Re: virus:Logic
Sodom (sodom@ma.ultranet.com)
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:15:35 -0400
chardin wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:19:09 -0400
> > From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> > Organization: Hedonism Unlimited
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: Re: virus:Logic
> > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
>
> > Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
> >
> > > b) Sodom's Dictionary defines insight as: A not-absolute
> > > conclusion
> > > reached by reflecting upon experiences, experimentation, or
> > > information.
> > > Thoughts, based on observation, strung together to reach a theory,
> > > without the full strength of a theory, probably including jumps in
> > > logic
> > > and therefore not entirely accurate.
> > >
> > > When discussing religios insights, I men insights into the natural
> > > world, not supernatural world. Human behaviour being a good example.
> > > (Sodom)
> > >
> > > Sodom,
> > >
> > > So are you asking for "A not-absolute conclusion reached by reflecting
> > > upon
> > > experiences, experimentaion, or information" which applies to "the
> > > natural
> > > world, not supernatural"...but which originates from a "divine source"
> > > with
> > > the further criteria that it should not have multiple interpretations
> > > or be
> > > a hallucination...?
> > >
> > > The first problem I see with this request is that if it originates
> > > from a
> > > "divine source" then must it be "supernatural"?
> > > Next, if it is religious and has *multiple interpretations* it would
> > > not
> > > seem too different from that "not-absolute" conclusion you require
> > > (But you
> > > seem to make a distinction between the first and the second...is the
> > > difference here due to the fact that it is presented as religious, or
> > > is it
> > > that your definition of "conclusion" is more specific than
> > > "interpretation"?)
> > >
> > > Next, can something gained from experiences, experimentaion, and
> > > information
> > > ALSO be "divine"?
> > >
> > > SO:
> > >
> > > Is religion not natural? Is religious experience and information not
> > > the
> > > source for religious insights? Are religious insights (based on a
> > > "natural"
> > > religion with experience and information) different from any other
> > > "insight"
> > > the way you use the term?
> > >
> > > Is a statement like "God is Love" not a religious insight based on
> > > religious
> > > experience and religious information? It's proof will be in the form
> > > of
> > > more religious information and experience...not in the form of
> > > science-fact;
> > > but can it be accepted as an insight, or even a theory, and
> > > experimented on
> > > using religious criteria (not scientific criteria)?
> > >
> > > What are you really asking for here? Are you saying can we put god in
> > > a
> > > maze and run timed tests to see if he learns? Would you use the same
> > > tests
> > > to test human behavior as you would animal behavior? Couldn't you
> > > design
> > > tests to determine religious phenomenon based on what they perport to
> > > measure?
> > >
> > > Brett
> > >
> > > Returning,
> > > rBERTS%n
> > > Rabble Sonnet Retort
> > > Rule of the Great:
> > > When people you greatly admire appear to be thinking deep
> > > thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch.
> >
> > 1> That is what I am asking for. Better defined, what I am really
> > asking for:. Thought processes are electre-chemical in nature. I want
> > proof that the change in thought is not due to the mind itself, but due
> > to external divine influence.
> >
> > 2> NO, It can only be divine if influenced by god directly. Not
> > through experience, experiment and observation.
> >
> > 3> Religion is natural only in the sense that it is generated by
> > fear, which is natural. Fear of the unknown is what created the rain
> > gods, moon gods, ocean gods and sky gods. As man could explain more and
> > more the need for gods disapeared, slowly at first, but continuuing
> > until there was one god who was only responsible for things that can't
> > be explained. Today it is fear of death, lack of purpose, control of
> > others that drives the need for gods. As long as fear is the main factor
> > in human thought processes, gods will plague us.
> >
> > 4> God is Love? Love is an electro/chemical process with specific
> > neurotransmitters and actions on the brain, and I am DEFINATELY not
> > interested in the love shown by religious people ( in this i mean love
> > for humanity, not love for one another, as I can love, and respect love
> > for me by a religious person) as the price is too high. Christians have
> > shown their love by slaughtering by the millions all non-believers.
> > Enslaving entire races, subjugating women, gays, heritcs etc... Even
> > today i cannot get a job in Government, spend money or praise my country
> > without acknowledging your god. The concept of "God is Love" is
> > definately without statistical or historical precedence.
> >
> > 5> I would suggest that all phenomena are simply a lack of understanding
> > on our part. Rain was a phenomena people sacraficed their children for,
> > then we understood and that practice stopped. Religion is willing to
> > sacrafice the hearts and minds of millions to garner power for itself.
> > It is willing to legislate it's morals even it it results in oppression
> > and death of others who do not believe.
> >
> > i am willing to guess that religion will never be able to bring a
> > "miracle" under scientific scrutiny because the fear of discovering that
> > there is a scientific answer is overwhelming. Religion is in a constant
> > backbpeddle. I would love it to be otherwise, and would not mind living
> > in the world you would like to exist. According to the bible and all
> > other texts of this nature, lots is said about the miracles that
> > happened before people knew why the grass was green or the sky was blue.
> > Now the scriptures aren't written, and miracles are kept from the public
> > eye. Does your god need to hide his work? Perhaps smoke and mitrrors
> > don't work on us like they used to, and the aliens that faked everyone
> > out 2000 years ago fled for their skins?
> >
> > Sodom
> > I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT, AND IT TASTED BETTER
>
> Sodom, you are a character! You constantly bait the spiritual
> element of this list hoping against all hopes someone will prove you
> wrong.
>
> Speaking of backpeddling. "Scholarship" suffers from a heavy dose
> of backpeddling. What sort of miracle would you like God to
> perform for you to prove His existence? Suppose there is such proof.
> If you are merely curious, I don't think you can see it. If you are
> sincere, and investigate further you might.
>
> I used to dismiss the Bible as just a dusy old book written by a
> bunch of men with beards so I understand how you feel. Have you ever
> examined the Bible closely? If so, you will know that the Old
> Testament is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures and is not a
> Christian contrivance. I think you will agree that the Jews believe
> that those scripture promise a coming Messiah who will make things
> right for the Jewish people. The Bible is made of different books
> written by different prophets, yet they all have a central idea: He
> who is coming. These prophecies, written long before the advent of
> one Jesus of Nazareth tell us some things. I can look up the exact
> quotes if you like--at the risk of being called lazy again by one of
> the members of the group--I will put it in scientific jargon "references
> available upon request."
>
> Anyway, I would like someone with good math skills to give me some
> probabilities--I'm terrible with math. Those prophets, hundreds and
> up to a thousand year before he came tells us that the promised
> Messiah to be sent by God would:
>
> 1) be born in Bethleham
> 2) be called a Nazerene
> 3) meek in character he will ride into Jerusalem on the back of an
> ass and be declared Messiah (the book of Daniel tells you WHEN he
> would ride in (a certain number of days after the going forth of a decree to rebuild
> Jerusalem)--check it out in the secular books - there are two decrees
> to rebuild Jerusalem--take either one of them and you are brought to
> the time of Christ
> 4) he will die but not for his own sins but for his people
> 5) he is Mighty God yet lowly, poor, despised and rejected (well, it
> confused the Jews too--for a long time they thought there might be
> two Messiahs--one as King of an Army another as spiritual leader)
> 6) he will be rejected by his own people
> 7) he will be a light unto the Gentiles (the light you ridicule
> constantly, Sodom)
>
> All of this was predicted by JEWISH prophets up to at least a
> thousand years before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
> God is outside of time so he can tell you what is going to happen
> before it happens. What does "scholarship" do. It backpeddles. The
> Book of Daniel gives you an overview of the great world
> governments--Babylonian, Persian, Greek & Roman. These are so
> accurate, in fact, that many "scholars" say they must have been
> written after the fact--prophets can't REALLY tell the future can
> they?
>
> The prophets also say that in the last days God will make Jerusalem a
> "burdensome stone for all nations". Picked up a newspaper lately?
>
> I would just like to know what are the probabilities that one person
> could meet those prophecies (those pretaining to Messiah) above--given all the people who have ever
> lived on earth? Remember, these prophecies are all from the OLD
> TESTAMENT--they are not Christain in origin.
>
> While David (our list David--not King) may doubt the physical existence of Jesus of Nazereth,
> I have never heard the Jewish people as a whole doubt his existence--just his
> claims which is, afterall, fulfillment of prophecy.
>
> Now the Jewish people did not believe Christ was their Messiah because
> they were looking for a king who would seriously kick Roman rear-end.
> You see, there are also all those prophecies of the "Lion of the Tribe
> of Judea." And David (King) said he will "smash them with a rod of
> iron like a potters vessel)Psalm 2.
> Ever heard of the Second Coming? Act I wasn't
> all that was promised.
>
> David was a prophet and a king --ever read the 22 Psalm? David
> could hardly be part of the "Jesus conspiracy". Read what he wrote
> before the fact.
>
> After you sincerely investigate these, Sodom, I would be interested
> in your comments.
> It would be sad for you to sign off
> I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT BUT I IGNORED IT
> CHardin
>
> P.S. I am not selling any books or tapes nor am I a member of any
> church--though I participate in the postings of this "Church."--no
> offense David. I don't like Promise Keepers, Pat Robinson and
> think the Pope is probably a nice old man but don't care two hoots
> for his edicts. I don't like groups like the Christian Coaliton at
> all--they are power mad structures. I am not a part of the "religious right"of politics as Nateman
> can testify--they supported Dole. I believe what I believe and though Dawkins may not
> agree with my premises, I have reasons for what I believe.
> I am not trying to scam you.
>
> >
> >
Gosh, so nice to be called a character,
Ok then here we go:
"If you are merely curious, I don't think you can see it. If you are
sincere, and investigate further you might"
So, what you are saying, is that unless you believe, it is not real.
That is called a delusion. Basically if god heals someone, then they
are healed because they believe, but a disbelieving doctor would still
examine them and see an injured person? I think not! The word "miracle"
has been twisted until it has meaning only in the philosophical sense.
Even most the miracles described therin as physical happenings have
sceintific roots today. The Red sea still does part, There are over a
1000 virgin births a year and the list goes on.
Second of all, I have never seen the bible as a "dusy old book written
by a bunch of men with beards." Quite the contrary. I love the study of
religion and philosohphy and have devoted a great deal of time to it.
Most of my time in fact. I am currently spending most of my time the
first five books of Moses. I find them to be interesting plagurism at
best, since much of it was stolen directly from the Sumerian religion.
Third, you are taking the prophecy as indisputable fact, despite the
fact that everything written about Christ was written a hundred or
hundreds of years after his passing by people with a motivated self
interest to do so. In a room of ten people, you could not whisper "there
is a tiger in the woods with green spots and a yellow tail" to one
person and have it get around the room as the same sentence. Are you
going to tell me that the first four books of the new testiment, written
by those who did not know Chirst, got it right. I'm betting that they
did not, I am even betting they made up whatever was necessary to make
it fit since there could be no checks or verifications.
> 1) be born in Bethleham
> 2) be called a Nazerene
> 3) meek in character he will ride into Jerusalem on the back of an
> ass and be declared Messiah (the book of Daniel tells you WHEN he
> would ride in (a certain number of days after the going forth of a decree to rebuild
> Jerusalem)--check it out in the secular books - there are two decrees
> to rebuild Jerusalem--take either one of them and you are brought to
> the time of Christ
> 4) he will die but not for his own sins but for his people
> 5) he is Mighty God yet lowly, poor, despised and rejected (well, it
> confused the Jews too--for a long time they thought there might be
> two Messiahs--one as King of an Army another as spiritual leader)
> 6) he will be rejected by his own people
> 7) he will be a light unto the Gentiles (the light you ridicule
> constantly, Sodom)
1> This entire line of religion was written in this are of the world,
so of course it is limited to a few hundred miles of here
2> Well Nazereth was an area, and a nazerene is self refrencing of
Jesus. For all i know, or you, he was informed of prophecy, then took
the name.
3> i have read all the four gospels many times, I do not believe that
he was meek. No one does. Quite the contrary, in the gopsphels he is
well spoken and powerful over people around him.
4>He died because of religious prosecution, and because he remained
silent when he could have spoken. Also, the society in which he lived
would execute people for virtually anything. AND in his name more
killing and sinning has been done than in any other name in history.
5>"He is a mighty god" - what commandmant was that "Worship no god but
myself" - I left my bible in the car, and don't have it here for
refrence. How do I know he was a god anyways?
6> aren't most forward thinkers rejected by society. Remember the
Beatles when John Lennon said "More poeple know us then Jesus Christ".
Then tens of thousands of Americans crushed beatles albums. How many of
our best have been burnt at the stake for their ideas, or thrown to the
wolves for speaking out against atrocities? More than I care to
remember. And mostly due to religion.
7> "he will be a light unto his own people" kind of subjective don't
you think?
Accuracy of the Bible: Well, pick up a novel about gay lovers on the
east Coast (or any subject), and you might get a good and accurate
description of New York City. I do not question that the Bibile is old,
and that many historical refrences are valuable indicators of the time.
Of course the Bible utterly fails to mention the works of the time.
There is not even a single mention of the Pyramids, or the temples in
Greece. In fact, the greatest societs of the time were in America, India
and China. Of course God didn't know about them, so they are totally
neglected. Speaking of neglected, where are the dinosaurs, or the
galaxies, or Neptune, Pluto - Face it man, there is nothing in the Bible
that wasn't known at the time.
Yes, I have read Psalm 22, nice poetry but other than that. I am willing
to bet that the same thing happened to everyone while being crucified.
I will let pass as fact the following from the evidence I see: There was
a Man at some time around 2000 years ago named Jesus. That this man was
well spoken and capable.
The following I suspect: Jesus was a scholar of humanity, and had an
excellent sense of social science. He may have believed he was God, but
I suspect that was added later to improve the story.
PS. Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible as a work of art, one of the
best ever. But I like Homer a lot more, his peotry makes my heart sing.
The Koran on the other hand I can't stand - It is so abusive and
inflamitory that I feel it is the first book since the Bible to be such
a threat to humanity that it could be called "dangerous". I'm also not
very fond of the "Gita" as it also is based on power and glory. Also,
many of my friends are Jewish or Christian. Most of them will not
discuss religion with me as it makes them uncomfortable to be faced with
logic or faith. They will acknowledge that their belief conflicts with
logic and that they choose faith because they are powerless not to. In
other words, they were brainwashed since childhood and admit it. Others,
who can't bear the weight, I avoid discussion with. Fortunately, this
forum is full of critical thinkers who can examine without too much
emotion being involved.
Sodom
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT AND IT IS ME