The "All New" Let's Debate Religion Thread

[UniBrier]

Steve,

CUTE!!!

AND...you prevented me from killing this thread...

But...

...theocracy?...Billy,

I apologize. If I had just realized you were going to kill this thread I would have never interfered. Let's see if this will help.


I don't think a modern theocracy would work in terms of God giving direct communications to the masses. Ever since the Kings were put in place we've had to deal with both good and bad rulers and/or prophets.

Are there prophets out there today?

[superiorbalence]

I Am God

[UniBrier]

Then what's your problem with wet weather? (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65183) Can't calm the storm?

[lostconch]

Ok... give us some scientific fact that supports it. lets see what you have to offer. also, can u please explain to me why people become dumber or what not when they have children with their relatives? Not saying thats wrong, im just checking if you graduated high school;) .

Tell you what,, you pick your top scientific reason for the argument of No God,, it would be a little simpler to stick with one thing at a time

[maestro8]

intelligent design is obvious except in the most complex designs known
you pick your top scientific reason for the argument of No God
There are mountains of evidence that support evolution.

You've yet to give us one bit of evidence, other than hand-waving (i.e. "it's obvious"), that supports your argument.

We already know you've got issues with evidence that contradicts intelligent design, but we don't know what evidence you have that supports your position. It's time to lay your cards on the table.

The burden of proof lies on you. Show us your proof or stop trolling.

[Into the blue]

Show us your proof or stop trolling.

Them's fightin' words!

[peleschramm]

Tell you what,, you pick your top scientific reason for the argument of No God,, it would be a little simpler to stick with one thing at a time
ok sure, how bout not no god, but lets disprove the bible, shall we? ok so if the bibles completely true, that would mean that the year was most likely 6,000 years old, definitely no more than 10,000. If you investigate the layers of ice in say... antarctica you can clearly see the amount of years just that block of ice has existed looking at the layers of ice (as seen in "an inconvenient truth", but lets not turn this into a debate on global warming). how do you explain that scientists have been able to examine the ice that was 300,000 years old (looking at the amount of layers of course)? Did the seasons come and go 100 times per year 300 years ago or what?

[BillyTheMountain]

Seriously, my future is really important to me.

In this case, would you recommend astrology or tarot?

Which is superior? Are palm readers even better than BOTH?

I need help here.

BTM

[Borges]

Seriously, my future is really important to me.

In this case, would you recommend astrology or tarot?

Which is superior? Are palm readers even better than BOTH?

I need help here.

BTM
They all have their place.
Palm reading/writing is a good way to let you know what's going on in your future. If you run out of space, notes on the backs of tarot cards works too.
Astrological charts and symbols can make nice ornaments for jewelry and interior decoration.

[GILD]

The crap we surf into when we're not carefull...


One day in school I was given a worksheet. It said that dolphins long ago could walk or crawl on land. Is this statement true or is it evolution? — Jacob of Hendersonville, NC (http://www.discoverymagazine.com/digger/d92dd/d9209ddb.html)

Digger Doug's treatment of the Dead Sea Scrolls is particularly pri (http://www.discoverymagazine.com/digger/d02dd/d0210dd.html)celess.

Muttiah Muralitharan would be proud.

[BillyTheMountain]

They all have their place.
Palm reading/writing is a good way to let you know what's going on in your future. If you run out of space, notes on the backs of tarot cards works too.
Astrological charts and symbols can make nice ornaments for jewelry and interior decoration.

Mr. Borges,

Your response is somewhat ambiguous, I'll take you to mean palm reading is superior to the other two methods for help with the future.

Thank you!

BTM

[UniBrier]

palm reading is superiorI know several people who prefer Palm; but my company's systems are only compatible with BlackBerry for tracking the future.

[phlegm]

One day in school I was given a worksheet. It said that dolphins long ago could walk or crawl on land. Is this statement true or is it evolution? — Jacob of Hendersonville, NC

...Remember Jacob, just because something appears in a book that does not make it true. (http://www.discoverymagazine.com/digger/d92dd/d9209ddb.html)

Wow, that guy knows how to shoot himself in the foot.

Regardless of the validity of evolutionary theory, dolphins never could walk or crawl on land. That would be their ancestors... :rolleyes:

[BillyTheMountain]

The "Stoned Ape" theory of human evolution:
Perhaps the most famous of Terence McKenna's theories and observations is his explanation for the origin of the human mind and culture. McKenna theorized that as the North African jungles receded toward the end of the most recent ice age, giving way to grasslands, a branch of our tree-dwelling primate ancestors left the branches and took up a life out in the open — following around herds of ungulates, nibbling what they could along the way.

Among the new items in their diet were psilocybin-containing mushrooms growing in the dung of these ungulate herds. McKenna, referencing the research of Roland L. Fisher Ph.D. (College of Optometry and Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University)[13] [14] [15] [16], claimed enhancement of visual acuity as an effect of psilocybin at low doses, and supposed that this would have conferred an adaptive advantage. He also argued that the effects of slightly larger doses, including a physical sexual arousal (again, not reported as a typical effect in scientific studies) — and in still larger doses, ecstatic hallucinations and glossolalia — gave evolutionary advantages to those tribes who partook of it. There were many changes caused by the introduction of this drug to the primate diet. McKenna theorizes, for instance, that synesthesia (the blurring of boundaries between the senses) caused by psilocybin led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds.

About 12,000 years ago, further climate changes removed the mushroom from the human diet, which McKenna argued to result in a new set of profound changes in our species as we reverted to pre-mushroomed and brutal primate social structures that had been modified and/or repressed by frequent consumption of psilocybin. However, in McKenna's theory, the psilocybin-induced dominance of humans over other species remained, despite our supposed retrograde evolution.

McKenna did not attempt to defend his hypotheses through rigorous scientific evidence; he self-consciously identified as a type of shaman, or ethnobotanist. McKenna and his followers view his theories as speculation that is at a minimum scientifically feasible and arguably gifted by special knowledge due to psychedelic plants. His hypothesis that psilocybin induced a phase change in human evolution is necessarily based on a great deal of supposition interpolating between the few fragmentary facts we know about hominid and early human history. But perhaps its most significant problem is its inconsistency with natural selection (the central concept of evolutionary theory) which cannot favor any variations, no matter how adaptive, unless they result from an allele or genetic factor. A live recording of his "Stoned Ape" theory can be found on the CD Conversations on the Edge of Magic (recorded live at the Starwood Festival).

[peleschramm]

Wow, that guy knows how to shoot himself in the foot.

Regardless of the validity of evolutionary theory, dolphins never could walk or crawl on land. That would be their ancestors... :rolleyes:
actually, that wouldnt make sense either, because most evolutionists believe that life on land originated from sea-life, not the other way around;) .

[lostconch]

ok sure, how bout not no god, but lets disprove the bible, shall we? ok so if the bibles completely true, that would mean that the year was most likely 6,000 years old, definitely no more than 10,000. If you investigate the layers of ice in say... antarctica you can clearly see the amount of years just that block of ice has existed looking at the layers of ice (as seen in "an inconvenient truth", but lets not turn this into a debate on global warming). how do you explain that scientists have been able to examine the ice that was 300,000 years old (looking at the amount of layers of course)? Did the seasons come and go 100 times per year 300 years ago or what?

Yes you are right as far as I can tell,, If the bible is true 6000 - 10,000 years is the most likely time frame,, not only in generational math but also in the Hebrew numerics and Jubilee year prophecy's,, I gotta be honest though,, I have done much reading on the fossil record, geological column, dating methods, physics of the cosmos, big bang theory, evolutionary theory basically the stuff I have always considered items of contention between the 2 basic rules of thought we are dealing with, you have brought up an issue that has never come up for me before,, i gotta do some reading just to learn what it is all about,,

I can tell you this though as far as other dating methods go,, Short Version,, All the other dating methods are used looking through the eyes of what I guess one could call a uniformity assumption (assuming a CONSTANT / uniformitarianism),, If these assumed constants were not constant in the past then the time frame is off,,

Creation scientists look at all the evidence through the eyes of catastrophy (ism) Which forces a recalibration of the constants,, Both schools are severely diametrically opposed,, One side can not begin to even consider a young universe because the house of cards will fall when you remove the first card,,

The other side is convinced the Word of God is ultimate truth and is convinced the global flood happened as described,, Which laid down most of what we disagree on and find as evidence and how it is perceived..

Possible house fire gotta go....

[peleschramm]

Yes you are right as far as I can tell,, If the bible is true 6000 - 10,000 years is the most likely time frame,, not only in generational math but also in the Hebrew numerics and Jubilee year prophecy's,, I gotta be honest though,, I have done much reading on the fossil record, geological column, dating methods, physics of the cosmos, big bang theory, evolutionary theory basically the stuff I have always considered items of contention between the 2 basic rules of thought we are dealing with, you have brought up an issue that has never come up for me before,, i gotta do some reading just to learn what it is all about,,

I can tell you this though as far as other dating methods go,, Short Version,, All the other dating methods are used looking through the eyes of what I guess one could call a uniformity assumption (assuming a CONSTANT / uniformitarianism),, If these assumed constants were not constant in the past then the time frame is off,,

Creation scientists look at all the evidence through the eyes of catastrophy (ism) Which forces a recalibration of the constants,, Both schools are severely diametrically opposed,, One side can not begin to even consider a young universe because the house of cards will fall when you remove the first card,,

The other side is convinced the Word of God is ultimate truth and is convinced the global flood happened as described,, Which laid down most of what we disagree on and find as evidence and how it is perceived..

Possible house fire gotta go....
Ok. yea i heard a lot of criticizm about the other methods of dating the earth, but i never heard anything against that one. hope your house doesn't burn down lol. yea be sure to reply soon as you've done some reading on the subject.

[phlegm]

actually, that wouldnt make sense either, because most evolutionists believe that life on land originated from sea-life, not the other way around;) .

Perhaps in some cases, but not so for dolphins...? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)

[peleschramm]

Perhaps in some cases, but not so for dolphins...? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)
yea i guess that could be right... except, just reading the intro and a bit beyond that, dolphins/Whales could be actually a sort of transitional species that transitioned from water to land, not the other way around, but idk.

[maestro8]

I have done much reading... basically the stuff I have always considered items of contention
To summarize, lostconch pulls quotes from books to troll people making scientific arguments, but fails to comprehend much of what he reads.

At the same time, he fails to come up with any arguments with which to support his views... which tell us one of two things: 1) he doesn't really believe what he tells us or 2) he hasn't thought through the implications of his beliefs

All the other dating methods are used looking through the eyes of what I guess one could call a uniformity assumption (assuming a CONSTANT / uniformitarianism),, If these assumed constants were not constant in the past then the time frame is off,,
Silly of us to assume... when in reality days used to be 20 hours long, water would freeze at room temperature, circles were square and dogs had six legs.

Seriously, what kind of argument is this? Are you the same guy that wrote the Time Cube site (http://www.timecube.com/)?

Creation scientists look at all the evidence through the eyes of catastrophy
After his 28-week survey of scientific articles in Readers Digest, Mr. Armchair PhD is going to tell us how every scientist thinks and works. Brilliant!

[johnfoss]

Both schools are severely diametrically opposed,, One side can not begin to even consider a young universe because the house of cards will fall when you remove the first cardI think both schools have their houses of cards. The science side can be broken down by punching holes in one or more theories/methods. The Bible side can be broken down by the acceptance of one or more stories or facts as untrue or inaccurate.

I have a lot less problem accepting the Word of God than I do accepting that the Bible is that and only that. A book compiled from so many different sources, over a long period of time, by men. I just have trouble believing everything is still verbatim.
Possible house fire gotta go....What? Hello! Hope everything is okay, please let us know! :eek:

Assuming everything is okay, what a great cliffhanger! I've got to try that one on the next telemarketer that calls...

[BillyTheMountain]

I think he's a fireman, so it's not him or his house in danger.

Like most fireman today, he's at the firehouse, chillin' on-line.

[BillyTheMountain]

I think both schools have their houses of cards. The science side can be broken down by punching holes in one or more theories/methods. The Bible side can be broken down by the acceptance of one or more stories or facts as untrue or inaccurate.


Hey,

This whole debate has finally been settled, and John was right all along. As it turns out, neither evolution nor creative intelligence are true.

The theory that has finallly been proven is Panspermia, that "seeds" of life exist already in the Universe, that life on Earth originated through these "seeds."

Pretty cool, huh?

Billy

[James_Potter]

The theory that has finallly been proven is Panspermia, that "seeds" of life exist already in the Universe, that life on Earth originated through these "seeds.
"exist already"?
So where did they come from?

[peleschramm]

Billy, you do realize that if what your saying is right then that would cancel out creationism but not evolution. That would mean that life on earth had evolved from these "seeds". It actually supports evolution.

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy, you do realize that if what your saying is right then that would cancel out creationism but not evolution. That would mean that life on earth had evolved from these "seeds". It actually supports evolution.

No cigar, Peleschramm.

I've gotten PMs from the creationists claiming Panspermia actually supports them, as well. You're both wrong.

The "theory of Evolution", for those of you who are familiar with it, has specific things to say about how life began on Earth. None of which include theories of Genesis or the recently proven and factually established Panspermia.

[manon1wheel]

What do you guys think about Momonism? I get that "warm fuzzy" feeling everytime one of those missionary guys comes and knocks on my door.
-

[BillyTheMountain]

What do you guys think about Mormonism? I get that "warm fuzzy" feeling everytime one of those missionary guys comes and knocks on my door.
-

Since you asked, my advice to you is to go with that feeling. That's a good feeling, right? That's the hand of GOD reaching down and tickling you with his warm fuzzy. You're lucky to be open to that experience.

See you at the LDS meeting!

Billy

[peleschramm]

The "theory of Evolution", for those of you who are familiar with it, has specific things to say about how life began on Earth. None of which include theories of Genesis or the recently proven and factually established Panspermia.
Evolution isnt really a story though, its an idea really. Its not like the bible were its supposedly true in its entirety. Just because evolutionists once thought life 2 begin on earth doesnt mean that that is evolution and thats that. It may be a theory that was based off of the concept of evolution and that seems to be the case with panspermia. Please tell us exactly how this was proven since im having some dnubts as to whether it really was.

[BillyTheMountain]

Evolution isnt really a story though, its an idea really. Its not like the bible were its supposedly true in its entirety. Just because evolutionists once thought life 2 begin on earth doesnt mean that that is evolution and thats that. It may be a theory that was based off of the concept of evolution and that seems to be the case with panspermia. Please tell us exactly how this was proven since im having some dnubts as to whether it really was.

Yeah Yeah. Now you sound like you're changing the story to fit the evidence.

[peleschramm]

Yeah Yeah. Now you sound like you're changing the story to fit the evidence.
And your telling me thats a bad thing? That is exactly what one should do, keep an open mind and as soon as new evidence comes along make sure the original idea complements the evidence and if it doesnt change it so it is more accurate. And any ways, evolution is simply an idea and people have made theories that are not part of that idea but do complement it. And you still seem to be avoiding the question of how your "fact" was proven, since that still sounds quite fishy.

[manon1wheel]

Yeah Yeah. Now you sound like you're changing the story to fit the evidence.
:)

[BillyTheMountain]

And your telling me thats a bad thing? That is exactly what one should do, keep an open mind.

"An open mind is the devil's workshop."

--BillyTheMountain

[peleschramm]

"An open mind is the devil's workshop."

--BillyTheMountain
Wow that was clever.:rolleyes:

[monkeyman]

Wow that was clever.:rolleyes:
Peleschramm, quit taking him seriously. Billy yanks everyone's chain.

[peleschramm]

This is a debate on a serious matter so i treat all posts seriously, just 2 keep the debate going.

[firetire]

I think he's a fireman, so it's not him or his house in danger.

Like most fireman today, he's at the firehouse, chillin' on-line.

I would guess that he is a volunteer, and his pager went off... depending on the time of the post.

I haven't heard the term 'house fire' in awhile, our agency dispatches them as 'structure fires'.

[BillyTheMountain]

What religion do I consider myself?
If anything, I'm a Uni-Uni.

What do I believe in regards to religious beliefs?
More than anything else, it shows that people can be made to believe anything. ANYTHING! Apparently without limit.

It doesn't really show that.

Knowing that a good percentage of people who regularly attend religions services are atheist, religion shows that people are willing to tolerate harmless stories for the sake of community building.

It's hard to say that even PT Barnum actually showed that, though that's prolly a closer approximation than religion.

Harmful false stories tend to take the form of "The USA is the greatest nation in the world." "We will slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to bring those people democracy" "The bad leader of that other bad nation has dangerous weapons, and if we don't kill lots of innocent civilians in that nation, we will get killed."

Billy

[phlegm]

This isn't meant as a point of debate, but I didn't want to pollute the other thread (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78539).

I believe in the unity of nature and living things, that beneath the illusion of reality, we are all one. I believe that our minds lead us to believe that you and I and a tree and my cat are different, separate, unequal, but I believe there is a root of all beings, and we all share the same root. I'm not going to personify that root and say it is a deity or an omnipotent being, but I will say that this root binds us all together.

I think it's worth pointing out that the concept of God is formulated in the Christian tradition as more than the simply personified parody of a god that has come to be commonly believed in.

In this article (http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html) entitled "Who or What is God?", John Hick brings to light the "ineffability" of God that Pseudo-Dionysius wrote about.

Although the writer who has been given the derogatory sounding name of Pseudo-Dionysius is largely unknown outside the history of Christian mysticism, he has in fact probably been the most influential single individual in that history. He wrote in the name of Dionysius, the disciple of St Paul (Acts 17: 34), thus assuming a near apostolic authority, and he was a major theological influence throughout the thousand years prior to the Reformation. Thomas Aquinas, for example, quotes him as an authority some 1700 times. He is generally believed today to have been a Syrian monk writing around the year 500, and whether he would have exerted the same immense influence if this had been known before Erasmus and others became suspicious of his identity is one of history’s fascinating unanswered questions. But he did exert this immense influence, and in my opinion it was a very creative influence. For it reinforced the existing emphasis on the ultimate ineffability of God. I am not fond of the word ‘ineffable’ and prefer ‘transcategorial’, meaning beyond the range of our human systems of concepts or mental categories. Theologians have nearly always taken the ultimate divine ineffability or transcategoriality for granted, though usually without taking its implications to their logical conclusion. Augustine, for example, about a century before Pseudo-Dionysius, said that ‘God transcends even the mind’ (On True Religion, 36: 67), but did not develop this further. But Dionysius – or Denys, to give him a more user-friendly name – makes the divine ineffability central and begins at least to struggle with its implications. In his central work, The Mystical Theology, he says in every way he can think of that God is utterly and totally transcategorial. God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.

[maestro8]

I think it's worth pointing out that the concept of God is formulated in the Christian tradition as more than the simply personified parody of a god that has come to be commonly believed in.

That's my beef with Christianity, that many people see God as separate from themselves, or see themselves together with God, yet still separate from each other. Any belief system that doesn't have unity as a central message is missing the point, IMHO.

I often hear Christians call each other "brothers/sisters in Christ" but this still isn't the message I want to hear. Being in the same family is not enough motivation to encourage true compassion, from what I've heard about sibling rivalries.

I appreciate that you share your insights in religion with us, Kev, but I don't believe many people think about religion as much as you. It seems many people just leave it to their pastor to do the thinking for them, and they buy whatever the pastor is selling, literally.

That being said, is there a sect of Christianity that shares a more united view? I read a bit about Uni-Uni after reading John's posts on the topic, and it interested me a bit... although it seems to distance itself from Christianity.

[phlegm]

I appreciate that you share your insights in religion with us, Kev, but I don't believe many people think about religion as much as you. It seems many people just leave it to their pastor to do the thinking for them, and they buy whatever the pastor is selling, literally.

And worse yet, in many fundamentalist circles the pastors have no theological training and just repeat the denominational stance (or a so-called "nondenominational" stance), and thus they have separated themselves from the tradition and all the deep thought that accompanies it. This is why I am so adamant about promoting theology. I've only been exploring theology on my own casually for a few years now, and it has certainly opened my eyes beyond the weak form of Christianity that I grew up with.

That being said, is there a sect of Christianity that shares a more united view? I read a bit about Uni-Uni after reading John's posts on the topic, and it interested me a bit... although it seems to distance itself from Christianity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "united." If you mean the more Eastern concept of unity, then maybe you're looking for the Eastern branch of Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy), born out of the Great Schism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism). I haven't studied the Eastern viewpoint much, but I know they have the idea of being in union with God called Theosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis).

Sorry for all the wikipedia links, but I don't really have anything original to say about it.

[BillyTheMountain]

That's my beef with Christianity, that many people see God as separate from themselves, or see themselves together with God, yet still separate from each other. Any belief system that doesn't have unity as a central message is missing the point, IMHO.

I'm sure like me, that's your beef with unicyclists, too.

Too any unicyclists se the unicycle as separate from themselves.

[phlegm]

...or maybe you meant unity among people? I would agree that any single congregation that doesn't promote unity among at least The Church universal fails to be part of the Christian tradition and thus fails to be anything more than a sect.

I mentioned in the other thread that my experiences with the Evangelical Covenant (http://www.covchurch.org/) denomination have been generally positive. This denomination and the leaders I've encountered have been a significant motivating force for me to dig deeper and see the diversity and wealth of thought in the Christian tradition.

The denomination is focused on unity with The Church universal and doesn't even have a creedal statement. They have six general affirmations (http://www.covchurch.org/affirmations). And they have resolutions (http://www.covchurch.org/resolutions) concerning current issues. I've read some of the resolutions before, and they are certainly carefully thought out.

[maestro8]

...or maybe you meant unity among people?

Yeah, sorry, having not talked about philosophy for some years, my vocabulary for it has atrophied significantly. I meant unity amongst all living things, man, nature, and everything inbetween... but I'd settle for unity among people.

To look into another's eyes and see your own looking back at you, it's quite a powerful realization.

[phlegm]

Yeah, sorry, having not talked about philosophy for some years, my vocabulary for it has atrophied significantly. I meant unity amongst all living things, man, nature, and everything inbetween... but I'd settle for unity among people.

Unity amongst everything is what I was going for in the Scientificulous thread when I was talking about an ultimate future. Maybe I approached it in a way that didn't make that clear--I'll try again. I brought up the psychological concept of self as mediated through the world because it demonstrates our inextricable connection of our being to the world around us.

This unity of all is part of what you seem to be calling "the ground of being" and what I'm calling "God." To talk about unity of all in the context of our understanding of scientific space-time reality means that all includes all of space as well as all of time. So, an understanding of this unity is an understanding of the ultimate future, the point of culmination of all of time.

I believe such an understanding is the domain of metaphysical and/or theological reflection. An understanding of the ultimate future has the practical benefit of providing insight of our ultimate meaning in the context of the unity of all. This understanding is hypothetical in that we can't know what the distant future holds for us, but at the same time this hypothetical future guides our pursuits and becomes part of our present reality when we act in the present toward a specific future.

The reason I don't accept a merely physical entropy driven fatalism is that I don't accept the mystical belief that all is ultimately merely the interaction of tiny particles. This mystical belief has been around at least since the atomism of Lucretius and the Epicureans (prior to Christianity). Leibniz proposed a new form in his Monadology, and some physicists likely presently also hold to a form of this mysticism.

I hold to the mystical belief set forth by Jesus that God (including this unity we're talking about) will be revealed at the ultimate future. Or, more precisely, God is the ultimate future. So, as a Christian, I ought to act as if God is the ultimate future, and those actions are a realizing of God and the Christian eternity in the present. In other words, all the eternal ideals of peace, love, righteousness, etc. are for the here and now, and people promoting those ideals is God as the ultimate future at work in our present.

[BillyTheMountain]

.The denomination is focused on unity with The Church universal and doesn't even have a creedal statement. They have six general affirmations (http://www.covchurch.org/affirmations). And they have resolutions (http://www.covchurch.org/resolutions) concerning current issues. I've read some of the resolutions before, and they are certainly carefully thought out.

In the spirit of this thread, I've got to say, knowing nothing, that's debatable.

[phlegm]

In the spirit of this thread, I've got to say, knowing nothing, that's debatable.

Hey, stop debating! :D

[BillyTheMountain]

I hold to the mystical belief set forth by Jesus that God (including this unity we're talking about) will be revealed at the ultimate future. Or, more precisely, God is the ultimate future. So, as a Christian, I ought to act as if God is the ultimate future, and those actions are a realizing of God and the Christian eternity in the present. In other words, all the eternal ideals of peace, love, righteousness, etc. are for the here and now, and people promoting those ideals is God as the ultimate future at work in our present.

Can God be the future and present at the same time?

Is God currently absent, and some awaiting GOD's advent?

[phlegm]

Can God be the future and present at the same time?

Yes, that's why Christians have the concept of the Trinity.

The Spirit of God is present, and the Christian hope is for the full revelation of God as the ultimate future.

[SqueakyOnion]

I've had a question brewing, for some time, that's yet to be answered. I apologize for interrupting any current conversation, but I'd rather not start a new thread.

I've heard many times by Christians that it is NOT a sin to be a homosexual, just to act on those urges and to make it your "lifestyle." Yet, I've also heard and read many times Jesus quoted as saying "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28 NKJV)"

So, if 'Theodore' looks after a woman with lust, it's a sin. But, if 'Theodore' looks after a man with lust, then it's ok, as long as he doesn't act on that?

Why the double standard?

[JJuggle]

I've had a question brewing, for some time, that's yet to be answered. I apologize for interrupting any current conversation, but I'd rather not start a new thread.

I've heard many times by Christians that it is NOT a sin to be a homosexual, just to act on those urges and to make it your "lifestyle." Yet, I've also heard and read many times Jesus quoted as saying "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28 NKJV)"

So, if 'Theodore' looks after a woman with lust, it's a sin. But, if 'Theodore' looks after a man with lust, then it's ok, as long as he doesn't act on that?

Why the double standard?
I'm not a Christian, but I would venture to say that in both cases Theodore has sinned. Lust is a sin regardless of the object.

Being a chaste, lust free homosexual is apparently fine. The problem, of course, is that gays get no relief ever while heteros get to marry and, so to speak, bust a nut sin free.

[phlegm]

I've heard it said that people tend to dislike those who sin differently than themselves.

[BillyTheMountain]

Yes, that's why Christians have the concept of the Trinity.

The Spirit of God is present, and the Christian hope is for the full revelation of God as the ultimate future.

So Jews waiting for the Messiah, and Muslims awaiting Judgement Day don't have that? Buddhists, Hindus, and Satanists don't have that?

[phlegm]

So Jews waiting for the Messiah, and Muslims awaiting Judgement Day don't have that? Buddhists, Hindus, and Satanists don't have that?

Well, I don't know. Do you? I can only speak for my own hope and faith.

[BillyTheMountain]

Well, I don't know. Do you? I can only speak for my own hope and faith.

r u speaking for your own hope, or for many christians?

i wd think if u can speak for other christians, u cn also speak for Muslims and Jews, all Abrahamic religions.

billy

[phlegm]

r u speaking for your own hope, or for many christians?

i wd think if u can speak for other christians, u cn also speak for Muslims and Jews, all Abrahamic religions.

billy

I speak as a Christian for what I believe the Christian hope is. Any Christian is welcome to disagree with me, and so is anyone else who is part of an Abrahamic religion.

[BillyTheMountain]

I speak as a Christian for what I believe the Christian hope is. Any Christian is welcome to disagree with me, and so is anyone else who is part of an Abrahamic religion.

I'm glad you're here speaking for Christians!! We need a Christian spokesperson.

So tell me, WWJD? Would Jesus lobby against civil rights and gay marriage. I think not.

If Jesus were at the wedding, and the groom said: Jesus, we've run out of marijuana, would Jesus say, Get me some oregano! And then He'd change it into marijuana?

If we all came to Jesus and said: There are people crippled by prejudice and hate. Please heal them. WWJD?

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

Lust is a sin regardless of the object.


Do u really believe that?

[BillyTheMountain]

To look into another's eyes and see your own looking back at you, it's quite a powerful realization.

Oh, like, WOW! dooood! OOoooo. u bin smokin' some good sh*t, man!

yo looking out of your own eyes but u see your own eyes looking back at you! Wow! and y'r not looking into a mirror! WOW!

Does that happen to u a LOT? Oh, i get it, it's like everyone is a MIRROR, right? Is that it? Or are someone else's eyes in YOUR head? cuz YOUR eyes r in the other person's head! i think i'm getting it now, huh?

when u look out, u look thru someone else's eyes

is that it?

[maestro8]

To talk about unity of all in the context of our understanding of scientific space-time reality means that all includes all of space as well as all of time. So, an understanding of this unity is an understanding of the ultimate future, the point of culmination of all of time.
Why does time matter? If everything is united as I'd like to believe, then time has no effects on the whole.

I hold to the mystical belief set forth by Jesus that God (including this unity we're talking about) will be revealed at the ultimate future. Or, more precisely, God is the ultimate future.
I don't understand. If we're all part of God, then isn't God here, now? The way I see things, I can look in the mirror and see God. I can look at a tree and see God. No revealing needs to take place, only understanding.

Does that happen to u a LOT?
Not as often as it should. The concept goes against what our brain tells us; one has to work to overcome the concept of separation.

Oh, i get it, it's like everyone is a MIRROR, right? Is that it?
In a way, yes. When you look at someone else, you're looking at yourself living a different life. We're all incarnations of each other.

Or are someone else's eyes in YOUR head? cuz YOUR eyes r in the other person's head! i think i'm getting it now, huh?
No, now you're just getting silly. Maybe you're the one smoking?

[phlegm]

Why does time matter? If everything is united as I'd like to believe, then time has no effects on the whole.

In some sense I think I agree with you. Time doesn't matter to "the unity" because the unity already contains all of time.

However, we are temporal, so our understanding of a "ground of being" requires that we consider time. And, if we don't consider all of time, then how can we talk about a ground of being? Wouldn't time then be more fundamental than the ground?

[JJuggle]

Do u really believe that?
Billy, are you really unable to distinguish between mentioning an idea and indicating it as a personal belief?

[maestro8]

In some sense I think I agree with you. Time doesn't matter to "the unity" because the unity already contains all of time.
The way I see it, the unity exists outside of time... like God.

However, we are temporal, so our understanding of a "ground of being" requires that we consider time.
But since we are part of the unity, we are outside of time as well. Time is but an illusion to us; we see ourselves as being mortals only when we see ourselves as separated from the unity.

I guess one could see it as the buddhists see the attainment of nirvana. Once one fully realizes the truth of unity, they realize their immortality.

[phlegm]

So tell me, WWJD? Would Jesus lobby against civil rights and gay marriage. I think not.

You're probably right! The tradition seems to indicate that Jesus was not really concerned with politics.

[phlegm]

But since we are part of the unity, we are outside of time as well. Time is but an illusion to us; we see ourselves as being mortals only when we see ourselves as separated from the unity.

Time is an illusion? But I thought you were a Scientitian! Is the Earth revolving around the Sun an illusion too? :confused:

[maestro8]

Time is an illusion? But I thought you were a Scientitian! Is the Earth revolving around the Sun an illusion too? :confused:

Unfortunately, I have not been able to integrate my philosophy with my scientific views... other than to say the illusions we experience are well defined and repeatable.

I guess I'm just using science as a crutch to avoid developing my spirituality / philosophy. What can I say, science is addictive!

[BillyTheMountain]

In some sense I think I agree with you. Time doesn't matter to "the unity" because the unity already contains all of time.

However, we are temporal, so our understanding of a "ground of being" requires that we consider time. And, if we don't consider all of time, then how can we talk about a ground of being? Wouldn't time then be more fundamental than the ground?

"We are temporal" is not an established Truth, just a function of your limited beliefs.

[BillyTheMountain]

No, now you're just getting silly. Maybe you're the one smoking?

:cool::D

why does space matter?

if we're all one, there's room for all of us, but how many room mates can u tolerate?

[BillyTheMountain]

I guess I'm just using science as a crutch to avoid developing my spirituality / philosophy. What can I say, science is addictive!

as Poincare said ....

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy, are you really unable to distinguish between mentioning an idea and indicating it as a personal belief?

Of course!

r u really unable to answer a direct question with a direct answer?

[JJuggle]

r u really unable to answer a direct question with a direct answer?
No more so than you.

[BillyTheMountain]

No more so than you.

i demo my ability and willingness in my last post, but not u, wiseacre!

[BillyTheMountain]

1. I've assembled my personal philosophy from various studies of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. I like to think of the world as a buffet of philosophies, and I take what I feel I need, when I need it, and incorporate it into my life.

2. [B]What do you believe in regards to religious beliefs?
I believe every action has a consequence. I don't believe in "karma points" but I do believe it is in everyone's best interest to do good for both themselves and others, however you may interpret that concept.

I believe that life is based upon suffering. I don't believe in the concept of "fairness". To believe in such a thing, I think, makes life that much more difficult.

I believe that nature is the ultimate power, that to align one's self against nature in any way, is to plot one's own demise, or at least increase one's own suffering.

I believe in the unity of nature and living things, that beneath the illusion of reality, we are all one. I believe that our minds lead us to believe that you and I and a tree and my cat are different, separate, unequal, but I believe there is a root of all beings, and we all share the same root. I'm not going to personify that root and say it is a deity or an omnipotent being, but I will say that this root binds us all together.

I believe that many of the world's problems would be abated if everyone could see through this illusion of "different, separate, unequal" and realize we're all quite alike. It seems that many, many struggles in this world come from others' desires to separate themselves from each other.

3. what does your religion really mean to you?
My personal philosophy gives me a frame of reference from which to see the world, and not be scared by the vastness and complexity of it all. It helps me make sense of both triumph and tragedy, in my life and in that of others. It is my very definition of "good" and "bad", my yardstick with which to measure my own success, my scale with which to weigh my decisions.

All this is done quite simply. I don't need to hold an action up against a set of rules to measure its worth. I simply realize the one-ness of reality and then everything else makes sense... that is, I realize that I, too, am the homeless man on the street corner, and to give him food is to feed myself. I realize that I, too, am the person behind the register at the grocery store and I would appreciate a friendly-natured customer who doesn't complain when I make a mistake.

I often run into situations in which I find it difficult to apply my philosophy, where I need to remind myself that I don't always have all the answers to life, and perhaps I need to simply absorb a situation and try and learn from it. I don't always come away with the right answer, but as long as I remember that I am the student, and life is the teacher, I believe I'll do better in the long run.

4. How has your religion affected you, and how do you think it will affect you in the future?
I can't say. I don't know what my life would be like otherwise. I don't know what's going to happen in the future.

5. What other people that you know regard religion in the same, or a very similar manner?
Generally, I don't probe others about their religious or philosophical beliefs... I'll read about it if someone cares to post, or respond if one queries, but I'm not one to make dinner conversation about such a topic.

6. What had caused you to believe/behave/feel/etc. in the ways that you had described above?
I think there are two parts to my "philosophical maturity". The first was moving away from my family's Christian beliefs. The message that I took home from church was that my life was meaningless without God, that my life mattered nothing to anyone but God. Whereas many in the chruch spoke of God with positive tones, I felt nothing but negativity. This turned me off to Christianity, to the point that I'd have nothing to do with it anymore.

The second part began in my early college years, when I took a class in non-western philosophy. As I was reading translations of texts such as the Bhagavad-Gita and the Tao Te Ching, I felt something of a resonance with the messages in these texts... as if they were telling me something I'd already known. From this, I felt I had already laid down the foundation for my personal philosophy, and here was the material that would build the rest.

All in all, I feel much more satisfied with life having made peace with religion. As a youth, I felt anxious that I couldn't integrate Christianity into my life, possibly because the community in which I grew up was largely Christian. Now I realize that religion / philosophy is not something to worry about, that life has much larger problems in store for us, and that we should appreciate every day as it comes.

As a Lao Tzu (mis)quote goes: "Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you."

What on Earth do you "NEED" buddhism for? To get grrls?

And every action has a consequence? I just looked out the window and them back to the computer screen. What possible consequence did that have?

You claim we all share the same root. ALL of us?! Sharing a ROOT? What on Earth for?

ANd then you talk about suffering and unfairness, man what a bummer!

[phlegm]

Unfortunately, I have not been able to integrate my philosophy with my scientific views... other than to say the illusions we experience are well defined and repeatable.

I guess I'm just using science as a crutch to avoid developing my spirituality / philosophy. What can I say, science is addictive!

Fair enough. I certainly do appreciate the challenge that a scientific worldview places on religious/spiritual/metaphysical beliefs.

The concept of time is key to my theological view because it admits that in the present we only experience God (or the unity) in a limited sense. Being in relation to others and God is a struggle, and we still face real evils of the world. But we can live toward the full realization of God.

"We are temporal" is not an established Truth, just a function of your limited beliefs.

Perhaps we are not temporary, but that we experience time is scientifically established, FWIW.

[BillyTheMountain]

that we experience time is scientifically established, fwiw.

not!

[phlegm]

not!

Dang, what am I supposed to do with all my clocks now? :rolleyes:

[maestro8]

What on Earth do you "NEED" buddhism for? To get grrls?
Buddhism is the key that unlocked a door on my path to spirituality. It won't be the same for everyone.

...and you'll never "get" a grrl. She just chooses to share herself with you.

And every action has a consequence? I just looked out the window and them back to the computer screen. What possible consequence did that have?
Why are you asking me? Why would I know the answer?

You may never come upon the answer yourself, but that doesn't make the fundamental truth any less valid.

You claim we all share the same root. ALL of us?! Sharing a ROOT? What on Earth for?
Why share? What is to be gained by being selfish?

ANd then you talk about suffering and unfairness, man what a bummer!
Life is less "bummer" if you come to accept suffering and unfairness. You can even enjoy suffering if you become familiar with it, make friends with it.

[maestro8]

The concept of time is key to my theological view because it admits that in the present we only experience God (or the unity) in a limited sense. Being in relation to others and God is a struggle, and we still face real evils of the world. But we can live toward the full realization of God.
It is not time that stands between us and full realization, it is the way we're choosing to experience reality. There is no cosmic egg timer that goes off before one attains nirvana.

[phlegm]

It is not time that stands between us and full realization, it is the way we're choosing to experience reality. There is no cosmic egg timer that goes off before one attains nirvana.

I sort of agree. We can choose to live toward the future, and this realizes the future in our present. But we're still caught in the tension between the distant future and the reality of the present situations that are beyond our control.

[BillyTheMountain]

Dang, what am I supposed to do with all my clocks now? :rolleyes:

r u saying humans did not experience time before clocks?

[BillyTheMountain]

...and you'll never "get" a grrl. She just chooses to share herself with you.

when confronted with my magnificent magnetism, she has no more choice than a compass pointing North.

You believe, based on Faith, that every action has a consequence, and said:

You may never come upon the answer yourself, but that doesn't make the fundamental truth any less valid.

So u r a Fundamentalist! That's your Faith! You're OK!


Life is less "bummer" if you come to accept suffering and unfairness. You can even enjoy suffering if you become familiar with it, make friends with it.

another Fundamental Truth? Faith is nice, isn't it?

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

It is not time that stands between us and full realization, it is the way we're choosing to experience reality. There is no cosmic egg timer that goes off before one attains nirvana.

choosing to experience reality?

what are the choices? do you make the choices? or do the choices make u?

[phlegm]

r u saying humans did not experience time before clocks?

Yes, of course. :rolleyes:

[BillyTheMountain]

Yes, of course. :rolleyes:

yes, of course, humans did not experience time? Or did?

I don't, and science can never prove I do, but you wrongly claimed science did prove we do.

[phlegm]

yes, of course, humans did not experience time? Or did?

I don't, and science can never prove I do, but you wrongly claimed science did prove we do.

I don't really need the full current scientific conception of time for what I am saying. Do you deny that you remember a past in the present and anticipate a future? How is that not an experience of time?

[BillyTheMountain]

that we experience time is scientifically established, FWIW.

Is it "scientifically established" that mentally ill people experience hallucinations?

No way!

Or that healthy people experience GOD?

No way!

Or depression?

No way!

Or happiness?

No way!

Or time?

No way!

Or dream?

No way!

Would science accept all the lying people who confound their research, because most scientists know that half the people lie to the scientists, and the rest lie to themselves. Self-report data is notoriously unreliable, and unreliability is the hobgoblin of science.

Billy

[phlegm]

Scientific-time is part of a scientific reality. Psychology tells us that we identify ourselves through what we deem reality. As a Scientitian, scientific reality is necessarily at least part of my reality. Therefore, my identity is tied up with scientific-time, so I experience scientific-time simply by recognizing myself changing over time.

Short of taking an anti-science stance, what part of my experience with scientific-time is not scientifically established?

Sure, there are subjective experiences of time. However, if we were to postulate that a subjective experience of time is entirely unrelated to scientific-time, then that experience of time cannot be said to be part of a unity of all. Rather, the subjective-time experience would be part of something else. But maestro8 and I were looking for a unity of all, not something else.

[BillyTheMountain]

Scientific-time is part of a scientific reality. Psychology tells us that we identify ourselves through what we deem reality. As a Scientitian, scientific reality is necessarily at least part of my reality. Therefore, my identity is tied up with scientific-time, so I experience scientific-time simply by recognizing myself changing over time.

Short of taking an anti-science stance, what part of my experience with scientific-time is not scientifically established?

Sure, there are subjective experiences of time. However, if we were to postulate that a subjective experience of time is entirely unrelated to scientific-time, then that experience of time cannot be said to be part of a unity of all. Rather, the subjective-time experience would be part of something else. But maestro8 and I were looking for a unity of all, not something else.

Who said anything about subjective? You said "experience time."

and now of course you are appealing to logical reasoning, rather than empirical methods. Logic is a branch of philosophy that science uses, but empiricism is Science.

Billy

[maestro8]

Is it "scientifically established" that mentally ill people experience hallucinations?....Self-report data is notoriously unreliable, and unreliability is the hobgoblin of science.
So you're saying we need to create branches of science, one for each mental disability?

Schizo-science? Phobic-science? Neuroto-science?

There is a reason results are reviewed in Science: to confirm that a report is not based on the mis-perceptions of one ill individual. Of course, we are treading on the border of meta-physics here... an area that I wholly refuse to explore.

Nonetheless, this methodology can be employed in the branched-science paradigm you suggest. Schizo-science findings can be reviewed by a group of clinically diagnosed schizophrenics, thus validating the claim(s) within that branch.

[BillyTheMountain]

So you're saying we need to create branches of science, one for each mental disability?

Schizo-science? Phobic-science? Neuroto-science?

There is a reason results are reviewed in Science: to confirm that a report is not based on the mis-perceptions of one ill individual. Of course, we are treading on the border of meta-physics here... an area that I wholly refuse to explore.

Nonetheless, this methodology can be employed in the branched-science paradigm you suggest. Schizo-science findings can be reviewed by a group of clinically diagnosed schizophrenics, thus validating the claim(s) within that branch.

Where do you get that from?

r u saying depression and hallucinations and personal experience is metaphysics and not science?

when u say make sure the report is "not based on the mis-perceptions of one ill individual," r u saying hallucinations become valid when LOTS of people report seeing them, like flying saucers?

[maestro8]

when u say make sure the report is "not based on the mis-perceptions of one ill individual," r u saying hallucinations become valid when LOTS of people report seeing them, like flying saucers?

Lots of people have seen the Statue of Liberty. Are you going to tell me that's a hallucination?

Where do you draw your line, Billy?

[JJuggle]

Lots of people have seen the Statue of Liberty. Are you going to tell me that's a hallucination?
How many movies can you name where the Statue of Liberty loses her head?

Deep Impact, Cloverfield...

Does Planet of the Apes count?

[BillyTheMountain]

Lots of people have seen the Statue of Liberty. Are you going to tell me that's a hallucination?

Where do you draw your line, Billy?

I would never say anything of the sort.

But those voices you PMd me about, that keep telling you how you are the most brilliant human being on the planet, how no woman can resist u, how just your very style on the uni contributes vastly to humankind, is it possible they are hallucinations? Lots of people hear them.

But you could also be lying about that. And science will never know.

Science will never prove that anyone hallucinates.

Yet many of those with Faith in Science accept that people hallucinate.

Do you? On what basis? Refereed journals? Faith in Science?

Same for the experience of depression or happiness. No proof. They could be lying. A massive scam. Can u prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Billy

[maestro8]

Science will never prove that anyone hallucinates.
Yet science can prove that one's delusions / hallucinations are nonexistent. Now there's a quandary for you, no?

Yet many of those with Faith in Science accept that people hallucinate.
What does that have to do with anything?

I believe in love, too, are you going to launch a Science-tician smear campaign based on that?

Can u prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt?
You seem to do well enough on your own. I won't piss in your pool.

[BillyTheMountain]

Yet science can prove that one's delusions / hallucinations are nonexistent. Now there's a quandary for you, no?


Science actually has difficulty proving the non-existence of anything, though logic (aka philosophy) can offer reasonable and convincing arguments for non-existence. It's difficult for science to say "I've looked EVERYWHERE and haven't found it nor evidence of it."


What does that have to do with anything?


I believe in love, too, are you going to launch a Science-tician smear campaign based on that?

Well, since so many claim GOD is LOVE, it creates problems for those who create the straw man argument of science against GOD.



You seem to do well enough on your own. I won't piss in your pool..

Please don't.

So you have Faith in the Scientist who told you those voices you hear do not truly exist.

Thank GOD!:D

[maestro8]

So you have Faith in the Scientist who told you those voices you hear do not truly exist.

Well, the voice called Billy keeps ringing in my ears, even though I keep trying to believe he doesn't exist. What do I do?

[poofengle]

The song "Things You're Selling" by the Yonder Mountain String Band pretty much sums up my view on religion. Here's an excerpt:

You're selling things that I don't feel like buying
Like guilt and pain,
Fear and shame,
Who to thank
and who to blame,
A set of rules that's bound to keep the living out of life.

I don't need more guilt here in my life,
How the hell is that supposed to help me find the light?

And I don't want you preaching at me day and night
About the things I do, and the things I don't
What I will, and what I wont
There's fire in your eyes sir, and it chills me to the bone.

I find all the rules and regulations for religion ridiculous. Sins are abundant, god is vengeful, and everyone's going to hell. That's all I've ever gathered from my religious experiences. I just find it way over the top with all the rules and sins and plagues and such.

Anyone else feel like this?

[BillyTheMountain]

I find all the rules and regulations for religion ridiculous. Sins are abundant, god is vengeful, and everyone's going to hell. That's all I've ever gathered from my religious experiences. I just find it way over the top with all the rules and sins and plagues and such.

Anyone else feel like this?

Me too!

Too bad you've been fed a counterfeit GOD, and you think you dislike the True GOD.

Thank GOD there's other paths, other approaches to GOD, pure inspiration without meaningless rules.

Song: Laughing With – Regina Spektor from her forthcoming album ‘Far’

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one’s laughing at God when it’s gotten real late and their kid’s not back from that party yet

No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shake
No one’s laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they’re mistaken
No one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say “We’ve got some bad new, sir,”
No one’s laughing at God when there’s a famine, fire or flood

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they’re about to choke

God can be funny
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious
Ha ha
Ha ha

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God when they’ve lost all they got and they don’t know what for

No one laughs at God on the day they realize that the last sight they’ll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes
No one’s laughing at God when they’re saying their goodbyes

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they’re about to choke

God can be funny
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war

No one’s laughing at God in a hospital
No one’s laughing at God in a war

No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

No one’s laughing at God
No one’s laughing at God
No one’s laughing at God
We’re all laughing with God

[JJuggle]

Thank GOD there's other paths, other approaches to GOD, pure inspiration without meaningless rules.
It strikes me that this formulation of God is a back-formation. That is the idea of GOD originates in religion with its rules and hierarchy. Somewhere along the line the idea of God was stripped away from organized religion to conform to an idea of nature that is somehow sacred or holy and representative of a unified universe. But this latter conception almost certainly existed in humankind's consciousness prior to the development of organized religion, but without the language associated with organized religion.

Whether what Billy calls God and what I believe are the same is uncertain. But I suspect we are not that far off from each other.

[BillyTheMountain]

Whether what Billy calls God and what I believe are the same is uncertain. But I suspect we are not that far off from each other.

I'm certain we're just the same, we think alike! So many times when you write something, i could've said: you took the words right out of my mouth!

Jews will find this antinomian slant in Jewish Renewal, Muslims in Sufism, Christians in their mystical traditions, and so on across the universe of religions.

Definitions of antinomian on the Web:

a follower of the doctrine of antinomianism, in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented

One who maintains that, under the gospel dispensation, the moral law is of no use or obligation, but that faith alone is necessary to salvation.

antinomianism - the theological doctrine that by faith and God's grace a Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral standards of the culture)

antinomianism - a belief that the Law was completely abrogated by Jesus so that it has no meaning for the present day Christian believer which is perceived by most Christians as heretical

antinomianism - ("against the law") refers to people who reject the laws, ethics, or morals of religious authorities.

[JJuggle]

I'm certain we're just the same, we think alike! So many times when you write something, i could've said: you took the words right out of my mouth!

Jews will find this antinomian slant in Jewish Renewal, Muslims in Sufism, Christians in their mystical traditions, and so on across the universe of religions.

Definitions of antinomian on the Web:

a follower of the doctrine of antinomianism, in theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented

One who maintains that, under the gospel dispensation, the moral law is of no use or obligation, but that faith alone is necessary to salvation.

antinomianism - the theological doctrine that by faith and God's grace a Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral standards of the culture)

antinomianism - a belief that the Law was completely abrogated by Jesus so that it has no meaning for the present day Christian believer which is perceived by most Christians as heretical

antinomianism - ("against the law") refers to people who reject the laws, ethics, or morals of religious authorities.
Billy, of course, you've lost me with respect to what antinomianism might have to do with anything I believe.

[BillyTheMountain]

I find all the rules and regulations for religion ridiculous. Sins are abundant, god is vengeful, and everyone's going to hell. That's all I've ever gathered from my religious experiences. I just find it way over the top with all the rules and sins and plagues and such.

Anyone else feel like this?

Raphael,

Maybe I was overgeneralizing from poofengle's statement (above), which led to my statement, which led to your statement.

If I had time, I could probably explain the connections, maybe later.

Billy

[JJuggle]

If I had time, I could probably explain the connections, maybe later.
Feel free to take your time.

[BillyTheMountain]

Wiki [just see the BOLD in the last lines]:Elements of Besht's doctrines

The foundation-stone of Hasidism as laid by Besht is a strongly marked panentheistic conception of God. He declared the whole universe, mind and matter, to be a manifestation of the Divine Being; that this manifestation is not an emanation from God, as is the conception of the Kabbalah by Mitnagdim, for nothing can be separated from God: all things are rather forms in which God reveals Himself. When man speaks, said Besht, he should remember that his speech is an element of life, and that life itself is a manifestation of God. Even evil exists in God. This seeming contradiction is explained on the ground that evil is not bad in itself, but only in its relation to man. It is wrong to look with desire upon a woman; but it is divine to admire her beauty: it is wrong only insofar as man does not regard beauty as a manifestation of God, but misconceives it, and thinks of it in reference to himself. Nevertheless, sin is nothing positive, but is identical with the imperfections of human deeds and thought. Whoever does not believe that God resides in all things, but separates God and them in his thoughts, has not the right conception of God. It is equally fallacious to think of a creation in time: creation, that is, God's activity, has no end. God is ever active in the changes of nature: in fact, it is in these changes that God's continuous creativeness consists.
This panentheism would have been ignored, had Besht not been a man of the people. He gave his metaphysical conception of God an eminently practical significance.
The first result of his principles was a remarkable optimism. Since God is immanent in all things, all things must possess something good in which God manifests Himself as the source of good. For this reason, the Besht taught, every man must be considered good, and his sins must be explained, not condemned. One of his favorite sayings was that no man has sunk too low to be able to raise himself to God. Naturally, then, it was his chief endeavor to convince sinners that God stood as near to them as to the righteous, and that their misdeeds were chiefly the consequences of their folly.
Another important result of his doctrines, which was of great practical importance, was his denial that asceticism is pleasing to God. "Whoever maintains that this life is worthless is in error: it is worth a great deal; only one must know how to use it properly." From the very beginning Besht fought against that contempt for the world which, through the influence of Isaac Luria's Kabbalah, had almost become a dogma among the Jews. He considered care of the body as necessary as care of the soul; since matter is also a manifestation of God, and must not be considered as hostile or opposed to Him.

As Besht fought ascetics, so he fought the rigidity and sanctimony that had accreted to strict Talmudic viewpoints while not abrogating a single religious ceremony or observance. His target was the great importance which the Talmudic view attaches to the fulfillment of a law, while almost entirely disregarding sentiment or the growth of man's inner life. While the rabbis of his day considered the study of the Talmud as the most important religious activity, Besht laid all the stress on prayer. "All that I have achieved," he once remarked, "I have achieved not through study, but through prayer". Prayer, however, is not merely petitioning God to grant a request, nor even necessarily speaking to God, but rather ("cleaving", dvekut)— the glorious feeling of 'Oneness with God Almighty', the state of the soul wherein a man or woman gives up their consciousness of separate existence, and join their own selves to the Eternal Being of God Supreme. Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God."

I'll get there eventually ....

In the meantime, what do you think if this?

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

Let's get the religious debate out of RSU.

I would like to make this the official place to debate religion. No need to hijack threads to debate religion (like the atheists, myself included, have done in the past). Because this is the "official" place for that kind of discussion. Be nice.

Round One. Ding...

Book Excerpt
Chapter One

The Cover-Up

Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. Mary, his mother, was Jewish, and Judaism was the religion he practiced throughout his life. Jesus’ teachings focused on the important Jewish issues of the day – how to interpret the law correctly, when the Kingdom of God would appear, and how to behave righteously. He was executed as “the King of the Jews,” a political claim that the Roman authorities could not have tolerated. His earliest followers in Jerusalem were Jewish, and they, too, observed Jewish law. They thought of him as a teacher and as a Messiah figure.

But all this exploded. Within a few years of his death, around A.D. 30, Jesus began to be thought of as much more than a teacher and possible Messiah. He came to be spoken of as a Christ, a divine being – a God-human, in fact, who had preexisted his earthly life and who had become human in order to save humanity. What happened? How did Jesus the Jew become a Gentile Christ? That’s one of the questions this book explores.


Two Distinct Movements

In the course of some twenty years studying and teaching early Christian writings, I have come to some startling conclusions. For one thing, I contend that the religion of Jesus no longer exists. The movement that emerged out of Jesus’ teachings and practices, the Jesus Movement, was led by Jesus’ brother, James, in Jerusalem. It honored and treasured what the Jesus of history stood for and proclaimed. That original religion, however, was replaced, in time, by a much more successful movement. Paul, in the Jewish Diaspora around the Mediterranean, forged a new religion, the Christ Movement. We tend not to notice how truly distinctive this movement was. Part of the excitement of this book consists of exploding the commonplace notion that Paul was somehow a faithful disciple of Jesus. He wasn’t. While Paul’s innovative Christ Movement offered its members many advantages over Judaism and the Jesus Movement, it was something quite different. It was much simpler and easier to follow, and it focused on a familiar figure known throughout the Mediterranean world, that of the savior. This Christ Movement came to cover up the original teachings of Jesus. “Christifiers,” as I call them – leaders who packaged Jesus into a Christ – took charge of the early Christian movement. The original followers of Jesus – members of the Jesus Movement – faded away, being overshadowed by the more popular Christ Movement. But that process took time, some five or six centuries, before the Jesus Movement disappeared entirely.

While developing a robust theology of the divine-human Christ and creating an impressive infrastructure, the Christ Movement angrily steered its members away from Jewish practices. Why did early Christianity think it had to attack Judaism? Why was it the focus of attention, so much so that anti-Semitic sentiments are ingrained in the pages of the New Testament? There’s much more to this aspect of the story, however. As we investigate some of the writings of Paul’s religion, reflected in the New Testament and second-century Christianity, we will make a remarkable discovery.We will come to see the real roots of Christian anti-Semitism.


The Jesus Cover-Up

Looking ahead, you will discover that I contend the tradition “miscarried,” that Christianity became over time something radically different from what its originator intended. The faith that emerged was not the religion practiced by its founder. There was a switch. I call this the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis. This stance has three components.

First of all, the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis contends that the original message of Jesus and the Jesus Movement, Jesus’ earliest followers in Jerusalem, became switched for a different religion. This other religion, one that in origin, beliefs, and practices differed from the Jesus Movement, was the Christ Movement developed by Paul in the Diaspora. A few decades after the death of both Paul and James in the 60s, the religion of Paul became grafted onto the original religion led by James. This was the impressive accomplishment of the author of the Book of Acts around the turn of the second century. The Christ Movement replaced the original Jesus Movement at least in the popular imagination as the dominant expression of the new religion.

Second, according to the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis, there was an important shift away from the teachings of Jesus to those about the Christ. That is, beliefs about the person of Jesus conceived of as a Christ came to obscure what he said and did. Thus, the religion of Jesus, the one Jesus practiced and taught, became transformed into a cult about the Christ. Speaking of Jesus as a Christ had a tornado effect. Much like the bewildering effect of The Wizard of Oz, the Christ Movement swept Jesus up out of his Jewish context and landed him down right in the midst of a new, strange Gentile environment. That changed everything, since the Christ figure is not a Jewish Messiah. The whirlwind caused by Paul has had a profound effect on how we understand the Jesus of history, his teachings and his mission. Everything is now seen through the eyes of Paul and his new landscape.

Early Christianity separated from Judaism, but it did so in an exceptionally angry fashion. Over and over again, leader after leader lambasted Judaism. Why they felt they had to do so represents an interesting story that we will come to in due course. In fact, as you will see, the third component of the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis is this: it proposes a new way of understanding Christian anti-Semitism. Early Christians were very much aware that they had created a shift in the religion and had substituted the Christ of experience for the Jesus of history. They were also conscious of the fact that the Jews were witnesses to this event. Jewish leaders recognized and understood how dramatically Christianity had changed since leaving the fold. We will discover how this dynamic plays out and what it means for how Christianity traditionally views Judaism.

My intent in this book is positive. It is simply to understand the roots of Christianity better. I am aware that there are ideas in this book that may startle or even shock some readers. You will find I argue the following:


• Paul’s religion was not the religion of Jesus.

• There was a cover-up. The divine Gentile Christ was switched for the human Jewish Jesus. A religion about the Christ was substituted for the teachings of Jesus. Moreover, the religion of Paul displaced that of Jesus.

• The New Testament is not a neutral collection of early church writings. It was produced, selected, and approved by one – but only one – faction of early Christianity, the very group that endorsed the cover-up.

• The Book of Acts presents us with a fictitious history of early Christianity and represents an unreliable source of information.

• Anti-Semitism is rooted within New Testament writings and is the result of the cover-up.


Some things I say about Paul and the Book of Acts are not run-of-the-mill observations. I point out, for example, how Paul’s religion emerged out of a separate revelation, not from the religion of Jesus as is often assumed. That is new. I also argue that the Book of Acts glued Paul’s Christ Movement onto the earlier Jesus Movement, switching the Christ for Jesus. That also is new, and I contend that this represents historical fiction on the part of whoever wrote the Book of Acts. Why the author of this work felt he had to invent this linkage is interesting and we will probe his probable motivation.

So, who killed off the historical Jesus? And why? How was the switch made? Who covered it up? What does it mean for us here today? The Jesus Cover-Up Thesis helps us unravel a mystery. How Jesus Became Christian is a detective story, using the results of modern scholarship, to uncover a “crime” committed close to two millennia ago.

Religion then, and I suspect now,was thoroughly political, as well as spiritual. Jesus in particular made strong political statements and claims. His followers did so as well, seeing him as a Messiah claimant. That staked out a very important political role for their rabbi. On its journey from being a small struggling group into becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, Christianity was politically engaged. Power struggles erupted in early Christianity as groups fought for supremacy over their rivals. So we will examine the contest between the religion of Jesus and that of Paul – the Jesus Movement versus the Christ Movement – as each strove to achieve a place of prominence within the Roman world against all their competitors, Judaism and the mystery religions included.

[phlegm]

Billy,
Have you read about the New Perspective on Paul (http://www.thepaulpage.com/)? It seems that it frames Paul as an anti-anti-Semite.

What is this new perspective? At its core is the recognition that Judaism is not a religion of self-righteousness whereby humankind seeks to merit salvation before God. Paul's argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism. His argument was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. Paul's doctrine of justification, therefore, had far more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues than with questions of the individual's status before God.

This new perspective on Paul promises to help us:

* Better understand Paul and the early church;
* Reconcile contemporary biblical scholarship with theology;
* Build common ground between Catholics and Protestants;
* Improve dialogue between Christians and Jews; and
* Flesh out a theological foundation for social justice.

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy,
Have you read about the New Perspective on Paul (http://www.thepaulpage.com/)? It seems that it frames Paul as an anti-anti-Semite.

That is by far a minority opinion, without support. Do you buy it?

And the theory I quoted proposes a new way of understanding Christian anti-Semitism. Early Christians were very much aware that they had created a shift in the religion and had substituted the Christ of experience for the Jesus of history. They were also conscious of the fact that the Jews were witnesses to this event. Jewish leaders recognized and understood how dramatically Christianity had changed since leaving the fold. We will discover how this dynamic plays out and what it means for how Christianity traditionally views Judaism.

[phlegm]

That is by far a minority opinion, without support. Do you buy it?

Without support? The synopsis I pasted above lists some supporting ideas. It may be a minority position, but the minority that proposed it is composed of theological and biblical scholars, FWIW.

I don't know if I buy it over and above other views of Paul. I've only read small bits about it here and there. I guess I'm not yet far enough along in my theological journeys to formulate such specific opinions about Paul.

[BillyTheMountain]

paul's hotel receipts indicate he stayed in the same communities at the same time when prostitutes were being slashed and killed by a serial sex murderer.

is it just chance this happened everywhere he traveled?