Ophiuchus: 13th Zodiac Sign

[segovius]

I was arguing with a New Age Flakey friend of mine last night - she believes wholeheartedly in Astrology (and even has some views worryingly similar to those of MarcUK) and is resistant to any form of scientific rationalism.

It is well known that Astrology is a steaming pile of dog-turd but the interesting thing (to me) is why so many people believe it in defiance of any rational thought process. Clearly several planets were unknown at the time of the 'systems' formulation and this itself is enough to disprove the bunkum.

But there is another interesting contra-argument ((interesting from a scientific/rationalistic view as few people are aware of it): there is a thirteenth sign Ophiuchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus).

Ophiuchus is positioned between Scorpius and Sagittarius and its dates are Dec 1 - Dec 15. Its symbol is a man wrestling with a serpent and is known as the 'Serpent Bearer'.

Many writers have argued that the man wrestling with the serpent is in fact Jesus himself (or an earlier figure on which the Jesus motif was projected) and that this is why the sign has been suppressed - in order to keep the Christian/pagan motifs submerged.

Interesting stuff.

[MarcUK]

Is she hot??

come now segovius, even I wonder why so many people believe in Astrology :D

[segovius]

Is she hot??

Über-hot. :D

[MarcUK]

Über-hot. :D

then who cares what she believes :D

anyway, i was wondering what the point of this thread was? What do you think of this connection? I believe that Ophiuchus holds a key to understanding the development of the story of the Christian apostle Paul, Pol or Apollonius. Also the writings of Josephus hold keys to understanding our baldy friend.

What were you arguing about with this hot-chick?

[segovius]

then who cares what she believes :D

anyway, i was wondering what the point of this thread was? What do you think of this connection? I believe that Ophiuchus holds a key to understanding the development of the story of the Christian apostle Paul, Pol or Apollonius. Also the writings of Josephus hold keys to understanding our baldy friend.

What were you arguing about with this hot-chick?

There isn't really a point - I'm just bored. The quality of topic here is really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately. I suppose I was hoping that an interesting topic might evolve organically during the thread.

I think the Mods don't like this approach though - don't you ideally have to outline the topic as some sort of Holy Writ at the outset and then slavishly follow it without diversion?

I was arguing about Fundamentalism as it happens. Shock. My thesis was that there are only two modes of thought in everything: rigid and fluid.

The rigid is the fundie paradigm we all know and love in religious matters but it also manifests in art, literature and politics, as does it's opposite. The fluid is true creativity and is not limited by anything.

Of course I accused her of being 'rigid' because she is subordinate to her beliefs but this need not be so. An Astrologer could well update their knowledge constantly as they learnt more and then they would be 'fluid'.

The strange thing we discovered through our debate though is that neither the 'fluid' or 'rigid' is right or wrong. There are many 'fluid' thinkers who we disagree with - for example, both Bush and Blair are 'fluid' and not in the least Fundie. They both view the truth as malleable, in fact, it is what they say it is at any given time. This is the antithesis of Fundamentalism.

I think we agreed that in some circumstances rigidity or literalism is the correct approach but I'm not sure - as I say, she was/is somewhat distracting in many regards and the mind tends to wander.

[MarcUK]

hmm, a fundamentalist astrologer :lol:

isn't the problem that everyone is fundamentalist and fluid at the same time? Perhaps they are imagined distinctions used to attack an idea if you dont agree with it. Could you accuse someone of rigidly sticking to fluid thinking all the time? Maybe you could accuse bush and blair of being fluidly fundamentalist?

[segovius]

hmm, a fundamentalist astrologer :lol:

isn't the problem that everyone is fundamentalist and fluid at the same time? Perhaps they are imagined distinctions used to attack an idea if you dont agree with it. Could you accuse someone of rigidly sticking to fluid thinking all the time? Maybe you could accuse bush and blair of being fluidly fundamentalist?

Yes, I think that is true but then - imo - we are all many things at the same time. my personal belief is that we are composed of many differing and separate personalities. Many of these may be 'fluid' and many 'rigid'. In extreme Fundie cases the ration might be 99% rigid!

Because we are composed of many personalities and are unaware of this in the main - again imho - then there is no such thing as the cohesive individuality that we all believe we possess. Imo, this is the 'mystery' of the Mystery Schools and all esoteric teaching is a method of describing this schizoid nature and , more importantly, unifying the human personality into one single essence.

Interestingly, if you look at scriptures in tis way, many things will become clear: concepts of 'sleep' and 'enlightenment', Islamic focus on 'oneness', being 'born again', the Twelve Disciples (and Zodiac signs) as metaphors for the various personality types we all possess.

So I would say that Bush and Blair have many personalities, fluid, rigid and all degrees in between. The chilling thing is - as with all of us - they are unaware of this and do not realize they constantly contradict themselves depending on which personality is 'in control' at the time.

[Powerdoc]

Yes, I think that is true but then - imo - we are all many things at the same time. my personal belief is that we are composed of many differing and separate personalities. Many of these may be 'fluid' and many 'rigid'. In extreme Fundie cases the ration might be 99% rigid!

Because we are composed of many personalities and are unaware of this in the main - again imho - then there is no such thing as the cohesive individuality that we all believe we possess. Imo, this is the 'mystery' of the Mystery Schools and all esoteric teaching is a method of describing this schizoid nature and , more importantly, unifying the human personality into one single essence.

Interestingly, if you look at scriptures in tis way, many things will become clear: concepts of 'sleep' and 'enlightenment', Islamic focus on 'oneness', being 'born again', the Twelve Disciples (and Zodiac signs) as metaphors for the various personality types we all possess.

So I would say that Bush and Blair have many personalities, fluid, rigid and all degrees in between. The chilling thing is - as with all of us - they are unaware of this and do not realize they constantly contradict themselves depending on which personality is 'in control' at the time.
We do not have differents personalities, unless you suffer a rare form of schizophrenia.

It's just that our personality has differents faces, and that some poeple are very good to show the face they want. Some other are very rigid, and can only display one particular face. Some other are fluid and can show many of them. In a sense great actors are very fluid

[segovius]

We do not have differents personalities, unless you suffer a rare form of schizophrenia.

It's just that our personality has differents faces, and that some poeple are very good to show the face they want. Some other are very rigid, and can only display one particular face. Some other are fluid and can show many of them. In a sense great actors are very fluid

I suppose it depends on the definition of 'personality'. I think I mean that we can all hold contradictory views and values that emerge at different times in different company and under certain conditions.

[MarcUK]

Yes, I think that is true but then - imo - we are all many things at the same time. my personal belief is that we are composed of many differing and separate personalities. Many of these may be 'fluid' and many 'rigid'. In extreme Fundie cases the ration might be 99% rigid!

Because we are composed of many personalities and are unaware of this in the main - again imho - then there is no such thing as the cohesive individuality that we all believe we possess. Imo, this is the 'mystery' of the Mystery Schools and all esoteric teaching is a method of describing this schizoid nature and , more importantly, unifying the human personality into one single essence.

Interestingly, if you look at scriptures in tis way, many things will become clear: concepts of 'sleep' and 'enlightenment', Islamic focus on 'oneness', being 'born again', the Twelve Disciples (and Zodiac signs) as metaphors for the various personality types we all possess.

So I would say that Bush and Blair have many personalities, fluid, rigid and all degrees in between. The chilling thing is - as with all of us - they are unaware of this and do not realize they constantly contradict themselves depending on which personality is 'in control' at the time.

sorry, im going to have to bore you for a minute, and expose my fundamentalist personality disorder, but in relation to the topic that was started, and seeing as one day I am going to extract this information from you before I die, it might as well be today -

It will help if I label my ideas as [fundamentalist] or [fluid] so as we dont get confused.

[fundamentalist]
Paul - imaginary character. Literalist account a pile of steaming dog-turd. Never happened in history, account derived from many sources including astrology(Ophiuchus), Orphism (Apollo and Apollonius) and Josephus
[/end fundamentalist]

[fluid]
Paul - metaphorical account of the struggle of oneself as one decides whether to embrace the teachings of 'gnosis' having had glimpses of the visions of the inner-self through realization of the Christ, or to reject the visions and rebel against making the choice to operate in unision with the conscious self. Describes the breakdown of resistance to knowledge from a faith based starting point. Eventually realising that both Jesus and Paul are metaphorical states of the same person - which is why some scholars attribute many things and sources to both these characters - which in a literal sense cannot be true, but in a metaphorical sense describe truthfully the journey from ignorance to knowledge.
[/end fluid]

:D

[Powerdoc]

I suppose it depends on the definition of 'personality'. I think I mean that we can all hold contradictory views and values that emerge at different times in different company and under certain conditions.
I was choosing the medical description of personality. Here multiple personalities is a psychiatric disorder.

For the rest I agree with you. We are full of contradictions by essence.

[MarcUK]

I was choosing the medical description of personality. Here multiple personalities is a psychiatric disorder.

For the rest I agree with you. We are full of contradictions by essence.

stupid french fundie :p think fluidly dear boy!

[segovius]

sorry, im going to have to bore you for a minute, and expose my fundamentalist personality disorder, but in relation to the topic that was started, and seeing as one day I am going to extract this information from you before I die, it might as well be today -

It will help if I label my ideas as [fundamentalist] or [fluid] so as we dont get confused.

[fundamentalist]
Paul - imaginary character. Literalist account a pile of steaming dog-turd. Never happened in history, account derived from many sources including astrology(Ophiuchus), Orphism (Apollo and Apollonius) and Josephus
[/end fundamentalist]

[fluid]
Paul - metaphorical account of the struggle of oneself as one decides whether to embrace the teachings of 'gnosis' having had glimpses of the visions of the inner-self through realization of the Christ, or to reject the visions and rebel against making the choice to operate in unision with the conscious self. Describes the breakdown of resistance to knowledge from a faith based starting point. Eventually realising that both Jesus and Paul are metaphorical states of the same person - which is why some scholars attribute many things and sources to both these characters - which in a literal sense cannot be true, but in a metaphorical sense describe truthfully the journey from ignorance to knowledge.
[/end fluid]

:D

Exactly - now you approach wisdom Grasshopper! :D

The thing is that EVERYTHING is both true/untrue, rigid/fluid or whatever you wish to label all at the same time. How you look at it depends on which filter you are looking with.

Some of us are aware of the filters, some can even choose which ones to use. Most people are unaware and slaves of their filter. Hence the violence and aggression caused by religion and politics.

So if everything is subject to this dichotomy - which you clearly illustrate in your example - then what makes 'teachers', 'Prophets' or 'Scriptures' any different from (say) Hello magazine or John Smith down the pub?

Well, certain things are conscious of this split and illustrate this. All Scriptures would be an example, as would religions themselves and figures such as Jesus who spoke in parables for this very reason. Another classic example would be the Mulla Nasrudin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasrudin) figure who is both foolish and wise at the same time.

[Powerdoc]

In a sexual point of vue, in order to reach the fluid, you have to be rigid :D

[segovius]

In a sexual point of vue, in order to reach the fluid, you have to be rigid :D

Damn, should have thought of that when I was trying to think of examples for the Astrologer :D

[MarcUK]

ive found a few Nasrudin stories. Love this one

Nasrudin was at a football game. He had been shouting until half-time, and felt thirsty.
'I'm going to get a drink of water,' he told his friend.
'And one for me,' said the friend.
In a few minutes Nasrudin came back.
'I tried to have a drink of water for you, but I found, after I had had my own drink, that you were not thirsty after all.'

[Placebo]

Über-hot. :D
Then you'll be obliged to make "baby, what's your sign?" jokes as often as you can.

[sammi jo]

I was arguing with a New Age Flakey friend of mine last night - she believes wholeheartedly in Astrology (and even has some views worryingly similar to those of MarcUK) and is resistant to any form of scientific rationalism.

It is well known that Astrology is a steaming pile of dog-turd but the interesting thing (to me) is why so many people believe it in defiance of any rational thought process. Clearly several planets were unknown at the time of the 'systems' formulation and this itself is enough to disprove the bunkum.

There's "astrology" you find in tabloids and magazines, Blackpool or Coney Island etc.. where the entire population is arbitarily divided into 12 approximately equal size groups .... well..that's quite obviously a 100% "steaming pile" as you put it. Then there's personal readings by astrologers who get into far more "precision" (whatever the appropriate term is).. such as time of birth (the more accurate the better, preferably to the exact minute), exact latitude and longitude of location at birth...(preferably to the exact minute), etc. I have no clue whether any of this is any more "valid" than what you read in the tabloids.. but I had a personal reading done once and I was quite amazed at how accurately I was "read", such as details of my past that nobody could have known, etc. I almost felt as if I had been set up! But I put it more down to the intuitive ability of the reader, than anything that could be attributed to some hocus pocus new-agey pseudoscience.

I don't have any idea if this extra "accuracy" is any more significant than the tabloid approach....to be generous, perhaps it could be given a 95% on the "steaming dog-turd" scale? Could there be anything of value, re. the art of astrology, within that 5%?

However, a huge amount of people believe in it. Even US presidents have employed astrologers, as have royalty, prime ministers and military leaders of numerous countries. I'm not suggesting for a solitary second that this makes it any more real, but it is amazing just how many people implicitly believe in baseless myth, with little or no scientific validation or proof. How many people believe in the concept of a virgin birth? Billions! or milk flowing from the nostrils of a Hindu elephant statue? or a human walking on water, or the "ability" of a lama to levitate, or a yogi to bilocate? How many people believe that 3 skyscrapers could collapse, unaided by any force other than gravity, into their own footprints with perfect symmetry, at freefall acceleration?

It's hardly a wonder that astrologers, religious honchos, and an army of snake-oil salesmen and merchants of myth are raking in the dough, when the scientific literacy/general knowledge of the general public is so embarassingly inept that, for example, only 13% of Americans aged 18-24 can find Iraq on a map despite the fact there's been a war raging there for 3 years. :wow:

But there is another interesting contra-argument ((interesting from a scientific/rationalistic view as few people are aware of it): there is a thirteenth sign Ophiuchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus).

Ophiuchus is positioned between Scorpius and Sagittarius and its dates are Dec 1 - Dec 15. Its symbol is a man wrestling with a serpent and is known as the 'Serpent Bearer'.

Many writers have argued that the man wrestling with the serpent is in fact Jesus himself (or an earlier figure on which the Jesus motif was projected) and that this is why the sign has been suppressed - in order to keep the Christian/pagan motifs submerged.

Interesting stuff.

That screws things up somewhat. How does/did that effect the periods covered by Scorpio and Sagittarius? How come the sudden assymetry, with unequal divisions at the end of the calendar year? How does this fit into the system as derived from the precession of the equinoxes?

[MarcUK]

That screws things up somewhat. How does/did that effect the periods covered by Scorpio and Sagittarius? How come the sudden assymetry, with unequal divisions at the end of the calendar year? How does this fit into the system as derived from the precession of the equinoxes?

well, it means that alot of people are wandering around believing in the wrong star-sign if you're that way disposed. People claiming to be astrologers are reading the wrong information about people, so the fact that some people claim Astrology is 'real' is probably a load of BS, unless they're reading from the 13 zodaic hymn sheet. Never mind the fact that because of precession, the actual zodiac has shifted somewhat from its historical origins, meaning Leo's arent Leo's, Librans aren't Librans, and Ophiuchians aren't anyone. For instance, in the year 2006, the sun enters leo on the 11th August and leaves on the 16th September, but officially, the sign of Leo is from July 23rd to August 24th.

Then there are all the astronomical bodies that weren't known about when these astrological systems were devised - as segovius says, and the fact that although there are roughly 30 days +/- 1 for each sign, a quick check on StarryNight, shows that the length of time the sun spends in each zodiac is a very rough approximate of the reality in the sky.

Anyway, a 13 month calendar was used in the ancient world, and the year was divided up into 13 months of 28 days, which gives 364, with one day reserved as the special day of God.

Why we have 12 months now, I dont actually know - strangely! but it sure divides up well to give us 3 months of 4 quarters - so I suspect it has something to do with a change of religious thought somewhere in history. 12 has alot more symmetry than 13, so as symmetry is one of the 'signs' of order and thus God, 12 is more godly than 13 -Maybe from the people who later come to worship the cross symbology - Followers of Tammuz-

[MarcUK]

Hey, just had a quick look on starrynight, and infact there is a huge gathering of planets around the sun on...wait for it......11h:11m:11s on 11/11/2006. In Libra as well - the sign associated with "Balance and Judgement" - Spooky! Must mean the end of the world!

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/mysteries/photos/1111.jpg

[segovius]

Apparently Ophiuchus was dropped from the Western Zodiac because of a combination of factors - one of which may have been the distaste for the number 13 (!).

Interestingly, the Greek Zodiac had Ophiuchus but no Libra and there is some evidence that the switching was due to a battle between Solar and Lunar religious conceptions.

Actually Western Astrology is based on a very different system than that of the Ancient World which uses the Sidereal Zodiac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_zodiac). Therefore when modern astrologers refer to the ancient roots of their practice they are not comparing like with like at all.

[MarcUK]

I just had a quick look up my birthdate. I have believed that my star-sign was Libra for the last 30 years, but in actual fact, on my birthdate, the sun is very clearly in Virgo...and virtually on top of Uranus.

Maybe Astrology is right afterall. :\

[MarcUK]

Interestingly, when I was at school, athough I didn't know anything about astrology I did notice a few coincidences about the people in our school year.

At our school, we were divided up by academic success into three groups, top, middle and the politically correct Special Requirements.

Obviously I was in top group :D - but one thing that struck me was that most of us in top group were born between September and December of 1975

My friends in middle, were born on average between April and August 1976

And strangely, people I have never really got on well with, were always born Jan,Feb and March. Infact people born in February - i have a high tendancy fall out with.

Interestingly, although it might sound a bit odd, quite of a few of my best friends at school were Christians, and seem to have been born in April and May.

[blackbird_1.0]

My birth date is 2/23/82, what's my real sign? So far, I've thought it was Pisces.

[MarcUK]

My birth date is 2/23/82, what my real sign? So far, I've thought it was Pisces.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/mysteries/photos/blackbird.jpg

[blackbird_1.0]

Thanks. Cool graphic.

[maimezvous]

This whole discussion is very interesting. I have always been interested in Astrology, but not enough to seriously believe in it. I am also very interested in psychics. I had an interesting experience with one once and I would love to go to another one. I was told once that all psychics do is read your personality and they are very good at it. The more you talk to them the more they can learn about you and then give you advice/guess at what your future might entail.

MarcUK, do you mind looking up my sign? My birthday is November 1, 1988. According to the general grouping, I'm a Scorpio.

[MarcUK]

This whole discussion is very interesting. I have always been interested in Astrology, but not enough to seriously believe in it. I am also very interested in psychics. I had an interesting experience with one once and I would love to go to another one. I was told once that all psychics do is read your personality and they are very good at it. The more you talk to them the more they can learn about you and then give you advice/guess at what your future might entail.

MarcUK, do you mind looking up my sign? My birthday is November 1, 1988. According to the general grouping, I'm a Scorpio.

yes, i think psychics are really uber-smart psychologists that didn't formally take the profession - to some extent. Also, when I was looking up toxoplasmosis the other day, i came across a few really little known cool things, that show that some physical traits express emotional states, perhaps they know this aswell. - I wouldnt go showing your hands to people you might want to keep things secret from :D

Anyway, having consulted the Oracle at Delphi, I see that you are really a few degrees to the Libran side of the boundary between Libra and Virgo.

As a general rule, most people's star-signs are about 1 sign out. Look to the previous sign for the correct one. It takes about 2000 years to shift by one sign, so that pretty much covers everyone here, except maybe unless segovius is one of those wise old gits thats lives over 2000 years.

[maimezvous]

yes, i think psychics are really uber-smart psychologists that didn't formally take the profession - to some extent. Also, when I was looking up toxoplasmosis the other day, i came across a few really little known cool things, that show that some physical traits express emotional states, perhaps they know this aswell. - I wouldnt go showing your hands to people you might want to keep things secret from :D

Anyway, having consulted the Oracle at Delphi, I see that you are really a few degrees to the Libran side of the boundary between Libra and Virgo.

Thanks MarcUK. Maybe you aren't as much of a jerk as a lot of people believe here on AI. :lol:

[segovius]

Thanks MarcUK. Maybe you aren't as much of a jerk as a lot of people believe here on AI. :lol:

:lol:

[MarcUK]

:lol:

:lol:

I wonder who could probably think that :err: :D

[maimezvous]

Segovius, I have a question for you. I could just read PO and get my answer, but that would require a lot more reading than if I just ask you. Where do you stand religiously? I have read some of your threads in PO and I generally agree with you point of view. Same question for you MarcUK.

[segovius]

Segovius, I have a question for you. I could just read PO and get my answer, but that would require a lot more reading than if I just ask you. Where do you stand religiously? I have read some of your threads in PO and I generally agree with you point of view. Same question for you MarcUK.

Umm....I'm not sure. Depends on which me is answering and they're all asleep right now.

:D

I suppose if pressed I would have to say I was a secular Muslim (ie I don't pray regularly, don't go to the mosque often and drink frequently and shag women a lot), probably quasi-Ahmadiyya with a few strong Shi'i leanings in some things.

Then again, as I see no contradiction between essential Islam and Christianity I would be quite happy to be labeled (or label myself) a Christian. I believe both in a certain way and see no contradictions in this.

I don't think it matters much, it's only label and not one I feel I need. it's between you and God isn't it? And after all, I've never met a Christian who believed I was also one and most Muslims I know seem to think I am some sort of heretic. It's amusing really. But if you are asking what I believe rather than what I regard myself as then I suppose I would say that the Qur'an and Bible are the truth when viewed in a certain way and a lie when viewed in another. Depends on who's looking and understanding. To me they are both true but not in a literal sense and their purpose is to evolve our understanding. Because of this they often state 'false' things to make us think for ourselves (or not in the Fundies case but then this is what Jesus says: "I speak in parables so they will not understand") but that does not make them false in themselves.

That pretty much sums it up - add an occult/magic/ritualistic aspect and a Fortean overview and you pretty much have it.

[MarcUK]

In front of the toilet

[maimezvous]

Umm....I'm not sure. Depends on which me is answering and they're all asleep right now.

:D

Ok, way to dodge the question. You don't really have to answer if you don't want to. I was just wondering. It would be interesting to find someone who agrees with me on my views about religion.

[segovius]

Ok, way to dodge the question. You don't really have to answer if you don't want to. I was just wondering. It would be interesting to find someone who agrees with me on my views about religion.

Sorry for brevity - thought better of my churlishness and edited with something that might possibly pass for authentic.

;)

[segovius]

In front of the toilet


I once heard someone say: "When it comes to perverted sex I stand behind Mary Whitehouse every inch of the way".

I like to think it was a Fundie preacher but it could well have been a mate down the pub.

[MarcUK]

Ok, way to dodge the question. You don't really have to answer if you don't want to. I was just wondering. It would be interesting to find someone who agrees with me on my views about religion.
so whats your view then?

[maimezvous]

Sorry for brevity - thought better of my churlishness and edited with something that might possibly pass for authentic.

;)

:lol: Thanks. I do agree with you a lot. Especially on the "it's between god and you" bit. I can't stand organized religion. The concept is alright, it's just the people it creates that I have a hard time putting up with. Their literal translation of the bible as direct truth from god irks me some too. I don't believe that god wrote the bible through the disciples. I believe that Jesus was a just a cool guy and he was able to do some pretty cool things, and his followers were just witnesses and their accounts are not necessarily accurate. When I told one of my very religious christian friends she tried to convince that if Jesus was not god then he was a demon, because he was telling people that he was god. I find that ridiculous.

[segovius]

:lol: Thanks. I do agree with you a lot. Especially on the "it's between god and you" bit. I can't stand organized religion. The concept is alright, it's just the people it creates that I have a hard time putting up with. Their literal translation of the bible as direct truth from god irks me some too. I don't believe that god wrote the bible through the disciples. I believe that Jesus was a just a cool guy and he was able to do some pretty cool things, and his followers were just witnesses and their accounts are not necessarily accurate. When I told one of my very religious christian friends she tried to convince that if Jesus was not god then he was a demon, because he was telling people that he was god. I find that ridiculous.

Well, some people have a psychological need to justify themselves. They only do this if they have some doubt or there is an element of imbalance.

People who know how to fix TVs or speak French don't form organizations to prostletyze and go screaming about it to all and sundry, getting incandescent with rage if you deny the existence of France or Television sets. They just laugh.

It's always helpful I find to never listen to them but rather just watch them. Hours of fun - and of course you don't have top hear what passes for their ideas which is a bonus. Seriously, switch off from them and just observe them. You can discover many Americas.

Sounds like you're on the right track and have little to worry about now or in the hereafter. Well, maybe you have to worry a bit about the people who will tell you you're going to hell but we must have compassion for all sentient beings no? father, forgive them and all that... :D

[maimezvous]

Well, some people have a psychological need to justify themselves. They only do this if they have some doubt or there is an element of imbalance.

People who know how to fix TVs or speak French don't form organizations to prostletyze and go screaming about it to all and sundry, getting incandescent with rage if you deny the existence of France or Television sets. They just laugh.

It's always helpful I find to never listen to them but rather just watch them. Hours of fun - and of course you don't have top hear what passes for their ideas which is a bonus. Seriously, switch off from them and just observe them. You can discover many Americas.

Sounds like you're on the right track and have little to worry about now or in the hereafter. Well, maybe you have to worry a bit about the people who will tell you you're going to hell but we must have compassion for all sentient beings no? father, forgive them and all that... :D

I do that quite often actually. I have a friend that is an atheist and another, the one mentioned before, that believes that god is everything good. It interesting to pit them against each other in a religious argument. I think that I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it didn't create such stubborn closed minded people. They will never admit that they are wrong or that their beliefs may be based on a mixture of religions that existed before Christ did.

[MarcUK]

Well, some people have a psychological need to justify themselves. They only do this if they have some doubt or there is an element of imbalance.

People who know how to fix TVs or speak French don't form organizations to prostletyze and go screaming about it to all and sundry, getting incandescent with rage if you deny the existence of France or Television sets. They just laugh.


which begs the question I have been wrestling with for some time. Lets use me as an example...

Suppose I know that if I was to rant on about something (lets say Sun_Gods - for a completely random choice) for a while AND as I also knew that a psychologist would also define this behaviour as trying to justify myself - and if I was trying to be smarter than a psychologist, yet still carried on....well what does that say.

It would seem every thread in AO/PO is someone trying to justify themselves or straigthten out the imbalance, but if we all knew that it betrays some subconscious fault with ourselves, then it would either be an empty place, or perhaps we would have outsmarted the psychologists?

[edit] to sum up, what would a psychologist do if he knew his behaviour was being monitored by another psychologist, whom he was monitoring? - could be a whole can of worms:D

[segovius]

which begs the question I have been wrestling with for some time. Lets use me as an example...

Suppose I know that if I was to rant on about something (lets say Sun_Gods - for a completely random choice) for a while AND as I also knew that a psychologist would also define this behaviour as trying to justify myself - and if I was trying to be smarter than a psychologist, yet still carried on....well what does that say.

It would seem every thread in AO/PO is someone trying to justify themselves or straigthten out the imbalance, but if we all knew that it betrays some subconscious fault with ourselves, then it would either be an empty place, or perhaps we would have outsmarted the psychologists?

[edit] to sum up, what would a psychologist do if he knew his behaviour was being monitored by another psychologist? - could be a whole can of worms:D

Imo, all such behaviour is a means of coming to terms with an underlying issue. I rant about Fundies for example so I have an issue there. No question. Obviously I know what the issue is and any Fundie who calls me on it is invariably wrong about its true nature but that's another story.

Imo it can be like therapy. if you hate spiders and force yourself to touch them every day then maybe you are curing yourself of the phobia. Or maybe you are making it far worse.

All depends on you. Only 'God' (and maybe you) knows the true situation - everyone else with an opinion is merely indulging in onanism. Even if they are coincidentally right.

[segovius]

I do that quite often actually. I have a friend that is an atheist and another, the one mentioned before, that believes that god is everything good. It interesting to pit them against each other in a religious argument. I think that I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it didn't create such stubborn closed minded people. They will never admit that they are wrong or that their beliefs may be based on a mixture of religions that existed before Christ did.

Yes, this is the main problem with religion - although it is both true and not true at the same time, it has reached stasis.

That is to say, its rules are rules that are true but for a specific time. Imo, the Islamic sharia was specific to 7/8th century Arabia and the teaching of Jesus was specific to that group of disciples he gathered.

Of course the two are in essence the same but projected in differing cultural frameworks - people who say that one religious formulation applies for all time and is the same everywhere are essentially saying that humans are everywhere the same, at all periods and n all regions. I dispute this.

There are similar (and worse) problems on the theological level that can be used to disprove this 'static' position (which is essentially the Fundie/literalist position.

For example, the God described in the Old Testament and Qur'an - although He differs in certain respects - is in no way a static God. He reacts. He changes His mind. He considers things and decides on specific courses of action - these courses of action are subject to human interaction in some cases: He obeys the pleas of Prophets to change His decisions for example. In fact, the whole concept of petitioning God with prayer is based on this conception and people would not pray if they did not believe God was 'flexible' in His decisions.

But - they have a false position in many cases, especially Fundies - because they do not in fact conceive of a flexible God. There God is rigid. What He said 2000 or 1500 years ago is unchangeable and the same for all time. The Fundie God does not evolve and develop over time as does the OT/QWur'anic God - He is mired in a timewarp thousands of years old and a prisoner of it. Of course He is not God in this case but a metaphysical construct to alleviate psychological pressures but you know what I mean....

[Placebo]

The problem with religion is that it's based on doctrine that itself states that everything extolled within that doctrine is unquestionable truth; therefore to question it or to compromise beliefs to a more reasonable hybrid of religion and logical thought is deemed illegal.

[segovius]

The problem with religion is that it's based on doctrine that itself states that everything extolled within that doctrine is unquestionable truth; therefore to question it or to compromise beliefs to a more reasonable hybrid of religion and logical thought is deemed illegal.

Yes, where that happens it is the big problem but I think it is not possible t make such a blanket statement as most religions are the opposite of dogmatic when they are first formulated. The dogmatism is the result of interference later on by people who don't quite cut it and have to bring it down to their level.

For example - in Islam there was originally a doctrine called ijtihad which essentially meant it was a DUTY for all Muslims t question all religious proclamations (and everything else) and, by extension, the religious authorities.

Obviously, such a doctrine cannot be allowed to last long or the power-possessors will find themselves questioned. It is still an essential part of the religion though even though it has been 'removed'.

Exact similar processes occurred in Christianity where the figure of Christ was morphed into a Vicarious Atonement and as such took away personal searching and questioning.

[soulcrusher]

scientific rationalism.

I have never heard that term.

[benzene]

This is almost completely offtopic, but I still think it's kinda funny.

My wife and I visited the Houston science museum last weekend, (the museum itself mostly sucks, except for a few sections), and were enjoying the very extensive and strikingly beautiful crystal/mineral exhibit.

I noticed two women slowly moving their hands in front of the protective glass of several crystals, and gently chanting something. They were evidently new-age crystal worshippers of some kind.

My wife, who can't leave well enough alone, went up to one and asked "So, you getting anything?".

I about died.


Oh, excuse me. I'm off to worship the crystals in my salt shaker.

[blackbird_1.0]

My wife and I visited the Houston science museum last weekend, (the museum itself mostly sucks, except for a few sections), and were enjoying the very extensive and strikingly beautiful crystal/mineral exhibit.

I noticed two women slowly moving their hands in front of the protective glass of several crystals, and gently chanting something. They were evidently new-age crystal worshippers of some kind.

My wife, who can't leave well enough alone, went up to one and asked "So, you getting anything?".:lol:

[evathediva]

In response to personalities: Based upon what i've seen, we as humans, have the same personalities. We just choose to exhibit the range of personalities as we see fit, within the circumstances we experience.

[@_@ Artman]

Richard Dawkins - The Enemies Of Reason - Part1 - Slaves to Superstition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&q=richard+dawkins+reason&total=121&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Dawkins points to some of science’s achievements and describes it as freeing “most of us” from superstition and dogma. Picking up from his superstition-reason distinction in The Root of All Evil? (while recycling some footage from it), he then says reason is facing an “epidemic of superstition” that “impoverishes our culture” and introduces gurus that persuade us “to run away from reality”. He calls the present day “dangerous times”.

He returns to science’s achievements, including the fact that, by extending our lifespan, it helps us to better appreciate its ‘other’ achievements. He turns his attention to astrology, which he criticizes for stereotyping without evidence, and he tries an experiment in which 20 people of various star signs is asked if the verdict for Capricorn applies to them, while being told it is their ‘own' star sign. The result was that the one Capricorn person did not believe it, but some of the others did. Dawkins is warned against the experiment by the astrologer Neil Spencer, and Dawkins tells him he is in a no-lose situation. “I hope so, yes”, replies Spencer.

Having put astrology to the test and referred to larger-scale experiments, he then talks about the real beauty in astronomy, and then expresses frustration that 50% of the UK population – more than are members of one religion – believe in the paranormal.

Found it informative and quite humorous. Thought I'd share it.