's just lightning as a raw experience with no explaination is scary, but if it's your god and the story says he's kindly and forgiving unless you do bad, then it's more comforting.

Humans need to "own" the natural phenomena, to help tame it or at least cope with it. Even if the god is a stern one, it still beats being in an uncaring universe of chaos and pure randomness.

If we can explain away a horrific natural catastrophe or phenomenon in terms of gods it's a structure that implies we know "why" and possibly when it might happen again and we can use it to manage societies.

That it's all so arbitrary (based on local phenomena and migration of people and victories in war etc.) really forbids me from ever believing in any one religion wholeheartedly again. (That doesn't mean, however, that the things that religions have traditionally co-opted are of no use!)

Comparative religion studies are great. I highly recommend good Christians/Muslims/Jews burn comparative religion textbooks, otherwise you're doomed ;) :D (kidding)

[MarcUK]

Since when did a religion based on 10,000 years of pillaging the stories told by the ancients based on the characters they attributed to by looking at the stars and inventing stories to guide their lives by, constitute an answer to why we are here and what purpose our lives have. Science ultimately knows little, and Christianity knows even less.

At least Science tries to find an answer to the Questions. Religion wraps itself up in bullshit and dogma and its devotees largely stick their heads up their ass and brainwash themselves in believing the best thing that suits their selfish need to feel a purpose and meaning.

Why would God reveal himself and the truth to western society? What society is more corrupt in greed , selfishness and deceit than we are? There are 5 billion people on this earth who live in poverty an near inexistance. If the meek inherit the earth, you can be sure that western society isn't going to inherit a speck of dust. God hates us, because we are full of shit and evil, and he sure sent the story of astrotheological Christianity to the Roman Catholics perverts and murderers to punish us for our gluttony and arrogance.

Anyone who tells you they know the truth is the biggest liar on the Earth.

Its so obvious the Bible is a bunch of lies and crap, that Gods punishment on us is to make us believe and deceive ourselves into believing that we have had the truth revealed to us.

[johnq]

Originally posted by mattyj
Johnq do you think that those who believe in a form of a God believe in the Renaissance Christian model, an actual being?

"those who believe in a form of a God" is such an unbelievably diverse and uncountable collection of humans. Which do you mean? Some do, many do not. Perhaps most do not.

Ganesh, a cow, Jesus...one is no more or less arbitrary to me. Some are more or less based on real historical events perhaps. As methods of maintaining and motivating ancient peoples, they have their uses. I see less and less reason to prefer one over the other however.

Originally posted by mattyj
People use the word "God" to describe different things. People look for a God as apparently it is within our very brain chemistry to look for a deity figure.

This is a bit dishonest (not of you). It is within our very brain chemistry perhaps to look for God/s, scientific or philosophical "truths" or even perfection of an art or skill....not merely God. IMHO.

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
[B]I haven't presupposed anything.

I know full well that I'm surrounded my humans that are in a religious and political tinged haze to various degrees all the day. They can't separate it and so I have to wade through it. I deal with it.

Thankfully some people can take a step back and take a fresh look around.

Our senses are all delayed, and see a fraction of the overall available data. None of us sees or experiences actual reality, only a sketch of it based on our senses and ability to process everything we sense.

How could I possibly presuppose something when my core being knows everything is an arbitrary self-interpetation? I don't presuppose, I question and try to observe best I can.

I'm not saying be just a bump on a log, pondering one's navel.

Again, I say religions co-opted things like charity, love, helping, family, cooperation, etc etc but on top of it architecture, legal systems, science, math etc.etc. So too can political ideologies co-opt such things, but they are all essentially common human experience, no one should own them.

All those things you want to work will still work, and beyond.

I just can't take this relentless unshakable blind belief that so many have of myriad religions.

There's quite a bit there, alot of which would flunk you out of any philosophy class. (Your 'fresh look' is just another presupposition.)

Your statement.....
How could I possibly presuppose something when my core being knows everything is an arbitrary self-interpetation?
...is quite the metaphysical mouthful. On the one hand you presuppose that the "everything" applies to all, yet you dissallow the first part of your sentence with the last part that declares that all is flux.

In the end we are left to 'take your word' for these observations and still somehow apply them to our own expirience, but with no proof of their veracity, if in fact, such a thing exists.

I think if you wish to maintian your position, you should adopt some form of existentialism. What you are saying, even in the 'scientific' expressions of philosophy is not consistent. You are holding two ideas in tension, and one dissallows the other.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Since when did a religion based on 10,000 years of pillaging the stories told by the ancients based on the characters they attributed to by looking at the stars and inventing stories to guide their lives by, constitute an answer to why we are here and what purpose our lives have. Science ultimately knows little, and Christianity knows even less.

At least Science tries to find an answer to the Questions. Religion wraps itself up in bullshit and dogma and its devotees largely stick their heads up their ass and brainwash themselves in believing the best thing that suits their selfish need to feel a purpose and meaning.

Why would God reveal himself and the truth to western society? What society is more corrupt in greed , selfishness and deceit than we are? There are 5 billion people on this earth who live in poverty an near inexistance. If the meek inherit the earth, you can be sure that western society isn't going to inherit a speck of dust. God hates us, because we are full of shit and evil, and he sure sent the story of astrotheological Christianity to the Roman Catholics perverts and murderers to punish us for our gluttony and arrogance.

Anyone who tells you they know the truth is the biggest liar on the Earth.

Its so obvious the Bible is a bunch of lies and crap, that Gods punishment on us is to make us believe and deceive ourselves into believing that we have had the truth revealed to us.

I think this goes back to another discussion. Only once you assume to be on a par with God, whatever he/she/it may be, can you begin the process of vetting his purposes and intentions.

As to you quesiton of poverty and injustice, if the Richard Bransons and Bill Gates of the world wanted, they could end world poverty tommorrow -- and injustice rests in man's will.

[mattyj]

I am very glad to be able to have a discussion on this topic without it becoming a flame war. :D

DMZ that is very true, the church made God (in the Christian faith I'm referring to) into its own image, the Bible has been vetted, gospels were left out, bits were put in, it was social control.

However when religion is rejected, I feel sad as it promotes values which are still of value today, which Johnq(?) put into a nice list but that got deleted. I see religion as a necessary step in the development of the human race, the nature of it and its abuse has led us to question ourselves and others. I guess in some way at least we have one thing to thank religion for.

The way I see it: someone believes in some form of God if they believe that the existence of the universe did not happen by a chance of *highly* statistically improbable occurrence of events that led to what we are today. IF you know what I mean. :)

[johnq]

Originally posted by mattyj

However when religion is rejected, I feel sad as it promotes values which are still of value today, which Johnq(?) put into a nice list but that got deleted. I see religion as a necessary step in the development of the human race, the nature of it and its abuse has led us to question ourselves and others. I guess in some way at least we have one thing to thank religion for.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I want orderly structured societies, with individuals and groups working and caring for each other and the greater whole. I want kindness at individual and national level.

Love, cooperation, forgiveness, charity, caring for elders and young, kindness, spirituality (energy), community, work ethic, peace, moderation, etc...all have variously been co-opted by various religions/philosophies/ideologies, but they are all parts of the human condition we all share, no one group can or should "own" them. yet each one has connotations we carry around in our heads, be it "hippie, communist, Christian, Buddhist, etc..." yet none of those own those ideals exclusively, although some of their sales pitches would have you believe otherwise.

Of the myriad good things we associate with religion, we can have them all and still not need any particular god-thing in order for it to all work. I'd like to think that as we get a handle on natural phenomena, we can be less fearful and gullible (although no less impressed and awed), see things for what they are as far as the state of the art of our tools and theories will allow.

[Sceptic]

Religon is neither here nor there for me. It's not about spirituality...it's about institutionalising a way of life that I don't have much time for.

I wear my atheist badge with pride ;D

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
There's quite a bit there, alot of which would flunk you out of any philosophy class. (Your 'fresh look' is just another presupposition.)

Pay for me to go to college or else deal with it. ;)

Originally posted by dmz
Your statement.....

"How could I possibly presuppose something when my core being knows everything is an arbitrary self-interpetation"

...is quite the metaphysical mouthful. On the one hand you presuppose that the "everything" applies to all, yet you dissallow the first part of your sentence with the last part that declares that all is flux.

You presuppose what I presuppose.

There is true reality, which none of us can ever see in it's entirety due to scale/time and sensory range (everything from quanta to galaxies etc), ongoing outside of our brains/bodies (but including our bodies and brains of course, although trivially). Then there is our perceived reality, that which our senses can take in and out brains can store and manage and our minds can toy with and interpret. What our conscious self presumes/guesses the world to be, which is in flux as we (hopefully) learn about our world and universe.

The outside is essentially NOT in flux (not in the way you meant), our interpretations can be though, since our sense provide mere slivers of reality.

You can live in a cave a mile underground, never see daylight your whole life, but guess what, there are still birds, a sun, Jupiter and popsicles, whether you ever see them or not. Let's not take cute philosophical riddles like "if a tree falls in the forest etc" and model our reality after them. I've not been to India but I presume India exists. Those games only go so far. Yes, all we can truly know is what we've experienced or imagined but faith is not owned by Christianity. We need faith every second. Faith that the chair is still behind us when we sit down. Faith that the handrail is where it was the last time when we slip. Faith that a cup of coffee might be scalding hot, so we should move away from the spill.

Reality might indeed be in flux at quantum scales but at human scale it's pretty reliable. Your perception of "red' or "square" or "fast" might be different than mine, but it's pretty close, enough for us to all manage to interact.

I don't play silly games like maybe you see a cow when I see a car.

And I don't like solipsism, which is silly to me. Another game.

Originally posted by dmz
In the end we are left to 'take your word' for these observations and still somehow apply them to our own expirience, but with no proof of their veracity, if in fact, such a thing exists.

We all see though our own individual filters. Where did I say my perception was the perception we all must go by? None is the 'right" interpretation.

Now, most religions/philosophies are not merely an interpretation of reality. (Those that are get more respect from me). Instead they warp reality to fit a particular storyline or agenda. Criticizing them is not the same as criticizing some individual's interpretation of their perceived reality.

A blind person who gains sight is often surprised by perspective. To them, things shouldn't "get smaller" the further away they are, because they know/assumed that a bottle that fits in your hand is the same size whether it's at arms reach or in the next room. The bottle never changes size.

But a religion that cannot allow the Earth to be round or for the Earth to be more than a few thousand years old regardless of new information, I can criticize. One is a belief from a simple lack of sensory data, another is a thorn in the side of dogma and hierarchy of power that is threatened by implications of the new discoveries.

Originally posted by dmz
I think if you wish to maintian your position, you should adopt some form of existentialism. What you are saying, even in the 'scientific' expressions of philosophy is not consistent. You are holding two ideas in tension, and one dissallows the other.

Let me know which college you are signing me up for. :)

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by BRussell
johnq - I agree with your second post more than your first. I think there is something innate about our tendency to believe in God and the supernatural.

And you sir get a cookie for being well read on the latest findings...

[mattyj]

Originally posted by johnq

But a religion that cannot allow the Earth to be round or for the Earth to be more than a few thousand years old regardless of new information, I can criticise. One is a belief from a simple lack of sensory data, another is a thorn in the side of dogma and hierarchy of power that is threatened by implications of the new discoveries.

This is very true, but the biggest reason why Christianity can be criticised in this way is due to its followers suddenly getting this silly idea of taking the Bible literally. The Bible is supposed to be interpreted. One example, no sex before marriage does not mean, "No sex before marriage". Instead it means no promiscuous sex, i.e. one night stands. The Bible has been manipulated into something which it is not. Now when the Bible is accurately translated from Hebrew (the language it was in before Latin etc.) and interpreted it means a whole lot of different things.

However I do not presume the Bible to be accurate. What I support is a reinterpretation of the Bible, religion has to be questioned which it is not by those who follow the faith themselves, only by outsiders.

[dmz]

Actually I don't think there are any questions as to the physical dimensions of things, or the nature of physical reality. Maybe some questions to the extent of how paranormal activity effects us, near death experiences, etc.

anyway....

Originally posted by johnq
Pay for me to go to college or else deal with it. ;)


actually, I haven't taken any philosophy courses either, they'd probably not even bother flunking me and just throw me out.;)

Originally posted by johnq
We all see though our own individual filters. Where did I say my perception was the perception we all must go by? None is the 'right" interpretation.
yes but even that separates you from other people fundamentally, while at the same time presupposing a fixed order that we all approch but never reach --- this is, I think, the principle of the "chain of being" --- that we all participate in 'being' or in 'the act of existing', but to different degrees. God would be just really, really, good at it. Even that prespective is very comprehensive. If you're willing to be consistent, it shakes out in how soceity functions.

Originally posted by johnq
But a religion that cannot allow the Earth to be round or for the Earth to be more than a few thousand years old regardless of new information, I can criticize. One is a belief from a simple lack of sensory data, another is a thorn in the side of dogma and hierarchy of power that is threatened by implications of the new discoveries.



The Bible thing has two parts: First, the Bible has been twisted to fit various 'scientific' views, but in the end it is somewhat vauge and probably intentionally so: Joshua told the sun to "stand still" -- and it did stay 'still' -- he did not say to the sun "stop orbiting around the Earth". Forcing things that the Bible does not say, is grounds for being critical of the those doing the twisting, not the book itself.

As to the age of the Earth, you may have a legitimate gripe if the Genesis account is literal, although the Bible is rather vauge: it starts with the Earth already in existence, "formless and void" I think it's intentionally vauge, Starlight & KAr dating are both problems ONLY if you: a. force certain hows and whys on the creation account -- and b. look at things from a materialist/uniformatarian prespective. The sensory data is not very good at telling you much more than what you have pressuposed it to be, since you have already factored in these two presuppositions before you even consider the data.

Finally, I think you can and should be ciritical, but that puts you in a position of having to have both a metaphysical floor under your feet and a material framework in place to statisfy what the Christian metaphysic and creation account, in your view, do not.

From the metaphysic side I just don't see where you escape reducing preception and reality to a man made of water in an infinite ocean of water, trying to build a ladder of water in order to climb out of the water. I don't acutally think that pfflam and other postmodern guys would essentially deny that --- it has just been accepted as a condition of exsitenze. From my presepective you don't have a framework in place to make any "definitve" statements.

On the material side, I think you can critise the creation account, but what you have in hand to stand on is an extension of your metaphysical prespective --- with the final conclusion still being the same when you consider the universe as an enitity. The premise that matter and mathematical laws are all that exist IS a metaphysical statement, once you start operating from that prespective, your are operating on faith with even less answers than the creation account gives, but still seem to be satisfied by that uncertanty. You have no way of telling if we have souls, or explaining morality, origins of all things, and so on, and on, and on., --- there is kind of a 'deciding not to dicide' thing going on there.

There is a big tendency in American culture, to put 'religion' in a special area, but to ingore the very real metaphysical claims the materialistic modern science makes. I don't cringe so much at this territorial behavior -- this is common to the human experience --- but I do fault people for trying to take what amounts to a loose collection of contradictory ideas and feelings and holding them against a rigorous, internally consistent framework. In C.S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce there is an afterlife paradigm described as a city where ALL people go after death, but those who are not comfortable with the proximity of God and his governance move (physically) away from Him and that locale. Hell ends up as basically the act of moving further and further away.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
I think this goes back to another discussion. Only once you assume to be on a par with God, whatever he/she/it may be, can you begin the process of vetting his purposes and intentions.

As to you quesiton of poverty and injustice, if the Richard Bransons and Bill Gates of the world wanted, they could end world poverty tommorrow -- and injustice rests in man's will.

I am on par with the God as described by the bible, because this God was created by humans to provide an answer to questions that their knowledge couldn't explain. Most people think Im human too.

And the question of poverty and injustice has no more to do with Gates, Branson or you and I. We are all a Gates compared to families living on a dollar a week.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by dmz
I think this goes back to another discussion. Only once you assume to be on a par with God, whatever he/she/it may be, can you begin the process of vetting his purposes and intentions.

As to you quesiton of poverty and injustice, if the Richard Bransons and Bill Gates of the world wanted, they could end world poverty tommorrow -- and injustice rests in man's will.

The worlds top 100 richest people, including Gates and Branson, have a total net worth of maybe $200 billion.

Tell me again how they could end poverty tomorrow (by giving each poor person $50? woo-hoo!)

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I am on par with the God as described by the bible, because this God was created by humans to provide an answer to questions that their knowledge couldn't explain. Most people think Im human too.

And the question of poverty and injustice has no more to do with Gates, Branson or you and I. We are all a Gates compared to families living on a dollar a week.

I don't think that first statement makes ANY sense.

On the question of wealth, yes, yes, and yes it is the will of man that causes poverty, and war. I would submit that if all the manhours that have been put into make war and weapons of war, had been instead put into searching for cures for disease, and eliminating poverty, we would have done so by now.

[dmz]

Originally posted by e1618978
The worlds top 100 richest people, including Gates and Branson, have a total net worth of maybe $200 billion.

Tell me again how they could end poverty tomorrow (by giving each poor person $50? woo-hoo!)

Actually the top 10 wealthiest have rougly $235 billion. The top 100 come in at roughly $1 trillion dollars, that nearly enough give the 1.2 billion people living on a dollar a day or less a little less than a $1,000.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
I don't think that first statement makes ANY sense.


I think you're being willfully ignorant. :p

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
Actually the top 10 wealthiest have rougly $235 billion. The top 100 come in at roughly $1 trillion dollars, that nearly enough give the 1.2 billion people living on a dollar a day or less a little less than a $1,000.

You appear to think that elimination of poverty is the responsibility of people only with billions of spare dollars at theit disposal. What if every person in the western world gave $1000 to the third world.

I'd guess that there are 1 billion people on this planet that could easily give $1000 to the development of the third world.

I reckon that if we were not all obsessed with greed and selfishness we could raise several trillion dollars every year and sort the world out in 20 years.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by dmz
Actually the top 10 wealthiest have rougly $235 billion. The top 100 come in at roughly $1 trillion dollars, that nearly enough give the 1.2 billion people living on a dollar a day or less a little less than a $1,000.

I looked it up, you are right. except that they would have to pay capital gains tax, and their company stock would tank if they tried to sell it all at once.

And if they gave the money to the poor, rampant inflation would make the money worthless in no time.

I still don't think that the top 100 richest people have the ability to solve poverty on the drop of a hat - just giving people money is not the solution. You have to open factories and create jobs, and that is already happening.

The problem is that the Liberals cry when you give 3rd world people jobs - "buy american", "globalization is bad", "you are paying them non-union wages" etc.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by MarcUK
You appear to think that elimination of poverty is the responsibility of people only with billions of spare dollars at theit disposal. What if every person in the western world gave $1000 to the third world.

I'd guess that there are 1 billion people on this planet that could easily give $1000 to the development of the third world.

I reckon that if we were not all obsessed with greed and selfishness we could raise several trillion dollars every year and sort the world out in 20 years.

We already do that, via Federal taxes and foreign aid. Its our "buy a dictator a Mercedes" program.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I think you're being willfully ignorant. :p

been there, done that;)

[dmz]

Originally posted by e1618978
I looked it up, you are right. except that they would have to pay capital gains tax, and their company stock would tank if they tried to sell it all at once.

And if they gave the money to the poor, rampant inflation would make the money worthless in no time.

I still don't think that the top 100 richest people have the ability to solve poverty on the drop of a hat - just giving people money is not the solution. You have to open factories and create jobs, and that is already happening.

The problem is that the Liberals cry when you give 3rd world people jobs - "buy american", "globalization is bad", "you are paying them non-union wages" etc.

I hear you --- the logistics are near impossible --- it was more of a general statement than anything else.

[atomic_angel]

I know this continues to be a tad off topic, but...on the subject of "wealth"...it is not a "zero-sum" game meaning that it is incorrect to assume that because some are "wealthy" others must be "poor".

Two factors must be considered regarding "wealth" and "poverty"...these are contextual circumstances and differing subjective valuations.

Regarding contextual circumstances...let's say that the average person in Kenya makes $1/day (<$400/year). Well, we could improve that by an order of magnitude and that person would be "wealthly" (extremely so, in fact) by Kenyan standards and in the context of that environment. But a person living (just about) anywhere in the United States would be considered in extreme poverty at the $4000/year. We need to remember this when we decry the $1/day wages we pay the poor souls in China or wherever. In fact that $1/day might be a significant improvement from the $1/week (or nothing) they were getting previously.

Second, the issue of differing subjective valuations is also important. This is vital because in economic exchanges I am almost always trying to exchange something I value less for something I value more. This is usually highly subjective. In fact the ideal economic exchange would involve the following:

Person A has item X which s/he values less than item Y (which s/he doesn't have).

Person B has item Y which s/he values less than item X (which s/he doesn't have).

These two get together and exchange X for Y. Both consider themselves to be better off ("wealthier") for no other reason than each has now obtained something they value more (subjectively) and given up something they value less (subjectively). In this example "wealth" has actually grown (in a subjective sense). Obviously the idea of "contentment" factors strongly into this equation.

The key point is that a) wealth is not a zero-sum game in which if one person wins one (or more) must lose, and b) objective, discrete definitions of "wealth" are difficult to create.

The point of all this is that our (western, developed world, subjective) perceptions of "wealth" tend to distort our views of other people's situations. In Kenya, for example, a person obtaining a bicycle (a mere $50-$100 commodity) will have significantly improved their lot in life. Many of us in the world we live in wouldn't even begin to consider a bicycle (unless it was a $3000 custom-fitted...blah blah blah bicycle that we use 4 times a year) to be an advancement of our wealth.

We should not assume that these are bad disparities. They are simply reality.

What this means is that our approach to "wealth" creation in undeveloped areas should focus less on taking money from the "wealthy" and giving it to the "poor" (Robin Hood-ism) and more on establishing the conditions for wealth growth in those areas. These including things like minimal physical and mental health, well-being and ability, property/ownership rights, open and honest economic exchanges (fraud and deception are significant inhibitors to wealth creation) and freedom to engage in economic exchanges.

These things are the soil, seeds, water, sunshine and fertilizer of wealth creation/growth.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
but I do fault people for trying to take what amounts to a loose collection of contradictory ideas and feelings and holding them against a rigorous, internally consistent framework.

Rigorous, internally consistent framework, meaning what, Christianity? :lol:

Marvel, DC and Archie are all rigorous, internally consistent frameworks too.

You seem to need there to be a Christianity, otherwise the universe seems silly and full of contradictions?

I never like to get mired in the rhetorical/allegorical/narrative details of Christianity or any religion. We might as well ask "what if Galactus eats a black hole instead of a star" or "is Anubis really present at all embalmings" or "how does Santa deliver all the presents so quickly?"

All the utterly trivial (although historically/culturally vital and interesting) details and stories might indeed touch upon perspectives and insights we can all share and use but the details are utterly unimportant (indeed entirely distracting) and the religion itself should not have a kind of exclusive patent on such ideas or findings.

All religions and philosophies are intriguing and worthy of study, but the goal isn't to find the one that feels just right, like Goldilocks testing bowls of porridge and beds...this shopping around for the right one really cheapens the whole thing. What we can glean from them all are the things most common among them all.

I trust a religion/philosophy/cult less and less the more detailed and specific and rigid their stories are.

David Icke is a hilarious example. To me he is no more or less insane than almost any other true believer of a religion. Note how "specific" he gets.

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

Icke returned to the limelight in the late 1990s with a book, The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World. In it he claimed to have discovered that the world was being run by a New World Order, controlled by a race of reptilian humanoids or reptiloid aliens (he does not state what exactly they are, only giving possible explanations

"My own resaerch [sic] suggests that it is from another dimension, the lower fourth dimension, that the reptilian control and manipulation is primarily orchestrated. ...

Other people know this as the lower astral dimension, the legendary home of demons and malevolent antities [sic] in their black magic rituals.... "


Cults, religions...conspiracy theorists...all dangerously taking bits of reality/facts/truths and weaving compelling tales to try to attract followers.

Why believe one over the other?

"For I delivered unto you, first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scripture" is no more real or believable to me than the equally and clearly absurd "My own research suggests that it is from another dimension, the lower fourth dimension, that the reptilian control and manipulation is primarily orchestrated."

Again, I don't need to "pick on" Christianity, pick any other religion if you want.

It's not that "Religion/philosophy X is wrong or bad" it's that "No Religion/philosophy is so right that it can co-opt those common elements of human experience we all share and call it their own".

[johnq]

Welcome Atomic angel,

Good post, certainly not off-topic in the scheme of things. Economy is crucial.

I saw a great piece on a company that makes some kind of easy to make/repair and use foot pump for irrigating tiny backyard farms in third-world countries. It's a super cheap product that improves the lives of the people that get them in tangible ways, they can eat better and they can have a bit of food left over from their little harvests to actually sell at local markets, which helps them buy things they've been doing without. Sure, some "squander" it on TVs or such (from our perspective perhaps medicine would be better way to spend it but who are we to judge? :) )

Anyone know that pump I am referring to? Perhaps it was on CNN or some such.

[johnq]

"For I delivered unto you, first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scripture"

Could have easily been:

"For we delivered unto you, first of all that which we also received, how that Yar'llthk killed for your sins according to the Star Prophecies; And that She was ripped asunder, and that She was self-assembled again the third year according to the Star Prophecies"

I mean, why not? :lol:

Why would any old "rigorous internally consistent framework" necessarily be trustable? I'd rather assume that much is not known yet, so keep looking and pondering. Frameworks seem to only ever get blown apart or at least marginalized given enough time, research, experience and thought.

[New]

....

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
"For I delivered unto you, first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scripture"

Could have easily been:

"For we delivered unto you, first of all that which we also received, how that Yar'llthk killed for your sins according to the Star Prophecies; And that She was ripped asunder, and that She was self-assembled again the third year according to the Star Prophecies"

I mean, why not? :lol:



Very Funny

But without strict trinitarian doctrine with the person of Christ as intermingled god/man, you are left to make up what ever you want in the realm of the 'wholly other' -- The Flash and Shazam as homosexual godmates etc., etc. There is a complete disconnect to the realm of the infinite. No other religion solves this problem.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
There is a complete disconnect to the realm of the infinite. No other religion solves this problem.
Edited because I woke up like the proverbial bear.

Read the Mahabharata or the Rg Veda. Go and buy a collection of haikus, even, and read the notes at the back. Look up 'avatar' on the internet. Read about Khrishna, Siva and Visnu. Go to Amazaon and order Herman Hesse's 'Siddhartha' if you want something like a novel.

[New]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Uh oh. This calls for capital letters.

YOU CLEARLY DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT ANY RELIGION OTHER THAN CHRISTIANITY.

Just read the Mahabharata or the Rg Veda, for goodness sake. Go and buy a collection of haikus, even, and read the notes at the back. Look up 'avatar' on the internet. Read about Khrishna, Siva and Visnu. Go to Amazaon and order Herman Hesse's 'Siddhartha' if you want something like a novel.

Oh, how I loved Siddhartha as a teen... :D

[Kishan]

Originally posted by dmz
Very Funny

But without strict trinitarian doctrine with the person of Christ as intermingled god/man, you are left to make up what ever you want in the realm of the 'wholly other' -- The Flash and Shazam as homosexual godmates etc., etc. There is a complete disconnect to the realm of the infinite. No other religion solves this problem.

I would beg to differ. Let us not forget that as far as human spirituality goes, Christianity is a relatively young religion. Islam is even younger. Unlike these two religions, the ancient beliefs of the East take relating to the infinte as the point of the whole spiritual exercise. Eastern peoples in China and India were leading civilized lives and pondering the mysteries of the universe when Europeans were still trying to figure out footwear. I for one happen to believe that they got it right the first time.

Take the whole cycle of reincarnation (not just a Hindu belief). A soul switches forms like clothing until the cycle is broken and it achieves Nirvana... essentially becomes one with the universe. Doesn't this sound an awful lot like the first law of thermodynamics? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. As energy is spent, the entropy of the universe is increased until finally all useful energy is used and all processes cease. I think the ancients understood the universe a lot better than we give them credit for. Perhaps they were as advanced spiritually back then as we are scientifically today. It just goes to show that all "progress" is not necessarily progress. Sorry to stray from addressing the quote above, but I hardly think that Christianity addresses "the infinite."

At it's most distilled, Christianity proposes that we are all born sinners and that we can find the grace and forgiveness of God by embracing Christ. We then are taken to Heaven or Hell all the while maintaining our Earthly identity. To me, this sounds like sidestepping the whole idea of infinity. "You" are born "You" and remain "You" throughout the eternity of the afterlife. The only thing "infinite" about this belief is that "You" will be around forever'n'ever amen, thusly satisfying that oldest Western dream of never dying.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Edited because I woke up like the proverbial bear.

Read the Mahabharata or the Rg Veda. Go and buy a collection of haikus, even, and read the notes at the back. Look up 'avatar' on the internet. Read about Khrishna, Siva and Visnu. Go to Amazaon and order Herman Hesse's 'Siddhartha' if you want something like a novel.


oh but no -- all other gods by definition are either "out of all relation" to the universe or are "correlative" to, or derivative of the universe (not the stars and planets, but 'exeistence'). This 'being as such', or 'being in general', is what is flummoxing you.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Kishan
I would beg to differ. Let us not forget that as far as human spirituality goes, Christianity is a relatively young religion. Islam is even younger. Unlike these two religions, the ancient beliefs of the East take relating to the infinte as the point of the whole spiritual exercise. Eastern peoples in China and India were leading civilized lives and pondering the mysteries of the universe when Europeans were still trying to figure out footwear. I for one happen to believe that they got it right the first time.

Take the whole cycle of reincarnation (not just a Hindu belief). A soul switches forms like clothing until the cycle is broken and it achieves Nirvana... essentially becomes one with the universe. Doesn't this sound an awful lot like the first law of thermodynamics? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. As energy is spent, the entropy of the universe is increased until finally all useful energy is used and all processes cease. I think the ancients understood the universe a lot better than we give them credit for. Perhaps they were as advanced spiritually back then as we are scientifically today. It just goes to show that all "progress" is not necessarily progress. Sorry to stray from addressing the quote above, but I hardly think that Christianity addresses "the infinite."

At it's most distilled, Christianity proposes that we are all born sinners and that we can find the grace and forgiveness of God by embracing Christ. We then are taken to Heaven or Hell all the while maintaining our Earthly identity. To me, this sounds like sidestepping the whole idea of infinity. "You" are born "You" and remain "You" throughout the eternity of the afterlife. The only thing "infinite" about this belief is that "You" will be around forever'n'ever amen, thusly satisfying that oldest Western dream of never dying.

I think the eastern religions have 'all as one', in their assumtions of being as such, and this generally reduces all distinctions 'ultimately'. The concept of the self-contained God, who is able to penetrate (no Jokes, Hassan i Sabbah) the universe without becoming correlative to it, but still not dissconnected makes these two systems very, very different.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
Very Funny

But without strict trinitarian doctrine with the person of Christ as intermingled god/man, you are left to make up what ever you want in the realm of the 'wholly other' -- The Flash and Shazam as homosexual godmates etc., etc. There is a complete disconnect to the realm of the infinite. No other religion solves this problem.

How is Christ not just a demigod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod) with a good set of ghost writers and publicists?

Your requirements for a religion to be valid (for lack of another term) mean nothing considering Christianity was not one thing. It became what it is today through 2000 years of adjustment and recreation for the purposes of patching up holes in itself as well as letting the masses continue their pagan practices, but under another name. It is a bread and circus, "tell them what they want them to hear" mish-mash of various pagan/Roman religions.

That Christianity can tick off each box in your checklist tells me only that as it (Roman Empire) attempted to squelch dissent, it incorporated things that were convenient and beneficial for those in power.

In otherwords, feature creep.

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
How is Christ not just a demigod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod) with a good set of ghost writers and publicists?

Your requirements for a religion to be valid (for lack of another term) mean nothing considering Christianity was not one thing. It became what it is today through 2000 years of adjustment and recreation for the purposes of patching up holes in itself as well as letting the masses continue their pagan practices, but under another name. It is a bread and circus, "tell them what they want them to hear" mish-mash of various pagan/Roman religions.

That Christianity can tick off each box in your checklist tells me only that as it (Roman Empire) attempted to squelch dissent, it incorporated things that were convenient and beneficial for those in power.

In otherwords, feature creep.

Christ isn't a demigod, but not for a lack of trying.

Your statement on the History of Christian theology isn't quite accurate, the framework that I've mentioned has always been there in the text, but it did take 400-500 years to make it official, and to break out of a penchant for synthesising it with Greek thought.

As to the 'interesting' features of the Roman church, that is indeed 'feature creep' of the Church, but only in terms of a static framework.

[MarcUK]

dmz, resolve this for me with your Christian theology.

About half way through the story of Jesus an interesting thing happens. John the Baptist reappears and is beheaded. "he has risen from the dead!" says Matthew 14:2 Recall at the beginning of the story how Aquarius/John the Baptist moved below the Western horizon at sunset/was put in prison as the year went from January to February and the Sun traveled from Aquarius to Pisces. Each zodiac constellation in turn goes below the horizon at sunset as each month passes. After six months the constellation of Aquarius begins to rise on the Eastern horizon at sunset. And it appears that the head of Aquarius is cut off by the horizon. This is John the Baptist rising from the dead, the dead being those who are below the earth. This is John the Baptist being beheaded.

Infact, do me a favour and resolve all this story for me, good chap.

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm#solarmyth

[pfflam]

(toDMZ)
Its almost fun to watch someone tie themselves into rhetorical knots in order to preserve the unnecessary . . . .

You have all the answers, even if they are tortured and byzantine, and seem to know nothing about asian thought . . . nothing except how to, supposedly, dismiss it for failing to live up to imposed and unnecessary criteria . . . a criteria that we don't actually need except when Christianity is involved:

Your Christianity defines the problems, in fact, creates them, and makes them specific such that only Cristianity can solve them . . .
supposedly

When you get caught in that kind of rhetorical-logic bind, and are forced to endless circles of trinitarian this that and the other, its best to put the book down and look out the window . . . or better yet, simply stop thinking about false logical mumbos and quiet the mind . . .


Asian religions are not 'Ah-Hah' religions . . . they take time and constant effort of real applied activity: (meditation and contemplation) they don't need a McSaved-moment of 'evrything is good all of a sudden' . . . (though there are glimpses -Sartori, Shunyata) That is why so many refuse to pay attention: it doesn't give them that good feeling immediately like a fast-food package . . .
They are worth looking at.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
dmz, rectify this in your Christian theology.

About half way through the story of Jesus an interesting thing happens. John the Baptist reappears and is beheaded. "he has risen from the dead!" says Matthew 14:2 Recall at the beginning of the story how Aquarius/John the Baptist moved below the Western horizon at sunset/was put in prison as the year went from January to February and the Sun traveled from Aquarius to Pisces. Each zodiac constellation in turn goes below the horizon at sunset as each month passes. After six months the constellation of Aquarius begins to rise on the Eastern horizon at sunset. And it appears that the head of Aquarius is cut off by the horizon. This is John the Baptist rising from the dead, the dead being those who are below the earth. This is John the Baptist being beheaded.

The text of Matthew 14 is basically a recap of what happened with Herod and how he got hornswoggled into killing John the Baptist. The personal and textual critisisms of Christianity got underway with Celsus in the year 150 -- in living memory of the disciples (at least John). Celsus was convinced that all involved were real people, but magicians and not who they said they were. He quoted the new testament about 60 times in his blistering critique.

I don't do astrology, but I've heard that some wise men did. When I was a kid we planted by the astrological sings even put in fence posts by the moonsign. If there is any correlation to signs in the stars to the rising and falling of kings, etc. I would not know where to begin.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
The text of Matthew 14 is basically a recap of what happened with Herod and how he got hornswoggled into killing John the Baptist. The personal and textual critisisms of Christianity got underway with Celsus in the year 150 -- in living memory of the disciples (at least John). Celsus was convinced that all involved were real people, but magicians and not who they said they were. He quoted the new testament about 60 times in his blistering critique.

I don't do astrology, but I've heard that some wise men did. When I was a kid we planted by the astrological sings even put in fence posts by the moonsign. If there is any correlation to signs in the stars to the rising and falling of kings, etc. I would not know where to begin.

theres your first mistake, there is NO astrology here. This is an explanation of how the ancients perceived the stars which is ASTRONOMY. Nothing voodoo or evil here.

You and your likeminded friend really enjoy holding the theory of Evolution up to close scrutiny. Well I think it's only fair that your little fantasy is handled in the same manner. So go Goddamn read every page of my link. That goes for DMZ, NaplesX, Chris Cuilla, Benzene, Fellowship et all. Do it in the persuit of integrity, honesty and decency.

[dmz]

Originally posted by pfflam
(toDMZ)
Its almost fun to watch someone tie themselves into rhetorical knots in order to preserve the unnecessary . . . .

You have all the answers, even if they are tortured and byzantine, and seem to know nothing about asian thought . . . nothing except how to, supposedly, dismiss it for failing to live up to imposed and unnecessary criteria . . . a criteria that we don't actually need except when Christianity is involved:

Your Christianity defines the problems, in fact, creates them, and makes them specific such that only Cristianity can solve them . . .
supposedly

When you get caught in that kind of rhetorical-logic bind, and are forced to endless circles of trinitarian this that and the other, its best to put the book down and look out the window . . . or better yet, simply stop thinking about false logical mumbos and quiet the mind . . .


Asian religions are not 'Ah-Hah' religions . . . they take time and constant effort of real applied activity: (meditation and contemplation) they don't need a McSaved-moment of 'evrything is good all of a sudden' . . . (though there are glimpses -Sartori, Shunyata) That is why so many refuse to pay attention: it doesn't give them that good feeling immediately like a fast-food package . . .
They are worth looking at.

I dunno about torurted, but Trinitarian doctrine solves 'the problem'.

I'm not going to pretend to have a thorough grounding in eastern relgion, except what the basic metaphysical premise is, and how that effects a broad solution to the problem of the One and the Many. This is NOT code for "we have better people than you," or "my history is less bloody than yours".

The 'endless circles' is unavoidable due the nature of us all to be aubject to our presuppositions:
On the one hand, Reality can only be what the intellect of man, using the law of contradiction, says that it must be. On the other hand, Reality can only be that about which the intellect of man, again using the law of contradiction, can say nothing at all.
That is, man says in one breath that the nature of Reality and therefore all events (facts) within that Reality cannot be other than the law of contradiction will allow. He thereby tells us what Reality is. Yet man, in the next breath, tells us that we have no absolutely certain knowledge about the nature of Reality at all, for Kant has shown us that the law of contradiction as posited by man is not applicable to Reality. Reality, the Real, transcends logic. He thereby tells us that he cannot utter one word about what Reality is.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
theres your first mistake, there is NO astrology here. This is an explanation of how the ancients perceived the stars which is ASTRONOMY. Nothing voodoo or evil here.

You and your likeminded friend really enjoy holding the theory of Evolution up to close scrutiny. Well I think it's only fair that your little fantasy is handled in the same manner. So go Goddamn read every page of my link. That goes for DMZ, NaplesX, Chris Cuilla, Benzene, Fellowship et all. Do it in the persuit of integrity, honesty and decency.


link?:???:

[MarcUK]

World, tell me, is it by sheer utterly unexplainable coincidence that dmz's computer is the only one in existance that hasn't shown the link. Must be an act of God...

[MarcUK]

just for you DMZ...here you go...

careful now, it contains material which explains things in a manner you might find very disturbing...Every page though, thats only fair.

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm#solarmyth

[johnq]

Easy fellas, lets try to have this thread reach 5 or 10 pages. ;) But pretty good so far. :)

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
World, tell me, is it by sheer utterly unexplainable coincidence that dmz's computer is the only one in existance that hasn't shown the link. Must be an act of God...


?? I didn't check in your profile......where was it supposes to be?


(I'll read your link, though)


EDIT: Duh!!the link was just further up the page

[johnq]

Great site, although a bit too far on the "contemptuous of Christianity" side of things for it to be taken more seriously by others.

With a little editing and polish it could be far more influential.

Now, I essentially am contemptuous of Christianity ;) and most religions/cults, but I realize it's best to try to set it aside when trying to bring some logic to these people or show them the bigger picture and facts surrounding why their religion is the way it is.

"True believers" just get more entrenched and defensive otherwise.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
The 'endless circles' is unavoidable due the nature of us all to be aubject to our presuppositions:
Originally from ???
On the one hand, Reality can only be what the intellect of man, using the law of contradiction, says that it must be. On the other hand, Reality can only be that about which the intellect of man, again using the law of contradiction, can say nothing at all.
That is, man says in one breath that the nature of Reality and therefore all events (facts) within that Reality cannot be other than the law of contradiction will allow. He thereby tells us what Reality is. Yet man, in the next breath, tells us that we have no absolutely certain knowledge about the nature of Reality at all, for Kant has shown us that the law of contradiction as posited by man is not applicable to Reality. Reality, the Real, transcends logic. He thereby tells us that he cannot utter one word about what Reality is.

Do they make special KY jelly for the brain so that when the mental masturbation gets this furious you don't get brain blisters? :D

Put some error bars and reasonable qualifiers about what we mean by the term "reality" and what we believe we can say about reality, and this manufactured dilemma goes away. It's a dilemma forced into being by black-and-white thinking. Then again, if you make the dilemma go away, you can't be proud of how you've mastered such tortured, impress-your-friends, baffle-your-adversaries logic.

[johnq]

I'm enjoying this article on a Christian's attempt to justify why we see stars if the universe is only 6,000 years old since light travels so slowly at such distances...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

:lol:

Nice try...:rolleyes:

Perfect example of what we were talking about, the need to make a religion/theory fit your pre-established criteria, when it's the criteria itself that is the problem.

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline

Do they make special KY jelly for the brain so that when the mental masturbation gets this furious you don't get brain blisters? :D

Put some error bars and reasonable qualifiers about what we mean by the term "reality" and what we believe we can say about reality, and this manufactured dilemma goes away. It's a dilemma forced into being by black-and-white thinking. Then again, if you make the dilemma go away, you can't be proud of how you've mastered such tortured, impress-your-friends, baffle-your-adversaries logic.


Nice. But this is exactly what has been argued about since the greeks.

Actually I await pfflam's response, but I am assuming that he is not entirely uncomfortable with Kant.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by johnq
I'm enjoying this article on a Christian's attempt to justify why we see stars if the universe is only 6,000 years old since light travels so slowly at such distances...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

:lol:

Nice try...:rolleyes:

Perfect example of what we were talking about, the need to make a religion/theory fit your pre-established criteria, when it's the criteria itself that is the problem.

WOW!!!! So am I to understand that the speed of light has decayed exponentially since creation only to level of with dC/dt=0 since 1960? What nonesense! A true exponential curve will never reach dy/dx=0 even at x=infinity. What is scary is that to people without an education these faux-scientists could sound authoritative. Crap that wraps itself up in a white coat is still crap! Hmmmmm... I wonder if the reason that neo-cons' budgets are cruel to education is that a good education makes people too smart to be drawn in by stuff like this!

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
I'm enjoying this article on a Christian's attempt to justify why we see stars if the universe is only 6,000 years old since light travels so slowly at such distances...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

:lol:

Nice try...:rolleyes:

Perfect example of what we were talking about, the need to make a religion/theory fit your pre-established criteria, when it's the criteria itself that is the problem.

I see c-decay on that link, c-decay is an argument creationists should never use.

Have fun with the starlight question -- but if even if the time contraints in Genesis are not figurative, this still does not free you from offering both a cohesive metapysical/material framework to stand on while you criticise. And if you want use the "hey I don't believe in anything I just want to critisise" argument, what business do you, in any constructive sense, have critisising Christianity anymore than a graffitti artist has plying his craft at the Louvre?

??

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
Nice. But this is exactly what has been argued about since the greeks.
Yes, and there's been a lot of mental masturbation since the Greeks.

[johnq]

Originally posted by Kishan
I'm enjoying this article on a Christian's attempt to justify why we see stars if the universe is only 6,000 years old since light travels so slowly at such distances...


Ok, I didn't phrase that quite right :lol:

I mean ....since light takes millions of years to travel such vast distances...

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline
Yes, and there's been a lot of mental masturbation since the Greeks.


I'd have to agree with you.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
just for you DMZ...here you go...

careful now, it contains material which explains things in a manner you might find very disturbing...Every page though, thats only fair.

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm#solarmyth


I scanned that site, it seems a bit scattered, although I wouldn't suprise me bit if the arc of human history werer echoed in the stars.

Is the thing with that site's premise that the Zodiac incidents were translated into a story? Or that the events happened and then they were shoehorned into the story?

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
I scanned that site, it seems a bit scattered, although I wouldn't suprise me bit if the arc of human history werer echoed in the stars.

Is the thing with that site's premise that the Zodiac incidents were translated into a story? Or that the events happened and then they were shoehorned into the story?


Zoroastrianism...Mithraism...

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html#Mithraism

How many parallels and origins do people need before people think "Gee, I guess my religion really is just a collection of old myths, used by a dying governmental empire-turned-religion, but I can still be good to people and live a good life whether there is actually a deity or not."

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
Zoroastrianism...Mithraism...

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html#Mithraism

How many parallels and origins do people need before people think "Gee, I guess my religion really is just a collection of old myths, used by a dying governmental empire-turned-religion, but I can still be good to people and live a good life whether there is actually a deity or not."


Yes but are you saying the records we have from the early church, complete with verbage/times/places of that time, along with Celsus' organized cirtique barely 120 years after the death of Christ, Jospehus, bla, bla, bla. --- that all of these were manufactured, and the people/events that they name never existed?

It's just too much to ask.

[shetline]

Originally posted by johnq
...but I can still be good to people and live a good life whether there is actually a deity or not."
The current right-wing flavor of Christianity has nothing to do with being good to people or having a good life. Oh, they'll claim those things happen because of their Faith, but they're really incidental. Faith not deeds, you know. It's all about getting on the Big Guy's good side, about being on the Winning Team which gets more than a mere good life, but an eternal afterlife, and not being one of the losers who are tormented and tortured for eternity -- as per the designs of an Infinitely Loving God.

[e1618978]

I saw a show on the discovery channel that claimed that Christianity was created by the Romans in order to try to convert the Jews to a more peaceful religion ("Give unto the Romans what belongs to Rome" etc). Any truth to that?

[dmz]

Originally posted by e1618978
I saw a show on the discovery channel that claimed that Christianity was created by the Romans in order to try to convert the Jews to a more peaceful religion ("Give unto the Romans what belongs to Rome" etc). Any truth to that?

Rome and Christianity were antithetical, I doubt that would be possible. Besides --- and this goes along with MarcUK's thing --- we would have some documentation of this, if it were true.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by MarcUK
...That goes for DMZ, NaplesX, Chris Cuilla, Benzene, Fellowship et all.

I know I've been away for awhile, but I take exception to not being included in a list of Marc's adversaries.


:D

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes but are you saying the records we have from the early church, complete with verbage/times/places of that time, along with Celsus' organized cirtique barely 120 years after the death of Christ, Jospehus, bla, bla, bla. --- that all of these were manufactured, and the people/events that they name never existed?

It's just too much to ask.
It's too much to ask? This is coming from someone who disbelieves anything any paeleontologist, geologist, archeologist, cosmologist, geneticist or physicist has written since 1870. It's too much to ask? That's never been a problem for you before.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Frank777
I know I've been away for awhile, but I take exception to not being included in a list of Marc's adversaries.


:D


Note the 'et al' bit.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It's too much to ask? This is coming from someone who disbelieves anything any paeleontologist, geologist, archeologist, cosmologist, geneticist or physicist has written since 1870. It's too much to ask? That's never been a problem for you before.

Yes, of course, I forgot about that.

(But you still don't have my permission to ignore written records in the study of history.)

[Splinemodel]

Originally posted by MarcUK

1. At least Science tries to find an answer to the Questions. Religion wraps itself up in bullshit and dogma and its devotees largely stick their heads up their ass and brainwash themselves in believing the best thing that suits their selfish need to feel a purpose and meaning.

2. Its so obvious the Bible is a bunch of lies and crap,

1. I could go ahead and say that "everyone" in the Church of Satan is a conceited rock star, but then I'd just be talking about Marilyn Manson and Jimmy Page (unless I'm mistaken about his involvement), who are incedentally the only big names I'm aware of in your organization. Religion doesn't necessarily wrap itself up in "bullshit and dogma," nor does it not try to answer questions. Making blanket judgments is something that both a wise humanist and a wise Christian will not do. I do know a lot of Christians, though, and I'd go so far as to say that most good Christians don't have their heads up their asses. I'd also say, though, that it's very difficult to be a good Christian. . . In fact, it's every bit as hard as being a good Buddhist/humanist, with the added stress of having an extra layer of supernatural involvement.

2. And I say that it's so obvious that hedonism, and humanism in general, is a wholly unfulfilling compromise marked by limited aspiration. You may think different, but in the end you will have a harder time proving to yourself, or anyone else, that the Bible is full of lies than I will have proving to myself that God exists.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
(But you still don't have my permission to ignore written records in the study of history.)

What the does any written or other type of record prove about any actual thing or event?

Christianity only proves that a concerted effort spanning millennia can glue together a dogma that is "good enough" to get a considerable number of people to believe it wholly.

But then, other religions do a good enoguh job of it in their own way.

How many fables and frameworks can we fabricate and still fool most o fthe people most of the time?

Anyone got a spare infinite amount of monkeys and time handy? :D

L. Ron Hubbard sat on his fat ass banging out yarns for long enough to start a significantly sized (unfortunately) cult...guess anyone can do it.

[midwinter]

Einstein on science and religion (http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Einstein2b.html)

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
What the does any written or other type of record prove about any actual thing or event?

that was a reference to the axiom that, unless there are written records, any take on history is COMPLETLY speculative.

Originally posted by johnq Christianity only proves that a concerted effort spanning millennia can glue together a dogma that is "good enough" to get a considerable number of people to believe it wholly.[/B]

This "good enough" dogma isn't some rabbit the masses chased for diversion for 2000 years -- you shouldn't ignore, wholesale, what has driven western culture since Christianity overpowered Rome. Even more so, you shouldn't ignore this same metaphysical framework that has survived a concerted effort to unseat it on multiple levels, for the last several hundred years.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
This "good enough" dogma isn't some rabbit the masses chased for diversion for 2000 years -- you shouldn't ignore, wholesale, what has driven western culture since Christianity overpowered Rome. Even more so, you shouldn't ignore this same metaphysical framework that has survived a concerted effort to unseat it on multiple levels, for the last several hundred years.
It didn't 'overpower' Rome. What nonsense. It was a crisis cult, one of many, adopted out of desperation. The Rev. Martin Luther King could just as easily have been a priest of the Child of the Undying Sun and you'd be arguing that the World Parents came from a Cosmic Egg and formed the continents from the Divine Placenta.

There's been no effort to 'unseat' Christianity for several hundred years other than reason, and the same forces have been acting, with far less success I might add, on Buddhism and Hinduism.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes, of course, I forgot about that.

(But you still don't have my permission to ignore written records in the study of history.)
Well, OK. Fair's fair. I won't ignore historical records if you won't ignore the the last century-and-a-half's research in geology, paeleontology, genetics, cosmology and physics. How's that?

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
that was a reference to the axiom that, unless there are written records, any take on history is COMPLETLY speculative.

As it should be. History is rife with tamperings, exaggerations, lies, propaganda, overblown tributes, fabrications, revisions and misinformation. Even with living eye-witnesses, accounts can be suspect.

Now, I'm not one of these people that denies everything, I give it all benefit of the doubt for it to be laid out and examined by all so people can deem it plausible or not and to continually revisit it as theories and technology changes.

History is, and should always be, being inspected for accuracy and new ideas and theories tested. This is where science triumphs and religion doctrine fails. One tests and asks questions, the other believes at face value (or even worse, on faith) and refuses to question. Theologians do test and question doctrines but usually it is to stitch up holes, not tear down illusions.

Originally posted by dmz
This "good enough" dogma isn't some rabbit the masses chased for diversion for 2000 years -- you shouldn't ignore, wholesale, what has driven western culture since Christianity overpowered Rome. Even more so, you shouldn't ignore this same metaphysical framework that has survived a concerted effort to unseat it on multiple levels, for the last several hundred years.

"Christianity overpowered Rome" :lol:

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, OK. Fair's fair. I won't ignore historical records if you won't ignore the the last century-and-a-half's research in geology, paeleontology, genetics, cosmology and physics. How's that?
Yes, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that all that exists are mathamatical laws and matter -- and that these fields hold all the answers.

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
"Christianity overpowered Rome" :lol:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It didn't 'overpower' Rome. What nonsense. It was a crisis cult...


Rome's power, or organizing principle was continuity, a 'continuous unity' of gods and men, the divine and the human, and the unity of all being. All of Roman society was a part of the 'all-absorbing One'.

I don't think anyone would deny this.

Christianity insists on just the opposite -- a ABSOLUTE division between the human and divine. No human order or institution can claim divinity and then claim to represent total and 'final order', AS SUCH. All governments, from the Christian first principles, were put under God.

From Eric Voegelin:
What made Christianity so dangerous was its uncompromising, radical de-divination of the world
the 2nd century Christian antangonist Celsus called this "the language of sedition"

From the Wikipedia entry for Celsus:
Over against the state and the worship of the Caesar stood as usual the Christian ideal of a rule and a citizenship not of this world
and from somewhere else:
In the conflict with the Roman Empire, the Christian thinkers carried the day, and Rome found that its only effective argument, which finally failed, was persecution. And, the more fanatically the Roman emperors sought to advance salvation, economically, politically, and religiously, through their genius, the more obvious their failure became. Their "salvation," for all Romans, more closely resembled oppression. Clearly, the non-Christian Romans themselves, who were not bound to pray for those in authority as were Christians, were at times more in a mood to swear at the genius of the emperor than by it.
....the Roman ideal ended in failure, trumped by Christianity.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
....the Roman ideal ended in failure, trumped by Christianity.
Thus feeding Christians to lions was replaced by feeding fires with witches. Ah, the march of human progress!

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline
Thus feeding Christians to lions was replaced by feeding fires with witches. Ah, the march of human progress!

Big surpise! Constantine and the Romish Church wasn't perfect. (It was many years until the Magna Carta, and still more until Martin Luther King.)

(and don't forget gang rape and bestiality in the in Rome's public spectacles)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that all that exists are mathamatical laws and matter -- and that these fields hold all the answers.
No. You keep forgetting that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, the sun is a star and that the planet is very old.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. You keep forgetting that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, the sun is a star and that the planet is very old.

I don't recall him ever saying such a thing.

:rolleyes:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
(and don't forget gang rape and bestiality in the in Rome's public spectacles)

and don't forget gang-rape, castration, child-abuse, child-murder, dildos, nudism, blow-jobs, human sacrifice, masturbation, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual mutilation, sexual slavery, in the bible

and my favourite
eating your own shit and piss.

oh I see that the persuit of truth, honesty and integrity is too difficult for dmz, because the site requires a few clicks of a mouse.

Here, dmz, try this,it was written by a Christian. There aren't any links on the first page till the bottom - you can use a scroll wheel i trust.

http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com/

from article - written by a CHRISTIAN.
After reading hundreds of books over those years and studying usually 5 hours a day, year after year, I have come to see without a doubt that all the world's religions, including Christianity, are nothing more than rewritten versions of an older story held dear by the earliest sages and priest of mankind that can be found on this planet; namely, the story of the birth, death, and rebirth of the Sun as it makes it circuit through the sky and the Zodiac once a year.

Malachi 4:2 (New International Version)

2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. You keep forgetting that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, the sun is a star and that the planet is very old.
What needs to be done, we are told, is to ‘demythologize’ the history of theology, the history of philosophy and the history of science. The theologians hasten to demythologize first the confessions of the church and then the Bible on which these confessions are based. Man views himself “as a unified being and attributes his experience, thought and volition to his own agency, not to divine or demonic causes. If, as a naturalist, he acknowledges himself in the highest degree dependent, he still does not look upon this dependence as a subjection to higher powers distinguishable from the orderly processes of nature. On the other hand, if he understands himself as ‘spirit,’ he is aware of his own freedom and responsibility, and even though he recognizes his conditioning by natural forces, he distinguishes his true being from them.”
Similarly, when philosophy speaks it no longer speaks with Plato of eternal ideas of goodness, truth and reality or of man as essentially participating in such eternal entities. Man has learned to look within for an understanding of himself. Carrying through the principle of true inwardness as once suggested by Socrates, man sees himself as intelligible to himself in terms of himself and without any reference to any transcendent being.
Finally, science, following or preceding philosophy, has learned to think of time and change as ultimate. Scientists today no longer search for changeless eternal substances. For them nature is explained in terms of functions and correlations.

These details are irrelevant to the discussion -- the Genesis account, I have said time and time and time and time and time agian, may be allegrocial, in it's timeframe, and is rather general in any case. The Earth does not, in any of these events, have it's orgins in the materialist view -- which starts by making universal negative statements of the very nature and possibility of God and then orders what it wants into this system.

You, like johnq, simply don't have a metaphysical/physical framwork in place that is internally consistent from which to offer criticism of the Christian metaphysical/physical system. You are left to through stones and nitpick or force things on the Genesis account -- which it in no way claims, all with nothing defintive to offer in it's place. To the contrary, you are coming from a postion that denies the all reality, and the human ability to make definitve statements. This makes no sense.
It might seem that the phenomenal world is now enough for man. Whether as a theologian, as a philosopher or as a scientist, modern man needs only to show the utter intellectual untenability of traditional theology, traditional philosophy and traditional science.
However, it has become obvious to modern man that, in order to understand nature, and himself in relation to nature, he still needs some sort of transcendence. Nature deals not only with what is fixed and changeless; nature deals with novelty as well. To be sure, when the modern scientist is engaged in demythologizing, he operates with the principle that nature is wholly perspicuous to man’s intellect, because wholly changeless. How else can he exclude what to him are archaic ideas of a transcendent changeless God remaining changeless while, and after, creating a changing world? Nature simply must be such that this “logical contradiction” cannot be. The scientist must therefore make a universal negative statement about all that surrounds nature in order to preclude the possibility of any of God’s interferences with the laws of nature. In short, the process of demythologizing in which the modern scientist engages requires him to be a pure rationalist and therefore a pure determinist.
But then the modern scientist is not and cannot be a pure rationalist and a pure determinist without at the same time being a pure irrationalist and a pure indeterminist. The modern scientist cannot merely negate the ‘irrational,’ the ‘supernatural,’ the ‘miraculous,’ in short the ‘mythology’ of the past. He must offer his own substitute for these. He must have his own mythology. With Kant he therefore holds that time is ultimate. Its products are those of pure contingency, of pure indeterminism. Thus, the universe of science must be at the same time absolutely closed and absolutely open.

/**with Respect**/
I don't believe you have a leg to stand on, any more than the only way for a child to slap her father's face is to be sitting in his lap.
/**with Respect**/

gotta git, I can argue more when I get a break

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
and don't forget gang-rape, castration, child-abuse, child-murder, dildos, nudism, blow-jobs, human sacrifice, masturbation, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual mutilation, sexual slavery, in the bible

and my favourite
eating your own shit and piss.

Well I don't recall anything about blow-jobs and "eating your own shit and piss"....but besides that...what is your point? That those things are mentioned in the Bible? And? So?

( from some of the posts I've seen of yours...it seems your goal is simply to incite...anger...offend...etc. )

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
and don't forget gang-rape, castration, child-abuse, child-murder, dildos, nudism, blow-jobs, human sacrifice, masturbation, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual mutilation, sexual slavery, in the bible

and my favourite
eating your own shit and piss.

oh I see that the persuit of truth, honesty and integrity is too difficult for dmz, because the site requires a few clicks of a mouse.

Here, dmz, try this,it was written by a Christian. There aren't any links on the first page till the bottom - you can use a scroll wheel i trust.

http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com/

I will, but LATER!!

here's a quickie:

Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record
One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the Word;
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,—
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
40

We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great,
Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate,
But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,
List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,—
"They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin."

...

Count me o'er earth's chosen heroes,—they were souls that stood alone,
While the men they agonized for hurled the contumelious stone,
Stood serene, and down the future saw the golden beam incline
To the side of perfect justice, mastered by their faith divine,
By one man's plain truth to manhood and to God's supreme design.
60

By the light of burning heretics Christ's bleeding feet I track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever with the cross that turns not back,
And these mounts of anguish number how each generation learned
One new word of that grand Credo which in prophet-hearts hath burned
Since the first man stood God-conquered with his face to heaven upturned.
65

For Humanity sweeps onward: where to-day the martyr stands,
On the morrow crouches Judas with the silver in his hands;
Far in front the cross stands ready and the crackling fagots burn,
While the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return
To glean up the scattered ashes into History's golden urn.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
I will, but LATER!!

here's a quickie:

save this poetic bullshit for the sheep. I am only here to discuss truth, integrity, honesty, and the cold hard facts.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Well I don't recall anything about blow-jobs and "eating your own shit and piss"....but besides that...what is your point? That those things are mentioned in the Bible? And? So?

( from some of the posts I've seen of yours...it seems your goal is simply to incite...anger...offend...etc. )

you need to re-read your bible, but first, it would be advantegous to you if you first read through my links to establish what the facts are before we try to discuss them.

And I was trying to make exactly the same points that dmz was.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
( from some of the posts I've seen of yours...it seems your goal is simply to incite...anger...offend...etc. )

Thats been trotted out a few too many times now for me to take it seriously, usually happens when someone is scared to review the evidence and usually results in attempting to have a moderator ban me for being a devil worshipping heretic. :lol:

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
you need to re-read your bible

Yes, but you have such a thorough knowledge, I assuemd you'd give me chapter and verse.


Originally posted by MarcUK
but first, it would be advantegous to you if you first read through my links to establish what the facts are before we try to discuss them.

Establish what that particular website thinks the facts are is what you mean to say.

Perhaps if I have some more time to waste, I will. I've seen your various postings and rantings about Christianity and find your credibility (and those of the sources you cite) lacking.

Originally posted by MarcUK
And I was trying to make exactly the same points that dmz was.

I still don't get your point...those things are mentioned in the Bible. So what? Are you trying to imply that they are all condoned by the Bible (or God)?

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Thats been trotted out a few too many times now for me to take it seriously, usually happens when someone is scared to review the evidence and usually results in attempting to have a moderator ban me for being a devil worshipping heretic. :lol:

I couldn't care less if you get banned or not. That wasn't my point. Just stating my own observation of your posts is all.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by atomic_angel

Establish what that particular website thinks the facts are is what you mean to say.


As opposed to what, a particular book that you think are the facts?

Thats why i'm here. I spent hours,days, months, years looking for the truth. This is as far as I can get. I have an answer that explains *everything* has no contradictions, doesn't rely on miracles or magic or supernatural voodoo explanations. I present it, you read it, we discuss. I might be right, or you might prove me wrong. If you don't want to read it and discuss, do me a favour - fuck off and leave me alone.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
As opposed to what, a particular book that you think are the facts?

( and he fails to see the irony in this )

:lol:

Originally posted by MarcUK
Thats why i'm here. I spent hours,days, months, years looking for the truth.

That's why you're here? If that's why you are here (meaning this forum) I'd say (to paraphrase a sone) you're looking for truth in all the wrong places. You ain't gonna find it here.

Originally posted by MarcUK
If you don't want to read it and discuss, do me a favour - fuck off and leave me alone.

:lol:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Yes, but you have such a thorough knowledge, I assuemd you'd give me chapter and verse.

II Kings 18:27
Solomon's Song 4:11, 7:9

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
II Kings 18:27
Solomon's Song 4:11, 7:9

But you still haven't indicated the point of this.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
But you still haven't indicated the point of this.

well mr cuilla, I was making the same point as dmz. If you still don't understand, go ask him. What's your point?

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by MarcUK
well mr cuilla

Huh?

Originally posted by MarcUK
I was making the same point as dmz. If you still don't understand, go ask him.

I asked a simple question. Okay...got it...you're being evasive. I didn't see DMZ's point. I was a simple question.

The Bible makes reference to those things. So what? It doesn't imply that any or all of those things are somehow condoned. In most cases they are statements of what happened without necessarily making any value statements about them. So who cares? You, obviously.

Originally posted by MarcUK
What's your point?

To find out yours.

[johnq]

And so it goes, endless unsourced Christian cut-and-paste blizzards. (Meaning the earlier posts on this page)

[johnq]

Rubbish. Christianity didn't "overpower" Rome.

You really need to read some histories of Rome not specifically written by and for Christians.

Your unsourced quote:
In the conflict with the Roman Empire, the Christian thinkers carried the day, and Rome found that its only effective argument, which finally failed, was persecution. And, the more fanatically the Roman emperors sought to advance salvation, economically, politically, and religiously, through their genius, the more obvious their failure became. Their "salvation," for all Romans, more closely resembled oppression. Clearly, the non-Christian Romans themselves, who were not bound to pray for those in authority as were Christians, were at times more in a mood to swear at the genius of the emperor than by it

Is the most blurred, unspecific piece of I-don't-know-what I've read in a while.

Christianity's ideas didn't "win", it was that the Christians took advantage of an already weakened Roman Empire, particularly after Christian radicals infested the government. Damn Theodosius.

[MarcUK]

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm
http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com/

dont forget the evidence.

[johnq]

Mark, it's futile to get into all this crap with them. The details of any religion are wholly arbitrary and based on the uniformed, illogical whims of countless thousands of ancient humans.

That these people trade logic for comforting brainwashing words, is not something easily changed or countered. They are too far into their conditioning.

I don't even want to lend credence to the various texts by even miring myself in the details.

The real issue is how can DMZ seriously, with a straight face, say that I'm the one that has no right to speak against Christianity until I go out and buy, steal, borrow, create, hypothesize or discover my own "internally consistent metaphysical/physical framework". :no:

What the hell has Christianity ever done with regards to a physical framework first of all, except deny, obfuscate, outlaw and then perhaps claim as its own.

You say: "without strict trinitarian doctrine with the person of Christ as intermingled god/man, you are left to make up what ever you want in the realm of the 'wholly other'"

But:
"Rome's power, or organizing principle was continuity, a 'continuous unity' of gods and men, the divine and the human, and the unity of all being....Christianity insists on just the opposite -- a ABSOLUTE division between the human and divine. No human order or institution can claim divinity and then claim to represent total and 'final order', AS SUCH. All governments, from the Christian first principles, were put under God."

The "Christ as intermingled god/man" directly contradicts your assertion of Christianity's "ABSOLUTE division between the human and divine" because how can you be sure 1. there was a historical human named Jesus that all this history is actually attributable to and 2. that he wasn't just yet another Jewish rebel/bandit leader that kicked up enough dirt to get really noticed?

I'm not surprised if there was a historical Jesus, learned in the ways of various lost arts and healing methods, who preached peace and that this was abhorrent to the Jews and Romans. I'm then not surprise that the details of his life were later embellished so as to strengthen a religious/political movement. I'm not surprised even that he might merely have been egotistical rabble rouser and charismatic cult leade