I would never sue Captain Kirk.
Now I'll sue you.

Where's Joe Pesci?

I would never sue Captain Kirk.

Especially not when he is holding a gun that big. :)

You were exaggerating what he'd said so you could say that not everything in the Bible was historical.

Darkie, he/she/it twisted what I said about Christianists who pick and choose what they want to impose on people into "raping women" but you didn't jump all over him for it.

Why do you even bother responding to me? Seriously.

What about the direct commands? Like not wearing clothes made from two different types of cloth? How about being able to sell your daughter into slavery?

I noticed you had to twist what I said into something about "raping women" even though that wasn't what I was talking about... but Dark didn't jump all over you for it... how typical. :rolleyes:
I don't see that he twisted anything. When he used that analogy, he wasn't even arguing with anything you said.

I don't see that he twisted anything.

Gee...what a suprise. :rolleyes:

Dark.. you are talking to a brick wall.. egoists are always right... and yet the people on their side of the fence claim to be more "open" and "freethinkers" LMAO....

I did happen to use a simple analogy... basing it off if darma's claim that you either take the bible literally or pick and choose....

And they he DID exagerrate, and did his patented "rope-a-dope" in order to not be cornered. Geez some people can never stay on topic.

Darkie, he/she/it twisted what I said about Christianists who pick and choose what they want to impose on people into "raping women" but you didn't jump all over him for it.

Why do you even bother responding to me? Seriously.
All he was saying was that it's obvious to pretty much everyone which messages of the Bible are the main ones. What he said about "raping" women was stupid, but I believe he was saying it in response to FT's literal interpretation of one part of the Bible, since it didn't even make sense as a response to what you said. I'd like to hear what Decka has to say about this.

Dark.. you are talking to a brick wall.. egoists are always right... and yet the people on their side of the fence claim to be more "open" and "freethinkers" LMAO....

I did happen to use a simple analogy... basing it off if darma's claim that you either take the bible literally or pick and choose....

And they he DID exagerrate, and did his patented "rope-a-dope" in order to not be cornered. Geez some people can never stay on topic.
I don't think he really meant to say that you either "take the Bible literally or pick and choose". You just misunderstood what he was saying; you didn't "deliberately twist his argument around". Although maybe that was what he was trying to say... I don't think so. I think he was referring to Christians as people who take the entire Bible metaphorically, not the entire thing literally.

I'd like to hear what Decka has to say about this.

Somehow I am guessing it will be incoherent, rambling and semi-insulting in a poor-grammer sort of way... pretty much the usual.

Somehow I am guessing it will be incoherent, rambling and semi-insulting in a poor-grammer sort of way... pretty much the usual.
:lolhit: He can be coherent when he really tries... Although his grammar skills sometimes need work. ;)

I'd like to hear what Decka has to say about this.

About what exactly...

About what exactly...
Well it's cleared up now that we know you weren't intentionally misconstruing his argument, you just assumed he meant something that, although it might be a logical extension of what he said if you think about it, he didn't mean.

True.. and i really didn't even say it directly to him.. i just said it as a general statement just in case it came off that way.. and then big suprise he had a heart attack over it.

Although some people often claim to always take the Bible literally, this is an empty claim.

Take for example Isiah 41:9--"I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you."

Does the earth have "ends" or "corners?"

It is no more an empty claim than mine when I say that my farts could kill dandelions.

Can my farts kill dandelions? Probably not, but you still wouldn't want to be my little brother when I decide to torture him a little bit.

How could a scientist PROVE religion is a "meme" anyway... you can't PROVE that God is NOT around..and you can't prove he IS around...

?!?

You seem to be trying to equate a meme as being a de facto assertion that the idea being promoted and nurtured by the meme is inherantly false.

That is not what science is talking about when it determines a thing or an idea is a meme. Certain styles of fashion are memes. Can a fashion style be proven to be "false"? No.

and you can't prove he IS around... Why can't we just say we don't know?

We don't know.

I am not saying that we do and science is not saying that we do.

The field of memetics is of the ways that scientists have for explaining how certain beliefs that are irrational or that have no basis in reality can still -amazigly-- have such widespread propagation and adherance.

I am simply pointing out that those people holding to the Xtian belief system are infected with a belief -- a meme-- that there is an unseen supernatural entity responsible for magically creating the entire universe......and that said belief is not consistent with the objective reality that surrounds us.

Most rational people, for instance, would agree that it is insane to claim --as the Bible does-- that people who have been long dead and buried can rise from their graves and stroll around.

... i hate egoists.

"Religious people often accuse atheists of being arrogant and placing ourselves in the position of god, but really it is the theist who has all the vanity. The religionist is an ignorant coward who can't stand to think that he will ever cease to exist"".____Marian Noel Sherman

If it was so irrational how could it continually produce such positive results?

The fact that it produces "good" results at times does not mean that it cannot also produce some very horrifying and negative results.

My understanding of "meme" is that it is a derrogatory rhetorical metaphor, not a rigorous scientific concept. I am unaware of any thorough scientific research basis that supports the term.

What about the direct commands? Like not wearing clothes made from two different types of cloth? How about being able to sell your daughter into slavery?

Give a monotheistic moral absolutist a gruesome command from his holy book and watch him turn into a raving relativist before your very eyes...

Christian: Morality is absolute and clearly set out in the bible!
Atheist: How about being able to sell your daughter into slavery?
Christian: You have to look at the socio-cultural historical context.

I am simply pointing out that those people holding to the Xtian belief system are infected with a belief -- a meme-- that there is an unseen supernatural entity responsible for magically creating the entire universe......and that said belief is not consistent with the objective reality that surrounds us.
The idea that an unseen supernatural being could have created the small, dense pocket of matter that became the Big Bang is not farfetched at all. Science has no idea where that matter came from.

Well it's cleared up now that we know you weren't intentionally misconstruing his argument

We do? Speak for yourself.

He purposely misconstrued what I said, as usual.

Hmmm what is another mind virus....

Being a paranoid obsessive conspiracy theorist??

Oh.. that's nothing.. but christianity.. its gotta go


ROTFL

We disagree.

Saying --"The Christian belief system is an example of a meme"- is in no way an insult. The truth is not an insult.

Yes, but you fail to show any kind of proof, whatsoever. All you have stated is personal opinion. Which is subject to reflect the person saying it. To bad for you.

Yes, but you fail to show any kind of proof, whatsoever. All you have stated is personal opinion.

That is not correct.
He was stating the work of a scholar in post #175.
He even quoted him.

My understanding of "meme" is that it is a derrogatory rhetorical metaphor, not a rigorous scientific concept. I am unaware of any thorough scientific research basis that supports the term.

Amen.

That is not correct.
He was stating the work of a scholar in post #175.
He even quoted him.


What kind of scholar?

What kind of scholar?

It doesn't matter. You claimed he "showed no proof whatsoever" and was only stating his personal opinion. You were not correct.

It doesn't matter. You claimed he "showed no proof whatsoever" and was only stating his personal opinion. You were not correct.

If he based his opinion off of nothing other then someone else' opinion then its personal opinion.

If he based his opinion off of nothing other then someone else' opinion then its personal opinion.

1. You claimed he "showed no proof whatsoever". You were clearly wrong.

2. The burden of proof is on you to show that the scholar he quoted was only giving his "personal opinion".

1. You claimed he "showed no proof whatsoever". You were clearly wrong.

2. The burden of proof is on you to show that the scholar he quoted was only giving his "personal opinion".


No its not, man, if I werent such a Christian I swear I'd flat out call you an asshole. Only with more style.

The burden is on him to back up his claim with more proof then that of a what a single person says. All he has stated so far is opinion, there is no proof to back up meme and if there is he needs to provide it.
Then, after providing that he needs to show where his theory is possible through the use of meme.

I personally cannot see how post #175 proves Christianity is a mind virus in any sense whatsoever. Memetics is pseudoscience that makes atheists sound silly and arrogant, IMO.

Wow, Memetics. That a new one one me, and to be honest, it sounds like a bunch of flying bullocks. You cant call someones way of thinking a virus. Its simply a choice, things are there for you to decide on. You can choose to believe whatever you want too.

I come into this thread a little late, but cannot resist making some comments on the subject of memes. The idea is relatively new, but a productive insight.

The idea is that there exists a natural selection among human ideas, and, while care is needed not to take Darwinism too far, it still has, I think, immense utility in helping us understand things. The idea is that idea systems, such as religions, that persist do so largely because they have characteristics within them that give them advantages over other systems.

A good place to look at this is why did Christianity succeed at the expense of other very similar groups such as Mithraism, let alone classical paganism and the semi-religious philosophical systems such as Stoicism or NeoPlatonism.

The Christian will of course say it is because of God's spirit working at the time, along with its being the Truth. Those with a good knowledge of the history of the time see it differently--in the end Christianity won because Constantine found it convenient, in his usurpation of the throne, to enlist the Christians (who at the time represented about ten percent of the population).

Now, how is it that the Christians turned this political advantage into conquest? Within a generation Rome was Christianized--mainly by force of law enforced by means of persecution of all who did not follow the orthodox lead.

The question is why hadn't a pagan element, who had had political power previously, suppressed the Christians? The stories of pagan persecution of Christians tells a tale--they were generally inventions designed to rationalize what the Christians were doing.

The fact is that Christianity, when seen as a meme, had within it the ideological justification for brutal suppression of other religions--something which ancient Paganism lacked. The teaching that those who did not follow Jesus were inevitably condemned to eternal damnation made it imperative that alternate voices be suppressed.

Memetics is pseudoscience

Gee.

That would make Dr. Richard Dawkins a "pseudoscientist".

He is an evolutionary biologist.

He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and has been since 1995. He was also one of the pioneers in --and most respected researchers in the world in-- the field of memetics.

Maybe you should write to Oxford University and inform them of how the pseudoscientist Dr. Dawkins has duped them. For 12 years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Richard Dawkins responds in "A Devil's Chaplain" that there are actually two different types of memetic processes. The first is a type of cultural idea, action, or expression, which does have high variance; for instance, a student of his who had inherited some of the mannerisms of Wittgenstein. However, he also describes a self-correcting meme, highly resistant to mutation. As an example of this, he gives origami patterns in elementary schools – except in rare cases, the meme is either passed on in the exact sequence of instructions, or (in the case of a forgetful child) terminates. This type of meme tends not to evolve, and to experience profound mutations in the rare event that it does. Some memeticists, however, see this as more of a continuum of meme strength, rather than two types of memes.

Another definition, given by Hokky Situngkir, (a computational sociologist) tried to offer a more rigorous formalism for the meme, memeplexes, and the deme, seeing the meme as a cultural unit in a cultural complex system. It is based on the Darwinian genetic algorithm with some modifications to account for the different patterns of evolution seen in genes and memes. In the method of memetics as the way to see culture as a complex adaptive system, he describes a way to see memetics as an alternative methodology of cultural evolution. However, there are as many possible definitions that are credited to the word "meme". For example, in the sense of computer simulation the term memetic programming is used to define a particular computational viewpoint.

Memetics can be simply understood as a method for scientific analysis of cultural evolution. However, proponents of memetics as described in the "Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission" believe that 'memetics' has the potential to be an important and promising analysis of culture using the framework of evolutionary concepts. Keith Henson who wrote Memetics and the Modular-Mind (Analog Aug. 1987) makes the case that memetics needs to incorporate Evolutionary psychology to understand the psychological traits of a meme's host. This is especially true of time-varying, meme-amplification host-traits, such as those leading to wars. See "Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War".

Gee.

That would make Dr. Richard Dawkins a "pseudoscientist".

He is an evolutionary biologist.
He wears two hats. One is as an exceptional biologist, the other is as an okayish atheism populariser.

His contribution to biology has been outstanding but I take issue with certain ideas he has about culture and beliefs. For that matter I find Dawkins' views on the philosophy of the scientific method pretty simplistic and shaky.

Maybe you should write to Oxford University and inform them of how the pseudoscientist Dr. Dawkins has duped them. For 12 years.
Professor Dawkins. And just because something is academic doesn't mean I have to accept it.

I find Dawkins' views on the philosophy of the scientific method pretty simplistic and shaky.

My goodness!

Let me dash off a missive to Oxford immediately, and tell them of their grave error.

And just because something is academic doesn't mean I have to accept it.

People of your intellectual bent will probably find it easier --and far more comforting-- to simply dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts the spiritualist worldview as being nothing but "pseudoscience".

My goodness!

Let me dash off a missive to Oxford immediately, and tell them of their grave error. What grave error - employing an exceptional biologist who has made outstanding contributions to human knowledge?

People of your intellectual bent will probably find it easier --and far more comforting-- to simply dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts the spiritualist worldview as being nothing but "pseudoscience".I have read most of Dawkins books and watch most of his lectures. I am an atheist, a materialist and in no sense a spiritualist. Doesn't mean I have to agree with everything a particular high-profile atheist says.

For a more rigorous and convincing account of the scientific method try philosopher Nicholas Rescher; for a more rigorous and convincing discussion of the nature of beliefs try philosopher Daniel Dennet. Both atheists, both academics and both more enlightened than Dawkins on these particular issues, IMO.

It's called free-thought not free-speech - try quietening down and thinking for a change my hot-headed godless comrade.

People of your intellectual bent will probably find it easier --and far more comforting-- to simply dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts the spiritualist worldview as being nothing but "pseudoscience".

I find it interesting and not a little distressing that you feel the need to insult everyone who doesn't accept your version of the truth in toto. Is everyone else just a litle dumber than you?

We disagree.

Saying --"The Christian belief system is an example of a meme"- is in no way an insult. The truth is not an insult.

Truth is relative to perspective in many, many cases.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I find it interesting and not a little distressing that you feel the need to insult everyone who doesn't accept your version of the truth in toto. Is everyone else just a litle dumber than you?
Tries to bring us down to his level and beats us with experience.

I find it interesting and not a little distressing that you feel the need to insult everyone who doesn't accept your version of the truth in toto.

Whenever I am first insulted by them, I simply take the gloves off and tell these people what I think of them. Agreement or non-agreement with my so-called *version of the truth* is in no way the motivating factor.

Is everyone else just a litle dumber than you?

Everyone? No. Not at all.

In the case of those puling defenders of the sanctity of religious/superstitious belief, i'd lean strongly toward yes.

Whenever I am first insulted by them, I simply take the gloves off and tell these people what I think of them. Agreement or non-agreement with my so-called *version of the truth* is in no way the motivating factor.



Everyone? No. Not at all.

In the case of those puling defenders of the sanctity of religious/superstitious belief, i'd lean strongly toward yes.

Wheres Borg, to tell you you love the straw man? :lolhit:

What grave error - employing an exceptional biologist who has made outstanding contributions to human knowledge?

Oh. I thought you had suggested that, due to his involvement with research into memetics, he was a pseudoscientist.

For a more rigorous and convincing account of the scientific method try philosopher Nicholas Rescher; for a more rigorous and convincing discussion of the nature of beliefs try philosopher Daniel Dennet.

I'll stick with Dawkins for the clearest explanantion of the effect of memes on ostensibly rational people.

Both atheists, both academics and both more enlightened than Dawkins on these particular issues, IMO.

We disagree. I find Dawkins more convincing.

It's called free-thought not free-speech - try quietening down and thinking for a change my hot-headed godless comrade.

I see.

When you bombastically pronounce memetics a pseudoscience, (and then a few posts later pontificate on the superior erudition of Rescher and Dennet) you were not being a 'hot head'.

When i confront you on it and take pains to explain what memetics is, I need to "quieten down" because I am guilty of "not thinking". :rolleyes:

Nice spin.

_____________________________________

"Consider this. If a paranormalist could really give an unequivocal demonstration of telepathy (precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, whatever it is), he would be the discoverer of a totally new principle unknown to physical science. The discoverer of the new energy field that links mind to mind in telepathy, or of the new fundamental force that moves objects around a table top, deserves a Nobel prize and would probably get one. If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake." -------Richard Dawkins

Oh. I thought you had suggested that, due to his involvement with research into memetics, he was a pseudoscientist.It does undermine my opinion of him as a scientist, but not my opinion of his work on biology.

I'll stick with Dawkins for the clearest explanantion of the effect of memes on ostensibly rational people.

We disagree. I find Dawkins more convincing.Fair enough - though somewhat surprising. Rescher is arguably the leading expert on scientific philosophy, and Dennet on beliefs, in the way that Dawkins is the expert on biology.

When you bombastically pronounce memetics a pseudoscience, (and then a few posts later pontificate on the superior erudition of Rescher and Dennet) you were not being a 'hot head'.Yes - airing a general opinion about memetics and philosophy is not being hot-headed.

Wheres Borg, to tell you you love the straw man? :lolhit:
Everyone knows that FT loves the straw man, we don't need to point it out after every one of his posts.

Everyone knows that FT loves the straw man, ....

Name one.

Name one.
::shrug:: I'm not really good at picking out the different propaganda techniques, but if someone points 'em out I know. BTW, I wasn't saying that's a bad thing. Having a good grasp of convincing techniques is a great thing to have. :)

To be fair DF, if you're going to make accusations, you have to back them up, otherwise, it's better to just retract the statement.

Back on topic:
I don't see these meme's as inherently bad; humans are social creatures, so it's only natural that we mold ourselves to the surrounding community along common threads. These threads make the group stronger and more fit to survive. All it amounts to are social trends.

With that said, this whole thread began on an outrageous tone. Freethinker, you're attacking people who aren't there. I don't think there's anyone here who takes the Bible as the, "every word was written by god", gospel truth. Then, when someone with the more moderated view replys, you attack that response as being a cop-out, and somehow you have won. Despite what you may think, this is not an all or nothing deal; people have varying degrees of faith in God, the Bible, or the structure of Christianity itself. This is akin to equating the everyday Muslim to being a fanatic wacko with a Jihad on everybody and their dog.

Just my 3 cents.

Ok, I'm gonna go drink some chocolate milk and calm down.

To be fair DF, if you're going to make accusations, you have to back them up, otherwise, it's better to just retract the statement.

::sigh:: I know, I'm wrong. I don't generally win any arguments or discussions...

Keep an eye towards those mechanics, sweetie, and you'll be blowing them away in no time.

Keep an eye towards those mechanics, sweetie, and you'll be blowing them away in no time.
I'd rather not take your advice, seeing as how I've seen how you argue...

Name one.
Today, 1:52 PM.
And an example of that would be.............what?

Oh wait! I forgot.

Superstitionists aren't real big on providing 'examples'.

We are expected to take it on "faith".
Granted, it was in response to a straw man from SMW, but that doesn't really excuse you.

I'd rather not take your advice, seeing as how I've seen how you argue...
Fair enough. Do it your own way, then.

That is not correct.
He was stating the work of a scholar in post #175.
He even quoted him.

I guess you get any old chap to write an article and its instant fact.. who woulda thought?

I guess you get any old chap to write an article and its instant fact.. who woulda thought?
No one claimed it was a fact. "expert" testimony is indeed a form of evidence, or support, albeit one that is not often as widely accepted as statistics (although considering the accuracy of most statistics, that doesn't make sense). Anyways, the claim was that he had provided NO evidence at all beyond his personal opinion, not that he had provided no accurate evidence, and that claim was wrong.

We don't know.

I am not saying that we do and science is not saying that we do.

Well then quit smearing the crap out of it, and i'll remember you said that.


I am simply pointing out that those people holding to the Xtian belief system are infected with a belief -- a meme-- that there is an unseen supernatural entity responsible for magically creating the entire universe......and that said belief is not consistent with the objective reality that surrounds us.

So you would prefer humans to be more like robots? No, i know thats not what you said. But many people will testify that God does alot for them, drives them to be better, is the main cornerstone in their life. Those who choose not to believe can try to label it as some kind of "disorder"... go right ahead. Just know that its disrespectful to some people, and it's quite a touchy subject for them.

Most rational people, for instance, would agree that it is insane to claim --as the Bible does-- that people who have been long dead and buried can rise from their graves and stroll around.

Miracles normally are insane.

You would have been insane to have bet on Buster Douglas when he fought Mike Tyson.

I've watched people be cured of cancer overnight.. doctors having no clue as to how it happened. Is it coincidence that they were highly religious people? I'll let you be the judge.


"Religious people often accuse atheists of being arrogant and placing ourselves in the position of god, but really it is the theist who has all the vanity. The religionist is an ignorant coward who can't stand to think that he will ever cease to exist"".____Marian Noel Sherman

Well thanks Mr. Sherman, your opinion is noted.. but I at least can admit that there is something in the world that is bigger than myself.. which many athiests and religion-bashers have a tough time doing. I would call Sherman not too bright, because death is definitely something to be afraid of. You've never done it before, you don't know what's going to happen, and you'll never be able to come back. I would hope Sherman sky-dives, plays russian roulette, and lives a daring lifestyle to be calling people out who fear death.



The fact that it produces "good" results at times does not mean that it cannot also produce some very horrifying and negative results.

People like you always sing and announce the once-in-a-while "negative results".. and fail to acknowledge or respect the multitude of positive results. It probably pisses you off that the church does alot of good because you hate it so much.

No one claimed it was a fact. "expert" testimony is indeed a form of evidence, or support, albeit one that is not often as widely accepted as statistics (although considering the accuracy of most statistics, that doesn't make sense). Anyways, the claim was that he had provided NO evidence at all beyond his personal opinion, not that he had provided no accurate evidence, and that claim was wrong.

I never said he had NO evidence.. but im glad you cleared the air for us all

I never said he had NO evidence.. but im glad you cleared the air for us all
I know you didn't say it, but someone said it, and that is the claim to which dharmabum was responding.

Well then quit smearing the crap out of it, and i'll remember you said that.

Smearing what?

So you would prefer humans to be more like robots?

I don't care if they're like robots or not. But if they are basing their lives on superstitious nonsense, I like to point it out.

But many people will testify that God does alot for them, drives them to be better, is the main cornerstone in their life.

It is no more to the point to say that Christians are happier than non-Christians than it is to say a drunk man is happier than a sober one.


Those who choose not to believe can try to label it as some kind of "disorder"... go right ahead. Just know that its disrespectful to some people, and it's quite a touchy subject for them.

If I see a man about to jump off a building because he believes he can fly, should I leave him alone so as to not seem *disrespectful* to his belief?


Miracles normally are insane.

You would have been insane to have bet on Buster Douglas when he fought Mike Tyson.

Douglas beating Tyson was a rare occurence.

For me, rare occurances are not to be instantly deemed a *miracle* just because they are rare or seem hard to understand..


I've watched people be cured of cancer overnight.. doctors having no clue as to how it happened. Is it coincidence that they were highly religious people?

Yes.


Well thanks Mr. Sherman, your opinion is noted.. but I at least can admit that there is something in the world that is bigger than myself. which many athiests and religion-bashers have a tough time doing.

Ok.

You believe there is "something in the world that is bigger than yourself".

Religionists believe there is "something in the world that is bigger than themselves".

What I would ask of them is that they do not expect me to operate from the same belief, and that they not try to force me to join them in said belief.

I would call Sherman not too bright, because death is definitely something to be afraid of. You've never done it before, you don't know what's going to happen, and you'll never be able to come back. I would hope Sherman sky-dives, plays russian roulette, and lives a daring lifestyle to be calling people out who fear death.

You need quite a bit of help with reading comprehension.

It is not implicit in Sherman's statement that she herself does not 'fear death'. Her point is simply that religionists have employed a cowardly stratagem for facing said fear of death.

""As Freud said, Christianity is the most egotistical of the religions. It is based on the premise "Jesus saves me"...." --------Marian Noel Sherman

People like you always sing and announce the once-in-a-while "negative results".. and fail to acknowledge or respect the multitude of positive results.

The negative results have been a bit more than "once in a while". The Crusades, the Inquisition, the New England Witch Hunts, the Sunnis versus the Shiites, the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Jones and David Korresh, just to name a few.

It probably pisses you off that the church does alot of good because you hate it so much.

I am very encouraged and pleased whenever I see the churches providing (as they quite often do) material things for people; food and clothing and shelter.

It is their indoctrination of those people with hatred for "the other" that causes me to despise religion.

"""Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric
Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are
the sky-god religions. They are,literally, patriarchal---God is the omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in
those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires
total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him
must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can
truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.
One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home."______Gore Vidal

Smearing what?


Smearing religion.. christianity to be specific. You just claimed we "don't know" but yet you bash anyone who believes in it...


I don't care if they're like robots or not. But if they are basing their lives on superstitious nonsense, I like to point it out.


I thought we didn't know? I told you i'd remember you said that. The fact that we don't know means that it's a possibility.


It is no more to the point to say that Christians are happier than non-Christians than it is to say a drunk man is happier than a sober one.


Not ALL christians are happier than non christians... but christianity DOES help some people to be happy. And to nit-pick, some people are angry drunks. I never said "christians are happier than non christians".. you put those words in my mouth. I just stated that Christianity has helped many people to get through their lives, and many successful people base their lives on it.


If I see a man about to jump off a building because he believes he can fly, should I leave him alone so as to not seem *disrespectful* to his belief?


There are many problems with your analogy:

1. If you don't believe in christianity, your life doesn't end immediately

2. Christianity is a wide-spread, highly accepted beleif.. while a man who thinks he can fly is probably believed by himself and no others. I know the amount of people doesn't ALWAYS mean they are right, but for so many respected, successful, and level-headed people to accept religion and christianity into their lives... don't you think that says something about the product? Obviously there is something about it that produces positive results. Obviously it's not just some idea some nut came up with. If it were, than people would have abandoned the religion long ago.


Yes.


I figured you would...


Ok.

You believe there is "something in the world that is bigger than yourself".

Religionists believe there is "something in the world that is bigger than themselves".

What I would ask of them is that they do not expect me to operate from the same belief, and that they not try to force me to join them in said belief.


I am not forcing you to join in my belief.. so who are you talking to? I know there are idiot christians who want to scold anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs,and if I witness that i make sure i let them know that the way they are going about things is dead wrong. But you surely aren't talking about me, because i don't have the priority of "changing" anyone into a christian.. i can only tell them what i believe and they can come to their own conclusions


You need quite a bit of help with reading comprehension.

It is not implicit in Sherman's statement that she herself does not 'fear death'. Her point is simply that religionists have employed a cowardly stratagem for facing said fear of death.


I wonder what would be a more "heroic" way of facing a fear of death than? Almost everyone believes in an afterlife.. whether it be reincarnation, heaven, hell, spiritual realm, dimensions, magnetic fields... are they ALL cowards? The religion that they choose to believe CALLS and PROMISES that they will be rewarded in the afterlife... So don't call them a "coward" for "fearing death".. they are merely following their religion. Thats like calling a guy who runs away from a fight a "coward"..even if there is a house falling from the sky about to kill them all, and he escapes. He might have been a "coward" for running, but in the grand scheme of things he was only trying to survive.


""As Freud said, Christianity is the most egotistical of the religions. It is based on the premise "Jesus saves me"...." --------Marian Noel Sherman


Saying "Jesus saves me" and being egotistical are at OPPOSITE ends of the spectrum. The fact the christians can admit that THEY aren't the master of their domains, that THEY can GIVE UP their lives to God.. that is pure sacrafice. Of course not all christians are great examples.. myself included... but a true christian is someone who says "I give my life up, God.. take the stearing wheel"... i don't see how that is egotistical in any sense.


The negative results have been a bit more than "once in a while". The Crusades, the Inquisition, the New England Witch Hunts, the Sunnis versus the Shiites, the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Jones and David Korresh, just to name a few.


They happen, not denying that.. but not nearly as much as the millions of churches over the world who feed the needy, help the poor, heal the sick, clothe the homeless, and invite and respect anyone who shows interest in their belief..


I am very encouraged and pleased whenever I see the churches providing (as they quite often do) material things for people; food and clothing and shelter.


good, its nice to see you can actually respect the church for SOMETHING and let go of a little bit of that religious hate

I never said he had NO evidence.. but im glad you cleared the air for us all

The original quote I was responding to, that you decided to argue with me about, was in fact:
Originally Posted by Inviolable
Yes, but you fail to show any kind of proof, whatsoever. All you have stated is personal opinion.

You aren't even a good liar.

Since the story says that Jesus was in the tomb for parts of three days and nights, it seems inconsistent for him to have said the guy would be with him "today" in paradise.

Taking scripture literally since it was based on the culture, language, etc., of it's time is difficult in today's world of "instant gratification". I don't think that is what Christ meant but only to say that his "faith" saved him from the fires of hell (not sure if there is fire or not but definitely the denial of being in God's presence).

Various Catholics I've talked with have had various definitions of Jesus' quote to the thief.

One person said that Jesus gave that man special consideration; another, a Catholic priest, said that the definition of the word "today" was not what most people took it to mean.

Be that as it may, it appears a cruel dogma and one not supported by any teachings in Scripture--a soul literally being neither here nor there until enough prayers combined with monetary donations served to speed the soul to Paradise.

You don't have to give a "monetary dontation" to speed the soul to "Paradise" but you can pray for them. Say a Rosary, prayers for those in purgatory, etc. - all can be done COST FREE in the privacy of your home!

There is no mention of PURGATORY in scripture but scripture does state repeatedly that GOD IS JUST. Is it JUST in your opinion for a murder w/out remorse to go to heaven vs. an innocent child who is murdered by that individual? I don't think that would happen.

PLEASE REMEMBER... saying "yo-God I'm sorry I did that and not meaning it does not constitute a "True Confession".... GOD is not STUPID... but I do believe HUMANS can be!

It is my understanding that a Catholic communicant has to pay, even but a little, for a Mass Card, in order for the priest and congregation to say prayers for the dead.

John Calvin:

"The doctrine of purgatory ancient, but refuted by a more ancient Apostle. Not supported by ancient writers, by Scripture, or solid argument. Introduced by custom and a zeal not duly regulated by the word of God… we must hold by the word of God, which rejects this fiction."


From wikipedia:

Among some systems, Protestant disbelief in "purgatory" partially centres on the idea that it implies that Christ's blood sacrifice on the cross was insufficient to save humanity in whole and represents a human desire to perform some works that can "assist" them through into Heaven. Also important to some versions of this position is the notion that purgatory explicitly contradicts the doctrine of sola fide, which entails a categorical shift from "not saved" to "saved" rather than a gradational one. Protestants following this doctrine believe that all those who have faith in Christ are justified freely by his grace and require no more purgation than the cleansing of Christ's blood taken on when a new Christian is clothed in Christ and born again through baptism.

The Catholic teaching of purgatory may not be scriptural, but I have seen a good case that Hell is not scriptural either.

Regardless, purgatory has an immense advantage over the Protestant version, where most people are condemned to eternity in perdition. Infinite punishment for finite offenses (the "sins" committed during a short human liftime are punished through eternity) is an absurdity.

(For that matter, so is infinite reward in paradise for the good things done in a finite human lifetime).

Therefore many Protestants have to give up entirely the Biblical notion of justice in favor of the later invention of "grace," warping a passage from Paul (and ignoring the rest of the NT) to achieve this.

You aren't even a good liar.

How could i lie when im not even the one who said anything?

geez talk about eager beaver over here

How could i lie when im not even the one who said anything?

geez talk about eager beaver over here
what do facts have to do anything?!

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Smearing what?

Smearing religion.. christianity to be specific. You just claimed we "don't know" ....

I was talking about atheists "not knowing".

Atheists do not know.

...but yet you bash anyone who believes in it... thought we didn't know? I told you i'd remember you said that.


That is because the religionists DO claim (with absolutely no proof whatsoever) to "know".....and to not only "know", but to have intimate knowledge of it



.....christianity DOES help some people to be happy

It is no more to the point to say that Christianity has "made some people happy" than it is to say that alcohol has made some people who drink it hapoer than those who don't.




Obviously it (religion) is not just some idea some nut came up with.

We disagree.

But you surely aren't talking about me, because i don't have the priority of "changing" anyone into a christian..

Here is what I said.

""What I would ask of them is that they do not expect me to operate from the same belief, and that they not try to force me to join them in said belief.""

Please note the sixth word.

I wonder what would be a more "heroic" way of facing a fear of death than?

To acknowledge that when we die, we go to the same place that a pigeon or a cat or a cockroach "goes to".

Into the ground.

Almost everyone believes in an afterlife..

And 'almost everyone' is infected with the religious meme.

....whether it be reincarnation, heaven, hell, spiritual realm, dimensions, magnetic fields... are they ALL cowards?

Yes. As it concerns fear of death.

The religion that they choose to believe CALLS and PROMISES that they will be rewarded in the afterlife... So don't call them a "coward" for "fearing death".. they are merely following their religion.

The very fact that they **choose** to believe ought to tell you something

Saying "Jesus saves me" and being egotistical are at OPPOSITE ends of the spectrum.

I could not disagree more.

Regardless, purgatory has an immense advantage over the Protestant version, where most people are condemned to eternity in perdition. Infinite punishment for finite offenses (the "sins" committed during a short human liftime are punished through eternity) is an absurdity.

.

This is a belief maintained by ultra -Conservative Protestant sects and one not accepted by the more liberal denominations, i. e, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, or Anglicans/Episcopalians.
Their viewpoint are, in a nutshell:

Salvation
Various beliefs: Some believe all will go to heaven, as God is loving and forgiving. Others believe salvation lies in doing good works and no harm to others, regardless of faith. Some believe baptism is important. Some believe the concept of salvation after death is symbolic or nonexistent.

As there are about 2000 Protestant sects you may imagine how widely varying the viewpoints are--and, curiously, one of the more extremely-radically conservative sects, the Scottish Presbyterians under John Knox, have morphed and evolved into one of the more liberal sects. Interesting how viewpoints change over time.

How could i lie when im not even the one who said anything...


Anything intelligent? Anything relevent? Yeah, I have learned not to expect either of those from you. :rolleyes:

"This [Hell] is a belief maintained by ultra -Conservative Protestant sects and one not accepted by the more liberal denominations." --Rendova

I fear you mislead a little here: Hell is clearly the majority Protestant view. While many downplay it (rejecting the torture part), it does no good to make it seem that Hell is not the belief of most Protestant Christians.

As such most Protestants believe, unfortunately, in a teaching that is harmful and, as far as I can see, slanders God.

Your remarks about sin are of a similar thrust. Sin is still the core Christian bugaboo--that we are inherently evil and deserving of perdition. This is a bad way to help people live happy, productive lives.

I have no doubt there is much good in Christianity, and readily defend it against the more radical anti-religionists. At the same time, it does no good to try to cover over the bad areas. They need repeated airing so that the liberal and loving approaches can advance.

This is a belief maintained by ultra -Conservative Protestant sects and one not accepted by the more liberal denominations, i. e, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, or Anglicans/Episcopalians.
Their viewpoint are, in a nutshell:
I have never met a Christian who did not believe in Hell, and I've met all those denominations you've mentioned. I find it odd that these subjects all believe in the concept that their church rejects, so I must question your statement.

Some have a belief in Hell, some do not.


From "Presbyterians Today Online" March 2000

"In a 1996 Presbyterian Panel survey only 51 percent of members and 46 percent of pastors said they believed in hell.

Why?

Hell has always been theologically troublesome, because it goes straight to the question of who God is: How do grace and judgment, or love and justice, mix in the divine mind? Are unrepentant sinners ultimately separated from God, the source of all life and hope, which is torment enough, or are they, literally, tortured for eternity? It is hard to talk about hell because this is hard stuff to talk about, but also because the Scriptures are not clear.

"It's a theological problem," says Brian Blount, associate professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. "God is all-forgiving and all-loving, but might cast some people into a lake of fire. Theologians have been working on this for a long time."

While poets may write about a hell chock-full of fallen angels and hopelessly wicked sinners who are scheduled for unimaginable and endless torment, the Biblical narrative is more ambiguous. Jews had no concept of the soul until encountering Persian influences in their Babylonian exile and the Greeks' highly evolved mythology. Zoroastrian tales of the cosmic clash in which goodness and light ultimately overwhelm evil and darkness were integrated into Jewish tradition as a way of offering relief to people living in captivity. The Hebrew underworld, Sheol, was seen much like the Greek Hades, where the dead rested after life, although admittedly tyrants rested less well there.

There are only two clear references in the Hebrew Bible to punishment for the wicked. Isaiah 30 condemns tyrants to "a burning place" and Daniel 12 condemns the sinful to "shame and everlasting contempt," without further details.

Anticipation of an accountable afterlife does not appear common until the period between the Old and New Testaments. New Testament writers picked up images like fiery lakes and winnowing forks from the later Jewish writings to make the point that it matters how people live.

The actual words hell or Hades appear only about 25 times, and they offer different views of what goes on there. Sometimes hell is a place where those who oppose God reside, with much weeping and gnashing of teeth--depicting separation from God as intolerable in and of itself. At other times hell is seen as more dire, and definitely penal. There are angels in chains in 2 Peter, and the lake of fire in Revelation, where sinners may either writhe in flames forever or be destroyed by the fire itself. Scholars still argue about the texts that can be read either way: hell as punishment or as destruction.

Paul is not much help either. While he is clear about there being behaviors that keep people out of the Kingdom, he is not very precise about what happens next. He talks much more about the life of the blessed than any kind of punishment--teetering, his critics say, on a kind of universalism that calls for the reconciliation of all things.

"It's just not there in the Scriptures," says Eugene March, longtime professor of Old Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, speaking of a Dante-esque hell ruled by Satan to punish the wicked. He argues that contemporary readers often impose concepts on Biblical texts. "A hell in the sense that we talk about hell is a concept of the Middle Ages. Once you have that notion of hell, you may read about the 'lake of fire' or Gehenna (a garbage dump outside Jerusalem that burned perpetually) and say, 'Oh, that is what hell is.' But the text does not support it.

"What you begin to get is a notion of some form of punishment for the sake of justice." March believes the Biblical writers were looking for ultimate divine justice as a response to their own history of injustice and suffering.

But when Augustine systematized these theories in the 400s, he created a view of hell that became the standard for the Roman Catholic Church and just about everyone else--a penal hell, where sinners are justly punished, not destroyed, and where repentance no longer does any good. There was also a literal heaven and a purgatory, where sins may be expiated through penance.

Calvin and Luther both adhered to a strong view of hell, but Calvin at least was no literalist. He wrote: "Many persons . . . have entered into ingenious debates about the eternal fire by which the wicked will be tormented after judgment. But we may conclude from many passages of Scripture that it is a metaphorical expression. . . . Let us lay aside the speculations, by which foolish men weary themselves to no purpose, and satisfy ourselves with believing that these forms of speech denote, in a manner suited to our feeble capacity, a dreadful torment, which no man can now comprehend and no language can express."

"In The Institutes Calvin takes these things as metaphors, as poetic images," says Mark Achtemeier, assistant professor of systematic theology at Dubuque Theological Seminary, who dismisses medieval talk of primordial and sadistic dungeons. "Calvin takes pains to point out that this is not intended to soften the point. These powerful metaphors, if not literal, express something that is every bit as awful as they depict."

The one consistent theme tucked inside all these centuries of theories and Scriptural metaphors is that hell is separation from God, whether you think of it as an actual place or as a state of being. This is how Pope John Paul II recently interpreted the Roman Catholic Church's catechism, to much controversy. Foremost, hell is estrangement and alienation of the worst kind.

Whether you believe that hell is a fiery pit ready-made for unrelenting torture or not, the point is, sin is dangerous. But what happens in hell, whatever or wherever hell may be? Based on his study of Scripture, Blount says, "Though fire is a consistent image, there's no telling what goes on."

The New Testament witness was to proclaim the good news, not the bad. "The apostles," Achtemeier is clear, "didn't go out preaching, 'You'll burn in hell unless you repent.' That is not what came first in the Biblical witness.

"And we moved away from hellfire preaching." But perhaps we moved too far, Achtemeier suggests, so that we lost a sense of God's majesty, which Calvin never did. The consequence, he believes, is the creation of a God who never says no.

Theologian William Placher, who teaches at Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, worries that people today do not take seriously the idea of either hell or sin. "We've fallen into the modern heresy," he says, "that we're all basically pretty good people who don't need comeuppance. If we really thought more about our sin--if we really thought about people starving around the world while we're living in the midst of plenty--we'd worry more about God's grace to forgive us."

The only official Presbyterian statement that includes any comment on hell since the 1930s is a 1974 paper on universalism adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. It warns of judgment and promises hope, acknowledging that these two ideas seem to be "in tension or even in paradox." In the end, the statement concedes, how God works redemption and judgment is a mystery.

The Bible does not give clear and detailed answers to our questions about what happens after death. What we can know for certain is that God's grace is as real as God's judgment--and just as incomprehensible. If we can say at least this much with conviction, then maybe scared little girls who wonder about hell won't have to look just to Dante for help.


Alexa Smith, associate for the Presbyterian News Service in Louisville, Ky., is supply pastor of Valley City Church in Central, Indiana.

[QUOTE=Thislin]"This [Hell] is a belief maintained by ultra -Conservative Protestant sects and one not accepted by the more liberal denominations." --Rendova

I fear you mislead a little here: Hell is clearly the majority Protestant view. While many downplay it (rejecting the torture part), it does no good to make it seem that Hell is not the belief of most Protestant Christians.

As such most Protestants believe, unfortunately, in a teaching that is harmful and, as far as I can see, slanders God.

Your remarks about sin are of a similar thrust. Sin is still the core Christian bugaboo--that we are inherently evil and deserving of perdition. This is a bad way to help people live happy, productive lives.

Quote




It was my understanding that you were referring to the doctrine of predestination, that is, that some are damned no matter what they do, in your statement in yr previous post that "most are damned to an eternity in perdition."

Properly understood, the doctrine of predestination frees us from speculating about who is saved and who is not. God has already taken care of these matters in the mystery of God's own being. We are called to hear God's good news in Jesus Christ and to trust in God through Jesus Christ.

For the preaching of the Gospel is to be heard, and it is to be believed; and it is to be held as beyond doubt that if you believe and are in Christ, you are elected. (Second Helvetic Confession, 5.059)

The doctrine of predestination is to be

"held in harmony with the doctrine of [God's] love to all mankind . . . [and] with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all" (amendment to the Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.192).

Number of True Believers so far who have taken the challenge, put their mouth where their faith is and followed the Biblical admonition that those who "believe in Jesus" can drink poison and suffer no harm....?

0 (zero)

Hmmmmmmm.....

Number of True Believers so far who have taken the challenge, put their mouth where their faith is and followed the Biblical admonition that those who "believe in Jesus" can drink poison and suffer no harm....?

0 (zero)

Hmmmmmmm.....
I did it, if being an atheist counts as being Christian, and Coca-Cola counts as poison.

Anything intelligent? Anything relevent? Yeah, I have learned not to expect either of those from you. :rolleyes:
Decka may not be the brightest pig in the mudpile, but he's always on topic, at least.

Decka may not be the brightest pig in the mudpile, but he's always on topic, at least.
Always the flatterer, aren't ya Nappy? :D

Number of True Believers so far who have taken the challenge, put their mouth where their faith is and followed the Biblical admonition that those who "believe in Jesus" can drink poison and suffer no harm....?

0 (zero)

Hmmmmmmm.....
Decka picked up an asp, and i drank half a liter of 151.

oddly, i could still type too:@@:

Decka picked up an asp, and i drank half a liter of 151.


Decka is a jackasp, and 151 isn't poison.

Tell me that after half a bottle :drinktoth

Decka is a jackasp, and 151 isn't poison.
I should make a Wikipedia entry about the animal the "Jackasp."

I already have two facts ready to type out:
It resides in the hills of Ohio and survives on a diet of Freethinker's mother's feces.

"Properly understood, the doctrine of predestination frees us from speculating about who is saved and who is not. God has already taken care of these matters in the mystery of God's own being. We are called to hear God's good news in Jesus Christ and to trust in God through Jesus Christ." --Rendova

In those terms, what is the point of it all? Christians seem to have invented (discovered?) the idea of free will only to deny it.

I will admit it seems impossible for free will to have any reality in a universe that has an omniscient deity in it (since if he knows what we will do then either He has predestined it or something else that He knows about has done so).

Since I begin with the assumption (it is axiomatic to me) that free will is real, I have to conclude that an omniscient deity does not exist.

(I am careful here to use the term "omniscient" (all-knowing) rather than "infinite" (since infinite knowledge might be a subset of all knowledge).

Moving from predestination to hell to free will in 3 short and snappy posts--

Again, in a nutshell, our Protestant tradition teaches us that there are 2 major schools of thought concerning free will--

Calvinism argues that entry into Heaven has already been predetermined by God - that all those who are Christians have in fact been chosen from the beginning of time to be saved. Faith in Christ is still essential, but the reason why a Christian has faith is because God has chosen them beforehand. Arminians hold a modified form of this doctrine. In this case, a person can choose to have faith in Christ out of their FREE WLL (emphasis added) and is not compelled to by divine power.

Moving from predestination to hell to free will in 3 short and snappy posts--

Again, in a nutshell, our Protestant tradition teaches us that there are 2 major schools of thought concerning free will--

Calvinism argues that entry into Heaven has already been predetermined by God - that all those who are Christians have in fact been chosen from the beginning of time to be saved. Faith in Christ is still essential, but the reason why a Christian has faith is because God has chosen them beforehand. Arminians hold a modified form of this doctrine. In this case, a person can choose to have faith in Christ out of their FREE WLL (emphasis added) and is not compelled to by divine power.

Rendova, I must say that you have put a lot of thought/research into your posts on this subject.

The predetermination beliefs of Calvinism, to me, would fall in line with my belief that we all pass to the same place/plane/state of being.
The hell would be those that can not realize what has happened because it does not fit any preconcieved ideas. Ideas instilled by the mis-information obsorbed by man-made religions while alive.

That's pretty much how I look at things too, Dan.

To me, Hell is merely a separation from God/a Higher Power/the "Father".

Why this happens tho, I do not know.

That's pretty much how I look at things too, Dan.

To me, Hell is merely a separation from God/a Higher Power/the "Father".

Why this happens tho, I do not know.

Instead of a separation it may be a failure of recognition.
Suppose you were expecting a man on a throne in a palace with golden streets out front, and instead came upon a mass of charged particles.
Only an open minded "person" could shift recongnition.

Instead of a separation it may be a failure of recognition.
Suppose you were expecting a man on a throne in a palace with golden streets out front, and instead came upon a mass of charged particles.
Only an open minded "person" could shift recongnition.

This is a very good point.

Would God, being all-knowing, know that we are unable to recognize Him in such a case?
I believe so.

This is a very good point.

Would God, being all-knowing, know that we are unable to recognize Him in such a case?
I believe so.

His knowing would not matter.

The basic teachings would come into play.
If a person was accustomed to loving thy neighbor, regardless of differences, he/she would not turn away.

If such worldly anchors as hate, anger, and fear had been settled, while alive, one could accept the changes and progress.

The basic truths attributed to Jesus are probably a message not only to make a better life here, but as a preparation for the adjustment period afterwards.
A true prophet would have known that it is impossible to live among men and live a perfect life of peace and love. The developed attitude of the teachings, once they become part of your automatic response, would be carried with that which live after us.
Avoiding the hell of a fearful and confusing transition.

[QUOTE=DanF]

.

The basic truths attributed to Jesus are probably a message not only to make a better life here, but as a preparation for the adjustment period afterwards.
A true prophet would have known that it is impossible to live among men and live a perfect life of peace and love. The developed attitude of the teachings, once they become part of your automatic response, would be carried with that which live after us.
QUOTE]

I like this philosophy--it makes sense.

Decka may not be the brightest pig in the mudpile,

There is an understatement.

but he's always on topic, at least.

Except when he is off topic, which isn't uncommon.

The predetermination beliefs of Calvinism, to me, would fall in line with my belief that we all pass to the same place/plane/state of being.

What, then, is the point of our earthly existence? That is, if we end up there anyway, why not just put us there straight off?

When the same individual manifests as two separate identities, it soon begins to become apparent.

What, then, is the point of our earthly existence? That is, if we end up there anyway, why not just put us there straight off?

I don't know, anything I say can be considered speculation of course.
Say we have a soul(s), if it is energy it existed somewhere before inhabiting a body.
The earth visit could be a playground of learning and vacation. A chance to experience the physical pleasures and pains of humanity.

No being would be the same after such an experience;changes would have occured.

It could be that our organic memory can not exchange information, in our direction, from a sub-atomic particle that joined the egg at conception.
See, no one seems to consider what size the soul could be, most consider it invisible.

"And we moved away from hellfire preaching." But perhaps we moved too far, Achtemeier suggests, so that we lost a sense of God's majesty...

:@@: :@@:

Could there ever be anything more absurd --or more gut wrenchingly sadistic-- than invoking the "majesty" of a (purportedly) omnipotent entity being demostrated by and upheld by the circumstance of humankind being constantly reminded that He purposely created a place where humans would be eternally tormented......?!?!?

:@@: :@@:

Could there ever be anything more absurd --or more gut wrenchingly sadistic-- than invoking the "majesty" of a (purportedly) omnipotent entity being demostrated by and upheld by the circumstance of humankind being constantly reminded that He purposely created a place where humans would be eternally tormented......?!?!?

That is certainly a frightening and disturbing interpretation.

I have to wonder what God is up to, creating the world with all its suffering and trouble, if he is the loving God we are told he is.

One speculation is that we are here to learn and evolve. I have trouble with that, since what do we learn? Most people--the vast majority--seem to learn very little. Does that mean that they are subsequently condemned?--no--they go to heaven regardless.

Others seem to learn all the wrong lessons, and end up bitter and hating and mentally ossified.

Another theory is that we are put here to help others, but that flies in the face of the simple postulate that God could avoid the whole thing by not creating a world where others need help.

Then there is the theory that we are here to be tested--but if God knows in advance who will pass and who will not, what is the point?

Long ago I concluded that there is something fundamentally wrong with the basic premise of God creating this world as it is. This world is not a place built for us at all--not for us to be tested or to learn or to show our love for others. This is to "us" centered. The world exists without purpose and we find ourselves in it for reasons we do not understand.

In other words, I think of our existence here as more of a trap we have accidentally fallen into than as the result of some plan.

"See, no one seems to consider what size the soul could be, most consider it invisible." --DanF

The word "soul" expresses the Christian dualistic idea that human beings are composed of two elements--a physical, fleshly element (body and brain) and a spiritual element (soul and mind).

The classical mind-body (the "ghost in the machine") problems arise from this, and have never been solved. The premise seems fundamentally flawed.

Still, it expresses an effort to think about a fundamental mystery--the nature of our mental existence. The modern "materialist" approach is to deny the reality of the problem and assert that we are only machine--that "mind" is an illusion.

(To be sure, most of those who think along these lines do not penetrate fully to the consequences this teaching inevitably entails, retaining cobwebs of the older mode of thinking.)

Materialism flies in the face of what we know--that we exist on a mental plane--that "something," at least, exists that gives our mental existence reality.

That it is a "soul," however, can be dismissed. The union of sperm and egg is a purely physical process with no magical element of soul-creation involved. That we become living spirits later is something that does not seem to happen in one single event but gradually as we develop.

Long ago I concluded that there is something fundamentally wrong with the basic premise of God creating this world as it is. This world is not a place built for us at all--not for us to be tested or to learn or to show our love for others. This is to "us" centered. The world exists without purpose and we find ourselves in it for reasons we do not understand.

In other words, I think of our existence here as more of a trap we have accidentally fallen into than as the result of some plan.This is very interesting. While I agree that our anthropomorphic projections of purpose must invariably skew our understanding of God (and thereby introduce metaphysical contradictions that cannot be resolved) I do not see how that precludes the possibility of a purpose that we cannot fathom. If we could measure the growth of consciousness on our small planet for the duration of it's brief history we would see an exponentially rising curve -- that could, of course, take a precipitous drop at any moment -- but one that nevertheless suggests that the universe as a whole might be experiencing (another anthropomorphism, I know) the same phenomenon on a larger scale. We, as humans, exist as a small point on a curve of possibly infinite scope. From our vantage point the 'purpose' cannot be divined but may still exist.

I have to wonder what God is up to, creating the world with all its suffering and trouble, if he is the loving God we are told he is.

One speculation is that we are here to learn and evolve. I have trouble with that, since what do we learn? Most people--the vast majority--seem to learn very little. Does that mean that they are subsequently condemned?--no--they go to heaven regardless.

Others seem to learn all the wrong lessons, and end up bitter and hating and mentally ossified.

Another theory is that we are put here to help others, but that flies in the face of the simple postulate that God could avoid the whole thing by not creating a world where others need help.

Then there is the theory that we are here to be tested--but if God knows in advance who will pass and who will not, what is the point?

.



St. Augustine wrestled with this problem centuries ago..to paraphrase, he said, "If god is good, he's not all powerful; if he's all powerful, then he's not good."

In Christian theology, Jesus Christ himself met this paradox during his time here on Earth, when he confronted Lucifer, most favored of God's angels and the most beautiful, when the Angel of Light offerd to give Christ all the cities at his command.....note how Lucifer said "give" as they were HIS. Christ called him the "Prince of this Earth" as he knew who was in control here.

Perhaps evil/Lucifer/ a negative force is quite a bit more powerful than we can comprehend..

This is very interesting. While I agree that our anthropomorphic projections of purpose must invariably skew our understanding of God (and thereby introduce metaphysical contradictions that cannot be resolved) I do not see how that precludes the possibility of a purpose that we cannot fathom.

<<Anything is possible; do you have any evidence?>>/I]

If we could measure the growth of consciousness on our small planet for the duration of it's brief history we would see an exponentially rising curve -- that could, of course, take a precipitous drop at any moment -- but one that nevertheless suggests that the universe as a whole might be experiencing (another anthropomorphism, I know) the same phenomenon on a larger scale.

[I]<<I would say that while it is clear the human biomass is increasing, there is no evidence of an increase in human consciousness. Ancient wisdom was as wise as is modern wisdom.>>

We, as humans, exist as a small point on a curve of possibly infinite scope. From our vantage point the 'purpose' cannot be divined but may still exist.

<<Then, again, the universe is overwhelmingly empty.>>



Let me elaborate--the Buddha conceived of our existence in the universe as a trap--we are, according to the allegory, lying in the woods struck by a poison arrow. If this is the reality, it does little good to speculate about the purpose of the arrow and of who may have shot it. We need the antidote.

This insight is, I think, confirmed by the reality of our existence; it is not a pleasant one except when we work hard to make it pleasant, and there is no permanence. Of course we can (and should) enjoy ourselves up to a point, but all pleasures are self-limiting and all desires return.

I am not sure that Buddhism provides the antidote, but I am fairly sure that this is a more productive approach than the myths of the ancient Middle East.