well, IMHO, it is rodin who failed the IQ test. And of course that is why he is a theist. The the bible IS all about control and fear. The Inquisition credo:Thanks for this. Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om6HcUUa8DI Regards DLThe 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition rodin, argue the good in that one.
Write4u
1 Nobody here from this forum has administered to me an IQ test so saying I falied one is 1 a lie 2) impossible to fail. I wonder what missing those those 2 facts puts your IQ at?
2 Another false attribution you make is associating me personally with the Inquisition… Which church authored that handbook? Do you know if I have joined that church/group or if I abide by any denominational doctrines? No you don’t. And for the record I do not. I am a bible believing Christian who’s only authorities are 1) Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit=God the Trinity 2) the 1611 KJV Bible 3) the pastor and deacons of my chosen congregation. 4) my local, state and fed government and only if those laws do not conflict with the Bible’s stated commandments/instructions.
This is the kind of posting I am rarely going to respond too. I’ll say it again …think before you post and separate your opinions from researched facts and don’t make attributions to individuals you haven’t asked or can’t quote from their past posts.
As someone else said it’s bad form in the least and I say down right lying/slander at the worst. Try to be more careful.
Write4u 1 Nobody here from this forum has administered to me an IQ test so saying I falied one is 1 a lie 2) impossible to fail. I wonder what missing those those 2 facts puts your IQ at? 2 Another false attribution you make is associating me personally with the Inquisition.. Which church authored that handbook? Do you know if I have joined that church/group or if I abide by any denominational doctrines? No you don't. And for the record I do not. I am a bible believing Christian who's only authorities are 1) Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit=God the Trinity 2) the 1611 KJV Bible 3) the pastor and deacons of my chosen congregation. 4) my local, state and fed government and only if those laws do not conflict with the Bible's stated commandments/instructions. This is the kind of posting I am rarely going to respond too. I'll say it again .....think before you post and separate your opinions from researched facts and don't make attributions to individuals you haven't asked or can't quote from their past posts. As someone else said it's bad form in the least and I say down right lying/slander at the worst. Try to be more careful.Yes, I thought about that when posting, as I rarely post ad hominems. But this was a light hearted response to post #2 by Lois. I also drew a clear distinction between the fundamentalist bible thumpers and the modern christians who reject the terrorism of the OT, even as they believe in a supreme being. For Christ sake, get rid of that monstrous book. The story of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge had nothing to do with sinning which is a relative term, but is a metaphor for mankind becoming intelligent and thereby leaving the natural innocence of other animals. Leaving paradise may well be a metaphor for the migration of early hominids from Africa. As to your piety, I don't care. As long as you do not publicly and vehemently denounce the atrocities committed in the name of god by any and all religious zealots, you and I have little to discuss about the sins Eve may or may not have committed. You may want to read the story of Hypatia. http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm Every religion which claims exclusive rights to God's approval is by definition exclusive in its very nature, which tends to confound the languages, don't you agree or is the language of your religion the only revealed truth? btw. god created male and female at the same time with the first species which possessed male and female DNA, long before man appeared on the scene. There were billions of males and females of every kind, millions of years before mankind became "intelligent" enough to alter its environment, rather than adapt to it. But, if you want to read about Genesis you may want to look at the Hellstrom Chronicle and discover which species also were created in god's image and choosen by god to have dominion over the earth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R8UN9zGD04&list=PL1B32852440A9A973
A parable, if you will:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: the energy in any closed system tends, over time, to decay to a state of maximum entropy, i.e. maximum disorder. When this happens, the energy in the system is incapable of performing any useful work within the system. This means, pretty much, that the system has reached a state of maximum uselessness; it is of no further use to anyone.
Any fundamentalist Belief System (or BS) is by definition a closed system, since within the system no change or modification is permitted.
Therefore, any fundamentalist BS will, over time, inevitably decay to a state of maximum entropy, maximum disorder, and maximum uselessness.
The Universe is also, by definition, a closed system.
From this it would appear that any attempt to impose a fixed, unchanging Order on the Universe, will over time inevitably result in maximum Disorder; which, depending on how you squint at it, might at the present time be construed as either A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.
According to the Book of Genesis, “God” attempted to impose a fixed unchanging Order on the Garden of Eden, which he evidently wished to be a closed system. The inevitable conclusion from this is that “God” didn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which he supposedly created along with everything else.
This in itself is grounds enough for suspicion; but it would seem that the real hero of the Book of Genesis is the Serpent, who spoke the truth (“Thou shalt not die”) to Adam and Eve - despite knowing that “God” would punish him for it - and who thereby provided the means for human beings to break out of the closed system of Eden, push the inevitable entropic decay of the Universe into the far distant future, and allow History to happen.
Any reasonable reading of the Garden of Eden story (recognising, of course, that the story is mythology and not history) makes it painfully obvious that “God” is definitely The Bad Guy here, who wanted the humans he had created to remain stupid and ignorant, so that they’d be no trouble. When they ate the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and became intelligent and uppity, they were of no further use to “God” as slaves, so he kicked them out of the Garden to find out stuff for themselves and take responsibility for their own decisions; which, from our point of view, was the best of all possible outcomes. A lazy, untroubled life in the Garden might have been OK for a while, but eventually it would inevitably (due to natural entropic processes) have become thoroughly boring; the descendents of those who accepted the Serpent’s Challenge (“thine eyes shall be opened”) became witchdoctors, shamans, artists, alchemists, witches, wizards, Natural Philosophers, and - eventually - scientists, technologists and engineers.
So by any intelligent standard, eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge wasn’t in any sense, Eve’s (and thus humankind’s) first “Sin”; on the contrary, it was Eve’s First Good Idea, and we should all be suitably grateful to her for it.
TFS
Theflyingsorcerer
I agree to your well put post and conclusion.
Regards
DL
Precisely. Without that understanding about our gift of free will which comes from His having free will then blaming God for a setup and/or the Devil made me do it become excuses for not obeying and being/taking responsibility for one's decisions and actions which is proof we were made in God's image as independent moral agents in His creation. Apart from God we naturally with our fallen nature make all our decisions apart from His words and assistive guidance, wisdom, protection and love.Except for one small problem. If we were made in God's image, where did that "fallen nature" come from? Are you saying God built that INTO us?
Yes but according to the story, she lacked the understanding necessary to appreciate the meaning or consequences of her action. The tree is called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Plainly, this part of the story is a metaphor about how humans come to a level of awareness at which moral responsibility makes sense, or is even meaningful. But then as the story continues, it gets stupid. Disobedience is seen as deserving of punishment, which is absurd considering that the premise is that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate of the tree. As Julia Sweeney puts it, "How did this beautiful story get so fucked up?!" The answer lies in where it was taken after the first few passages.That's also an excellent point, and what led me to question the story as a 14 year old Southern Baptist reading the Bible for myself for the first time. As a parable it might work. But the second you start taking it seriously as something that might have happened to Real People, the flaws are obvious. However much free will Adam and Eve had, they would have had no more experience with deception or evil than a one year old baby. Once you grow up, it's obvious the whole thing is just a myth to explain how evil can exist in a universe created by God. Given the assumption that God is perfect, it can't be HIS fault, so it must be humanity to blame! (Yeah, that's the ticket!) Except that there's another hole. If evil already existed in the form of the Serpent, it can't be our fault either! The blame still goes squarely back into God's lap, unless it was impossible to create a universe without evil.
...it would seem that the real hero of the Book of Genesis is the Serpent, who spoke the truth ("Thou shalt not die") to Adam and Eve - despite knowing that "God" would punish him for it...That fact was not lost on me as a teenager, either. God actually LIED when he said, "thou shalt surely die", because obviously Adam and Even didn't die! It was the Serpent who told them they would have the knowledge of good and evil, which is exactly what happened! And I can't begin to describe the agony it caused for a devout kid like me! It's no exaggeration to say my worldview at that time took a severe tumble!
As I said, I got yours, you missed mine. Any theist who sees your post will shut down and not even consider the larger moral issue thanks to your rant without argument. My point to you is that as a non-believing apologist, you suck at converting anyone to a more moral stance. Your motive for being in this section seems to just be self serving. I hope I am wrong.K Regards DLIt would be helpful if you would indicate who you are responding to. Lois It is usually the one above but you are correct in showing a better form. Changed it. Regards DL Thanks. It's just that sometimes another post intervenes. Lois
“The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: … quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: “… for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”
Isn’t that exactly what today’s Muslims think they’re doing when they cut off hands of thieves and stone women for “adultery,” which includes being raped? (At least that’s their justification.)
Maybe they got the idea from the Christians to punish “for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”
However, it doesn’t work that way, the public doesn’t get “weaned away from the evils they commit” as has been proven time and again by Christians and Muslims and similar sadistic groups. Violence begets violence. That’s the only effect violence has.
Lois
Lois
I am not good with art an I am waiting for the cash to get a hearing aid but this sounds fairly good to me and shows well the thinking of the religious hierarchies. From what I can make out in any case.
I would prefer as transcript to be sure but have a listen if you have the time and give your thoughts.
The Grand Inquisitor - John Gielgud - YouTube
Regards
DL
CuthbertJ As I said, I got yours, you missed mine. Any theist who sees your post will shut down and not even consider the larger moral issue thanks to your rant without argument. My point to you is that as a non-believing apologist, you suck at converting anyone to a more moral stance. Your motive for being in this section seems to just be self serving. I hope I am wrong. Regards DLI guess my mistake was to think you were a Christian trying to make a moral point about the A&E story. Evidently you're not a Christian and in fact are just trying to come up with an explanation that takes the steam out of the A&E story when you argue with Christians? Do I have at least that right? And if so, good luck with that, won't work.
CuthbertJ As I said, I got yours, you missed mine. Any theist who sees your post will shut down and not even consider the larger moral issue thanks to your rant without argument. My point to you is that as a non-believing apologist, you suck at converting anyone to a more moral stance. Your motive for being in this section seems to just be self serving. I hope I am wrong. Regards DLI guess my mistake was to think you were a Christian trying to make a moral point about the A&E story. Evidently you're not a Christian and in fact are just trying to come up with an explanation that takes the steam out of the A&E story when you argue with Christians? Do I have at least that right? And if so, good luck with that, won't work. I am not a Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian. There is quite a difference. In fact When Constantine bought out the then Orthodox Church, they burned our scriptures and killed many of us. There is no foolproof method of de-converting those that have fallen into belief in fantasy but shutting them down is not the way. Regards DL
I am not a Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian. There is quite a difference. In fact When Constantine bought out the then Orthodox Church, they burned our scriptures and killed many of us. DLPoor Constantine, he really takes a beating for calling together all those Christians. I tried to find out what Gnostic Christianity is all about, but mostly ran in to what it is not. Then I read this and pretty much stopped,
In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.It seems to be just another version of, listen to us, read our books, come to our meetings and we will help you find yourself.
I am not a Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian. There is quite a difference. In fact When Constantine bought out the then Orthodox Church, they burned our scriptures and killed many of us. DLPoor Constantine, he really takes a beating for calling together all those Christians. I tried to find out what Gnostic Christianity is all about, but mostly ran in to what it is not. Then I read this and pretty much stopped,
In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.It seems to be just another version of, listen to us, read our books, come to our meetings and we will help you find yourself. That is not the way I see Gnostic Christian of today. Not being literalists, we let God evolve and you are looking at old belief and without an old Gnostic around to explain it in context then it should be ignored. That example showed a theistic belief and not being a literalists and going by gnosis or things we know to be real knowledge is the main theme of Gnosticism. And a belief that their is an unseen world. The Godhead I believe in for instance is natural and normal and I need no belief in the supernatural to bolster my belief. I do not even adore the Godhead I found as it is slaved to us, so to speak, not us slave to it. It serves man, man does not serve it. The strong should serve the weak, not the weak serve the strong. Let me give you this O P that I did elsewhere. Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know? I have been asked to do an O P showing my beliefs and have written a nutshell view to fill that request. I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church. “Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white." This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of the O. T. God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats. This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position. During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit. I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis. This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness or what I call; the Godhead. The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step. I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God. I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help. I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence and seek further. My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being. Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it. This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself. Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why? Regards DL
That is not the way I see Gnostic Christian of today. ..... Let me give you this O P that I did elsewhere. Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know? DLAh yes, the old, "care to compare the Jesus you know post". I remember it well. I remember getting hung up on your "apotheosis". You can review my comments there. And, big surprise, I didn't find the "real" Gnostic Christian website. How could I? by definition it's what you find within so it can't be on a website. If you find it, that's not it, keep looking, that's why you are still around and talking about how you are searching after thousands of years. It's like The Game of Thrones series, buy the next book, that's when the action will really start. Yes, I'm sarcastic and cynical. I spent 15 years with a bunch of Taoist/Wiccan/Pagan Christians who all thought they were pretty special, that they had figured out the "real" Christianity, the open minded one that's all about community and sojourning, the one you can't franchise. The one that sucks all your time and wastes your money heating an unused building just like every other church everywhere always. As Bill Hicks once said, "Don't get me wrong, I know YOU think they're special, but, they're not." I joined that church because I thought it was part of a movement to take the moral high ground back from the Right Wing politicians. They are collapsing under their own weight and these counter-culture-whatever-you-call-em Christians continue to be a weak force. They can't be anything more because the more they distance themselves from the others, the further they get from being a church. They can't say that we should test the assumptions of their religion because they are afraid of how that will turn out. Whew - afternoon coffee burst.
That is not the way I see Gnostic Christian of today. ..... Let me give you this O P that I did elsewhere. Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know? DLAh yes, the old, "care to compare the Jesus you know post". I remember it well. I remember getting hung up on your "apotheosis". You can review my comments there. And, big surprise, I didn't find the "real" Gnostic Christian website. How could I? by definition it's what you find within so it can't be on a website. If you find it, that's not it, keep looking, that's why you are still around and talking about how you are searching after thousands of years. It's like The Game of Thrones series, buy the next book, that's when the action will really start. Yes, I'm sarcastic and cynical. I spent 15 years with a bunch of Taoist/Wiccan/Pagan Christians who all thought they were pretty special, that they had figured out the "real" Christianity, the open minded one that's all about community and sojourning, the one you can't franchise. The one that sucks all your time and wastes your money heating an unused building just like every other church everywhere always. As Bill Hicks once said, "Don't get me wrong, I know YOU think they're special, but, they're not." I joined that church because I thought it was part of a movement to take the moral high ground back from the Right Wing politicians. They are collapsing under their own weight and these counter-culture-whatever-you-call-em Christians continue to be a weak force. They can't be anything more because the more they distance themselves from the others, the further they get from being a church. They can't say that we should test the assumptions of their religion because they are afraid of how that will turn out. Whew - afternoon coffee burst. You are looking without when you should be looking within. You can read but you do not understand what you read. God I define as and ideal in law. Do you think we have the ideal laws to live by on this world yet? If not, should we not seek those laws and did Jesus not say to write his laws in our heart? Seek and ye shall find. Have we as secular people not already improved on what was given in the past and do we not seek to improve them daily? Yes we do. That is all I am telling you to do and if you do, you too might suffer an apotheosis and go from your mindset now to one of a fool because you will have to change your mind and tell all of us that you have had an apotheosis and must now eat of what you gave to me and others. Go read my O P again and try to understand it this time. Regards DL
You are looking without when you should be looking within. You can read but you do not understand what you read. God I define as and ideal in law. Do you think we have the ideal laws to live by on this world yet? If not, should we not seek those laws and did Jesus not say to write his laws in our heart? Seek and ye shall find. Have we as secular people not already improved on what was given in the past and do we not seek to improve them daily? Yes we do. That is all I am telling you to do and if you do, you too might suffer an apotheosis and go from your mindset now to one of a fool because you will have to change your mind and tell all of us that you have had an apotheosis and must now eat of what you gave to me and others. Go read my O P again and try to understand it this time. Regards DLPerfect, could not have written that response better myself. No I don't think we have an ideal anything. There is no guarantee what seeking will turn up. Not sure what "we" you are referring, some seek to improve, some to destroy. Hopefully you and I at least WANT to improve. "Go read it again", that's all you got my friend.
You are looking without when you should be looking within. You can read but you do not understand what you read. God I define as and ideal in law. Do you think we have the ideal laws to live by on this world yet? If not, should we not seek those laws and did Jesus not say to write his laws in our heart? Seek and ye shall find. Have we as secular people not already improved on what was given in the past and do we not seek to improve them daily? Yes we do. That is all I am telling you to do and if you do, you too might suffer an apotheosis and go from your mindset now to one of a fool because you will have to change your mind and tell all of us that you have had an apotheosis and must now eat of what you gave to me and others. Go read my O P again and try to understand it this time. Regards DLPerfect, could not have written that response better myself. No I don't think we have an ideal anything. There is no guarantee what seeking will turn up. Not sure what "we" you are referring, some seek to improve, some to destroy. Hopefully you and I at least WANT to improve. "Go read it again", that's all you got my friend. Give a reply to the other O P so as not to derail here and we will see what else I can give you. If you seek a proof though, I cannot help you. If you think I live in woo then I would not bother as we will not chat long. I do not expect belief but I am impatient with those who think me in woo land. I have no beliefs that require miracles or magic. Regards DL
"Go read it again", that's all you got my friend.Give a reply to the other O P so as not to derail here and we will see what else I can give you. If you seek a proof though, I cannot help you. If you think I live in woo then I would not bother as we will not chat long. I do not expect belief but I am impatient with those who think me in woo land. I have no beliefs that require miracles or magic. Regards DL You can see that we already had that conversation can't you? I didn't read the whole thing and I don't remember where we left it, but I did respond back then. You think YOUR apeothesis should mean something to me. It only means that people have those types of experiences and attach meaning to them. When you start saying that your interpretation is correct and I should get something from that, that's when it becomes woo. How would you define that?