Continued from a 15year old boy.

[Mangee]

The world is built on deception. Everywhere you go you are being deceived. The drug store, furniture store, car lot, grocery store, on and on and on. The so called, "SALES EVENT," is a tip off as to the kind of mark up these stores have on their goods. "All goods well below inventory price." They are willing to take a hit, a loss of revenue in order to get your business. B__S__, is the only way to describe it. They want you to think that they are losing money by giving you bargains etc. The philosophy of the majority of conglomerates and the like is,"Do unto others." Oil, for instance is being pushed to higher levels by Wall street traders who are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of John Q.Public and the oil producers along with the oil companies are rubbing their hands in glee as the money rolls in.  A perfect example of being used is the pharmaceutical companies is this. A pill which costs approximately two dollars and up has the same thing in a placebo for about 10 to fifteen cents. The pills do the same thing yet have trouble getting the Government "Watchdogs? " to give it authentication for public consumption. I know I am straying but what is here is the cousin to the previous posts we sent back and forth. It is about things that will ever remain the same due to the underhanded, under the table, wink, wink deals that are going on in most beaureaucratic back rooms as wel as the government agencies that are supposed to be monitoring them. Lobbyists who fight , not for the common man, but for the wealthy and the wealthier are ever demanding,more. It is not however, in any way shape nor form similar to Charles Dickens ,"Oliver," who wanted more because of hunger. The hunger for a lobbyist and his clients is to fatten the already obscene, bulging bank account. To the,"Fat Cat," the word "Enough,"doesn't exist. We are broadening our horizons with these posts because as we all know, one thing leads to another and one word can change the post from hither to thither, yon and beyond.

[Mangee]

The snake who tempted Eve with the apple was actually put there as a test. They were told not to eat of the aple and in order to find out if they would obey, God placed the serpent there to tempt Eve. Eve of course, not being schooled in the ways of life due to the fact that she was still a newborn, was unaware of possible consequences and invariably took a bite. Good and evil were not a part of life in Paradise, therefore, by eating the apple she was unaware that she had sinned. Having, no doubt, the mind of a newborn child she did as all babies do and accepted what was given to her. In consequence she and Adam were punished and banished from the garden. Adam, being the innocent party to the crime was guilty by assaciation and given a sentence he did not deserve and Eve in all her innocence was manipulated by a mole placed there by God to tempt her whan temptation was unknown.thereby causing her to commit a sin. Were this to go to court today, how do you believe the jury would rule on both Adam and Eve and what would be their reasoning for the verdict?

[MJIthewriter]

I like your take on the Adam and Eve story and Jesus. My idea on it was that God like a writer had two alternative ideas, one being him creating people directly and to live in Eden. The other, an idea he didn't like so much, was to have people develop through evolution and have that as our history, more of a hands off... People live and die, and survive through reproduction... He gave Adam and Eve the choice to make up their own creation and how they would live.   Adam and Eve made the decision God was hoping they wouldn't make, but because he still wanted to give us a chance to live in paradise, thus gave us a chance through Jesus and an afterlife.

It was just something crazy I came up with some years ago. I figured it made sense as much as anything else out there. Being a writer myself, sometimes my characters seem so real, I sometimes wonder if they exist somewhere in an alternate reality inside the world I've "created" for them. I like to imagine giving my characters some form of free will to "choose" their destiny.

I may imagine more than one possible outcome to a given situation and then imagine myself as the character and make the decision, considering the personality I've created for each character. I liked the idea because the idea didn't discount either evolution or creation.

I can either be liked by both sides or hated by both sides...

[Mangee]

It seems we have savaged all phases of religion to the extent that we are much further ahead and much further behind. To assess what has been said and what has been hinted at will lead to a myriad of interpretations. Each of us will interpret as to our own way of thinking and will produce and endless supply of, "This is what it is." The possibility that even one is the correct interpretation is millions to one because no one can say for sure that any theory is the right one. We concede at times that perhaps we maay be wrong but ultimately, will balk at any explanation other than our own. Men of the ages, who were considered wisest of the wise, have a squabbled over each and every word in the bibles regardless of their origin, Interpretations have led to wars. The," I am right, you are wrong," philosophy is alive and well as shown by the Crusades, the Napoleonic wars, the first and second great wars, the invasion of Iraq, Mugabe in Africa etc. etc. etc. We may argue until the existence of all is over and still not be able to resolve the issue. It is easier to count the grains of sand in a desert than to resolve religious pros and cons. We love to put forth what we believe to be the only possible answer and, even though we may deny it have, in our subconciousness, doubts. It is the peoblem that besets all humans.

[lovepat906]

That's exactly how I see it Savas- Jesus (and perhaps other prophets and holy ones) provide the quintessential example. People can choose to follow that "God Path"or not.
I think often about re-incarnation- Iperhaps there are too many lessons to be learned in one lifetime- for anyone to achieve  "oneness". I don't see reincarnation as a result of lack of knowlege but perhaps a process for the development of knowlege. Perhaps the really good- those who are our exemplars- are indeed old spirits who have achieved a state of unification with the ultimate good.
If we are all indeed part of the divine- or have the capacity to be- than the overarching purpose could be  the achievement of completeness.

[Savas]

Yowch. You may not realize it, but, this statement/ question of yours;
----------------
man left to his own devices?  I'm thinking that such a man dies like a beast, and sees nothing afterward, or whatever it says--as opposed to one who may have an afterlife.  

Your theory seems to go along with that:  Adam & Eve were as the beasts in the field, would have died without afterlife--EXCEPT with the falling away of innocence, they were no longer like the beasts.  So maybe the trade-off (according to the Book of Savas) was that by losing the easy life, they gained the afterlife?
-------------


Raises at least twenty other questions in my mind immediately. Savas's brain is an older model, and will likely blow out if overloaded. :)
I should paste this to the wall, it will give me something to think about when I'm passing the time away.

according to the "Book of Savas" ...



This is a very loose approximation on what I consider "the true teachings of Jesus". Which, in terms of the rest of the world, doesn't mean much. i'm not exactly a recognized authority in theological circles. :)  But I'll admit, some of these ideas are likely far from new.

Jesus taught that; "Through me, you can achieve the light of God and life everlasting".

This is commonly taken to mean that Jesus is the savior and by accepting him you gain access to the afterlife (heaven).

Here's my slant;

Jesus knew that knowledge was not enough. He was aware of a spiritual connection throughout all human kind. Human's had accepted the "gift of knowledge", but now needed to be shown the next step. They had the knowledge to achieve the Godhead, but lacked the direction. With the exception of a very few, most had failed to use that knowledge to advance into enlightenment.

He saw God as the totality of all human spirit. By saying;
"Every one of you can find God through me."
He was really saying "I can show you the right way to tap into that cosmic consciousness".
He was, in essence, saying, "We are all of God, and we are all God."

So by following his teachings, one could achieve the pinnacle of human evolution; upon death, they would be enlightened and in touch enough with this "Cosmic Consciousness" to actually join it in an aware state.

Before, most humans were an island unto themselves. They died, and most of them  (consciousnesses) were 'scattered to the winds'.

But with his "New Way", he hoped that he could bring access to the Godhead to all humans. His teachings are really an "Idiots Guide to Becoming One With God.", after all. Some of the basic messages seem very obvious, but are often the most ignored.


I'll have to give some of these other questions thought. Like...

What if there was no death in the Garden of Eden because all creatures reincarnated? By offering humans knowledge, did God give them the ability to break that cycle and become part of a collective consciousness that is God in a state of awareness?

Why in blazes would he do this? Was he bored? Lonely? Was looking for equal partners in a metaphysical poker game?  :)

[Savas]

Heh heh... oh, we're mostly having fun with it. He accuses me of;

"Going all science fiction and creating 'navel contemplating Frankensteins' " and I tell him he's;

"a narrow minded git who couldn't work a toilet without an instruction Manuel (which explains his bad "perfume")."

But it's all in fun.

I'm not saying he's wrong about what he's claiming based on science, I'm merely pointing out that we have, and in many cases will, always have "insufficient data".  I know, you have to deal with each model as an enlosed problem.. if you can prove your claim in that model, then you've got a fact.
But the problem I have is that the real world doesn't work like that. Everything is interactive.

I'm merely trying to correct his tendency of saying "this is a fact" and telling him he should use a more accurate statement like "This is a proven fact given the data available."

Words have power and they effect how you think and perceive the world. I'm merely warning him if he wants to lay claim to an open mind, word your statements accordingly. :)


Actually, I think a lot of the hostility coming from the "logicalists" is based on a very real fear. i've said it before on here, that there's an attempt to make religious belief a part of law, and violate the constitution's charter. That scares the h*ll out of me and also makes me angry.
Partly because they don't realize the danger they put themselves in by doing this. Certain laws based on religious belief, if passed, will open up the doorway to allow a multitude of laws that will infringe on every one's rights.

[lovepat906]

IIRC- there was no death in paradise. With the falling away from innocence and the  aquisition of  the knowlege of good and evil (rationality and free will) came the ability to choose death or afterlife. Man- left to his own devices- without example of the good (God)- will die without hope of afterlife...
The apple was in this scenario was a test.Whether the test is considered to be passed or failed depends on whether you believe that the option of choosing evil/death is a reward or a curse. Some might argue,however, that rewards earned are superior than rewards given...  

[mrwjd]

Fascinating idea, savas.  The apple, not as temptation but as a rite of passage, more or less a graduation into adulthood?  Success rather than failure?  Interesting.

Just idly speculating, how do you think your theory may be tied to a concept we've been tossing around lately, the idea of the man left to his own devices?  I'm thinking that such a man dies like a beast, and sees nothing afterward, or whatever it says--as opposed to one who may have an afterlife.  

Your theory seems to go along with that:  Adam & Eve were as the beasts in the field, would have died without afterlife--EXCEPT with the falling away of innocence, they were no longer like the beasts.  So maybe the trade-off (according to the Book of Savas) was that by losing the easy life, they gained the afterlife?

I think you may have the foundation of your new religion there, Savas!  

[mrwjd]

Driven less, perhaps, by anger than by annoyance?  

You suspect, with some evidence, that atheists have a desire similar to that of evangelists to convert others to their beliefs.  Let me propose an alternate explanation for the doggedness you observe:   Nonbelievers have neither the constant urging of a group to bring others into the fold, nor a desire to please a vengeful god.  As a result, you don’t see them shouting their convictions into the air at speakers' corners or putting little atheist blessings on their answering machines.

A goodly number of atheists and agnostics are persons of a logical bent, who assess the religious structures of man as without evidence or logic.  This is how they see it; so far, no problem, right?

Some people, sadly, are cursed with an intolerance of what they see as, pardon the expression, illogical babble.  And some of them, when pressed, may yield to the temptation to sort at least that bit of what they consider disordered belief.  It is not, you see, so much a defense of a construct they hope to preserve through eternity, but an academic argument for reason.


But I’m just guessing.

[mrwjd]

If I agree that your friend is inconsiderate to torment you more than occasionally with something he knows you don't want to hear, will you agree he's correct?

Nah, I didn't think so.

Well, you could be right.  I personally think it unlikely, but true science operates on data.  It does not assume the nonexistence of something merely because it has not yet been observed (there are exceptions, but not for ephemera).    Still, one must not indict science because some person imprecisely describes its mechanism and so reaches a conclusion that is not, at present, knowable--true scientific conclusions must not exceed the data.  

An exception to your hypothesis regarding consciousness surviving death is, of course, a man left “to his own devices,” who we now know  "is like the beasts that perish" (Psalm 49:20) and will, after his death, see nothing.

[Savas]

Here's my take on the Adam & Eve story.

God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden. The apple was placed there as a test. Not a test of faith, but a test of worthiness.

you see, Adam & Eve were the equivalent of animals before the fruit of knowledge. They weren't thinking creatures. They did as they were told by God, which made them little more than pets.

Luckily for them, they passed the test. Given the free will to choose, they chose to take the fruit of knowledge and pass into the realm of being "A thinking being".

Leaving the Garden of Eden was both metaphorical and real departure. They were leaving the equivalent of god's Zoo, where they no longer belonged.

Actually, I beleive the whole concept of this story being "A fall" came about with the concept of original sin. It's actually a very old story, existing in various forms before Christianity and  Deuteronomic Judaism.

[Savas]

Heh heh...that's it, I'm starting my own religion. I've got a God all packaged and ready to trot out, my limo's picked out (one for every day of the week) and I'm planning on buying my wife a pair of shoe's for every day in the year.

come, all yeeee faithfuuuuul....

I think I had in mind those that take their texts as "word of God/Science" literally. These types do tend to be zealots, you are right on the money with that. Anything that contradicts or doesn't fit into their dogma is tossed right out the window. I've yet to see a single text out there that covers every occasion.

the atheists that worry me are the ones who treat science as, literally a bible. I've been arguing with one right now on another site about where consciousness goes after death.

His position is one of;
"It doesn't go anywhere. It dies, with the body. Science can detect no residue that would suggest otherwise."

My position is that;
"Science changes continually, revising theory and making discoveries daily. How can you possibly say something doesn't exist when science is an incomplete base of knowledge?"

But he keeps coming back doggedly to the fact that "We can't detect it, so it ain't there."

True, most atheists aren't like this. But they have their zealots, just like the rest of us.

Us agnostics have it made, by the way. All we have to say is "Well, you can't ever REALLY know for sure, so..." and it's a real argument stopper. :)

I can understand the anger atheists have. They're often treated like pariahs or satanists for stating they don't beleive in God. It would me me bloody rambunctious if I was treated that way.

[mrwjd]

"This applies to you atheists too, by the way. I've met quite a few lately who have a startling propensity for the "faith" they express"
____

I read recently (was it here?) something about religious activism which ended with a clause to the effect that "I'm sure atheists do the same on their side."  No, not really.

An atheist is not an agnostic, true.  But an atheist or agnostic or christian or jew or muslim may speak up for a person under pressure to select his beliefs from only one bin.  That's not proselytizing, that's trying to clear the decks to allow a seeker free choice.  In fact, I sometimes muse at the violent reaction of the promoters of religion to the concept of people having free choice to form their own beliefs, almost as if they are afraid that on a level playing field, the game may go against them.  
  
There are, for those who wonder, three (count them, three) atheists in the United States (mother, daughter, and son-in-law, the last a tent preacher from age 8 to enlightenment) whose mission actually is to extend atheism to those who may be seeking it.  (The last family who held that job was murdered, all of them--perhaps as an act of Christian charity?).  Contrast the number of people whose full time job it is to extend their own view of christianity as far as possible.  

One can hardly deny in good faith that there is merit in making alternate belief systems available, especially to young people coming up,.  They are, after all, in the business of making life decisions with which they will live (god willing--no, not the own devices god, the other one) for a long time.  Who has the right to remove options from someone else's menu of choices?  And who has the right to lash to the religious grindstone a person seeking resolution and some kind of peace, and tell him that he may look only in this one quadrant?  

And then there's the little matter of the Constitution.  Of course, it is not the job of agnostics or atheists to protect it, more than any other American, and presumably people of all faiths will eventually rally to its defense--maybe even before the road back to democracy becomes impassable.  The United States' top advocate for First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state--Barry Lynn--is a pastor.      

Rev. Lynn is certainly no atheist or agnostic, but also no fan of cramming one's own  narrow, politically oriented spin down the throats of seekers of a personal wisdom and truth.  And DEFINITELY not an advocate of funding it, like Chuck Colson, with the taxpayers' money.  

Where were we?  Oh, right, we were discussing how "sharing one's personal god" and demanding the right to market him in public squares and public schools is the equivalent of suggesting a person who is seeking and has not found what he needs to trust himself in his decision, rather than try to force himself back down the path where he has, at the moment, not found answers.  Yeah, that's the same.

[VOR]

I also want to say that there are some very brilliant people here.  I am enjoying reading the intelligent and insightful back-and-forth conversation.  Thank you and kudos to each of you!!

[VOR]

I don't know that I agree that there is no room for change in unquestionable faith.  I think that's an interpretation adhered to by many steadfast zealots (not you, my friend, Savas).  Notice the recent "middle of the road" religious who susbscribe to a belief in God, whatever name he/she goes by.  It's the kinder-gentler religion that really looks at good deeds rather than bible thumping and obnoxious behavior.  

At the core, are we not really looking at the intollerant extreme religious groups?  I know a few people who are unquestionably religious, yet are willing to examine the possibility that they are wrong.  There are many scientists, who sift through concrete data every day that would suggest that there is no god (or at least put some holes in the whole idea), yet they go to church, pray, tithe, and believe in God.

For many of us, it's our insurance policy.  If we believe in God, do good things, help others, keep our moral compasses straight and true (all for the most part), and there is a god, then we should be secure in our afterlife.  If we believe in God, do good things, help others, keep our moral compasses straight and true, and there is no god, then all we've done is lived a good life; one that has helped us get through many of the tough times.  To me, again IMHO, this can't be such a bad thing.  

The bible should be a guide, nothing more.  If we take everything as is written, then we are in a lot of trouble . . . an eye for an eye, while we turn the other cheek . . .

[lovepat906]

Unless, Savas, you adopt a Zen notion of faith- river-like- the same yet everchanging...The "faith" of eastern philosophy  occurs only to the empty mind- an intuitive leap.

mrwjd-
The blind men observe the elephant from many angles- it is to big to be understood in it's entirety- their observations are all right and yet all wrong. Never trust anyone who claims to have a lock on the truth...but never doubt that truth exists...
" We dance around the circle and suppose,
but the secret sits in the middle and knows" R. Frost.

I have a theory re the"fall"/ Garden of Eden story.The world was peaceful and good before the advent of "rationality": ie "eating from the tree of the knowlege of good and evil"- in an attempt to be (like) God. I wonder if our ability to know, think,choose- versus a natural existance- ie the "lilies of the field"- is not what is referred to in that Ecclisiastes quotation: "I find that God made man simple;man's complex problems are of his own devising."  "Simple" (naturally in sync with the good) before the fall into rationality-  resulting in " complex problems of his own devising" ( able to egotistically choose the bad). Perhaps getting back to the good (or God) requires choosing intuitive simplicity...

[mrwjd]

This applies to you atheists too, by the way. I've met quite a few lately who have a startling propensity for the "faith" they express

[Mikeinthesouth]

daddy's Dodge needs new tires so come on kids send em in.......... God bless ya   snicker snicker

[Mikeinthesouth]

for you lil sly kiddies out there here is the answer free of charge save the 5.00 savas sent me and the 20. mangee sent me PRAY

[Mikeinthesouth]

Just say it slow Peter J rkoff oops I mean Poppoff sorry medhelp. LOL Will you guys send me your money and I will see to it that god bless you and yours. I will mail you a definite way to contact God one on one a straight line to heaven if you only sned me twenty measly dollars to mike's mighty ministry
                                    p.o. box 1234
                                    Getoneon you, Louisiana 1122hopetohearfromu
        
                                  

[Savas]

Well, I don't think believing or not believing in God gives one an insight in coping with life's trials and tribulations. That really comes more from an inner strength of character.

One's beliefs can give a perspective that does affect how they change as a result of those disasters, though.


My biggest problem with an unquestionable faith (any) is that it leaves no room for change. By its very nature faith is static. It is a declaration that "This is how it is! nothing can change my belief!"

This applies to you atheists too, by the way. I've met quite a few lately who have a startling propensity for the "faith" they express in their lack of belief in the possibility of anything outside of definable science.

[mrwjd]

You are probably well aware that, in this age of political activism by the religious right, the rallying points are selected for the ease with which they can be emotionalized and bring voters into line, and not for any historic or traditional religious purpose.  [When I was a kid, there was this thing called the First Amendment; wonder what ever happened to that?]

For example, not many RR followers realize that abortion is not proscribed anywhere in the bible, and in fact is advocated in at least two chapters in Leviticus alone.  Yet in the small number of RR members I know, there is a disconcerting portion who are one-issue voters, who have learned that the only godly thing to do is vote on the single issue of abortion.  A useful code for the RR--they don't have to risk their tax-free status by saying, "vote for X," they can simply say, "X agrees with us on abortion," and the members have their marching orders.

The founding fathers might, I suppose, have protected the right of a family to end a pregnancy without government interference, except in those days it had never occurred to anyone that it needed protection.  They would never have imagined that government would ever mess in what was obviously a private matter--or foreseen religious leaders making it a rallying point, since it appears nowhere in biblical or church literature or tradition..  

[mrwjd]

"The interpretation of what is in the bible depends on the individual."
____

imho, the interpretation of what is in the bible depends on what serves the purpose of the religious overlords at the moment.  Which is, of course, why people used to be executed for reading it themselves--there was some illusion that they would understand it, and know that the princes of the church were lying.  Now, of course, it's much more realistic--they don't bother telling people not to read it because it has all those words and that tiny print and nobody's going to read it anyway.  To be even more certain, now they put out bibles with the politically correct portions marked, and little booklets with only the politically correct excerpts included, so people can still say "I read the bible every day" without risking running onto anything they shouldn't.

Little factoid:  Supposedly Roger Williams, a promising young cleric at the time, seized the opportunity to come to the new world and found Rhode Island largely because in his childhood he saw a person he was very close to, a person who read the bible to a little group of folks (including him) in his home every week, burned at the stake for it.  

I suppose that had something to do with the fact that, among founders of colonies for victims of religious persecution, he was just about the only one who had no interest in using his new autonomy to persecute members of other religions.  

[Mangee]

There are so may inerpretations of, not only the bible, but direct quotes, that it boggles the mind. In many instances we have different newspapers with different ideas as to what has been said. The bible is no different. The interpretation of what is in the bible depends on the individual. Throughout the ages, as each bible is reprinted, there is a possible loss of a word here or there. This in itself can change the meaning or the intended meaning. The interpretation from one language to another, in many cases, can alter the meaning. We may look up certain texts in the different bibles and in many cases find alternate meanings. What was originally written in the first writing may have undergone so many changes that the original intent is overshadowed by someone's idea as to what he/she thought was said. In many cases bible, or otherwise, an interpreter may decide that what is written meant a certain thing and decides to alter it to fit his/her own idea as to what was meant. So, we cannot truly believe what is written due to human error and human decisions that affect the true meanings which will forever remain a question mark. Whether it is Budddhism, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Hebrew or whatever, each religion puts their own meaning on what is wrtten and in many cases alters it to fit their own. You can interprt any bible in any religion to coincide with what your intent is. You can use it to start a war or use it to create peace. There are many faces to religion and it depends on which face you want to use at any particular time to fit your needs. That is the biggest problem with it. Using and altering the meaning to defend what you are doing at the time whether it is to create terrorism, create a cult, create a ministry to defraud and so on. Religion will always have many sides and will always have many bones of contention either pro or con.