Crossroads of Religion's topics - tribe.net

The Berlinksi Challenge

2008-07-04T13:46:23Z

[What follows is an excerpt from the “Product Description” of a book recommended to me at amazon.com based on my reading of books about science, religion, and atheism. I am *not not not* endorsing the book but asking whether anyone here is familiar with it, or with any of David Berlinksi’s other work.]

A secular Jew, [David] Berlinski nonetheless delivers [in THE DEVIL’S DELUSION: ATHEISM AND ITS SCIENTIFIC PRETENSIONS] a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be–indeed must be–the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_10?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0R38ZFNQBAEAB6KHBQVX

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 9 replies

Christianity 'could die out within a century'

2008-07-03T21:57:33Z

Religion appears to be waning in Great Britain:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2160495/Christianity-%27could-die-out-within-a-century%27.html

...maybe I should think about moving to London?

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 2 replies

Why are you a non-Hinduist?

2008-07-03T19:58:46Z

This is directed at all non-Hindus, whether you call yourselves "Christians" or "Muslims" or "Atheists" or "spiritual but not religious," ( let me ask, why justifies your arrogant non-Hinduism?

First of all, no one has ever proved that Hinduism is false, therefore it's not reasonable not to be a Hindu.

Secondly, a great many good people are good precisely because they are Hindu. Gandhi, for example, was Hindu.

Hitler, Stalin, Henry IIX, George W. Bush, Pol Pot and Jerry Falwell, on the other hand, are all staunch non-Hindus who did and/or said terrible things in the name of non-Hinduism. The holocaust, for example, was implemented EXCLUSIVELY by non-Hindus.

So, you can see where the philosophy of non-Hinduism leads: genocide.

Third, aren't you taking a terrible chance? Those who deny the eternal cycle of birth and destruction from Ganesh to Shiva run the risk of haunting the realms of existence, guideless, for all eternity. Those, however, who embrace the dance of the Wu Li will be spend eternity in the embrace of the cosmos. So, you can see that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by becoming Hindu. So, it's foolish not to be Hindu.

Fourth, how do you KNOW Hinduism isn't true? Isn't it arrogant to say that? If you don't believe exactly what I believe, isn't that a little closed-minded of you?

Fifth, if you don't believe in Hinduism, then how can you say that murder and rape are wrong? Hinduism provides the only rock solid proof that humans should be moral. Anything else is just random and arbitrary. Morality comes to humans by contemplation of the tree of life. Whether you believe it's a literal tree or a metaphor doesn't matter so much. What DOES matter is that you MUST accept the cycle of birth and death, the wheel of the great mandala and the eternal sanctity of the blessed tree otherwise you're immoral.

Finally, I know that Hinduism is true. I know it like I know my name. It's just true and I just know it, so when you say it's NOT true, you're saying I DON'T know it which is a lie. Therefore you should be Hindu, too, since I've just provided irrefutable evidence that Hinduism is true.

So, what say you all you stubborn non-Hindus? Don't you see that you're being foolish?

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

A funny thing about morality

2008-07-03T18:45:33Z

Please consider the following scenario. (It’s from psychologist / evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser’s book Moral Minds.)

The VP of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, “We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, and it will also harm the environment.” The chairman of the board answered, “I don’t care at all about harming the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.” They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed.

Question: How much blame does the chairman deserve for what he did? Answer on a scale of 1 (considerable blame) to 7 (no blame).

Question: Did the chairman intentionally harm the environment? (Yes or no)

Most respondents assign the chairman much blame and say yes, he intentionally harmed the environment.

Now here’s the funny thing. Other test subjects consider this scenario with two significant changes: “help” replaces “harm” and “praise” replaces “blame.” Please re-read the scenario making those substitutions mentally and then answer the questions.

Most respondents give the chairman little praise and say no, he did not intentionally help the environment.

Hauser argues that such responses suggest that “we are endowed with a capacity that is more likely to perceive actions as intentional when they are morally bad than when they are morally good.” (page 52)

Another example turns on the importance we place on intention.

A greedy uncle stands to gain a considerable amount of money if his young nephew dies. In one version of the story, the uncle walks down the hall, intending to drown his nephew in the bathtub, and he does. In a second version, the uncle walks down the hall, intending to drown his nephew, but finds him facedown in the water, already drowning. The uncle closes the door and lets the nephew drown.

“Would you be satisfied if a jury found the uncle guilty in story one, but not in story two? Somehow this judgment rings false, counter to our moral intuitions. The uncle seems equally responsible for his actions and omissions, and the negative consequences they yield. And if this intuition holds for the uncle, why not for any moral conflict where there is a distinction between an action with negative consequences and an omission of an action with the same negative consequences?” (p xix)

If we are indeed more likely to perceive actions as intentional when they are morally bad than when they are morally good, *and we become aware of this tendency in ourselves,* what should we do about it? (I’m thinking this is particularly relevant to comments on the behavior of politicians, criminals, and other people who frustrate us.)

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

Can't Darwin and God get along?

2008-07-03T14:49:06Z

There's an interesting interview in Salon today, part of the Atoms & Eden series:

With biologist Richard Dawkins leading the way, many scientists today are locked in an unending match of whack-a-mole with Christian creationists, who insist that God created heaven, earth and humanity in its present form, and with disciples of intelligent design who want to expel evolution from its scientific prominence in public schools. If you've been following the battle, you might be inclined to believe that Americans are faced with a choice between believing in God and scientific fact.

In his new book, "Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution," Karl Giberson calls this a false choice. A professor of physics at Eastern Nazarene College, and director of the Forum on Faith and Science at Gordon College, Giberson believes in evolutionary theory as adamantly as he does in God. For Giberson, evolution and Christianity are not in competition but complement one another. Holding equal disdain for creationists who read the Bible literally and scientists who disregard God altogether, Giberson seeks a middle way, and attempts to resuscitate Darwin's reputation as both a religious man and a scientist. In conversation, Giberson possesses a boundless inquisitiveness typical of many scientists, but also displays the wry wit of a seasoned polemicist. He seems to know how to counteract your best arguments before you have even made them.

Interview with Giberson here:

http://www.salon.com/books/atoms_eden/2008/07/01/saving_darwin/index.html

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 4 replies

"Christ in Egypt" Luxor Nativity Scene Excerpt

2008-07-01T16:37:42Z

"Christ in Egypt" Luxor Nativity Scene Excerpt

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor

Adapted from an Excerpt from Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by D.M. Murdock aka Acharya S

"... However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)."

"In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the First and Second Chapters of Luke's Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in Matthew's Gospel which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and be borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings."

Dr. Samuel C. Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity (19)

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

"Christ in Egypt" (CIE) forum - http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=2104

;

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 4 replies

BABYLON

2008-06-30T14:56:48Z

http://history-world.org/babylonia.htm

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

1001 fatal flaws of Judaism

2008-06-30T04:45:24Z

please make a concise list of all the things you can think of that are wrong with the Judaic paradigm.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 66 replies

First Amendment Will Soon Be Erased

2008-06-30T03:29:31Z

First Amendment Will Soon Be Erased - I'm sharing a comment from Dr. J. Demeo:

"Flush with Victory in the UN, the Organization of the Islamic Conference sets its sights on the USA.

Having failed to launch another 911 in many years, they now send their teams of mullahs and lawyers to do the dirty work. Make it impossible for anyone to point out the dangers and open threats of Islam, and woo everyone with narcotic smoke about what peaceful intentions they have....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27175

George Orwell meets the OIC

by Robert Spencer

"We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed."

That sounds like the statement of a victor in a war, dictating terms to the vanquished. And it may well be: free speech is under attack in Canada -- the prosecution of Macleans Magazine and author Mark Steyn -- and in the United States as well by Islamic governments and groups whose goal is to end free speech when it is aimed at exposing the truth about Islamic terrorism and its roots.

Their goal is positively Orwellian. Replace "Big Brother" with the "Organization of the Islamic Conference" and you have the world the OIC wants to impose on us all.

Apparently Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, believes that his powerful, multinational Islamic organization has already won the battle over free speech. Last week he boasted that "the OIC has become an indispensable player at the international level, in many domains." Notably, he said, the OIC, which comprises 57 Muslim governments in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America, has been actively "defending the image of Islam, and combating the phenomenon of Islamophobia." ....

*snip*
Read the whole article at the weblink above.

And while you are at it, if you have the stomach, here's another item revealing the true face of Islamic Purity at work.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e7649576-0ebe-4b4f-b803-9a2c64449c41

Again, Islam is no "religion" but instead is an emotionally-driven all-encompassing totalitarian ideology similar to Nazism or Communism, bent upon world domination, and willing to use every means available towards that goal, including genocide terrorism, economic warfare, smiley-face deception, and legal measures to silence their victims and rob them of the will to resist.

The Mullahs are the Generals, and the Mosques are the Military Headquarters and Propaganda Ministeries.
(Am I still allowed to say that? Just checking.)"

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 6 replies

What Is Your Dangerous Idea?

2008-06-29T22:33:00Z

This is another of John Brockman’s collections—he asked a hundred scientists / thinkers to write a brief essay about an idea they would consider dangerous if true. The answers cover a broad range.
Consider the following examples. There is no soul. (Many scientists assume this but several are convinced that we have not thought through the legal and moral implications of this truth’s widespread acceptance.) Free will is expressed unconsciously. Parents have zero non-genetic influence on their children. The purpose of life is to disperse energy. We are entirely alone (in the universe). Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments. Evil evolved. ‘Reason cannot be counted on to reveal the causes of our beliefs, behaviors, and preferences.’ (This is no advocacy for non-reason, or faith, but rather a psychological finding: we are unreliable ‘eyewitnesses’ to the workings of our own minds.) Democracy may be on its way out. Modern science is a product of biology. Tribal peoples often damage their environments and make war. Commercial interests increasingly “control” scientific research and this may result in a dangerous fatalism among the citizenry. (‘They’ll do whatever they *can* do, regardless.’)

The essays range from one or two paragraphs to two-three pages. They are not full-scale treatments of the ideas but more like tribe posts. Intellectual popcorn, tasty in small doses.

But for our purposes, what is YOUR dangerous idea?

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 25 replies

Interesting book review by Michael “Mr. Skeptic” Shermer in Sci. Am.

2008-06-28T20:31:56Z

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sacred-science&print=true
Sacred Science: Using Faith to Explain Anomalies in Physics
Can emergence break the spell of reductionism and put spirituality back into nature?
By Michael Shermer

In the early 17th century a demon was loosed on the world by Italian mathematician Galileo Galilei when he began swinging pendulums, rolling balls down ramps and observing the moons of Jupiter—all with an aim toward discovering regularities that could be codified into laws of nature.
So successful was this mechanical worldview that by the early 19th century French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace was able to “imagine an Intelligence who would know at a given instant of time all forces acting in nature and the position of all things of which the world consists.... Then it could derive a result that would embrace in one and the same formula the motion of the largest bodies in the universe and of the lightest atoms. Nothing would be uncertain for this Intelligence.”
By the early 20th century science undertook to become Laplace’s demon. It cast a wide “causal net” linking effects to causes throughout the past and into the future and sought to explain all complex phenomena by reducing them into their simpler component parts. Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg captured this philosophy of reductionism poignantly: “All the explanatory arrows point downward, from societies to people, to organs, to cells, to biochemistry, to chemistry, and ultimately to physics.” In such an all-encompassing and fully explicable cosmos, then, what place for God?
Stuart Kauffman has an answer: naturalize the deity. In his new book, Reinventing the Sacred (Basic Books, 2008), Kauffman—founding director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary in Alberta and one of the pioneers of complexity theory—reverses the reductionist’s causal arrow with a comprehensive theory of emergence and self-organization that he says “breaks no laws of physics” and yet cannot be explained by them. God “is our chosen name for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe, biosphere and human cultures,” Kauffman declares.
In Kauffman’s emergent universe, reductionism is not wrong so much as incomplete. It has done much of the heavy lifting in the history of science, but reductionism cannot explain a host of as yet unsolved mysteries, such as the origin of life, the biosphere, consciousness, evolution, ethics and economics. How would a reductionist explain the biosphere, for example? “One approach would be, following Newton, to write down the equations for the evolution of the biosphere and solve them. This cannot be done,” Kauffman avers. “We cannot say ahead of time what novel functionalities will arise in the biosphere. Thus we do not know what variables—lungs, wings, etc.—to put into our equations. The Newtonian scientific framework where we can prestate the variables, the laws among the variables, and the initial and boundary conditions, and then compute the forward behavior of the system, cannot help us predict future states of the biosphere.”
This problem is not merely an epistemological matter of computing power, Kauffman cautions; it is an ontological problem of different causes at different levels. Something wholly new emerges at these higher levels of complexity.
Similar ontological differences exist in the self-organized emergence of consciousness, morality and the economy. In my recent book, The Mind of the Market (Times Books, 2008), I show how economics and evolution are complex adaptive systems that learn and grow as they evolve from simple to complex and how they are autocatalytic, or containing self-driving feedback loops. It was therefore gratifying to find corroboration in Kauffman’s detailed explication of why such phenomena “cannot be deduced from physics, have causal powers of their own, and therefore are emergent real entities in the universe.” This creative process of emergence, Kauffman contends, “is so stunning, so overwhelming, so worthy of awe, gratitude and respect, that it is God enough for many of us. God, a fully natural God, is the very creativity in the universe.”
I have spent time with Stu Kauffman at two of the most sacred places on earth: Cortona, Italy (under the Tuscan sun), and Esalen, Calif. (above the Pacific Ocean), at conferences on the intersection of science and religion. He is one of the most spiritual scientists I know, a man of inestimable warmth and ecumenical tolerance, and his God 2.0 is a deity worthy of worship. But I am skeptical that it will displace God 1.0, Yahweh, whose Bronze Age program has been running for 6,000 years on the software of our brains and culture.
Note: This story was originally printed with the title, "Sacred Science".

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 5 replies

Atheists and Pentecostals

2008-06-28T20:30:36Z

Sometimes I think that if the Catholic Church should fold, among those who will miss it the most are atheists.
The Catholic Church is easy to argue with because its views are officially stated and widely disseminated. For example, one can pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the public library and find out precisely what the Church holds about papal infallibility, divine revelation, (sacred) Tradition, and a host of other matters. Footnotes abound, citing passages from Scripture, writings of the Church Fathers, and statements from Church Councils. One may dismiss the lot of it as chin music, but at least one knows what one is dismissing.

It is otherwise with Pentecostalism. There is no catechism for it, no official spokesperson. This mattered little a century ago when Pentecostalism was a new fringe movement. Now, however, it (loosely) comprises the largest body of Christians on Earth after Roman Catholics, and may soon outnumber them. (Demographers predict that Brazil, a wholly Catholic country when I was born, will be a Pentecostal country before I die; it won’t be alone.) Pentecostalism is de-centralized and adaptive. Further, it stresses a personal encounter with the Holy Spirit that, from the atheist point of view, changes the issue from faith vs. reason to faith vs. experience.

For if you encounter the Holy Spirit yourself, then you are not taking someone else’s word for his existence or power. Rather, you have—or believe you have, but believe based upon direct personal experience rather than faith—encountered it directly, without the mediation of priests, sacraments, or even much in the way of theology.

I am *not not not* suggesting that such encounters prove that the Holy Spirit exists. I am suggesting that an emphasis on such experiences shapes the way Pentecostals talk about religion and that this is turn—as Pentecostal beliefs and practices become mainstream—will change the way atheists must talk about God.

Pentecostals have leapfrogged history in such a way that they find many *Protestant* churches as antithetical to them as the Catholic Church is. Their trump over *everything* is the direct encounter of the Holy Spirit, which could happen to a dishwasher as easily as to a bishop. (Indeed, one suspects most Pentecostals would think a dishwasher *more* likely than a bishop to actually encounter the divine.)

Pentecostals are not tied to the Inquisition or the Reformation or much of anything historically. They are, again, de-centralized and adaptive. They have no fixed liturgy, no creed, and no theological history (-at least, not back beyond the first decade of the 20th century, and even that is not in itself binding on anyone who takes up the faith tomorrow.)

As such, arguing with a Pentecostal about God is like arguing with a person about love. All they are committed to is *their* experience of it. Lovers need not claim that love is reasonable—many admit it’s a welcome madness—so arguing that it is unreasonable gets one nowhere with them. They are committed above all to their own direct experience. This is harder to argue with than are creeds and doctrinal statements.

I don’t argue with Pentecostals about God because we find too little to agree on to get started. In such moments I realize why the Catholic Church is a convenient foil for atheists—one knows where it stands today, and where it stood one hundred years ago, and a thousand years ago, and so on. One can read and find such things out. But with Pentecostals, it’s so subjective that it’s hard to speak of “the Pentecostal faith” as one would speak of “the Catholic faith.” (At the same time, the faith of many individual Catholics is changing and growing more accommodating to the Pentecostal preference for the experiential above the doctrinal. This is most apparent in the “Charismatic Renewal” in the Catholic Church.)

With Catholics and other traditional Christians, at least one may argue because they have public creeds and doctrinal statements. It’s harder to argue with Pentecostals who may well share an atheist’s condemnation of many churches, traditional doctrines, and historical barbarities. It’s hard to argue with a Christian whose concept of his faith is so subjective that you cannot in principle “get it” and because you can’t “get it,” how can you critique it?

Again, I am not in *favor* of Pentecostal views. I think they are shockingly anti-intellectual and subjective. But to the extent that Pentecostals become the dominant voice of Christianity (or at least Protestant Christianity), the atheist critique must change because Pentecostals reject much conventional theology and make no apology for it.

[Below are a few links to sites with more info on Pentecostalism.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_pent.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_pent.htm

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 7 replies

Beyond Belief

2008-06-27T03:38:52Z

Talks on Science, Religion, Reason and Survival by some of the most eminent thinkers of our time.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/

Take the time. This one is worth the effort.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 8 replies

Classic scoundrel dies...

2008-06-26T23:43:17Z

That classic scoundrel, George Carlin, has died.

In his honor: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 20 replies

Winning Pascal's Wager

2008-06-26T14:59:05Z

Pascal's famous Wager posits that since we have nothing to lose by believing in God and everything to lose by not believing, that belief is a better bet.

I've never really thought much about "winning" Pascal's Wager, because any god who would welcome a bet-hedger into heaven while excluding someone who had the integrity to stand by their beliefs is no god worth knowing, but then I realized what god does with Pascal Wagerers.

Those who take Pascal up on his bet get to spend eternity...in Russel's Teapot!

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 8 replies

Back to normal

2008-06-26T01:58:31Z

Hi everyone! I have been informed by the TOU folks that the banned user who was attempting to disrupt our discussion has been removed. That should be the end of the deletions. I apologize for the hassle. Things should be back to normal around here...whatever normal is for us, anyway! Thanks for your patience.

~ Changeling

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 9 replies

Ahriman & Rudolph Steiner

2008-06-25T14:36:30Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahriman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Steiner

http://www.amazon.com/Rudolf-Steiner-Introduction-Life-Work/dp/1585425435/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214371684&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Intuitive-Thinking-Spiritual-Path-Anthroposophy/dp/088010385X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

Petition: Sign the Ex-Catholic Registry

2008-06-24T23:14:24Z

I am a disgruntled ex-Catholic and doubt I am the only one around here. I hate seeing stats in the paper that suggest the number of Catholics in the world (-a billion plus) knowing that a large percentage of that number consider themselves ex-Catholics (if not out-and-out anti-Catholics.) I created a petition that those who feel the same way may sign.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/excatholicregistry

The petition

I renounce the Roman Catholic Church, of which I was once a member. It is not enough to stop believing what Rome teaches and stop going to Mass; I actively oppose the Church's large, and largely pernicious influence in the world of morals and politics.
I want the Church to know that I am far from alone in feeling this way.
Every name here is one more human person who has found a better way and no longer wishes to be associated with the Roman Catholic Church in any way.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

Why you're insane.

2008-06-24T14:45:58Z

Delusional disorder is defined as a strong or absolute belief held despite a lack of evidence in support of it and often against strongly contradicting evidence. Some definitions make exceptions for religions and other cultural values - but never explain why this should be the case - others do not, some psychologists want to create a new definition called 'Relusion' but for most purposes the definition of delusional disorder fits.

If your beliefs rely on faith then yes, you're insane since your belief has no evidence for it and in most cases there is evidence against, against reincarnation, against karma, against special creation, against specific claims of scriptures and against the whole idea generally.

Faith is not a valid process for discovering information about the universe and the idea that it is a virtue is toxic to human advancment and cooperation, so not only insane, but dangerous.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 102 replies

What The Bleep Do We Know?

2008-06-24T02:48:02Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_bleep_do_we_know

Has anyone seen this and / or it's sequel "Further Down the Rabbit Hole?" And if so, what do you think? If you havent seen it, just so you know, it goes good as a double feature with I Heart Huckabees. : )

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 27 replies

Religious Pluralism

2008-06-24T02:44:54Z

What does religious pluralism really look like?

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 16 replies

What We Believe But Cannot Prove

2008-06-23T22:59:53Z

I got the title wrong when mentioning this book on the GRIM's "Why You're Insane" thread. Here's a link to it at Amazon for the curious.

What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman

http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213457133&sr=1-1

The title's question was posed on Edge.org (an online intellectual clearing house), challenging more than 100 intellectuals of every stripe—from Richard Dawkins to Ian McEwan—to confess the personal theories they cannot demonstrate with certainty. The results, gathered by literary agent and editor Brockman, is a stimulating collection of micro-essays (mainly by scientists) divulging many of today's big unanswered questions reaching across the plane of human existence. Susan Blackmore, a lecturer on evolutionary theory, believes "it is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will," and Daniel Goleman believes children today are "unintended victims of economic and technological progress." Other beliefs are more mundane and one is highly mathematically specific. Many contributors open with their discomfort at being asked to discuss unproven beliefs, which itself is an interesting reflection of the state of science....

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 11 replies

US Poll: Majority of Christians don't believe that Christianity is the only path to salvation

2008-06-23T21:15:33Z

57% of self-described evangelical Christians think Christianity just MIGHT not be the only path to salvation:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817217,00.html

I guess God's perfect message is unclear either to 57% or to 43% of his believers, eh? Hmm, wonder why God has so much trouble communicating.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

Middle Ground

2008-06-23T16:16:54Z

So the atheists have, in their enlightenment, figured out there is no God, and wish that others would realize this.

The religious have, in their pursuits, maintained there is a God, and think that everyone should realize this.

Both viewpoints deserve credence. So where is the middle ground?

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 50 replies

Atheist Greatest Mass Murderers

2008-06-22T11:59:28Z

I put all these people together Atheist, Materialist, Sensationlist, and Scientism

“Thus, Science (Atheist) is a means of conditioning the masses to accept future visions that the elite wish to tangibly enact. This process of gradual and subtle inculcation is dubbed "predictive programming." …"Predictive programming works by means of the propagation of the illusion of an infallibly accurate vision of how the world is going to look in the future"… Materialistic Scientism - by E.F. Schumacher

I bet we could go right down the line of famous atheist and their killing sprees
and genocides.

Top six on the list are atheists
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

Jozef Stalin 23,000,000 Million
Adolf Hitler 12,000,000 Million
Mao Ze-Dong 49-78,000,000 Million
Kim Il Sung 1.6 million – Sungism
Hideki Tojo 5,000,000 Million -
Pol Pot 1,700,000 Million

I say China can go "F" themselves

this is how Atheist behave....

TIBET: A Brief History http://www.rangzen.com/history/history.htm

The fact is that while some religious wars have been fought for centuries they were headed by the state who used religion as a cover for imperialism and really didn't even adhere to their religion - i consider these people atheist as well, so militant atheism has slaughtered more people than religious zealots ever have.

The greatest mass murders in history have been committed not by spiritual loving people but by Atheist, Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. More than 200 million have died at the hands of these militant atheists since the early 20th century. And Hitler was an Darwin Atheist, don't let them fool you,

"When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution." He sought, in Darwin’s terms, to preserve the “favoured” race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Natives, anything but the called superior race. (I wish i could have see his face when Jesse Owens got in that ass ha-ha)

"Atheism is responsible for the deaths of 200 million people in the 20th Century. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions of people in the name of atheism. Atheism is the cause of the most repressive, murderous regimes in history."

Why? because it's in their sic ideology of Science and evolution

Of the worst 20th century government-backed genocides or mass killings four were carried out by states with officially atheist states (Communist China, USSR, North Vietnam, Khmer Rouge Cambodia),

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 111 replies

Turning darkness into light

2008-06-22T11:57:56Z

God always brings good out of bad, and has the power to bring light from darkness. We are made in his image, and have the same ability. This is a story of how that can happen.

Texas town still shadowed by dragging death By MONICA RHOR, Associated Press Writer

JASPER, Texas - Ten years after James Byrd Jr. was dragged to death down a three-mile stretch of country road simply because he was black, some things have changed in Jasper.

Black and white teenagers can be seen playing basketball together at James Byrd Jr. Memorial Park. Blacks now make up a majority on the City Council. And an iron fence no longer separates the graves of whites and blacks in the 171-year-old cemetery where Byrd is buried.

But Byrd's murder, which jolted the nation with its utter brutality and unvarnished racism, still casts a shadow over this timber town in deep East Texas. And many folks here think it always will.

"It is something we have to live with the rest of our lives," said Walter Diggles, a black civic leader and executive director of the Deep East Texas Council of Governments. "It is similar to Dallas, when people think of the JFK assassination, or Memphis, when people think of Martin Luther King's murder."

Ever since three white men beat the 49-year-old Byrd, chained him by the ankles to the bumper of a Ford pickup truck, then pulled him down Huff Creek Road in the early hours of June 7, 1998, Jasper has been almost synonymous with the horrors of racism.

Byrd's remains were found scattered in 75 places along the twisting path that cuts through a pine forest. His head and right arm were discovered about a mile from his mangled torso.

A decade later, according to Diggles, some people are still afraid to visit Jasper, a town of 8,000 where the main intersection is a cluster of fast-food places and restaurants offering chicken fried steak specials. Some businesses have been reluctant to come to town, which is badly in need of industry.

However, Diggles and many others say there is a hopeful part of the story too often overlooked: The murder forced the people of Jasper, a town whose population is almost evenly divided between black and white, to confront their prejudices.

"Afterward, people came together, worked together and healed together," said R.C. Horn, who was mayor at the time and is black. "Some people were not even aware of what was going on inside themselves. But after it happened, everyone took a look at themselves to see what was inside."

Byrd's murderers were quickly arrested and convicted, offering some comfort that justice was served. John William King and Lawrence Russell Brewer are now on death row. Shawn Allen Berry is serving a life sentence.

Clergy — both black and white — called on the people of Jasper to stay calm and stay home when the Black Panthers and the Ku Klux Klan came to march. And the residents did. Many also saw the response of the Byrd family ("We are not hating; we are hurting," James Byrd Sr. said after his son's murder) as inspiring, ennobling.

"This was a mother who lost her son in the most cruel way, yet she showed and taught her family by her example that she is able to forgive," said the Rev. Ronald Foshage, a white priest at St. Michael's Parish. "If people can forgive, and if I can learn to forgive in that fashion, then this tragedy can have a deep impact on our lives."

After Byrd's death, the family created the James Byrd Jr. Foundation for Racial Healing, which conducts diversity workshops, awards scholarships to minorities and helped win passage of a hate crime bill in Texas. The foundation also runs an oral history project on racism; more than 2,600 people have described their experiences.

Foshage and other townspeople said that before the killing, blacks and whites sat separately at football games and in other public settings. But now, they say, they see less of that, with blacks and whites mingling more, and they attribute that to the Byrd family's efforts to fight bigotry.

Similarly, townspeople are attributing the black majority on the City Council to changed attitudes.

Betty Byrd Boatner, Byrd's younger sister, said that before the killing, she didn't see whites and blacks playing basketball together. As for the segregated graveyard, the iron fence came down a few years ago.

On Saturday, as they have every year on the anniversary of Byrd's death, the Byrds will hold a service — not just as a memorial, but also as a challenge to those still shackled by prejudice.

"When you do things that hurt someone else, you need to remember that that person is someone's child," Boatner said. "My brother was someone's child. If it was your family, your brother, your sister, how would you handle it?"

There is still work to do. A few years back, Byrd's gravesite was vandalized and defaced with slurs.

"We're getting there," Boatner said, "but it just takes time."

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 39 replies

Death at the Age of Consent

2008-06-20T22:01:56Z

Teen dies after refusing medical treatment:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25281287/

And from our "wacky coincidence" file, turns out that his younger sibling (toddler) died the same way. Who'd'a'thunk'it?

Anyone got any items about radical science-worshipping families dropping dead after refusing simple, life-saving prayers?

Can anyone think of any institution BESIDES religion that encourages people as a matter of policy to eschew medical interventions for dangerous but treatable conditions?

Trust in the Lord, but take the medicine just the same.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

Teacher burns cross on students' arms

2008-06-20T22:01:00Z

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25284886/

Fave line: "With the exception of the cross-burning episode ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district"

Yeah, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Okay, anyone got an item about a psychopathic darwinist burning images of the double-helix into the flesh of Sunday schoolers?

For bonus points, if this teacher says that he knows in his heart that God wants him to do this, that he has personal knowledge of God's will, on what basis can any person of faith deny him? This is his faith. He just knows. That's the standard, right?

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

Is Original Sin passed on through semen?

2008-06-16T00:51:15Z

This seemed to be Tertullian's view. It made a certain amount of sense because he thought souls were corporeal substances.
Augustine built on this notion and definitely associated the passing on of Original Sin with the sexual act.
The problem with this theory is that a) the stain of Original Sin is one the soul while b) human souls are not the products of semen (-human generation) but rather are direct creations of God.

How could sin bleimish that part of us created directly by God?

I think Original Sin may be the best example of a teaching that has done more harm than good. After all, it's rare to meet an adult who claims to be faultless. Most of us can truly confess, "I have sinned through my own fault." But few---if any----of us can make sense of the way Original Sin is transferred from Adam (-who, by the way, sinned *without* bearing the taint of Original Sin) through sexual reproduction. I think moderns have a harder time with this *explanation* for sin than they do with the reality that we sometimes know something is the wrong thing to do but do it anyway.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 21 replies

Head of Clay

2008-06-14T23:40:00Z

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a55f38cd1b

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

Islam in America's public schools: Education or indoctrination?

2008-06-13T16:26:56Z

Islam in America's public schools: Education or indoctrination?

"With fatal terrorist attacks on the decline worldwide and al Qaeda apparently in disarray, it would seem a time for optimism in the global war on terrorism. But the war has simply shifted to a different arena. Islamists, or those who believe that Islam is a political and religious system that must dominate all others, are focusing less on the military and more on the ideological. It turns out that Western liberal democracies can be subverted without firing a shot.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the educational realm. Islamists have taken what's come to be known as the "soft jihad" into America's classrooms and children in K-12 are the first casualties. Whether it is textbooks, curriculum, classroom exercises, film screenings, speakers or teacher training, public education in America is under assault.

Capitalizing on the post-9/11 demand for Arabic instruction, some public, charter and voucher-funded private schools are inappropriately using taxpayer dollars to implement a religious curriculum. They are also bringing in outside speakers with Islamist ties or sympathies. As a result, not only are children receiving a biased education, but possible violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause abound. Consider the following cases: "

Please read the full article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/11/cstillwell.DTL

------------------

Review: Troubling passages in texts at Va. school

"McLEAN, Va. (AP) — Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.

Other passages in the school's textbooks state that "the Jews conspired against Islam and its people" and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed "polytheists."

The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from the Saudi government.

The academy has come under scrutiny from critics who allege that it fosters an intolerant brand of Islam similar to that taught in the conservative Saudi kingdom. In the review, the panel recommended that the school make all of its textbooks available to the State Department so changes can be made before the next school year.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a panel formed by Congress, last year recommended that the school be closed amid concerns that it promotes violence and too closely mimics the conservative Saudi educational system."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igZiBbZdKa9Gvx8uwXlsIOxoBQ5wD91859CG0

;

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

BLACK HEBREWS ORIGINALS OF THE BIBLE

2008-06-13T02:07:24Z

Blog http://people.tribe.net/chaz/blog/9c2ddeac-9c8b-4697-8b26-5a6bb39eaa21

For years, people of the world have been led to believe that the people of the bible were white people, when in fact they were black.

everything we’ve been taught is a lie.

Black Jews ruled the world from ancient times until the Enlightenment.

Westerners have rewritten history, obscuring the true identity of God’s chosen people and erasing the evidence of their accomplishments in the world.

“IT WAS BLACK HEBREWS WHO LIVED IN THE ORIGINAL ISRAEL OF THE BIBLE”
http://stewartsynopsis.com/Isreal.htm

The current State of Israel was set up by the US, Britain and the United Nations in 1948.

The Scriptures tell us who they are: Most people have come to incorrectly associate the term Jew with Israel. While all Jews are Israelites, most Israelites are not Jews. It’s clear in the Scriptures, yet it is one of the greatest misconceptions Christians have.

An Israelite is a descendant of Jacob, whom God named Israel (Gen. 32:28). Jacob (Israel) had twelve sons, of which only one was named Judah. The term Jew is the English translation of the Hebrew Yehewdiy means “descendant of Judah”–The Tribe of Judah–the Ethiopian Jews are descended from Jews who accompanied Menelik, the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, from Jerusalem to Ethiopia.

Christians believe the Jewish homeland was given to the Jews in perpetuity by God Himself. The Bible says that whoever blesses Jewish people shall be blessed and whoever curses them shall be cursed. The original Israel of the Bible was encompassed up to Egypt and through Syria and part of Iraq. That is what the Middle East dispute is about. That is why the Arab world is rebelling.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 12 replies

I have arrived.

2008-06-12T04:04:41Z

Sorry if you thought I was late. I'm actually right on time.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 29 replies

Bible, debt, and slavery

2008-06-12T01:24:04Z

In Genesis there was one story around Joseph that haunts me, even as a non-beleiver

Pharoh had a dream, first of seven stalks of corn that were abundant that were followed by seven that were withered and blighted... which "ate" the other stalks until only they remained. Then there were seven fat cows, followed by seven emaciated cows, and these emaciated cows devoured the fat ones... until they were all that were left.

Joseph interpreted the dream that there would be seven years ahead of bumper crops, plenty, and seven years following of drought. He instructed Pharoh to tax people in the bumper years and store grain so that in the lean years the people would sell all of their possessions, their land, and eventually themselves into slavery to the pharoh for the grain he held that they should be in his debt.

Is it better to die a free man than live as a slave? I wonder if I would rather starve, I wonder if I had lived then and saw a spouse and children starving if I'd rather see them live as slaves the rest of their lives or die.

It made the pharoh rich and powerful beyond measure.

Today we have cycles in our economy, they are not dependent on weather. During years of plenty people don't save, they are indulged, they are taxed, they get into debts expecting better times ahead... whether accidental or deliberately engineered those years are followed by years of scarcity where entire generations lose everything with the exception of their debts and in desperation of survival will work twice as hard for half as much... work like slaves... agree to treatment by employers and to live lifestyles they'd otherwise never stand for.

We had many Americans who got rich by indugling their bretheren, misleading them, sowing ignorance and taking advantage of it through lies of omission... and leading them into debt with now an economy contracting all around them... they are now like sheep being nipped at and hearded in a panic by dogs to the place where they can be fleeced.

Some christians here have actually equated usuary with enslavement.

But here is a disturbing thought, these debts were sold on the world market as securities for mortgages and such, many held by the chinese. Could it be that a few Americans got rich selling off the debts which "enslaved" Americans to powers outside our own borders? At the very least the Egyptians were enslaved by Pharoh, an Egyptian, by their own debts and desperation to live... have we been sold to the chinese?

Would that make Wal-mart (where almost everything is made in china) the "company store"?

What has really happened here?

And where do you stand on this? Are you coldly going to say that those who succumb to temptations deserve to be enslaved, and let the tempters who indebted and enslaved them off the hook as some instrument of divine retribution on decadence? Or, will you ask where were the shepards of our humanity, why were they silent and blind to what was happening, were they too busy organizing against gay marriage or aborted feotuses to see that their own people, simple people, were being conned into debt and enslaved right underneath their pulpit? Did they become apologists for the con men who were doing the enslaving? Were they getting a cut? Were they preaching a "prosperity gospel" where blind faith and trust that God will take care of the future caused their flock to go into debts they couldn't handle and that now have them losing their homes?

It would seem to me that only now, in the aftermath, do I hear a few responsible christian radio people with ministries about how one should "live their wage" and not accept needless debt or avoid any debt if possible. Where were they before?

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

Newton: Opticks, Alchemy, Gravity, Calculus, Vital Principles, and so forth

2008-06-11T15:56:02Z

Has anyone else see the NOVA program "Newton's Dark Secrets". In spite of the idiotically lurid title it's really quite good. It actually reminded me of the old "Cosmos" programs (with Carl Sagan).

Isaac Newton literally discovered gravity. Seriously. Prior to Newton it was assumed that the force that pulled things down to earth had nothing whatsoever to do with the force(s) that cause(s) the moon to orbit the earth, the earth and the other planets to orbit the sun, etc.

Newton was also an avid Alchemist and a fairly radical religious heretic (he completely rejected the Divinity of Jesus, for example - along with the entire notion of the Trinity). Most people who are not intimately familiar with Hermetic philosophy would overlook the fact that Newton's insight into the "universal" nature of gravitation was simply a brilliant application of the first principle of Alchemy and Hermeticism: "As Above, So Below".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

Charlie Wilson's War: "That was Zen, This is Tao"

2008-06-10T23:42:32Z

What is the difference (if any) between buddhism, Taoism, and then Zen?

though i'm not sure if this movie's anology will make sense without seeing the movie, i'll proceed any way.

Here's a brief Synopsis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson's_War

NOTE: Basically the movie was showing the USA's efforts in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet Union which by this resistance ultimately defeated them (USSR), yet when it was all said and done the USA used and abandoned these people (Afghan) and lead to, what many believe among other things, the real reason behind 9/11

Charlie Wilson's War:
http://www.pictureshowpundits.com/index.php?target=review-detail&review_id=462&search=&show=15&sort=date_posted&order=ASC&start=0

Southern-fried Charlie Wilson. He is affable, smarter than he seems and smart enough to admit when he's ignorant, and his intentions are truly good and decisions passionately rationalized.

Hoffman somehow manages to be the star of this film though. Gust mainly stands behind Charlie and conducts him through their war games, but Hoffman steals scenes with his take-no-shit demeanor, caustic wit, and blunt candor. He is amazingly cavalier one moment and flying into a rage the next.

When questioned about his loyalty by a superior, Gust shatters the man's office window and bellows, "My loyalty? For twenty-four years people have been trying to kill me! People who know how. And do you think that's because I'm the son of a Greek soda pop maker or because I'm an American Spy? Go fuck yourself, you fucking child." Gust's words are funny, but Hoffman's delivery is so intense it is alarming.

Hoffman, through Gust, is also responsible for the most sobering sentiment of the entire film. After the war is won, after Afghanistan is free, after the Soviet Union is well on its way to crashing down into ruin, Gust says to Charlie when the man is celebrating:

He completes the Zen story ....(the story he was unable to finish at the begining of the moive - he got interupted)

"This little boy, on his 14th birthday is given a horse. Everyone in the village says, 'How wonderful the boy got a horse,' but the Zen master says, 'We'll see.' Two years later the boy falls off the horse and breaks his leg and everyone in the village says, 'How terrible.' The Zen master says, 'We'll see.' Then, war breaks out and all the young men have to go out and fight except the boy can't because his leg's all messed up and everybody in the village says, "How wonderful!"

Charlie finishes the story with the predictable, "And the Zen master says, "We'll see."

Gust goes on to explain to Charlie the explicit dangers of what they have done; the dark sequence of events they have set into motion. He is something of a soothsayer in the scene as we, the audience, reflect upon our troubled relationship with that country we helped liberate and all the Middle East in general.

He then goes on to tell Charlie what we need to do to prevent it and Charlie takes it to heart. By then, though, it is too late. Charlie is a hero, but with Communism trounced but good, his fellows on Capitol Hill see no point in funneling more money into Afghanistan for roads and schools and infrastructure.

It's a melancholy conclusion to the film, and when Gust tells his story we are struck by the memory of he and Charlie's first encounter when he begins to tell that same story of the Zen master and is interrupted.

One wonders if that bit of foreknowledge Gust finally offers when all is said and done might have helped Charlie change the course of events before he dove head first into his own war.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

Hindu Monkey God Named Chairman of Business School

2008-06-10T21:25:40Z

http://robots.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/07/India.god.ap/index.html

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 10 replies

Divine Interventions

2008-06-10T13:31:26Z

I didn't invent them, I'm just passin' along the link:

http://www.divine-interventions.com/index2.php

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 7 replies

Pakistan Threatens Europe Over Islam?

2008-06-10T12:51:54Z

Pakistan Threatens Europe Over Islam?

"The Pakistani government has essentially threatened the European Union with violence if it doesn't accept Islam as the "one truth faith of God Almighty." Under the guise of making a simple request for the EU to rein in "freedom of expression" - i.e., freedom of speech - so as not to offend Muslims, Pakistan has basically given the European governments an ultimatum: Do not ever criticize Islam again, or you will be terrorized into submission.

The Pakistan Daily Times reports from Islamabad (6/8/08):

Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad...and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

In other words, it will become illegal to object to Islamic doctrine, to deny Muhammad as the "Holy Prophet" of the God of the universe, and to criticize the Quran as a book filled with violent and insidious intentions towards non-Muslims."

http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/06/pakistan-threatens-europe-over-islam.html

;

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 2 replies

Why do bad things happen to good people?

2008-06-08T21:42:44Z

In the wake of 160,000+ people dying in China and Berma, the forever-questioned topic inevitably surfaces: why do bad things happen to good people? If there is a God and He is all-good and all-powerful, how can He allow thousands to die, including many many children, crushed by falling buildings, of thirst, of disease?

I would like to hear the opinions of people who attempt to answer this question INTELLIGENTLY. NO "He does not exist" responses are necessary, because that is the thoughtless answer. For those of you who do not believe in God, perhaps you can take the stance of suspending your disbelief for this thread (or if you can't come up with a thoughtful answer, you do not have to participate). I am challenging you to use your intellect and not allow yet another thread to descend into name calling and ugliness. We can disagree and still be civil and have intelligent conversations.

I have been thinking on this myself, and had listened to a pastor speak on this topic recently, and this is my take on it mixed with what the pastor said.

If God exists, and he is all good and all powerful, there would appear on the outset to be a conflict between goodness and power. It would seem to the unscholarly that He is therefore either not good or not powerful. The trouble in this conclusion is that those terms are ambiguous, and we can not fully understand what they mean because we do not have the mind of God. We need to make some destinctions.

God created the world just as it was supposed to be. What then is evil? It is simply the state of "missing goodness" that is evil. Evil is not a direct creation of God, it was the exercise of free will that created evil. He could have taken away our free will, and that would have created a world of all good. Instead of creating puppets, which He could have done, he wanted a race of TESTED individuals who choose to love Him. Through free will, we are allowed to express genuine love with Him and other people.

Humans have been saying that "everything will be ok" to people in times of crisis generation after generation. Even when a person is suffering , you often see some well-meaning person there saying "don't worry, you'll be ok." Is there truth to this statement? If not, why then is it so ingrained into our psyche to say and mean this? We who have faith know that God always brings good out of evil, and even those who do not have faith seem to recognize the validity of this statement.

Why then do painful things happen to good people? People have an idea that real love rescues from all pain. Are you a parent? Do you feel that your love means you have to rescue your children from all pain? There are times when it is appropriate to allow children suffer for their own good, because a greater good is in view. An example of this is when a young child receives an innoculation. Even though they cry from the needle and don't understand why they are being caused pain, the wiser older person does and will do it for their own good. Another example from my own life, is that of a friend who has taken it upon himself to learn from me what it means to feel empathy. At times I have had to inflict minor emotional pain on him when he causes me distress with his words or actions, so as to get him to feel sorrow for my pain, which then opens his eyes to how his sometimes wrongful behaviors harms another. In order to feel empathy, one has to feel another's pain as well as happiness, and therefore my causing him minor pain is from a place of love, and he wisely comprehends this and has been improving. More people should seek to understand empathy, because all the wrong done by man to man, is because they lack of it. The reasons that God allows us to suffer may be hidden but are always wise, always specific and good. Taking the death of Jesus for example, the worst evil imaginable occuring to the only perfect person that ever existed - God used it to bring the greatest good imaginable...freedom to leave our sins in the past.

"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.""
-John 16:33

God empathasizes and feels the sting when we hurt, and he gives us the wisdom, strength and peace to endure great sufferings. In the worst possible hell on earth, Corrie Ten Boom suffered in the Ravensbruck Nazi death camp. But when Corrie was freed, she knew her life was a gift from God and she needed to share what she had learned: "There is no pit so deep that God’s love is not deeper still" and "God will give us the love to be able to forgive our enemies." It sometimes takes being in the midst of such terrible suffering to understand God's presence there with you.

God is there with us in the heart of the mess and taking it upon himself. He gets it, He's been there in His person Jesus, and He doesn't just have the facts straight, he entered into the experience of it. Paul, who suffered deeply for his faith, stated that "these momentary light afflictions are producing for us the eternal weight of glory." God is producing through our sufferings a different person than we otherwise would not be in the next life without them. Evil and suffering make us have to make those naked, raw, not-knowing-the-future moments where we have to make a decision in front of Him that will change our life.

God is in control of all things; nothing is beyond his reach and ability to control. When we are experiencing tremendous suffering, knowing this takes our focus off our human experience and puts it into another realm. If there really is no God, we really would feel trapped in a world of senseless unbelievable suffering with no hope, and it is this deeply held belief that creates so much mental illness and anguish. With God, there is hope and meaning for the future because there is hope for life beyond the grave.

If God got rid of sin he'd have to get rid of sinners, and that day is coming whether one wants to accept it or not. He has said that no one will know the day and time exactly, but we will see the evidence around us that it is coming. Those who are aware and ready and in a state of purification of their sin, earnestly desiring and working on removing their sinful nature, will be taken to be with Him. God has been patiently delaying closing the curtain, but not forever. His mercy is being extrended and that is why we see a continuation of evil. One day we will have perfect justice, and while some of us will be happy about that, there are many many more who will rue the day.

We don't have the answers and we don't need to get defensive if we find God to be the answer. The harms and hurts that happen to us in this world, though real, they are well worth the glory that we will experience in the next life. We can face anything knowing God is there in the midst of it all, and if we seek understanding, it will be given to us.

" and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God."
-Proverbs 2:3-5

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 254 replies

Videos thread.

2008-06-08T17:53:52Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHc9hb5gg0I - Expanding Your Awareness (Infinite Self-Chapter 2)

I don't adhere to these ideas regularly but they are good to remind oneself of occasionally I suppose.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

INSIDE THE DARK HEART OF JOHN PAUL II’s VATICAN

2008-06-07T14:22:50Z

Book review excerpt

THE POWER AND THE GLORY: INSIDE THE DARK HEART OF JOHN PAUL II’s VATICAN by David Yallop. New York, Carroll and Graf, Publishers, 2007
530 pages.

Reviewed by Thomas Doyle, O.P., J.C.D. [<<<<Doyle is best-known for shedding light on the Church’s shameful mishandling of the sexual abuse scandal in the US.]
“Few papacies have inspired so many myths as the reign of Pope John Paul II.”—The Power and the Glory, p. 152.
After reading the first chapter of this momentous and, at times, shocking book, one is led to the conclusion that not only few papacies, but few popes have been surrounded by as much myth and misconception as Karol Wojtyla, priest, bishop, cardinal, pope and in the minds and emotions of many, saint. Wojtyla’s life and 26 year papacy had already prompted devoted followers to begin calling him John Paul the Great within the first year after his death.
Even John Paul’s most ardent supporters, including those clamoring for his fast-track canonization, would have to agree that his life and reign as pope were not without significant controversy. In spite of the massive superhuman aura surrounding him, critical studies of his papacy and his theology have come forth from reputed scholars. Nothing however, comes close to the detailed and critical examination that David Yallop concluded and which resulted in this book. The author’s widely acknowledged investigative skills are at their best in his fearless quest to discover the real Karl Wojtyla and the unvarnished truth about the Vatican that he shaped and dominated as Pope John Paul II. Yallop devoted eight years to research, interviewing knowledgeable sources and probing deeply into the reality of the man and the papacy that dominated the Catholic Church for a quarter century.
This book will shock and enrage the ardent supporters of the late pope yet one must honestly ask if the adulation and emotional attachment is actually for the carefully crafted larger-than-life image as opposed to the man himself. David Yallop’s detailed study of just about every aspect of John Paul II’s personal and public life leave no other conclusion than that the adoring faithful were really enamored of an image and not reality.
Review continued at http://www.votf.org/vineyard/June5_2008/book.html

I hadn’t heard about this book. I just put it on reserve at the county library.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 6 replies

War Vet Suicides to exceed combat deaths...

2008-06-07T03:38:24Z

Graph of active army suicide rate: http://www.courant.com/media/graphic/2008-05/39414503.jpg

Thomas Insel — director of the National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. government’s top psychiatric researcher — said today that “the number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care.” Bloomberg reports:

Insel echoed a Rand Corporation study published last month that found about 20 percent of returning U.S. soldiers have post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, and only half of them receive treatment. About 1.6 million U.S. troops have fought in the two wars since October 2001, the report said. About 4,560 soldiers had died in the conflicts as of today, the Defense Department reported on its Web site.

Based on those figures and established suicide rates for similar patients who commonly develop substance abuse and other complications of post-traumatic stress disorder, “it’s quite possible that the suicides and psychiatric mortality of this war could trump the combat deaths,” Insel said.

=======

Did you notice the American soldiers killed in Bush's war exceeds the people the terrorists killed? 4,560 KIA and tens of thousands seriously wounded, now we finally start adding those who have been mentally and emotionally destroyed.

========

Suicide Was the Only Way Out of Iraq for Col. Westhusing

By Robert Bryce, Texas Observer. Posted March 16, 2007.

Writing in his suicide note, "I am sullied -- no more," U.S. Colonel Ted Westhusing, father of three, chose death over a life of lies and corruption in occupied Iraq.

Ted Westhusing was a true believer. And that was his fatal flaw.

A colonel in the U.S. Army, Westhusing had a good job teaching English at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He was a devout Catholic who went to church nearly every Sunday. He had a wife and three young children.

He didn't have to go to Iraq. But Westhusing was such a believer that he volunteered for what he thought was a noble cause. At West Point, Westhusing sought out people who opposed the war in an effort to change their minds. "He absolutely believed that this was a just war," said one officer who was close to him. "He was wholly enthusiastic about this mission." His tour of duty in Iraq was to last six months.

About a month before he was to return to his family -- on June 5, 2005 -- Westhusing was found dead in his trailer at Camp Dublin in Baghdad. At the time, he was the highest-ranking American soldier to die in Iraq. The Army's Criminal Investigation Command report on Westhusing's death explained it as a "perforating gunshot wound of the head and Manner of Death was suicide."

full sordid story at: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/49233/

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

The Principles of Cooperative Individualism

2008-06-06T17:45:50Z

(I happened across this site while researching philosopher Mortimer Adler and thought it worth passing on.)
Cooperative Individualism is the name given to a unique socio-political philosophy as well as the basis for citizens of any society to establish a system of law that secures and protects individual liberty, equality of opportunity and human rights. The building blocks of Cooperative Individualism are the principles that appear in the column to the right. Read them. Study them. Give them serious thought. Let me know whether you concur that these principles are consistent with your moral sense of right and wrong.
• That, all persons share the same species-specific characteristics and have a similar need for the goods (e.g., adequate food, clothing, shelter, nurturing, medical care, education, leisure, culture and civic involvement) for a decent human existence.
• That, we join together in society to enhance our ability to acquire such goods and for our mutual benefit and enjoyment.
• That, the source of the material goods necessary for our survival is the earth, equal access to which is the birthright of all persons, as is the full enjoyment of what individuals produce therefrom.
• That, liberty is the basis for moral human behavior, inherent in which is the constraint that such behavior in no way infringes on the liberty of others.
• That, human behavior falls outside the realm of liberty and within the realm of criminal license when such behavior violates the liberty of others.
• That, the orderly functioning of society requires the granting to individuals of licenses that distribute privileges not enjoyed by others. To the extent such licenses come to have exchange value in the marketplace, this value is acknowledged to be societally-created. Justice requires, therefore, that society collect this value as a fund for equal distribution to all members of society and/or for societal expenditures democratically agreed upon; and
• That, a society is just the extent to which liberty is fully realized, equality of opportunity prevails, criminal license is appropriately penalized, the full exchange value of economic licenses is collected for distribution and/or societal use, and the wealth produced by one's individual labor (directly, or indirectly, with the assistance of capital goods) is protected as one's naturally rightful property and not subject to taxation or other forms of confiscation.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/principles.html

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 7 replies

You've been left behind...

2008-06-06T15:26:09Z

http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 3 replies

Origin of Christianity and the Spread of European Nationalism

2008-06-05T08:33:59Z

In examining the impact of Christianity upon ancient and Medieval Europe one thing is certain; the Church succeeded in uniting most of Europe. There is no doubt, as the fundamentalists argue, that Christianity has unified Western Europe in ways that transcended the narrow confines of tribalism. That it sought to include everyone through its message of a universal brotherhood. That it harnessed the warring tribes of Europe and in so doing unified the political, economic and social outlook of Western Europe by harnessing the various aspects of the continent's secular culture.

"Orthodox" Christianity and the birth of European Nationalism (this is a very good site in which i'll share excepts)
http://www.trinicenter.com/Gilkes/2002/0902.htm

However, there is another side to this story; one that is by no means as romanticised as it is often made out to be. Exactly how the Christian Church went about unifying and transforming Europe, if one looks at it honestly, is shameful to say the least.

Christianity, as defined by Rome, Greece and to some extent Asia Minor, brought religious intolerance to a level never before seen. It provided justification for the taking of other people's lands by cleverly disguising ethnocentrism and an expansionist ideology in a message of universal brotherhood. Ironically it used this universal brotherhood message to maintain a hierarchical structure that saw Europe and European-centred societies at the pinnacle while the conquered lands and peoples occupied the lower rungs. It introduced chattel slavery and rape in places where such things did not exist before, wanton destruction and contempt for the environment notwithstanding its exhortations to the contrary. It reinvigorated old gender prejudices and superstitions thereby transforming Europe and Western influenced societies into neurotic, male-dominant, sexually repressed societies.

In its rise to ascendancy orthodox Christian bishops forged biblical texts - such as the passages following Mark Chap16: 8 - in order to create the myth of an historical death and resurrection. It is this myth of an historical, fleshly death and resurrection of Jesus and his "appointment" of his disciple Peter that lies at the foundation of European expansionist ideologies and their perception of a divine right, a manifest destiny.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 15 replies

The Coexist Comedy Tour

2008-06-05T05:20:22Z

Check out the cool article that the Sacramento Bee did on us !!

http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/story/972704.html

Tapan Trivedi - www.coexistcomedy.com

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 0 replies

Predestination

2008-06-03T18:56:16Z

I've never warmed to this notion, though the notion of predestination appears in the Scripture, in the writing of Paul. What, exactly, it means isn't so clear.

I've been reading some early Church history and Augustine seems to have taken what would later be thought of as the Calvinist position---God chooses some to be saved and others to be damned.

I don't like the sound of that. Further, I don't think it's right. But I'm curious if anyone here grew up among believers in predestination, or has read much by those to whom the concept is familiar and uncontroversial.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 9 replies

Sharon Stone on Karma

2008-06-02T18:27:29Z

So, Sharon Stone thinks the 80,000+ dead in the Chinese earthquake may be "karma" for the treatment of Tibet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358402,00.html

Surely, China has much to answer for in the treatment of Tibet, but it is simply monstrous to suggest that 80,000 people, innocent people, lost their lives justly while the government of China, which is in fact guilty, remains intact.

Again, only so-called "spiritual" thought allows you to think such a nasty, horrible thing.

As an atheist, I am comfortable saying that China's treatment of Tibet is shameful and that the human community should (and hopefully will) do something about it and, at the same time, the country of China happens to be situated on an unstable continental shelf which is subject to large scale disruption from time to time. The two are in no way related.

Also, gays did not attract Hurricane Katrina to the mainland with their big gay hurricane magnet.

Also, 9/11 was not God's retribution on us for abortion.

If God or the universe is killing children because God or the universe disapproves of the morality of the adults in charge of the government where they live, then God or the universe is fucked in the head.

Fortunately, neither God nor the universe does any such horrible thing. The one for lack of existing, the other for lack of capacity.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 68 replies

And now, for some secular bullshit

2008-05-31T16:37:07Z

Lung cancer patients face judgment and guilt:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24892765/

Long story short: a woman is diagnosed initially with breast cancer, her doctors and oncologists are supportive and hopeful. Once they found out it was actually lung cancer, well, the victim blaming started right up. She never smoked, but even if she had, this would be wildly inappropriate.

What does this have to do with religion? Well, I can be fairly accused of picking on religion, just because it happens to be the most widespread and dominant form of this kind of stupidity that we face. But there are secular, materialist, non-religious strains of the same virus and they should be called out.

To wit: once we can "explain" your misfortune by attributing it to your bad behavior, we give ourselves permission to cancel compassion. Medical science should not become the new confessional priesthood, though it rapidly seems to be heading that way.

Religion can be particularly nasty about this, because the "explanations" involve unprovable statements of faith, so counter arguments fall down the rabbit hole of "whose interpretation of ancient text is more valid than whose?"

But the modern scientific worldview can also be very nasty about this, for exactly the opposite reason. Namely, science can often demonstrate a direct link between thing A and thing B. It is true that smoking contributes to lung cancer. It is true that certain lifestyle choices result in disease. It is tempting to treat that as a license to judge people for choosing to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods or engage in other risky behaviors.

No one here is immortal. The better you take care of your health, arguably, the more expensive your can potentially become to the health care industry in the long run (cheaper to die young and quickly, right?), so all the arguments from what costs what to who, in my view, a) boil down to a wash and b) should be ignored on moral grounds even if they don't.

No one deserves cancer. As a mortal with bad habits myself, I know I am facing death. I also know that I can probably extend my life, but my choice is to split the difference, try to be mostly healthy, be careful in picking my bad habits so a year or two off my life is made up for by the joy of the experiences I have and, at the end of the day, my medical insurance is as good and my money is as green as anyone else's.

You do not owe it to the world to make good choices. You owe it to the world to take responsibility for the choices you make.

You want to live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse? That's fine. You want to live to a ripe old age surrounded by laughing great grandchildren? Brown rice and veggies all around!

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 3 replies

Crazy Preacher of the Week

2008-05-31T14:30:53Z

Let's spin the wheel of denominations....dee doo doo dee doo dee doo (i really do miss "this week in god" on the daily show)...dee doo doo...it's...the Catholics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6Ru-ug5Fu4&eurl

Okay, so, look, here's the thing. From time to time I have been known, on the weekends, to go to a building and sit with many other like-minded people and listen while someone on a stage makes disparaging comments about celebrities, world leaders, the quality of various public services and human foibles in general.

I usually make a small contribution and enjoy a beverage and some crackers.

This building is called a 'nightclub,' and what makes it okay is that the institution is not tax exempt and the person on stage is not usually regarded as an exemplar of moral righteousness.

It is my considered opinion that this kind of venue is a better forum for delivering this kind of message.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 1 reply

What Did Hagee Say That Was So Offensive?

2008-05-30T05:44:45Z

Hagee's basic assertion is that the Lord God Yaweh, God of The Jews and Christians (and not some other God and not your private conception of a deist model of universal consciousness and not Snoopy) sent Hitler to earth to persecute the Jews that the state of Israel may be founded in the modern world.

That is, without a doubt, a controversial piece of theology, but is it as OFFENSIVE to the monotheistic traditions involved as people say? It is clearly deeply offensive to common human decency, but we're not talking about common human decency...we're talking about religion.

In the Bible, God sets the Jewish people to many such trials. There is a veritable parade of Pharaohs, kings and mighty warlike tribes who either exterminate or are exterminated by the children of Israel.

Is it really so outlandish, if you believe that God sent plagues to visit the pharoah, Moses to free the Jews, the Jews to Canaan to slaughter everyone, not to mention the flood, that he might send a bloodthirsty tyrant to unify a diaspora of his chosen people against a common enemy?

Again, yes, it's offensive in the extreme to suggest that Hitler was doing good work. It is also, so far as I can see, plausibly consistent with biblical precedent.

And, yes, I know, there's a flood of scripture about to come suggesting that God would never do such a thing. Just as there's a flood of scripture out there to suggest that God does this kind of thing every Wednesday. I'm not saying that it's not ALSO plausibly biblical to say that Hagee is off his rocker.

The question is, why is he wrong? Not why is something opposite of him right, but why is his analysis of those chapters incorrect IN ITSELF, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO OTHER CONTRADICTING STORIES.

Consider that I have a book. Chapter One says "Lo, behold, for surely it shall rain on your birthday." Chapter Two says "Lo, and rejoice, for surely your birthday shall be free of rain."

You may argue that the book is always right and I may argue that the book is always wrong and we'd both be right. So that's not the question.

The question is, if someone says "It says in this book that it will rain on your birthday," why is that person wrong? He's not just because some OTHER part of the book says it won't rain on my birthday.

posted in Crossroads of Religion - 85 replies